Community Blog -- Click "New Topic" to post your thoughts.1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11 Hijab's, jewelry crosses, yamakas, create us/them
February 13, 2018, 05:58:40 AM by Kerry
Here in Hawaii women have the option of wearing a flower behind an ear as a relationship communication--behind the left ear is the same as a wedding ring, and behind the right ear is a space-creating relationship communication.
For women who don't want to mislead any man, a hijab, like a flower in the left ear, is an unmistakeable communication. I've notice that Muslim females who wear hijabs do not, unlike Western women, send mixed messages by wearing clothing that invites men to look, and then resist, responsibility for certain consequences. I predict that as we expand our abilities to be-with others, and as we master physical fitness and our health, then bodies will vary less and therefore not be what causes attractions. We won't be concerned with hairstyles because everyone will have short hair in support of water conservation. As with many K-12 schools, clothing styles will be replaced with uni-sex clothing, even at work; this will not only save resources it will save us billions trying to look good/better/sexier. I also envision that automakers will be required to adopt Volkswagen's initial '60s business model; few or no body style changes, all parts interchangeable over the years; internal/efficiency improvements only. Or, possibly as Joe Cowles, formerly with Budar Advertising, envisioned that we buy a body and the chassis will be unbolted and lifted-exchanged for a low-cost maintenance contract. I believe that eventually, for those who wish to "believe," we will all agree to practice our religion silently; the agreement will be to not mention your religious beliefs to anyone, no more "inviting" or "sharing". No meeting buildings, no prayer groups, no way to know if one is religious. Update 5/9/18: About the recent rash of attacks in Germany of Jews who wear skull caps in public.* Religious adornments (hijabs, skull caps (yamaka), crosses (worn so as to be seen), and dreadlocks), are an adversarial (us/them) communication. With Jews, such a symbol can be taken as an in-your-face, "I'm chosen, you're not" communication.** The same applies to those who physically dramatize (non-verbally communicate) that they are religious (holier than thou) when they pray before a meal; they pray so that others can see that they are religious. A silent prayer without closed eyes or clasped hands works equally as well. It's all about intention. * These men cannot see that they are purposefully choosing to communicate so as to attract judgmental attention, knowing full well it doesn't feel good to some. One has a choice each moment of each day, to offend/upset others or not. ** How many millions of us/them non-verbal communications (delivered non-stop daily) does it take to cause others to stand by silently if/when someone is attacking you? Self-righteous arrogance (I'm not only right and better than you, it's that you and your beliefs are wrong) always begs to be humbled. Last edited 2/5/24 Police will be able to turn off your vehicle.
February 10, 2018, 05:05:58 AM by Kerry
I predict police will soon be able to flash a beam of energy that will activate a shut-down-ignition switch to be required on all new cars.
After watching the precision laser images in the sky during the opening of the 2018 Olympics it's clear the technology is available. Soon all vehicles will require a thumb print start-switch for its registered owner. Other authorized users will be able to be added to the start-switch. There definitely is a secret society
January 27, 2018, 04:51:55 AM by Kerry
The secret society I speak of is one of intenders; those who intend for things to be exactly as they are, and, who intend all outcomes.*
This society is so secret even its members know of each other's existence only by the results they are co-producing. In other words, what's "happening" in the world is a manifestation of this society's intentions, both conscious and unconscious. For example: About 50% of the population were unaware that they were unconsciously intending the likes of a President such as Donald Trump. Members of this secret society are seldom effectively active in any other group; one or more members live near you but only occasionally do they reveal themselves. Why? Because all members of other groups are addicted to blaming, to arguing and to being right. A conscious person does not choose to be invalidated or verbally abused. To be an effective co-leader in this secret society requires a commitment to honoring one's word (time agreements, doing what you say you'll do) and a commitment to communicating responsibly, acknowledging all abuses (verbal, non-verbal, physical, and psychic) to the "victim" of your abuse, and a commitment to communicating openly, honestly, and spontaneously—zero significant withholds with friends and partners. Membership begins once one has communicated all of life's perpetrations (usually via a journal or a clearing) to someone of respect. The society intends the results produced by all other societies. * Premises:
Last edited 10/5/19 About transparency in the workplace
December 02, 2017, 06:17:26 AM by Kerry
A 12/2/17 program on HPR discussed some of the considerations about transparency in the workplace, specifically about all employees knowing each other's pay and, all employees being able to both access and provide input to each other's performance evaluations.
Transparency is about openness and honesty; everyone knows most everything about the company. Significant meetings are videotaped for everyone to see. Such a system is referred to as a meritocracy; a system in which leadership, pay, and promotions are based upon ability and performance. New hires and equipment, expansion investments, and salary decisions are voted on by all employees.* One particular concern for those applying to work for such an organization, someone committed to telling the truth, is how to answer the question when a job interviewer asks, "How much did you make in your last job?" In a non-meritocracy organization in which few know anyone's salary, your answer would be a significant factor in determining the salary they would offer you. The narrator of the HPR program didn't mention that if the new company has a transparency policy then, as a new hire, one can be certain that his/her salary will be consistent with what all employees have voted for it to be. * In such a company everyone knows hourly (typically posted on a lunchroom monitor) the statistics for the day, month, and year. I.e. Contacts-presentations vs sales, itemized expenses, attendance, accidents, promotions, birthdays, employee's newborns, etc. Everyone is completely aware of what needs to take place for the business to survive, including safely managed retirement funds; there are no surprise layoffs. Most importantly, all communications are delivered responsibly, zero blame or gossiping. Note: If you would like to have a Skype-type video conversation with a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach about starting a meritocracy, or about transitioning to or even transforming a present system into a meritocracy, do The Clearing Process —it's free**; it will give you an excellent experience of the leadership communication-skills that support meritocracy. For example: You can never attract and retain a partner or employee who is more honest than you. A boss involved in deceptions causes (yes causes) those around him/her to withhold their own thoughts of choice. Deceptors attract deceptors—there are no exceptions. ** Reading about The Clearing Process supports communication mastery—most are not ready to play with such integrity. I believe a group, company or organization should never be larger than one in which there are no secrets. The first thought withheld from a partner in any relationship negatively affects the integrity and everyone's outcomes. —Kerry Last edited 12/24/18 Considerations about "The Healer" -- a TV series.
November 22, 2017, 03:08:45 AM by Kerry
The TV series titled The Healer portrays Charlie Goldsmith who has a unique ability to disappear or significantly minimize a person's ailment using energy and intention. Most often a "treatment" causes a greater range of motion with considerably less, or no pain.
Charlie spends a very few minutes asking some questions about the location and intensity (1 -10) of the pain. He uses this feedback as an indicator of any difference after his brief (2-3 minute) treatment. He then closes his eyes and harnesses a baseball-size energy ball between his hands (his hands are hovering above his lap) and mentally directs the energy to the affected area in the patient's body. Sometimes he places his hand a few inches from the affected area; at other times he places a hand directly on the patient. All patients report confusion and amazement at the change in pain intensity or the new-found painless motions of a previously painful motion-restricting arm, leg, or back.* To the recipient of a treatment this gift is experienced as a miracle but without the beliefs—often religious words or prayers—usually associated with miraculous healing. My consideration about the obvious healings is that the process, healing via energy and intention, does not appear to address the source of an ailment. In other words, Charlie does not ask the patient when it began. He doesn't ask what thought comes to mind when they look to see if their health condition is possibly a consequence of some incomplete, an out-integrity or a prior unacknowledged perpetration (see Communications in Support of Health). Most importantly, it doesn't address ones unconscious intentions to have had the ailment. I'm looking forward to follow-ups as to the permanence of each patient's ailment.** * Having suffered intense pain myself I'm surprised at the reactions of each "healed" patient. Just watching the process I'm often moved to tears (re-experiencing the immediate relief from pain via morphine for a gunshot wound in Vietnam) yet none of the patients communicated immense appreciation or joy. Most non-verbally communicate surprise and doubt. It appears that they first doubt that the pain is less or gone; one can see them looking for it and it's not there. ** If a significant percentage of healings are permanent then the process disappears both the source (the cause, wiping clean the karmic slate so to speak) of a health problem (including an unconscious intention to have had the problem) and the result (its manifestation, its pain, its symptoms, etc.). In religious terms the process appears to force one to forgive oneself and all others, to complete a specific (usually childhood) incomplete. Last edited 7/23/22 How much lead have we put in the ocean?
October 31, 2017, 04:53:40 AM by Kerry
It appears that most of us believe that the amount of lead weights fishermen have lost to snaggy bottoms, say for the past 50 years, has not significantly increased the ppm of lead in sea water therefore seafood, ultimately our brains.*
I'm talking about tons of lead fishing weights being grinded down with each wave on sea shores along thousands of miles of the world's great fishing spots. "In 1919 the spent lead pellets from waterfowl hunting was positively identified as a major source of deaths of bottom-feeding waterfowl." In 1991, 72 years later, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service banned lead shot in migratory waterfowl hunting. The point being, it took brilliant scientists 72 years to effectively communicate a health-significant truth, Why did it take 72 years, but only for lead buckshot? What most don't know is that there is a difference between saying, telling, putting out, announcing, publishing, lecturing, and, communication. When communication takes place the subject is gotten it's recreated. Few scientists attend leadership-relationship communication workshops after they get their degree(s). Most sincerely believe that what they learned about communication is what it is. For decades researchers have been measuring the lead in fish, crustaceans and the frequent sea mammal beachings; we assume that dangerous findings would be front page news. However, few researchers spend as much time studying both their specialty and their leadership-communication skills, ergo, they have yet to learn how to share significant truths/findings effectively. It's not that they haven't shared their findings, they have been for 72+ years, just ineffectively. Hunters eventually opted for lead-free shotgun pellets. Perhaps in a century lead will be as valuable as gold and weekend miners will farm the sea shores. Last edited 11/18/19 * Per Lenntech "Seawater contains trace amounts of lead (2-30 ppt). On average rivers contain between 3 and 30 ppb. Phytoplankton contains approximately 5-10 ppm lead (dry mass), freshwater fish approximately 0.5-1000 ppb, and oyster approximately 500 ppb. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated a legal limit of 50 ppb for lead in 1995, which is decreased to 10 ppb in 2010." Read: more Media's reporting of workplace sex "victims."
October 14, 2017, 05:26:28 AM by Kerry
I'm having a problem with the media's reporting of the "victims" of abusive males in the workplace. I've yet to hear a "victim" communicate responsibly, from cause, as to how she, using her leadership communication-skills, seduced a letch1 into seducing her; most sound like the blaming former Scientologist Leah Remini, "They did it to me" victims. Whaaat? Too soon? Perhaps it's not yet time evolution-wise to address our addiction to blaming and to enabling blamers—evidenced by the fact that the media continually enables blamers.2
I learned about choices and who not to work for and socialize with during K-12. Throughout life I have learned to not work for the mafia or to accept an invitation to a church's, or a white supremacist's pot-luck. Why? Because most of us are aware of their enrollment agenda, ergo, the possibilities. We know the actual, ethics, morals, and values of our mostly male dominated entertainment, business and legal world. A person of integrity cannot survive in most businesses except that they are continually compromising their integrity. For example: A teen girl who conned boys into paying for her dates (a girl who chose the easier curriculum, instead of becoming a self-sufficient professional, who seduced a boy into marrying her to take care of her financially) seldom makes the connection between her unacknowledged teen perpetrations and undesirable consequences later in life. As a teen I knew to look for girls who were not in-communication with her parents, who could be conned into deceiving them so as to have sex. A "No possibility of sex" is clearly communicated non-verbally; it's a visceral energy-field of "on-purposefullness." For such a determined woman it would be unethical of her to date (or even "accidentally" mislead) someone not of her social-economic status. TV and movies are rife with plots about the folly of dating one's boss.3 Most teen girls, while watching a movie of some creepy dude conning an "innocent" girl into going to his apartment, say to themselves, "No! No! Don't go! He wants to get in your pants." Girls have been warned to not wear revealing "sexy" clothes that attract males on the prowl, yet many, now as women, still wear clothes to work that a Mormon mother would advise against. All females know that if one goes to a man's apartment that he will most likely misinterpret your willingness (your naïve trusting act) as a possible invitation, most always because "absolutely no sex" was not verbally communicated up front. People who work in certain professions generate specific predictable problems that cause one to compromise his/her integrity hourly. Such compromises always generate undesirable and appropriate karma, specifically, zero experiences of joy and happiness each day. Some examples: 1. In most police departments all the "good" cops vote daily, non-verbally, to retain at least one dishonest fellow officer, thereby submitting the public to .... —such a compromise serves as a barrier to joy. The same phenomenon applies to law enforcement spouses who know at least one member of the law enforcement community who is involved in adultery/deceptions. 2. Most every teacher knows at least one fellow teacher who should not be teaching children, yet these ostensibly "good," even "awarded," teachers daily submit the school's children to another 24-hours of this wanna-be teacher—always for reasonable reasons. 3. Most employees thwart their boss/supervisors by non-verbally condoning badmouthing of them by others. Having facilitated thousands of hours of one-to-one 3-hr leadership-relationship communication-skills coaching sessions I've never come across anyone who could not recall how they caused a particular outcome—the specific communication that was the turning point that revealed their cause for an outcome; all can recall their (at-the-time) hidden agenda—what they were unconsciously up to. For example: A "victim" of cheating unconsciously masterminding the cheating and the divorce. 1 One test for "letch" is whether or not one's parents would advise against socializing (or even working with/for) him. 2 No conscious responsible reporter would support such blaming, therefore the reports don't speak well for the self-policing integrity of the media. 3 Most girls are totally unaware of the leadership-communication skills it takes to be a successful business person—to simply own and maintain an expensive car. Such an ignorant naïve girl can't begin to imagine the number of sales transactions a successful business person has had and won, that has earned him his success. She arrogantly thinks that she can, using what she learned about communication in high school, con him into not wanting sex once he has her in his pent house. She believes that what she learned about communication in high school is what communication is. If truth be told it's tantamount to date rape for an exec to date a young working-class woman; it's much the same as dating an underage girl. Here's more about "date rape". Note: The media and I (and all university Speech-Communication professors) have been afraid to effectively address the subject of responsibility, ergo, 25% of the nation's college freshman require remedial comprehension and composition courses to learn what teaches failed to communicate K-12. Last edited 6/23/21 President Trump perfectly mirrors our communication skills
October 06, 2017, 02:08:03 AM by Kerry
I believe President Trump's legacy will be as the leader who inspired universities to require Leadership-Communication Training of all education and healthcare majors (none do now).* Such a curriculum will facilitate the transition from the present Adversarial Communication Model** being taught to students nationwide to the Intentional Communication Model (a.k.a. Mutually Satisfying Communication Model).
Most agree that President Trump is causing more people to participate in conversations about truth. Teens can see the effects of his bragging, badmouthing, blaming and lying; specifically, that it works. One doesn't need to tell the truth to be a powerful influence. More than ever, teens question the sanity of adults, our intelligence, that we, the populace, are so ineffectual, so powerless. I've yet to see a reporter have Trump effectively acknowledge a single lie (as of 8/11/19 The Washington Post has recorded over 12,000 lies). Trump is training our teens to be even more disrespectful of authority and leadership. Could it be that a younger generation will get so fed up with our enabling behaviors that they will wrest control of all governments? * Trump's behaviors speak volumes about the graduates and staff of the "prestigious" college of Wharton. What does it say about the speech-communication curriculums of our entire education system and our relationship with President Trump? ** The Adversarial Communication Model is characterized by win-lose-get-ahead at the expense of others, badmouthing gossip, and deceit (withholding significant thoughts in significant relationships). I.e. The majority of couples, during a heated divorce, reveal our addiction to blame. Our nation's Speech-Communication teachers don't teach students how to communicate responsibly. Trump is revealing the curriculum required for mutually satisfying communication mastery. That is to say, Trump has mastered a particular way of communicating (a communication model) that doesn't feel good to most; it causes confusion and worry. Last edited 6/24/23 About Leah Remini -- Scientology and the Aftermath
August 30, 2017, 02:14:15 PM by Kerry
I've been watching Leah Remini's TV expose of the Church of Scientology. Her interviews don't speak well for the church's communication courses. Leah and the ex church members she interviewed have not addressed the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes—all reveal their addictions to blaming and badmouthing. I.e. The "church" or its staff did it to me.
Whenever I hear another blaming another it doesn't feel good. None of those Leah interviewed communicated responsibly. For example: "To address and confront my addiction to blaming, I, using my leadership-communication skills, set up the church to brainwash me, to control me, to use me, etc." During the interviews I didn't see or hear any victims or bullies, only consenting sparring partners, all stuck in blame and make-wrong. Last edited 7/23/22 Prison for talking friend into suicide -- a significant ruling
August 05, 2017, 05:26:52 AM by Kerry
KXAN "Teen girl charged with manslaughter for encouraging friend to commit suicide." Or, as I would have reported; teen girl in prison for recreating a friend's intention, for communicating in support of his intention to kill himself.* --euphemistically referred to as assisted suicide.
The judge reportedly ". . . focused his ruling . . ." on three words "Get back in" and sentenced her to 15-months in prison. "Get back in" referring to her communication when he temporarily got out of the car--which he was using to kill himself via exhaust gas. Here's some cookies for your mind: (Not to worry, I don't think the following contains enough words to kill you.) How many words does it take to be jailed for the results of a communication between you and another?: One word: "Quit." Two words: "Stop now." Or, the alleged killing blow: "Get back in." --you can get where this is going. Eventually, we'd arrive at 1,130,296 words (the entire "court testimony") all the words, from beginning to end, that Michelle Carter texted in support of Conrod Roy killing himself. The judge's decision acknowledges Newton's 3rd Law. "For every action there is an equal and opposite (force)** reaction." From now on a smartphone recording (either text or a verbal message) containing the words, "Screw you, you lazy ass-hole. I hope you die." could be used to convict you of any action your partner may take—including suicide or murder. The decision further acknowledges that Conrod was not responsible for setting Michelle up to talk him into killing himself. In truth, we know that Conrod used his leadership-communication-skills to con her into talking him into killing himself, as does the "victim" of spouse abuse who cons their partner into hitting them. The decision brings to light the confusion of the definition of the word responsible (as in cause). The long-range implications of this decision is that eventually police will arrest both partners involved in domestic abuse. The premise: A "victim's" communication causes the violence—both equally intended the abuse and both blame the other. In other words, if a person can talk another into killing him/herself using just 1,130,296 words then anyone can use fewer words to get another to hit them. The judge's decision places greater blame on the woman for the results of their communications. The decision poses the question: "Can you be absolved of murdering someone if another talked you into it? * The word intention has an uncomfortable definition; "Results equals intention." For example: The way to discover what your intentions have been, using your leadership-communication skills, is to look at the results you've been producing (for yourself and for those with whom you relate). Typically a blamer will say, "If I hurt your feeling I didn't mean it." The word 'if" communicates invalidation and denial yet the results prove otherwise. ** The word "force" means that words have power, they exert a force on another. The judge implies that one person's communications can exert a greater force on another and therefore if another's words feel forceful, or uncomfortable then a "victim" is choosing to be forced, led, guided, ruled, controlled. What's ignored is that non-verbal communications have equal power as evidenced by the public consistently thwarting fundings requested by their former teachers-mentors. Read: The Teacher's Pay Conversations Project and About Leah Remini -- Scientology and the Aftermath. Last edited 7/23/22
Powered by SMFBlog by CreateAForum.com
|