What is “satisfaction”?
Whose “satisfaction”?....... A native can have a monkey for supper and be “satisfied”. A welfare person may receive the check and be “satisfied”. A millionaire may make another million dollar deal and be “satisfied”. Again, “Whose satisfaction”?
Is satisfaction “momentary” or “long time”?....... Is being “satisfied” with a good meal the same as finding a long term relationship? Is it the same as “world peace”?
Before I can “satisfy” you, I must first find out “what” satisfies you.
Only then can I (hopefully) “satisfy” you!......... It’s very important to ask the question!!!
How can I present “Democracy” to people who are uncertain as to what it is; or, simply “Do NOT want it!”. How can I present anything to anybody before I question them about what they want and what we can try to offer? To whom do I speak?....... the rulers, the secret police, the politicians, or the general public? Who can speak for a nation?
Don’t you think that a discussion of what “they” want and what “we offer”; should be had before we “negotiate? At least we’ll know more about each other! The time period , the subject, the choice of the parties to speak to, all should be acknowledged BEFORE we begin to “negotiate”.
BEWARE! This word “satisfy” has many different meanings to many different people.
If you are “unaware”, how can you “satisfy” anyone?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Personal - #501 - #45 - The first thing is “to form clarifying questions” while listening to new information!
What a strange thing to say.....”form clarifying questions”!!
For instance.....
“What’s your definition of the word(s) so and so?”
“What do you mean by better? Better by what standard?”
“What do we do in the meantime?"
“Is this truly a successful alternative or just another analysis or opinion?”
Get the idea?
You are first trying to truly understand what you are being told. Don’t try to form an opinion until you first know what the other person is saying. Did they make their point clear? Did they “define”, did they explain first why their thought was a “successful alternative”?
It all goes back to “successful communication”! .... to full, mutual understanding!!!
Too many times we find it convenient to “warn”, “to criticize”, to “tell someone something”! How about “forming clarifying questions” to make sure you understand what another person is trying to “get across”! Perhaps your questions might show the other person that he is not so sure as he was in the beginning. It all depends on the intelligence behind the questions..... “Why did you have to say that? Did you think I was not already aware of that? Does that add to my present knowledge? Is that a “successful alternative” or just something you want me to accept.... to accept without question, that is!”
This idea goes both ways!!!!
As the “instigator” of the conversation, you have a “duty” to pre-judge the questions of your listener and define, clarify, and state your observations in such a way as to answer most of their questions before they are asked.
For instance:..Why did I start this conversation in the first place? If it’s just social chit chat then I don’t need to be so thoughtful. If I want to get an idea “across”, then I have a “different kettle of fish”!
Can you be misunderstood?....... Of course! But you can make it as clear as you can. You can test yourself. Did I answer all the questions that might come up? Did I use language that is easily understood? But most of all, “Did I try to understand what the listener is “likely to feel”! Does he feel that I’m criticizing him? Does he feel like I’m trying to tell him something (for his own good!). Do I present my information in such a way as to leave my listener a choice? Can he just “forget it”? Is he free to disregard my opinions? Do I need to feel “that I’ve told him something?
These are the “traps” we all fall in! This is one of the reasons people “turn off”!
Of course there are people who are “turned off” by anything....anything but their own opinions. We must try to be aware of this before-hand! Why start a conversation if you already feel this opposition? .... It is up to you to judge your listener!... before you start!
Why not try to state your position as to why you want to start your conversation in the beginning. At least you have communicated your purpose. .....“I want to feel I can contribute ,,,my experience, my past life, etc.” At least you have explained you’re not going to criticize, to “tell”, to direct, etc. All you want to do is to freely express your contribution...... that’s all!
Remember, to reach a “successful alternative, you should “form clarifying questions”, NOT “criticizing comments”!
For instance.....
“What’s your definition of the word(s) so and so?”
“What do you mean by better? Better by what standard?”
“What do we do in the meantime?"
“Is this truly a successful alternative or just another analysis or opinion?”
Get the idea?
You are first trying to truly understand what you are being told. Don’t try to form an opinion until you first know what the other person is saying. Did they make their point clear? Did they “define”, did they explain first why their thought was a “successful alternative”?
It all goes back to “successful communication”! .... to full, mutual understanding!!!
Too many times we find it convenient to “warn”, “to criticize”, to “tell someone something”! How about “forming clarifying questions” to make sure you understand what another person is trying to “get across”! Perhaps your questions might show the other person that he is not so sure as he was in the beginning. It all depends on the intelligence behind the questions..... “Why did you have to say that? Did you think I was not already aware of that? Does that add to my present knowledge? Is that a “successful alternative” or just something you want me to accept.... to accept without question, that is!”
This idea goes both ways!!!!
As the “instigator” of the conversation, you have a “duty” to pre-judge the questions of your listener and define, clarify, and state your observations in such a way as to answer most of their questions before they are asked.
For instance:..Why did I start this conversation in the first place? If it’s just social chit chat then I don’t need to be so thoughtful. If I want to get an idea “across”, then I have a “different kettle of fish”!
Can you be misunderstood?....... Of course! But you can make it as clear as you can. You can test yourself. Did I answer all the questions that might come up? Did I use language that is easily understood? But most of all, “Did I try to understand what the listener is “likely to feel”! Does he feel that I’m criticizing him? Does he feel like I’m trying to tell him something (for his own good!). Do I present my information in such a way as to leave my listener a choice? Can he just “forget it”? Is he free to disregard my opinions? Do I need to feel “that I’ve told him something?
These are the “traps” we all fall in! This is one of the reasons people “turn off”!
Of course there are people who are “turned off” by anything....anything but their own opinions. We must try to be aware of this before-hand! Why start a conversation if you already feel this opposition? .... It is up to you to judge your listener!... before you start!
Why not try to state your position as to why you want to start your conversation in the beginning. At least you have communicated your purpose. .....“I want to feel I can contribute ,,,my experience, my past life, etc.” At least you have explained you’re not going to criticize, to “tell”, to direct, etc. All you want to do is to freely express your contribution...... that’s all!
Remember, to reach a “successful alternative, you should “form clarifying questions”, NOT “criticizing comments”!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Personal - #501 - #70 – What secret or hidden policy is the American afraid of?
Where is there agreement on anything?
Is there agreement on why we went to Vietnam? Who really won the war? Was the war fought successfully?
Is “No child left behind” successful? Have the schools changed? Has the curricula changed? To what are they supposed to “change”?
Has the economy “changed”? To what has the economy “changed”? Is the “economy” successful?
Was the war in Iraq successful? Is there agreement on why we went to war? Is the war in an agreement of some kind? “Was it” or “is it” worth it?
What constitutes a “threat” to National survival? Is there some kind of agreement on this?
These and many other simple questions need to be “Nationally” agreed upon or we are going to drift into a rudderless third world country. All the moral and financial policies on which this country was built will become useless measures of a Constitution.
We constantly argue and pontificate on the “real meaning” of the Constitution. There isn’t agreement on even this basic. We attack the meaning of the Constitution. We attack the meaning of murder, capital punishment, unusual treatment, privacy, etc.
Unless we have mutually agreed upon definitions, how can we expect to have understanding.
What do we expect? What kind of government do we want? Half the country is swayed by “meaningless rhetoric”… “Change” What kind of change? Exactly what? ….. And half the country wants to stick by some of its “policies”. What are its policies anyhow?
Then there’s our “elected representatives”…..Who do they really represent? How do you measure this so-called “representation”? Is the vote just a “sham” for lazy people. By the time the majority wakes up, we’ll have seen a mushroom cloud and we will have a different America.
Where do we start?.... We start by “defining” what we want. We vote because we hear what we want. If we can’t agree, then we have no right to complain about the outcome. Even the T.V. shows, if we don’t hear a substantive discussion on what we feel is the important issues, we must turn it off. If the pundits persist on “red and blue” the we turn off.
How can a reasonable person believe that all the different writers, journalists, and advisors believe the President wasn’t available to them a year before any trouble came. Did the President take all this competing information and choose the ones he believed in? What do you mean the administration had no plan? True, he may have made the wrong decision…. But “no plan”? Those that didn’t like his final disposition feel antagonistic, but to complain, after the decisions were made, is an act of personal ambition.
Please read this thoroughly. Before you have an opinion, think whether or not this does any good. Is it “constructive”?
Is there agreement on why we went to Vietnam? Who really won the war? Was the war fought successfully?
Is “No child left behind” successful? Have the schools changed? Has the curricula changed? To what are they supposed to “change”?
Has the economy “changed”? To what has the economy “changed”? Is the “economy” successful?
Was the war in Iraq successful? Is there agreement on why we went to war? Is the war in an agreement of some kind? “Was it” or “is it” worth it?
What constitutes a “threat” to National survival? Is there some kind of agreement on this?
These and many other simple questions need to be “Nationally” agreed upon or we are going to drift into a rudderless third world country. All the moral and financial policies on which this country was built will become useless measures of a Constitution.
We constantly argue and pontificate on the “real meaning” of the Constitution. There isn’t agreement on even this basic. We attack the meaning of the Constitution. We attack the meaning of murder, capital punishment, unusual treatment, privacy, etc.
Unless we have mutually agreed upon definitions, how can we expect to have understanding.
What do we expect? What kind of government do we want? Half the country is swayed by “meaningless rhetoric”… “Change” What kind of change? Exactly what? ….. And half the country wants to stick by some of its “policies”. What are its policies anyhow?
Then there’s our “elected representatives”…..Who do they really represent? How do you measure this so-called “representation”? Is the vote just a “sham” for lazy people. By the time the majority wakes up, we’ll have seen a mushroom cloud and we will have a different America.
Where do we start?.... We start by “defining” what we want. We vote because we hear what we want. If we can’t agree, then we have no right to complain about the outcome. Even the T.V. shows, if we don’t hear a substantive discussion on what we feel is the important issues, we must turn it off. If the pundits persist on “red and blue” the we turn off.
How can a reasonable person believe that all the different writers, journalists, and advisors believe the President wasn’t available to them a year before any trouble came. Did the President take all this competing information and choose the ones he believed in? What do you mean the administration had no plan? True, he may have made the wrong decision…. But “no plan”? Those that didn’t like his final disposition feel antagonistic, but to complain, after the decisions were made, is an act of personal ambition.
Please read this thoroughly. Before you have an opinion, think whether or not this does any good. Is it “constructive”?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Personal - #501 - #44 - Tell it like it is.... Can you stand the real truth?
Should we “discuss” anything?
Why bother to try to discuss “successful alternatives” if all we are exposed to are “opinions stated as facts”?
Here are some of the main issues we confront....
1 - How do you separate “opinions” from “analysis”?
2 -“Tell it like it is” separated from “re-election”, (also separated from “votes”...)
3 -The people are generally only interested in “What they can do about it?” or “How does this concern me?”
The “people” no longer are interested in what the pundits or the media say. They are tired of the politics! They find no one to join them in either armed or unarmed response. They find no one to join them in a meaningful policy change.... It’s too distant! Too much trouble!.... They increasingly want something more immediate, something closer to their own life! ....
Do we truly have “lawmakers” who are the true representatives of the people? Or do the politicians have their own agenda..... staying in office... following a “party”.... feeling “power” for the first time!
What is really important?
1- Important to whom ? ... only you?
2 – Suppose some bodies “importance” to them is NOT the same as what’s important to you? ...... Don’t have any discussion? .....Or , insist on what’s important to you? ... Or try to “convince” them?
3 – If you live like this, where do you end up?
Who wins the argument?
1 – What do you mean by “winning”? .... Convincing the other party to agree? .... Convincing the other party that there is no use “arguing” the point!.....
2 – How do you measure “winning”?
3 - If you live like this, where do you end up?
If you read this, do you think twice about what you think?
Do you want some one to tell you how to think?
Can you consider these words in a way that enhances your life?
Can you stand the real truth?
Why bother to try to discuss “successful alternatives” if all we are exposed to are “opinions stated as facts”?
Here are some of the main issues we confront....
1 - How do you separate “opinions” from “analysis”?
2 -“Tell it like it is” separated from “re-election”, (also separated from “votes”...)
3 -The people are generally only interested in “What they can do about it?” or “How does this concern me?”
The “people” no longer are interested in what the pundits or the media say. They are tired of the politics! They find no one to join them in either armed or unarmed response. They find no one to join them in a meaningful policy change.... It’s too distant! Too much trouble!.... They increasingly want something more immediate, something closer to their own life! ....
Do we truly have “lawmakers” who are the true representatives of the people? Or do the politicians have their own agenda..... staying in office... following a “party”.... feeling “power” for the first time!
What is really important?
1- Important to whom ? ... only you?
2 – Suppose some bodies “importance” to them is NOT the same as what’s important to you? ...... Don’t have any discussion? .....Or , insist on what’s important to you? ... Or try to “convince” them?
3 – If you live like this, where do you end up?
Who wins the argument?
1 – What do you mean by “winning”? .... Convincing the other party to agree? .... Convincing the other party that there is no use “arguing” the point!.....
2 – How do you measure “winning”?
3 - If you live like this, where do you end up?
If you read this, do you think twice about what you think?
Do you want some one to tell you how to think?
Can you consider these words in a way that enhances your life?
Can you stand the real truth?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Personal - #501 - #42 - Why “it” will never work!!!
“It” is a word with “little” or “every” meaning!
“It” encompasses everything! .....Morals, Ways of living, Governments, Policies, Types of “reason and logic” systems, Levels of Motivation.... everything!!!
Since individuals and individual environments are different, any “one time, fits all” solution is bound to fail.
That’s “Why “it’ will never work!!!” .......(“It” is always different!!!)
When we try to teach a group of people with our own logic, our own back round, and our own standards a new and different system than the one their used to, we are going to fail!!! Unless we spend an infinite time to re-educate, to change their system of knowledge and behavior, to accept the “new system” they will always use the system they are most familiar with. (their old system!)
Query: Why are we trying to change their “old system” anyway?
Answer: Weapons of Mass Destruction!!! (W.M.D.) If these “old systems” acquire the means and the materials of W.M.D. and use them according to “their ways of the past”; the industrial nations, the capitalistic nations of the world, will (or can) be destroyed. That’s why we want to “change” them!
But how can we “change” them? We just said that “It will never work!!”
Maybe instead of “change”, we can “control” or (most economically) “destroy” them! Sure, it’s not politically correct to say these things; but “what’s the successful alternative?”
If you were “them”, wouldn’t that scare you?.... If these were the only alternatives, wouldn’t you hurry up to defend yourself...now?
What’s “a solution”?
Can we negotiate a “verifiable treaty” that can insure all participants that we will never use W.M.D. as a weapon if they give up their desire and capacity to use them?
Is such a meeting of the minds possible?
Isn’t this one type of solution?
The world remains the same except for the procurement or use of W.M.D.s!
Keep your “ways”, your standards, your ways of thinking, just NO W.M.D.s!!!
You want genocide, you want dictator ships, you want poverty.... O.K!.... but NO W.M.D.s!!!
We are no longer the “policeman for the world”!! We are no longer committed to being responsible for our understanding of “Human Rights” in the world! Our policy has changed! .... But NO W.M.D.s!!!
How do we get the verifiable agreements without war, without military enforcement?
That must be our new policy! That must be “the only” question that is important!!! Not Gays, Mixed marriages, Welfare, Social Security, Education.... none of these things mean anything without first answering the question of W.M.D.s!!!
“It” encompasses everything! .....Morals, Ways of living, Governments, Policies, Types of “reason and logic” systems, Levels of Motivation.... everything!!!
Since individuals and individual environments are different, any “one time, fits all” solution is bound to fail.
That’s “Why “it’ will never work!!!” .......(“It” is always different!!!)
When we try to teach a group of people with our own logic, our own back round, and our own standards a new and different system than the one their used to, we are going to fail!!! Unless we spend an infinite time to re-educate, to change their system of knowledge and behavior, to accept the “new system” they will always use the system they are most familiar with. (their old system!)
Query: Why are we trying to change their “old system” anyway?
Answer: Weapons of Mass Destruction!!! (W.M.D.) If these “old systems” acquire the means and the materials of W.M.D. and use them according to “their ways of the past”; the industrial nations, the capitalistic nations of the world, will (or can) be destroyed. That’s why we want to “change” them!
But how can we “change” them? We just said that “It will never work!!”
Maybe instead of “change”, we can “control” or (most economically) “destroy” them! Sure, it’s not politically correct to say these things; but “what’s the successful alternative?”
If you were “them”, wouldn’t that scare you?.... If these were the only alternatives, wouldn’t you hurry up to defend yourself...now?
What’s “a solution”?
Can we negotiate a “verifiable treaty” that can insure all participants that we will never use W.M.D. as a weapon if they give up their desire and capacity to use them?
Is such a meeting of the minds possible?
Isn’t this one type of solution?
The world remains the same except for the procurement or use of W.M.D.s!
Keep your “ways”, your standards, your ways of thinking, just NO W.M.D.s!!!
You want genocide, you want dictator ships, you want poverty.... O.K!.... but NO W.M.D.s!!!
We are no longer the “policeman for the world”!! We are no longer committed to being responsible for our understanding of “Human Rights” in the world! Our policy has changed! .... But NO W.M.D.s!!!
How do we get the verifiable agreements without war, without military enforcement?
That must be our new policy! That must be “the only” question that is important!!! Not Gays, Mixed marriages, Welfare, Social Security, Education.... none of these things mean anything without first answering the question of W.M.D.s!!!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Personal - #501 - #41 – The worldwide “Dilemma”
A universal “given”.......
"Almost everyone has either thought or acted in a way that has NOT lived up to his own ideas of “what’s right”!
So what do we do with the.......
1. The “great criticizers”
2. The “Monday morning quarterbacks”
3. The “We can do more or the We can do better”
4. The great “rear view mirror” specialists
All these people do not tell us “How”; they just tell us what’s wrong or that they can improve the situations.
The “Hows” of conclusions, judgments, and policies are never discussed!
Recently I have had the dubious experience of hearing the following.....
1. I do not believe anything our Government says...
2. I do not believe anything our media says....
3. I do not believe the policies and judgments are anything but the wishes of the financial interests of the few.....
4. The Government is controlled by the “big corporate interests”....
How do you respond to these ideas?
Indeed, are these true?
When asked “Why do you live in America?”; the answer seems to be that “It’s the American people that are great, not the Government!”...
The connection between the “Government and the People” seems lost or disconnected some way.
Is this the “ravings” of a few, or is this the feelings of the “many”?
The people who are “against” are vehement and they demonstrate! Are they “patriotic”? Do they ever offer a “successful alternative”?
Are the people who are “for” are more complacent, more satisfied with the way things are going. True, they do not think things are perfect; but they try to accommodate and negotiate as best they can.
Well, who do you believe? What do you do?
There are so many “distractions”, so many “issues”!
When asked “If the security of America is the most important thing, or “Does the “economy” of America, make America?” the answer is jumbled, mixed up!
Are “abortion”, whales, the environment, global warming, taxes, the “fair share”, immigration, education costs, medical prescriptions, the aged, welfare and the rest; equal in importance to the “security or the economy” of the country?..... Who decides?
Who speaks for “clarity”, for “importance”?
Why are there so many books, so much “internet”, so much “media”; all trying to “clear up” these issues?
In a different form of government there is little or no discussion of “differences”!
Is this really so important; especially if there is no resolution?
"Almost everyone has either thought or acted in a way that has NOT lived up to his own ideas of “what’s right”!
So what do we do with the.......
1. The “great criticizers”
2. The “Monday morning quarterbacks”
3. The “We can do more or the We can do better”
4. The great “rear view mirror” specialists
All these people do not tell us “How”; they just tell us what’s wrong or that they can improve the situations.
The “Hows” of conclusions, judgments, and policies are never discussed!
Recently I have had the dubious experience of hearing the following.....
1. I do not believe anything our Government says...
2. I do not believe anything our media says....
3. I do not believe the policies and judgments are anything but the wishes of the financial interests of the few.....
4. The Government is controlled by the “big corporate interests”....
How do you respond to these ideas?
Indeed, are these true?
When asked “Why do you live in America?”; the answer seems to be that “It’s the American people that are great, not the Government!”...
The connection between the “Government and the People” seems lost or disconnected some way.
Is this the “ravings” of a few, or is this the feelings of the “many”?
The people who are “against” are vehement and they demonstrate! Are they “patriotic”? Do they ever offer a “successful alternative”?
Are the people who are “for” are more complacent, more satisfied with the way things are going. True, they do not think things are perfect; but they try to accommodate and negotiate as best they can.
Well, who do you believe? What do you do?
There are so many “distractions”, so many “issues”!
When asked “If the security of America is the most important thing, or “Does the “economy” of America, make America?” the answer is jumbled, mixed up!
Are “abortion”, whales, the environment, global warming, taxes, the “fair share”, immigration, education costs, medical prescriptions, the aged, welfare and the rest; equal in importance to the “security or the economy” of the country?..... Who decides?
Who speaks for “clarity”, for “importance”?
Why are there so many books, so much “internet”, so much “media”; all trying to “clear up” these issues?
In a different form of government there is little or no discussion of “differences”!
Is this really so important; especially if there is no resolution?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Personal - #501 – #40 - Is “constant confusion” our way of life?
Let’s make an “assumption”.......
Let’s assume we live in a state of:
“Don’t bother me, I’m too busy with my own survival!”
“I can’t do anything about it, so leave me alone!”
“Why should I even think about that?”
“bdahhhhhh!!”
What would you expect the so-called leaders of the world to do?
After all they all think differently, act from different belief systems and have different personal wishes!
How can you get a “united program” of any type?
Some are “out of the industrial loop”, some have a personal “power wish” and some are more or less in the “industrial and financial world”. What would bring these different forces together? Anything? Or, do we just live in a world of “constant confusion”?
What’s wrong with “constant confusion”? ....... Let me tell you!
Can you plan ahead?
Can you strive for a future?
Do you even have a “future”?
The basic issue is that people want a future!
How can you have a future without some sort of a “united plan”?
Some have chosen an idea, a dream, as a sort of future which you can’t touch or feel. That satisfies some!
But others are not convinced with something you can’t touch or feel. What about them?
Others give up!..... Why bother? .....
What are you getting at?
When the coming “leaders”, the coming young people, realize they have NO future, things may change.
What do you do in the meantime?
This depends on who you are....
If you want things to remain as they are to you, forget it! That’s a type of “future”!
If you want some changes .... That, too, is a type of “future”!
If you do nothing ......That, too, is a type of “future”!
So what’s an answer??
This also depends on who you are and what you want.
The differences in personal results are what you can expect from your choices. Are you happier trying? Are you angry when your “future” seems threatened; or, elated when things seem to go your way? If you can just understand that we might be living in “constant confusion”. You must learn to live with “limited expectations”. You cannot survive with a stomach that goes up and down. Before you get all “riled up” at the way things seem to be going, stop and consider what you realistically can expect from “constant confusion”.
If you want to try to change things, realize, from the start, that your horizons might seem limited.
Where are the “idealists”?
Where are the movements we get from them?
Are these “idealists” good or bad?
These “idealists” do not have a feeling of “limitation”! Do we need them?
These are all questions that should be considered. ...... Unfortunately they remain as questions!
The bottom line!
You choose a “personal future”.
You choose a “personal way of life”.
You live the way your “stomach” tells you.
If you have advice for others, be sure to state your so-called advice” as a “suggestion for their future consideration”. Don’t try to “tell” someone something, have them “consider” your suggestion!
Don’t look for “instant change”. Your “consideration” may not be acceptable now; or, it may take some time.
Your “personal appreciation” comes from the content of your considerations, not from the “reaction” to them.
Let’s assume we live in a state of:
“Don’t bother me, I’m too busy with my own survival!”
“I can’t do anything about it, so leave me alone!”
“Why should I even think about that?”
“bdahhhhhh!!”
What would you expect the so-called leaders of the world to do?
After all they all think differently, act from different belief systems and have different personal wishes!
How can you get a “united program” of any type?
Some are “out of the industrial loop”, some have a personal “power wish” and some are more or less in the “industrial and financial world”. What would bring these different forces together? Anything? Or, do we just live in a world of “constant confusion”?
What’s wrong with “constant confusion”? ....... Let me tell you!
Can you plan ahead?
Can you strive for a future?
Do you even have a “future”?
The basic issue is that people want a future!
How can you have a future without some sort of a “united plan”?
Some have chosen an idea, a dream, as a sort of future which you can’t touch or feel. That satisfies some!
But others are not convinced with something you can’t touch or feel. What about them?
Others give up!..... Why bother? .....
What are you getting at?
When the coming “leaders”, the coming young people, realize they have NO future, things may change.
What do you do in the meantime?
This depends on who you are....
If you want things to remain as they are to you, forget it! That’s a type of “future”!
If you want some changes .... That, too, is a type of “future”!
If you do nothing ......That, too, is a type of “future”!
So what’s an answer??
This also depends on who you are and what you want.
The differences in personal results are what you can expect from your choices. Are you happier trying? Are you angry when your “future” seems threatened; or, elated when things seem to go your way? If you can just understand that we might be living in “constant confusion”. You must learn to live with “limited expectations”. You cannot survive with a stomach that goes up and down. Before you get all “riled up” at the way things seem to be going, stop and consider what you realistically can expect from “constant confusion”.
If you want to try to change things, realize, from the start, that your horizons might seem limited.
Where are the “idealists”?
Where are the movements we get from them?
Are these “idealists” good or bad?
These “idealists” do not have a feeling of “limitation”! Do we need them?
These are all questions that should be considered. ...... Unfortunately they remain as questions!
The bottom line!
You choose a “personal future”.
You choose a “personal way of life”.
You live the way your “stomach” tells you.
If you have advice for others, be sure to state your so-called advice” as a “suggestion for their future consideration”. Don’t try to “tell” someone something, have them “consider” your suggestion!
Don’t look for “instant change”. Your “consideration” may not be acceptable now; or, it may take some time.
Your “personal appreciation” comes from the content of your considerations, not from the “reaction” to them.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Personal - #501 - #38 - How then do you get a vast number of “individuals” to accept certain “ground rules”?
Do we go to war? Do we not go to War? …..Is “freedom” an acceptable idea; or, is a “managed society” a better, more practical idea?
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that use of the words “we and our society”, again!)
Exactly “ Who” or “What” are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”!. ……You CANNOT “force”!
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other!
Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!!...... But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that your self-protection (your survival), is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem then becomes … When are you at the “borders of risk?”…….
That’s the question creating so much controversy!......It’s the “When?”
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (our “voted for” government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in, was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for ‘complete exposure” for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. “A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!”
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.... We are talking about physical revolution by the “mob” of “many”!
Is this what America faces? …
Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what are the rights for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that use of the words “we and our society”, again!)
Exactly “ Who” or “What” are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”!. ……You CANNOT “force”!
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other!
Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!!...... But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that your self-protection (your survival), is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem then becomes … When are you at the “borders of risk?”…….
That’s the question creating so much controversy!......It’s the “When?”
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (our “voted for” government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in, was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for ‘complete exposure” for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. “A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!”
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.... We are talking about physical revolution by the “mob” of “many”!
Is this what America faces? …
Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what are the rights for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Personal - #501 - #38 - How then do you get a vast number of “individuals” to accept certain “ground rules”?
(Unfortunately I was hospitalized this past week and was not able to Blog. Please excuse this lack..... Bill T.)
Do we go to war? Do we not go to War? …..Is “freedom” an acceptable idea; or, is a “managed society” a better, more practical idea?
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that use of the words “we and our society”, again!)
Exactly “ Who” or “What” are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”!. ……You CANNOT “force”!
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other!
Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!!...... But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that your self-protection (your survival), is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem then becomes … When are you at the “borders of risk?”…….
That’s the question creating so much controversy!......It’s the “When?”
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (our “voted for” government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in, was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for ‘complete exposure” for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. “A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!”
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.... We are talking about physical revolution by the “mob” of “many”!
Is this what America faces? …
Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what are the rights for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
Do we go to war? Do we not go to War? …..Is “freedom” an acceptable idea; or, is a “managed society” a better, more practical idea?
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that use of the words “we and our society”, again!)
Exactly “ Who” or “What” are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”!. ……You CANNOT “force”!
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other!
Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!!...... But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that your self-protection (your survival), is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem then becomes … When are you at the “borders of risk?”…….
That’s the question creating so much controversy!......It’s the “When?”
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (our “voted for” government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in, was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for ‘complete exposure” for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. “A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!”
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.... We are talking about physical revolution by the “mob” of “many”!
Is this what America faces? …
Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what are the rights for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Personal - #501 - # 37 -Is the inevitable end “a simple pursuit of power?”
Some articles have been written stating that statistics show that more people are killed by warring governments than are killed by unruly citizens. The number of murders, rapes, robberies, etc. pale in comparison to the number of people killed in “political wars”.
What thoughts do these so-called” facts” lead us too?
Should we abandon “governments”?
How do you do that?
What should we do “individually” to survive in the meantime?
How should we “operate” without the structure of laws and government processes?
If a person or group gets the leaders of the police and the army to assist in the maintenance of certain “rules”, and if that group is a group which can provide the money that the army and police people want, who can override this force?
So we get a “force” of people led by a person or group which wants its needs (money, freedom, industry, education, food, shelter, etc.) from those that seem to have their needs met now. Isn’t it the same thing all over again? The “have-nots” want what the “haves” have!!
So where does the “individual” fit in? All this movement is by a leadership of a group which gains physical advantage over another group! It’s always a “group”! Never unaligned individuals! These individuals, simply, are not organized as a “group”.
So, what was the object of writing about “killing statistics and the number of people involved” at the beginning of this essay?
Again, what thoughts do these so-called” facts” lead us too?
These “article writers” never seem to have an answer as to “what does the individual do in the meantime?” ….. “What’s the successful alternative” in the meantime?
Many of their readers readily agree with the so-called “facts”, but no one seems to require a “successful alternative” at the same time!!!
Warning! ...
If readers become unquestioning “believers of these so-called facts”, what do we do with their unquestioned “beliefs of these so-called facts”?
What do you do if the person you are talking to, is simply stating his opinion based on the so-called facts he’s heard? He is not interested in “new facts”, he’s only interested in making you believe his so-called facts.
If you are a person who needs a “successful alternative” before he becomes an unquestioned “believer”, what do you do? How do you “handle it”? Where do you go?
**********************
What thoughts do these so-called” facts” lead us too?
Should we abandon “governments”?
How do you do that?
What should we do “individually” to survive in the meantime?
How should we “operate” without the structure of laws and government processes?
If a person or group gets the leaders of the police and the army to assist in the maintenance of certain “rules”, and if that group is a group which can provide the money that the army and police people want, who can override this force?
So we get a “force” of people led by a person or group which wants its needs (money, freedom, industry, education, food, shelter, etc.) from those that seem to have their needs met now. Isn’t it the same thing all over again? The “have-nots” want what the “haves” have!!
So where does the “individual” fit in? All this movement is by a leadership of a group which gains physical advantage over another group! It’s always a “group”! Never unaligned individuals! These individuals, simply, are not organized as a “group”.
So, what was the object of writing about “killing statistics and the number of people involved” at the beginning of this essay?
Again, what thoughts do these so-called” facts” lead us too?
These “article writers” never seem to have an answer as to “what does the individual do in the meantime?” ….. “What’s the successful alternative” in the meantime?
Many of their readers readily agree with the so-called “facts”, but no one seems to require a “successful alternative” at the same time!!!
Warning! ...
If readers become unquestioning “believers of these so-called facts”, what do we do with their unquestioned “beliefs of these so-called facts”?
What do you do if the person you are talking to, is simply stating his opinion based on the so-called facts he’s heard? He is not interested in “new facts”, he’s only interested in making you believe his so-called facts.
If you are a person who needs a “successful alternative” before he becomes an unquestioned “believer”, what do you do? How do you “handle it”? Where do you go?
**********************
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Personal - #501-#36-What would you do differently from your childhood to your “older” age?
We still have to work and think to survive and try to better our standard of living, but unfortunately……
We tend to stop “thinking”.
We tend to stop “considering” alternatives, “considering” new ways to conduct ourselves, “considering” new personal strategies, “considering” new and more productive and more personally successful ways to communicate and spend our lives.
We tend to rely on what we are currently familiar with.
We tend to lean on the lessons “already” learned rather than to constantly arouse our interest in finding new ways, new thoughts.
We stop “thinking”.
We spend most of our time “doing”!!
We spend most of our energies “acquiring”.
Where does “learning” fit in?
Well, what is the process of “learning”? …. How do we “learn”?
Unless you cope with the answer to these questions, “learning” is meaningless!
“Learning” incorporates……
a) Physically “Experiencing”
b) Mentally “Experiencing”
c) An exchange of “language” (which also means the use of “mutual definitions and understandings”)
d) The personal interest, motivation and ability to absorb and retain the “learning”
e) The desire to use the learning
So you see, “learning” is not so simple after all!!
What would you do differently from your childhood to your “older” age?
You could spend more time in “learning”. You could live an even better life if you could “learn” more!
Asking a “good” question is on par with giving a “good” answer!
Ask, ask, ask!! Everyone has an answer at a given moment in time. How can you “learn” something new if you don’t “ask”?
Maybe the answer is something you can’t believe. So what? It means that you’ve “learned” about something you don’t believe. You’re a “winner” either way. You can’t lose!!
In your childhood, you felt deficient somehow if you had to “ask”. Now that you are growing older, “asking” becomes a pleasant prospect. You want to “learn”. You’ve lost the feeling of being “deficient”. You don’t need to know everything in the world! Maybe there’s a better way, an easier way.
That’s what you could do differently in your old age!!
We tend to stop “thinking”.
We tend to stop “considering” alternatives, “considering” new ways to conduct ourselves, “considering” new personal strategies, “considering” new and more productive and more personally successful ways to communicate and spend our lives.
We tend to rely on what we are currently familiar with.
We tend to lean on the lessons “already” learned rather than to constantly arouse our interest in finding new ways, new thoughts.
We stop “thinking”.
We spend most of our time “doing”!!
We spend most of our energies “acquiring”.
Where does “learning” fit in?
Well, what is the process of “learning”? …. How do we “learn”?
Unless you cope with the answer to these questions, “learning” is meaningless!
“Learning” incorporates……
a) Physically “Experiencing”
b) Mentally “Experiencing”
c) An exchange of “language” (which also means the use of “mutual definitions and understandings”)
d) The personal interest, motivation and ability to absorb and retain the “learning”
e) The desire to use the learning
So you see, “learning” is not so simple after all!!
What would you do differently from your childhood to your “older” age?
You could spend more time in “learning”. You could live an even better life if you could “learn” more!
Asking a “good” question is on par with giving a “good” answer!
Ask, ask, ask!! Everyone has an answer at a given moment in time. How can you “learn” something new if you don’t “ask”?
Maybe the answer is something you can’t believe. So what? It means that you’ve “learned” about something you don’t believe. You’re a “winner” either way. You can’t lose!!
In your childhood, you felt deficient somehow if you had to “ask”. Now that you are growing older, “asking” becomes a pleasant prospect. You want to “learn”. You’ve lost the feeling of being “deficient”. You don’t need to know everything in the world! Maybe there’s a better way, an easier way.
That’s what you could do differently in your old age!!
Personal - #501 - #35 - About “Persuasion” ( A Doxey email)
We can all use help and practice in the art of persuading people with whom we disagree. Of course, when we’re wrong about something, we need to realize that, too – this requires emotional detachment and reasoning skills, and unfortunately, depends also on the knowledge and the communication skills of the other person.
But even when the facts and logic are on our side, we still need to exercise care.
It’s never easy for someone to consider an opposing opinion, so providing one to positive effect takes skill. Such skill can be powerful, as some people with insane messages have been effective in winning converts – Hitler, Jim Jones, and their ilk are good examples.
The facts and reasoning are on the side of the abolition of government, but statistics are emotionally attached to the topic and they believe many falsehoods, such as that the Civil War was different from the American Revolution, or that the government should outlaw certain kinds of drug use.
During discussions, words fly around quickly, people get excited, and anyone can let his persuasion skills slip.
The bottom line:
Always use honesty, kindness, generosity, and an even temper. These things seem obvious, but it’s easy to err during a discussion. If someone says something stupid, their doing so creates an opportunity to be kind – "that’s a thought shared by many people" is a good response – better than the equally kind, but dishonest, "that’s a good point."
If someone insults you, one valid response that can defuse emotions is "it may or may not be true that I’m a ‘nut case,’ but whether I am doesn’t speak to the issue of whether we should be bombing Slobovia."
And if you’re smarter than your opponent, it’s best not to make that too noticeable. That’s the "generous" part; focus on the data and principles, and let your opponent reason to the conclusions himself. Make him feel intelligent.
The best way to keep someone interested in you is for him to learn to associate your presence with a boost in his self-esteem.
People like to talk about themselves, so ask your opponent about himself. When you later offer libertarian solutions for issues that impact him, you can tailor them to his situation. Thus, you’ve made him fond of you; you’ve made him think you’re a great conversationalist (because he got a chance to talk about himself); and you’ve given him ideas that seem plausible, as they strike near to his imagination.
Are such tactics manipulative or underhanded?
They are indeed manipulative, as are many of the actions we take with regard to others every day. Sometimes we’re aware when we’re being manipulative, sometimes not. It is certain that honesty, kindness, generosity, and emotional temperance, whether manipulative or not, are the morally right way to behave. Making someone feel better about himself while opening his mind to options he hasn’t considered, and may not have encountered before, is a good thing.
"Manipulation" is a bad thing only when dishonesty is a tactic, or when you have goals that conflict with your opponent’s being better off.
But even when the facts and logic are on our side, we still need to exercise care.
It’s never easy for someone to consider an opposing opinion, so providing one to positive effect takes skill. Such skill can be powerful, as some people with insane messages have been effective in winning converts – Hitler, Jim Jones, and their ilk are good examples.
The facts and reasoning are on the side of the abolition of government, but statistics are emotionally attached to the topic and they believe many falsehoods, such as that the Civil War was different from the American Revolution, or that the government should outlaw certain kinds of drug use.
During discussions, words fly around quickly, people get excited, and anyone can let his persuasion skills slip.
The bottom line:
Always use honesty, kindness, generosity, and an even temper. These things seem obvious, but it’s easy to err during a discussion. If someone says something stupid, their doing so creates an opportunity to be kind – "that’s a thought shared by many people" is a good response – better than the equally kind, but dishonest, "that’s a good point."
If someone insults you, one valid response that can defuse emotions is "it may or may not be true that I’m a ‘nut case,’ but whether I am doesn’t speak to the issue of whether we should be bombing Slobovia."
And if you’re smarter than your opponent, it’s best not to make that too noticeable. That’s the "generous" part; focus on the data and principles, and let your opponent reason to the conclusions himself. Make him feel intelligent.
The best way to keep someone interested in you is for him to learn to associate your presence with a boost in his self-esteem.
People like to talk about themselves, so ask your opponent about himself. When you later offer libertarian solutions for issues that impact him, you can tailor them to his situation. Thus, you’ve made him fond of you; you’ve made him think you’re a great conversationalist (because he got a chance to talk about himself); and you’ve given him ideas that seem plausible, as they strike near to his imagination.
Are such tactics manipulative or underhanded?
They are indeed manipulative, as are many of the actions we take with regard to others every day. Sometimes we’re aware when we’re being manipulative, sometimes not. It is certain that honesty, kindness, generosity, and emotional temperance, whether manipulative or not, are the morally right way to behave. Making someone feel better about himself while opening his mind to options he hasn’t considered, and may not have encountered before, is a good thing.
"Manipulation" is a bad thing only when dishonesty is a tactic, or when you have goals that conflict with your opponent’s being better off.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Personal - #501 - #34 - So many Different individuals……….
The author was just thinking …..
There are so many different individuals with “individual” ways of thinking and “individual” ways of living that to find “one common best way” is impossible.
What do the “experts” say? They take polls, do surveys and ask questions and then come up with results. What are these results anyway?
Isn’t it a fact that the surveys only cover one country or one type of person? After all, does a native of Guiana speak a language that is even understandable in the next village much less the entire country? Does the “survey” or “poll” include these opinions? Hardly!!!
Are we really looking for a one “best way” for “our own” society?
Once we figure out whose “society” is “our own”, we might get some kind of a one “common best way”!
The idea that we can come to a “common understanding” for everybody is an impossibility!
What then?
How do we do anything?
Do we just throw up our hands and go about our own personal “survival”?
Do we all just get a “headache” and go our separate ways?
Suppose we say that we get most of our information from people close to us, which we say is “our society”.
Suppose we exclude the people who are different (or, at least, we think they are different) Do we really expect to come up with a “one common best way”?
Can you see there are people who understand this and try to sell us on ideas and laws that appeals to the “most” of us.
They use the terms that are either “legalese” or are “general enough” so that the “unmotivated” believe they know what is “the real meaning” of these terms. They are experts in forming so-called “public opinion”. They are trying to get acceptance of an “agenda”. Sometimes they are called “politicians”; sometimes “pollsters”, sometimes the media, etc.
I previously asked “What then?”
If you already are aware that the information you are receiving is “local”, you need NOT think about finding “a one perfect solution!
If you are already aware that “a one perfect solution” is impossible, you can restrict your efforts and save your “stomach”. Don’t look for “a one perfect solution”! Advance your ideas as a possible “improvement” or a possible “successful alternative” to a particular idea for a particular group or situation. Don’t try to “argue” with a person who doesn’t know the difference between an “argument and an exchange of views”. …….(This is a possible answer to “What then?”)
It may be an individual, a group, a government or a country….. But a world?..... I don’t think so!!
Those with “master plans” are doomed from the beginning! If you have a powerful police force or an army, you can “force” people to accept anything for a while. But if you lose that ability to “force” … look out!
How then do you get a vast number of “individuals” to accept certain “ground rules”.
Do we go to war? Do we not go to War? …..Is “freedom” an acceptable idea or is a “managed society” a better, more practical idea?
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that “our society” thing, again.)
Who or what are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”. ……You CANNOT “force”!
What happens if you are failing to “educate”?... Do you become “pro-active”?..... Do you try “force”?
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other! Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!! But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that “your self-protection is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem becomes …“When are you at the borders of risk?”……. That’s the question creating so much controversy!...... When?
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (the voted for government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for complete exposure for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.
Is this what America faces? … Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what’s right for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
There are so many different individuals with “individual” ways of thinking and “individual” ways of living that to find “one common best way” is impossible.
What do the “experts” say? They take polls, do surveys and ask questions and then come up with results. What are these results anyway?
Isn’t it a fact that the surveys only cover one country or one type of person? After all, does a native of Guiana speak a language that is even understandable in the next village much less the entire country? Does the “survey” or “poll” include these opinions? Hardly!!!
Are we really looking for a one “best way” for “our own” society?
Once we figure out whose “society” is “our own”, we might get some kind of a one “common best way”!
The idea that we can come to a “common understanding” for everybody is an impossibility!
What then?
How do we do anything?
Do we just throw up our hands and go about our own personal “survival”?
Do we all just get a “headache” and go our separate ways?
Suppose we say that we get most of our information from people close to us, which we say is “our society”.
Suppose we exclude the people who are different (or, at least, we think they are different) Do we really expect to come up with a “one common best way”?
Can you see there are people who understand this and try to sell us on ideas and laws that appeals to the “most” of us.
They use the terms that are either “legalese” or are “general enough” so that the “unmotivated” believe they know what is “the real meaning” of these terms. They are experts in forming so-called “public opinion”. They are trying to get acceptance of an “agenda”. Sometimes they are called “politicians”; sometimes “pollsters”, sometimes the media, etc.
I previously asked “What then?”
If you already are aware that the information you are receiving is “local”, you need NOT think about finding “a one perfect solution!
If you are already aware that “a one perfect solution” is impossible, you can restrict your efforts and save your “stomach”. Don’t look for “a one perfect solution”! Advance your ideas as a possible “improvement” or a possible “successful alternative” to a particular idea for a particular group or situation. Don’t try to “argue” with a person who doesn’t know the difference between an “argument and an exchange of views”. …….(This is a possible answer to “What then?”)
It may be an individual, a group, a government or a country….. But a world?..... I don’t think so!!
Those with “master plans” are doomed from the beginning! If you have a powerful police force or an army, you can “force” people to accept anything for a while. But if you lose that ability to “force” … look out!
How then do you get a vast number of “individuals” to accept certain “ground rules”.
Do we go to war? Do we not go to War? …..Is “freedom” an acceptable idea or is a “managed society” a better, more practical idea?
It all depends to whom we are talking !! ……(It’s that “our society” thing, again.)
Who or what are we talking about?
You must try to explain yourself. You must “educate”. ……You CANNOT “force”!
What happens if you are failing to “educate”?... Do you become “pro-active”?..... Do you try “force”?
You must “protect” yourself by whatever means there are (including war, use of nuclear power, and or “controllable” weapons of mass destruction); but, at the same time, you must keep trying to explain, trying to educate, trying to exchange views!
One is no good without the other! Your own “survival” is paramount! Number one!! But the effort” to explain” must continue!
This is the imperfect world we live in… a constant balancing between “self-protection” and “education”.
To those who wish to impose their thoughts and will on others, beware!...It’s still “education” over “force”!
To “exchange ideas” is still more acceptable than to attempt to “force ideas”.
If you’re up against someone, or some state or some group that is trying to “force ideas”; at least attempt to explain your understanding of “force” and your desire to “educate and exchange ideas”. You owe yourself that much!
Once you see that “your self-protection is “at risk”, you must act accordingly. The problem becomes …“When are you at the borders of risk?”……. That’s the question creating so much controversy!...... When?
What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
Everyone, each individual, has his stake in the answers!
But here’s what we are generally told by the government (the voted for government). “Weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear create a survival risk to the U.S.A.”!
The basis? … Intelligence gathered by the British and the U.S. CIA. No, not the opinions of some people, but actual intelligence gathered and interpreted by so-called “experts”. Also weighing in was the actual, provable use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish affair. The U.N. also had asked for complete exposure for ten years without satisfactory results.
Conclusion by our “voted for ruling bodies” …. A pre-meditated attack to preserve our society!
BUT... some non-voted for groups decided this was incorrect. They said there was no immediate threat! There was inadequate proof of weapons of mass destruction! Therefore a pre-meditated strike by the U.S. was unwarranted, a bad idea!
Again….What’s a “border of risk”? …. Who decides? ….. On what basis?
This example of “controversy”, of the unwillingness of a group to “accept” the judgments of the so-called “voted for leadership”, leads to our present state of indecision. In America we change leadership every four years if the voting majority wishes a change, a change in policy.
O.K. … So what change in “policy” does the other side want? … What’s a practical “alternative”?
It is not useful to merely criticize. … What do they want….precisely? … Is this practical at this time? …. Are there enough defined changes offered? …. Do we really have a clear cut choice? …OR,… Is this just another grab for power?
Without the acceptance of a rule for discussion, all we hear is noise! … It’s all “oral static”!
Both sides bleating! Both sides trying to “force” their agendas.
Thinking Americans simply don’t know what to do. Those on the fence go to the “sidelines” and simply “drop out”. Those that don’t care or a totally involved in their own survival have already “dropped out”. So what or who decides on the “agenda”, “the rules”, “the policies”?
Of course, it’s the few that know how to “manipulate” the “many”.
When “the many” decide that they disagree with the existing policies of a few, they will “rise up” in a confused but ugly confrontation. This has been the way of the world. The few who find ways to “control” or “force” eventually are drowned by “the many”.
Is this what America faces? … Is there a way to put off this ugly “confrontation? ….
Thinking Americans are deeply concerned about this issue!
Where will honest dialogue take place?
Who will be the participants?
Who will be willing to state his positions in straight forward English?
Where and when will this take place?
Who will be the neutral “moderator” that determines clarity or asks for “further clarity”?
AND …. Who will “listen”?
P.S. This is a sad reality. I can offer no solution. But just thinking about the possibility of a simple “grab for power” without due regard for what’s right for the majority, is something to be thinking about! Maybe the “media” talk and the words from so-called political leaders and pundits need to be better scrutinized before they are used as a basis for further discussions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)