Sunday, 1 January 2017

Right Mind Frame

Today I got the most beautiful solution as possible for a problem I carry with me since at most 2005. Being criminally excluded from the mainstream for so long because of the atrocities I endure, what I call my martyrdom, all going on since at most the end of 2001, all due to this creepy figure, Trevor Skinner, I had the opportunity of dedicating myself to the Socratic Method, so that I did philosophize quite a lot. I now got to a few conclusions. Having previously criticized Dianetics, and actually wanting to make of The Empire of God a sister Church, however with its own ideology, perhaps because of Tom Cruise and his effects on my person, I notice that part of their reasoning, when defending Dianetics, might mean right intuition, just wrong target. I observed that my best insights happened in one of those occasions: Either I wanted to kill myself, and therefore I had given up on all that is human, or I decided that I had to achieve a fraction of what I had as a main issue in order to get something, like whatever it is, a similar process perhaps to that of the man who is in love and decides that anything is better than nothing, so say seeing the woman they love from a distance. Ask the Ultraromantic about that... . So, the thing is that the best insight, productive, appeared when I decided that anything was better than nothing and I was in the situation of nothing. When I was thinking of dying, things went the way psychologists predict: All to the negative side. There was no possible progress, just death, and the insights had to do with facts that had already happened. When I decided to let go of my usual logical paradigms, my usual way of doing things, and think that anything was better than nothing, the solution came, and I then realized that I could have solved that problem more than ten years ago. By solving that problem, I could save us all, all the victims of the monsters that attack me, including me and mum. If I were able to get to this stage in 2005, almost our entire normal lives would have been saved, basically. It is then fundamental studying the mental processes that lead to this, like Scientology seems to believe or its creator, L. Ron Hubbard, seems to have believed. I think I got to the understanding of a few things that are always on the way to any solution. Sentences of effect told to us even only in writing, such as, we are all pawns, drones, etc., is one of those. This was a sentence told to me by a negro Middle East student, leader of the student union from VUT, person I went for help in 2001. Why did that impact on my psyche, I wonder? The thing is that it sounds exotic, first of all. Second, it directly connects to me, since I love chess. Third, I really fear him, I had expectations about him, and those included that he could be a terrorist, an Islamic man, and a person to attack white people gratuitously. I had fear of him: He could be a good person, but he could also be a bad person, and a very bad one, so say a terrorist. I was thinking that he had more information than I did because, in my head, that far, it was a world dominated by men. Second of the more generic list, putting our lives or basic rights in the hands of others: Regardless of whether you did or did not speak to an authority for law and order about your case, you should always keep control of all, and act toward a solution, like never ever should you trust the authority and simply wait. Lots of people have died in that way, first of all. You never let things in their hands if you can do something would be my standard sentence, but today I am changing my mind: You never let things in their hands, full stop. You can always do something. When I was there, in 2001, I thought that I could do nothing for myself, and I therefore thought that I needed urgent help. When I thought like that, I was not under half of the trouble that I am now, so that I still had plenty of choices that I could not see. Even suffering all that I suffer, what I say that no human being has endured in the entire human history, not even for a second, like not in democracy, capitalism, etc., like, in such conditions, I was able to finally find a solution to what I thought was a minor problem, considering what I endure, yet the solution to all others is actually connected to the solution of that minor problem, and that is then the wonder of human existence: It is indeed, as James Gleick would like to believe, about the small things, such as butterflies flipping wings. When you think that there is nothing else you can do, you are closing your thinking, as Dr. Lea Maria would say. You need to either open your thinking instead, use the so called neurolinguistic programming as part of that, or not close it. It is then your main task internalising what will become your discourse, so that here we find more utility for TC's words: Go from seeing you from outside to actually incorporating all. I am sure that is not easy, but we can progress to levels that will make it all easy, I now believe. Another factor on the way is believing people's good intentions: As a minimum thing, they can get bugged in their heads and lose them all even if they had them all, like all good intentions on earth. You don't have to assume the worst, as some say, since that will close your thinking, and we must fight against that: You have to simply think that you are always on your own, and perhaps it is not between you and God, since God, in principle, is always helping you, given that you are a follower of our Church, but it is WITH you AND God instead, like it is not a fight between you and God, but a friendship. If you carry God in your soul, you are never on your own, which is what the Catholic Church taught us, and it did that very wisely. We need to feel accompanied: It is natural for the human being to miss having someone else. I still remember the joke from Psychology that Dr. Lea Maria told me: The guy had Brooke Shields (back then, men used to say that she was the female equivalent of TC, like someone that they found impossible to resist) in a deserted island only for himself, but he was not happy. He needed to have a male companion to let him know that he was having sex with her! Perhaps that would never be true, like a man of God, and therefore a man who follows our Church, would never miss another man or person there, but there is something that is true about it: Human beings do miss other human beings. We don't assume that they have bad intentions, but we also don't assume that they have good intentions. The best is assuming nothing about others, and realistically take for granted only what Dr. Lea Maria advises that we take for granted: What we think we know about ourselves or what we can guarantee is the truth about ourselves. Perhaps we must swing with the wind, just like the Asians say: The bamboo swings and that is why it does not break when the wind comes around. I concluded that we cannot really do what Mother Theresa told us to do in full, just like almost every other piece of advice from The Bible: Things must be seen in terms of context. It is not always between us and God because, as said before, it is not a fight between us and God and what we have just said makes us think it is, so that neurolinguistics would make us change that into it is always us and God. In this case, God will be with us provided that what we do is reasonable, since God is knowledge, wisdom, Logic, and discernment. If the system is doing the opposite to all its declared intentions, so that now we are attacked by authorities for law and order instead of served, as it is my case since that end of 2001, we swing with the wind and either attack the system back or find ways out of the system to still get what we need or want. I initially saw that as crime, but just like ethics, crime is again something connected to context. Crime exists when the authority applies the law as they should and the law is then The Law. In a context where the own authority has revoked all laws in practice, there is no crime: We are left with God, Our Lord, and what I will now call Our Universal Conscience. We do things if doing them is reasonable inside of that realm. There are things that we can do without harming others, this all the time, so that if we go and steal from a bank because the system keeps us without money by means of institutional crime, and we use that money to save ourselves from their crime, that is OK: The banks have insurance and therefore there is no actual loss for them. Maybe because we did that our lives and bodies were saved. Only that result proves that it is worth doing. Sometimes we are in a relationship, say De Facto, and the person cheats. We are sure they did that. We try to split from them and we cannot do that because of their network of crime, as it was my case with Bradley in 2001. We won't cheat on the person, and it is not because it is between us and God, even because, once more, it is a problem for us and God instead, but there are certain things that we can do that will allow us to at least have friends, alternatives, in that context, so say we see other people, we converse, we make notes about their contact details, we see how they would accept helping us with us not engaging in an intimate relationship with them, etc. The worst thing in terms of things on the way to progress, when we are under highest levels of affliction, is our logical paradigms, the current ones, so say I think that it might be the certificate, the printed title, that is making me not get an academic job, what I see as a much deserved situation for many years when this thought is in me. One easy thing that I could have done in the past, when thinking like that, is pretending that I actually had one, so say I go and include one in my resume: Imagining which title from which university I could be getting in practice and then just writing that down in my resume. After that, I apply for a job or for as many jobs as I think guarantee that I get at least one. If I still don't get that job, there is something else to it, and I will then have saved years and years of my life, or at least the duration of the course, by doing that. Is that a crime? In principle, but even the courts adopt the system of context, as you know: If you go to a court, and say you have killed for being deprived of senses, you will get fewer years in jail, and perhaps no jail time, nothing. Yet the law will say x years for homicide. Were the law something strict, the courts would not accept that as usual practice. The same with The Bible, I am afraid: It says Do Not Kill, but if you go with that, you cannot even scratch yourself, as I said on a recent video. Each time you scratch your own skin, you are killing germs. Of course you can kill certain things in certain situations. God asked us to kill sheep in His name at a certain stage, and God's people used to kill quite a lot of them, as we see in The Bible. If you go without context, they were sinning to highest levels. If you go with context, they were praising The Lord to highest degree. All is context. The key for human happiness is always thinking of this sigmatoid: Context. 




No comments:

Post a Comment