|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2021 8:07:06 GMT -5
How do you define credibility? What gets it, and what doesn't? who are you asking, anyone in particular, or generally? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2021 8:07:57 GMT -5
I think the article describes what happens in a lockdown as a RESPONSE to a pandemic, I don't think it describes what necessarily happens in a pandemic. Lockdown is a philosophical choice made by leaders. They use science to support their choice, but at the core, it is a philosophical choice based on their values, their sense of what matters, the goals they want to achieve. I'm not unconditionally opposed to lockdown, so in the UK at the beginning of January, I felt it was probably the best thing to do, all things considered, but philosophically, I believe it's overall a very flawed approach, rooted in false belief. I think it can perpetuate fear, and then that fearful consciousness continues to create conditions that one is already afraid of. In the UK, most lockdown sceptics aren't actually covid sceptics. There's a clear distinction between the two camps, though there is some crossover. From what I've seen 99% of covid sceptics don't challenge the idea that covid does kill folks, but they will challenge the way that the death certificates marked (which I think is similar in the US to the UK) and they will challenge the number of cases if a high cycle test is being used. Lockdown sceptics are more focused on what they see as the flaws of lockdown as an approach. From my POV the same thing I wrote applies to the response to a pandemic. Again, two different camps and perhaps many different reasons for how authorities choose to react. Not good nor bad; it's just what is. It may be different in the UK, but in the US it appears that a lot of lockdown skeptics are also Covid skeptics. Poetry can be powerful |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2021 8:19:54 GMT -5
who are you asking, anyone in particular, or generally? you could have just said what you think about credibility and we could have skipped this step  I wasn't quite sure I wanted to stretch my brain that hard right now. It's actually a good question...requires a ponder. I guess I wanted a bit of context, did someone use the word, or is it a question out of the blue? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2021 8:29:05 GMT -5
As far as I recall, it was part of the guidance I received from my inner-guide. It was an iterative process. Firstly I realized the importance of the trance level (and I deepened it more or less), then I realized that I can control its level through requests to my subconscious (requesting a percentage level, or a brainwave frequency), then I realized that it is better to request an optimum trance level for the specific activity I intend (sleep, read, a creative endeavor, workout, drive, out-of-body, regression, inner guidance, ...). I read a couple of NLP books by Richard Bandler, and found them interesting and informative. Maybe they opened my eyes that all the rituals, meditation included are actually a form of self-hypnosis (although I don't recall the author saying exactly that). For example, I just read a post about a guru shocking the seeker in order to "see" a truth. This is actually a common method used by self-hypnosis and NLP to get you suddenly into trance. The underlying of the method is to create temporary confusion by overloading your system. A hypnotist shocks you with a sudden move or sound, while an NLP practitioner might word out a story that goes through more levels than your attention can compute. Both result in a sudden trance. If you practice self-hypnosis, in short time your subconscious gets more and more receptive to the suggestions you give yourself, following them more precisely, and very fast (seconds). I have no formal training on hypnosis or NLP. Your use of the word 'trance' is particularly reminiscent to me of Bandler and NLP. Not many people use it in the way you use it, without having had the training. So it's interesting to me that it came from within your own intelligence. And yes, Bandler is big on self-hypnosis. Just by way of anecdote, there's a Bandler story I like. His whole thing was that you have to engage with people's reality from within THEIR reality (as best you can), in order to help them create a change for themselves. He offered this story to illustrate....there was a guy in a ward for the 'insane' that believed he was Jesus. None of the doctors could help him. Bandler comes in with a tape measure and starts measuring the guy up. 'Jesus' asks Bandler what he's doing....so Bandler said....'I make crucifixes for a living, and it's time we got one measured up for you'. The guy decided he was no long Jesus It's probably a made up story, Bandler weaved in anecdote, myth, analogy and reality in a masterful way (probably still does, I don't follow the NLP crowd these days, though I'm sure it's still going strong). I find NLP absolutely fascinating. It clearly shows how language determines not only how we think but also the limits of what we can actually think. And NLP actually goes back to Milton Erickson. If you haven't heard of him, check him out, he was a really fascinating guy, almost like a Zen master of psychology. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2021 8:37:17 GMT -5
Your use of the word 'trance' is particularly reminiscent to me of Bandler and NLP. Not many people use it in the way you use it, without having had the training. So it's interesting to me that it came from within your own intelligence. And yes, Bandler is big on self-hypnosis. Just by way of anecdote, there's a Bandler story I like. His whole thing was that you have to engage with people's reality from within THEIR reality (as best you can), in order to help them create a change for themselves. He offered this story to illustrate....there was a guy in a ward for the 'insane' that believed he was Jesus. None of the doctors could help him. Bandler comes in with a tape measure and starts measuring the guy up. 'Jesus' asks Bandler what he's doing....so Bandler said....'I make crucifixes for a living, and it's time we got one measured up for you'. The guy decided he was no long Jesus It's probably a made up story, Bandler weaved in anecdote, myth, analogy and reality in a masterful way (probably still does, I don't follow the NLP crowd these days, though I'm sure it's still going strong). I find NLP absolutely fascinating. It clearly shows how language determines not only how we think but also the limits of what we can actually think. And NLP actually goes back to Milton Erickson. If you haven't heard of him, check him out, he was a really fascinating guy, almost like a Zen master of psychology. yeah, Milton was absolutely brilliant, some of the stories of his hypnosis are just so inspiring (and fun) What Bandler did brilliantly was figure out how to use other people's mastery of various fields, and teach it, so yeah Milton's work is integral to NLP (Robert Dilts also integral and very interesting) That side of things was really a lot of fun to learn, and I played around with it a bit after. Mostly though, it gave me a huge sensitivity to when others are using hypnosis (either deliberately or otherwise). I was very susceptible to hypnosis at the beginning of the course, by the end it really was a choice whether or not I wanted to slip into hypnotic state or not. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 30, 2021 12:30:47 GMT -5
As far as I recall, it was part of the guidance I received from my inner-guide. It was an iterative process. Firstly I realized the importance of the trance level (and I deepened it more or less), then I realized that I can control its level through requests to my subconscious (requesting a percentage level, or a brainwave frequency), then I realized that it is better to request an optimum trance level for the specific activity I intend (sleep, read, a creative endeavor, workout, drive, out-of-body, regression, inner guidance, ...). I read a couple of NLP books by Richard Bandler, and found them interesting and informative. Maybe they opened my eyes that all the rituals, meditation included are actually a form of self-hypnosis (although I don't recall the author saying exactly that). For example, I just read a post about a guru shocking the seeker in order to "see" a truth. This is actually a common method used by self-hypnosis and NLP to get you suddenly into trance. The underlying of the method is to create temporary confusion by overloading your system. A hypnotist shocks you with a sudden move or sound, while an NLP practitioner might word out a story that goes through more levels than your attention can compute. Both result in a sudden trance. If you practice self-hypnosis, in short time your subconscious gets more and more receptive to the suggestions you give yourself, following them more precisely, and very fast (seconds). I have no formal training on hypnosis or NLP. Your use of the word 'trance' is particularly reminiscent to me of Bandler and NLP. Not many people use it in the way you use it, without having had the training. So it's interesting to me that it came from within your own intelligence. And yes, Bandler is big on self-hypnosis. Just by way of anecdote, there's a Bandler story I like. His whole thing was that you have to engage with people's reality from within THEIR reality (as best you can), in order to help them create a change for themselves. He offered this story to illustrate....there was a guy in a ward for the 'insane' that believed he was Jesus. None of the doctors could help him. Bandler comes in with a tape measure and starts measuring the guy up. 'Jesus' asks Bandler what he's doing....so Bandler said....'I make crucifixes for a living, and it's time we got one measured up for you'. The guy decided he was no long Jesus It's probably a made up story, Bandler weaved in anecdote, myth, analogy and reality in a masterful way (probably still does, I don't follow the NLP crowd these days, though I'm sure it's still going strong). Like in every domain, not everybody knows what they're doing, and many times they don't realize that. NLP and (self-)hypnosis, in skillful (and honest) hands, are useful tools both therapeutically, and for (self-)improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 30, 2021 15:13:40 GMT -5
you could have just said what you think about credibility and we could have skipped this step I wasn't quite sure I wanted to stretch my brain that hard right now. It's actually a good question...requires a ponder. I guess I wanted a bit of context, did someone use the word, or is it a question out of the blue? relates to the "critical factor". The critical factor compares incoming information against your personal beliefs and determines what is acceptable. In trance a person bypasses their critical factor, meaning that they don't make any judgements about the experience. Any time somebody leads a person to create vivid and powerful imagery inside their mind, they compel them to bypass their critical factor. Any time somebody can make someone imagine something vividly, it becomes real within their mind, and they feel compelled to act on it as long as the experience felt good (e.g. watching the news). Almost anyone can be hypnotized as long as they are willing to follow instructions precisely. As hypnosis is something you do onto yourself, no one can be hypnotized if they interfere with the process consciously. However, most people can't recognize less formalized attempts of hypnosis or even when they begin to change properties of their trance. How could they interfere with something that they don't even see coming? When hypnotized, you are completely aware of your surroundings and consciously take part in interaction. It is just that you don't make any judgements. The hypnotists (e.g. the talking heads on tv, internet, ...) need to build rapport. Rapport is a feeling of sameness between two people. The more rapport they have, the more open the person is to be influenced. All hypnotic techniques require at least some rapport to work; without it, you can't influence a person to do anything at all. There are multiple ways to build rapport. The hypnotist shifts their own emotional state to be warm and welcoming so that the subject will instinctively feel more comfortable. As they interact further with the person, they pace the subject both physically and verbally. They search for commonalities and demonstrate an understanding of their current state in life. Another important part of this phase is to enable and manage thesubject’s ability to make decisions. Does it sound familiar?  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 31, 2021 13:29:32 GMT -5
I wasn't quite sure I wanted to stretch my brain that hard right now. It's actually a good question...requires a ponder. I guess I wanted a bit of context, did someone use the word, or is it a question out of the blue? I'm here now, but moving forward. oh, I've forgotten why the word credibility popped up, my mind is a interesting thing.. and sometimes it's easy to imagine an agenda where there is none. we are curious people, we seek information of the world (I assume we want accurate information?) how do you decide which information is true, and which is false? In my opinion, the only way is to turn inwards and tap your own inner-source-of-knowledge-and-guidance. Otherwise, the more advanced on the progression instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, the less you'll get it wrong (notice: I didn't write "the more often you'll get it right"!, because you're still focused on reacting instead of creating). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2021 20:52:10 GMT -5
I forgot about that ... Righteousness, of any kind is amusing. People don't even realize when they don't even think their thoughts, and parrot others. People feel that they are right, and whoever and whatever contradicts their feelings must be and is wrong, and they feel entitled to say it loudly with disdain. Still, they’re sure that they’re a good person, and that they spiritually contribute to the progress and welfare of the world. What a bunch of … nonsense! Each one of us creates their own reality! If it isn’t what you want, you can’t blame anybody else! I thought this article was explaining more how the internet is now directly affecting the established organisations of the world. Akin to what David Bowie said would happen 22 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 31, 2021 21:25:57 GMT -5
I forgot about that ... Righteousness, of any kind is amusing. People don't even realize when they don't even think their thoughts, and parrot others. People feel that they are right, and whoever and whatever contradicts their feelings must be and is wrong, and they feel entitled to say it loudly with disdain. Still, they’re sure that they’re a good person, and that they spiritually contribute to the progress and welfare of the world. What a bunch of … nonsense! Each one of us creates their own reality! If it isn’t what you want, you can’t blame anybody else! I thought this article was explaining more how the internet is now directly affecting the established organisations of the world. Akin to what David Bowie said would happen 22 years ago. My reply referred to the post you quoted. The linked article wasn't of interest to me, so I didn't read it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2021 7:08:32 GMT -5
I think the article describes what happens in a lockdown as a RESPONSE to a pandemic, I don't think it describes what necessarily happens in a pandemic. Lockdown is a philosophical choice made by leaders. They use science to support their choice, but at the core, it is a philosophical choice based on their values, their sense of what matters, the goals they want to achieve. I'm not unconditionally opposed to lockdown, so in the UK at the beginning of January, I felt it was probably the best thing to do, all things considered, but philosophically, I believe it's overall a very flawed approach, rooted in false belief. I think it can perpetuate fear, and then that fearful consciousness continues to create conditions that one is already afraid of. In the UK, most lockdown sceptics aren't actually covid sceptics. There's a clear distinction between the two camps, though there is some crossover. From what I've seen 99% of covid sceptics don't challenge the idea that covid does kill folks, but they will challenge the way that the death certificates marked (which I think is similar in the US to the UK) and they will challenge the number of cases if a high cycle test is being used. Lockdown sceptics are more focused on what they see as the flaws of lockdown as an approach. From my POV the same thing I wrote applies to the response to a pandemic. Again, two different camps and perhaps many different reasons for how authorities choose to react. Not good nor bad; it's just what is. It may be different in the UK, but in the US it appears that a lot of lockdown skeptics are also Covid skeptics. Covid skepticism seems to me to run a spectrum. Seems to me that not all of the facts that motivate it are conspiratorial. For instance, are you aware that the reports of people testing positive for the flu this year are essentially non-existent with respect to years past? Here are three links from sources that seem to me to be reputable on the topic: weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2021-01-13-flu-cases-coronaviruswww.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#ILIActivityMapwww.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.htmlI'd opine that conspiracy theories only have ground to grow if the information coming from the top-down authoritative sources is contradictory or suggestive of deception, and, in this case, it seems to me, that it clearly is. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Feb 1, 2021 17:54:21 GMT -5
From my POV the same thing I wrote applies to the response to a pandemic. Again, two different camps and perhaps many different reasons for how authorities choose to react. Not good nor bad; it's just what is. It may be different in the UK, but in the US it appears that a lot of lockdown skeptics are also Covid skeptics. Covid skepticism seems to me to run a spectrum. Seems to me that not all of the facts that motivate it are conspiratorial. For instance, are you aware that the reports of people testing positive for the flu this year are essentially non-existent with respect to years past? Here are three links from sources that seem to me to be reputable on the topic: weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2021-01-13-flu-cases-coronaviruswww.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#ILIActivityMapwww.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.htmlI'd opine that conspiracy theories only have ground to grow if the information coming from the top-down authoritative sources is contradictory or suggestive of deception, and, in this case, it seems to me, that it clearly is. It was the only appropriate reaction to this post. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2021 18:47:09 GMT -5
It was the only appropriate reaction to this post. Dali looks like Bill Maher at 97. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2021 12:16:51 GMT -5
Some thoughts today...feel free to comment, the thoughts are somewhat of a work in progress...
The benefit of lockdown/mask/social distancing etc is understood to be about 'reducing risk to loss of life', i.e it is argued to be less risky than the living of 'normal life'.
There's little to no life affirming qualities to lockdown/mask/social distancing, it's considered to be an unfortunate necessity (hardcore lockdowners also acknowledge that hugging, connecting, being with each other, celebrating, socializing, exploring etc are all life affirming, though it's hard to quantify HOW life affirming those things are). That's not to say that nothing good has come out of being in lockdown, but it is hoped that what is good IN lockdown, would also be allowed when NOT in lockdown. For example, getting to spend time with your kids in lockdown is actually allowed outside of lockdown!
So the current approach and focus is centred on ''risk reduction'', and takes little to no account for the value of life affirmation.
In normal life, if someone drives 100 mph down the street, we may confront them for being dangerous. If they say, 'I was rushing to get my family out of a burning building', we weigh that up and say...'well okay, hope you got there in time'.
Our approach to normal life is constantly about weighing up and balancing life affirmation vs. risk. Driving is acknowledged to very dangerous. Sport can be dangerous. Having a baby is dangerous (at some point that human will die!). In fact, being alive is the biggest risk of all to others (you can't be a danger to others if you are dead). But we also recognize that driving puts food on the table, sport is fun, having children is wonderful, and being alive is the very definition of 'life affirmation'.
An approach to the living of life, that is centred on risk reduction, no longer allows us to weigh up and balance affirmation vs risk. The context for it doesn't exist.
So if someone was to say to me, 'you are putting my life at risk by being too close to me', I now have every right to say', 'you are putting my life at risk by being alive'.
It's a pretty awful thing to say and a pretty awful way to consider life, but it's true.
I think governments (and society) are massively underestimating the value of having a life affirming focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2021 12:23:03 GMT -5
 I feel this powerful little cartoon expresses very well the problem of an approach to life in which weighing up and balancing life affirmation vs risk reduction is lost |
|
