I became the product and victim of the “live the adventure”, “just do it” mantra.  I just did things that drained money and time for a good number of years of my life. I’m not condemning action, but it’s not always the solution.  At times, constantly taking action (especially imprecise actions or wayward actions) can be the problem.

Examples were this acting class where they professed needing to “follow the river of impulse” (and that class itself was a consequence of sporadically random action).  I did that.  I went to four continents and did a massive amount of impulsive travel.  The travel was in hindsight an great transformative experience but it could’ve been much smoother if I had more premeditation and less action.  I had my passport damaged and I had too much of the wrong gear (heavy bags), too little of the right gear, and I ended up being in another continent, burdened by heavy bags, low on cash, and needed to take a flight to pay for a new passport and then fly out of the country because of an expiring visa.  It was the result of taking massive action with little premeditation.  I ended up in a different continent and stuck in an airport for 4 consecutive days because I was broke and had taken this “take action” insanity to a dangerous, destructive, and quite scary extreme.

What areas do you find yourself stuck in circles of action?

In this seminar I attended on developing different frames, the seminar leader was versed and quite advanced with hypnotism.  He frequently used “stop’” trance words and engaged hypnosis.  Hypnosis and “downtown” and trance is the other end of the spectrum of randomly being stuck in sporadic patterns of action.  So naturally, hypnotism offered some very soothing solutions for the grid-locked anxiety-driven action-taking chaos I had wrought.

If you found yourself locked into a pattern of action that you didn’t like and was no fortuitous and that would be any pattern that:

• drained time, energy, and/or money
• brought you closer to people that were toxic and further away from uplifting people
• seemed like  down-ward spiral

Basically bad times, right?!  Right.  But wrong.  What did you do to continue doing what you’ve always wanted to be doing, to utilize time, to cultivate energy, and earn heaps of money?  What brought you to that place of being far away from toxic people and in close proximity to uplifting folks and upward spiralling with all the resources?

For some people a solution is taking action.  At other times it’s ceasing action and taking bearings and being more selective with movements.

Utlimately, we need insight into what it is that we want to achieve.  This is called outcome in NLP.  It’s distinct from a mere goal.

When you want to achieve an outcome and pursue an outcome it can go awry in a few ways.  To make sure you achieve your outcomes and have a good equillibrium of action (the “just right” porridge of “not too much action”, “not too little”, but just the right balance), make sure:

• Defined Outcome. Your outcomes are well-defined.  Meaning the visualization of the outcome is very detailed and precises and attainable.
• Relevant Actions. Your actions are relevant to achieving your outcome!  If you have wayward random actions it doesn’t matter that your outcome is perfectly defined

So respect your own choice and yourself and move forward with awesomeness of uplifting, precise, and outcome-related mindfulness of action.

Bloody hell I can’t wait until Derren Brown’s next book. Kindle version (I don’t buy paper-based books anymore…long story but a good one — saves trees, saves space, saves storage room ,saves shipping costs, easier to organize, etc) comes out oct. 14. Seems like ages away!!

I listen and relisten to the audio version (and have thoroughly read nad hey! may reread! good idea) his Tricks of hte Mind. witty, funny as heck, but most importantlyt insightful. I developed my frickin’ “spiritual scientific level of life” (atheism) from reading that book. And I WILL get to the UKfor an extended period of time and see the man live. Goal.

So many things expanded when I read DB’s first book. My atheism unraveled itself form a congest confused mess of ” wait this religious rubbish is a bit off and irrational ” to reading dawkins, hitchens, having the veil lifted. But that’s just one angle! I also expanded areas of into ekman’s truth-telling lie-telling. And I also became obsessed with britain because I realized I had grown up reading Roald Dhal, Lord of the Flies, Douglas Adams, the list goes on.  Every author whom I read “everyone one of his/her books” was British.

In July 2009 I needed to leave where I was.  I was in a toxic location. I decided between London, UK or Sydney, Aus. I couldn’t decide. I chose the latter, but have greatly reconsidered how EVERYTHING since then would have panned out if I had chosen the former.  Needless to say UK is a HUGE interest. I grew up reading british authors. I was RAISED by Brits because what you read is esentially “mind code” and the mind-coders (authors sort of, but not exactly at all) were all British with whom I connected.

I found myself gravitating toward certain types of books; only when I read Derren Brown’s book (which was more about the author than “the book”) did I realize that that “certain type of book” was essentiall all and exclusively british authors. I’d been learning — (almost every significant book and or author of my life) was a british author –exclusively from brits most my life!
What discoveries have you made from the patterns of books you’ve read? Have you gravitated toward a certain era (I’ve randomly discovered I was drawn to late 1800s setting books for awhile, without seeing that big picture interest — Holmes, Hyde, and Helsing all fall into that era, by the way!) or a certain type of author? Examine the large picture of what and whom you read! You may be surprised. I was.

I was on a live coaching conference call talking about different brain changes and patterns with some other coaches and I thought about the prospect of sharing a personal story.  We were discussing how adolescents can sometimes be sensitized to things that other people may deem as unproblematic, like, for example, not having someone to sit with for lunch.  Yikes!  I instantly communicated the effect of delivering a bit of personal history with the purpose of galvanizing the conversation, session, and communication.  On the topic of offering personal anecdotes….ANYWHERE!

• in coaching
• in consulting
• in friendship(s)
• in conversations
• in romance-seduction
• in rapport-building
• in relationships with anyone!

I propounded ever-so eloquently if I do say so myself that offering a personal story could be helpful for four good reasons.  A personal anecdote can:

1. Create vulnerability in YOU and trust with the client may feel more comfortable talking to you.  This important when we live in a world where there by default (for safety reasons) is distrust.  Sharing something personal shows that you trust and maybe the client will, too.
2. Prove you’re really listening instead of just randomly going “mmmm”  ”uh-uh” and nodding.
3. Create a reference frame so the client/friend/woworker knows you can relate to their subjective experience of the world.
4. Generate YOUR sensitivity to the issue so their situation isn’t foreign to you and you can see from the client’s POV and respond more effectively.  Like “Oi ya, mate! I’ve experienced that before!”  And then you in a sense can utilize the sensitivity of what you experienced to help the client reach a more effective solution.  Jolly good!

Example:

Client says : “I didn’t have someone to sit with at lunch and this was very disturbing and upsetting.”

You say: “Well, do you think it would be effective for our coaching/friendship/relationship/work if I shared a short 30-second personal anecdote that might increase my connection with your perspective and show that we have this connection of trust?

If yes: share the anecdote with the purpose of relating to the client more strongly.

If no: communicate appreciation for the client’s honesty.

The trick, we deduced is ensuring you’re still in listening mode while sharing your anecdote.  How to do that?

Ultimately, what we concluded is if the anecdote creates comfort, furthers hearing and listening to the client/friend/conversationalist, and is relevant to what the person is going to, then it’s a good choice to share a personal anecdote.  How do you know if your anecdote will accomplish that? Ask!  Bloody Ask, mate!  One coach suggested:

Ask Permission!

Brilliant. Ask permission for sharing a personal anecdote and commun if sharing a personal anecdote would be helpful, create comfort, and be relevant.  Spot on

I just read this article (which was saved for me by a family member and was one of the first paper-based news articles I’ve read in a long time because I enjoy the efficiency, simplicity, and up-to-date-ness of electronic news).  In nutshell it details how some real estate morons plan to wipe away Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s former home in a puff of Holmesian pipe-smoke.  I had this reaction:

This is truly and deeply preposterous. It’s unsound and illogical to demolish the place THE PLACE in which Sherlock Holmes carried out some of his greatest achievements and was indeed born and died (in the mind and pen of Doyle). Charles Dickens has a house. Doyle’s creation, Sherlock Holmes, has a house. While both those (Dickens and Holmes) regardless of the latter being fictional, were never knighted. Doyle was knighted. He’s an exceptional author. His abode hold prominent historical signifance. Mutilating Doyle’s home to make way for the one of a million identical drab, boring, uniform and insipid apartments would not just be a literary travesty, but it would be idiotically non-prudent. Build the dismal apartments in one of the billions of other possible locations, but keep Doyle’s home intact. Bloody hell. This is where the guy who created Sherlock Holmes lived and wrote! What kind of imbeciles even have an inkling to consider replacing Doyle’s house with rubbish apartments?

Sherlock Holmes, although fictional, exhibits incredibly heroic qualities, such as his:

• hawk-like observation skills
• electric inhuman speed of calculation
• ability to observe what gets overlooked
• commitment to profound detail
• immense faculties of reason, and many more.

I heartily detail and dissect Holmes’ strategies in a previous post.  As a physicist seeking the far reaches of understandable reality, as a teacher trying to figure out what one’s student needs to learn, as a puzzle-solver, as anyone in practically any profession, Holme’s strategies are heroically invaluable.  In addition to all that important stuff Doyle’s detective makes for a a great read!  Doyle’s abode must be preserved.  Doyle’s creation, indeed, is one of my very few heavily-filtered (meaning I’m incredibly selective of whom I consider heroic) heroes.  I’ve read all 4 of the novels and over half of all the short stories.  If anyone knows anyway to sway the real estate people that have little grasp of what’s important, please let me know or take action yourself! Cheers.

I got in contact with the journalist who wrote the original article (which informed me of this catastrophic agenda of which I am now blogging about) and he directed me to a site.  Fortunately, some even-keeled, prudent, practical Holmes fans have set up a site to support the presevation of Doyle’s house.

I’ve given Goal-Setting a lot of thought….and experience…..and saw it lead to a lot of failures…and occasional successes….but ultimately I’ve learned tha goal-setting is a fail agenda and a behavior that denigrates clarity and induces self-doubt all while unnecessarily increasing otherwise-avoidable stress.

Some of these may sound like semantics, but it really isn’t.  These different ways of looking at achievements changes the way your brain interprets goals and then achieve the outcome(s).

Here’s Why and How Goal-Setting is Fail:

• Inadequacy.  Goal-Setting is BY DEFINITION intrinsically and inextricably intertwined with INADEQUACY!   If you say “I must achieve xyz goal”, you’re setting yourself as someone who needs something, who currently isn’t complete.  Sure, improvement is an essential part of any success and progress, but this act of “goal-setting” is like sitting around and constructively moping about a state, thing, attribute, or quality and it pinions you in a state of inadequacy from the get go.  Bad times.  There’s many ways to improve without making oneself inadequate.   Just acknowledge your investment in achieving an outcome.
• Inefficacy.  Goal-setting, the very process and act of goal-setting just doesn’t bloody work!  Here’s a fantastic example: David Tennant.  Brilliant british actor possibly most known for his character the time lord Dr. Who in the television series by the same name.  Did Tennant land that role by goal-setting?  No, he became “absurdly single-minded” as he said in his own words about achieving that outcome he wanted, the outcome that he achieved.  And he OWNED his outcome.  The Dr. Who television series has  been on-going for over 26 years casting over a dozen people in the main role.  Tennant was by far the best Doctor.  People achieve things by occasionally focusing on them and working gradually towards them or being absurdly single-minded.  None of those achievement approaches involve goal-setting.
• Implies no plan.  This is related to programming.  If you want to achieve something, you’ll need a plan.  A procedure.  A sequence of steps, if-statements, and a sequence.  Goal-setting seems to make someone think they’re done when they decide on the outcome.  If you abandon goal-setting, you’ll put more time into devising the plan, sequence, intermediary progresses, and the programming to achieve an outcome.

Now I don’t like receiving advice, so I won’t deliberately deliver it, but I will say:

Achieving desireable outcomes works by :

July 18, 2010 — 1:43 PM  I’m really proud of this post.  I put a lot of time and effort and troubleshooting into it.  But most of all it’s rewarding and a project that was (on the rare occasion) an actual great use of my time, and congruent with my career, interests, and passions, and definitely aligned with computer science.  Plus, it’s essential to my interest and studies in operating systems.  So, jolly good!

First off, acknowledgements…Invaluable or at least moderately helpful sites for accomplishing the triple boost:

• MacBook TripleBoot Instructions
• Triple Boot Mac OS, XP, and Linux on a Mac – Wired How-To Wiki
• Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (Lucid Lynx)
• How to install Ubuntu Linux on a Mac
• How to Triple-Boot Your Mac with Windows and Linux, No Boot Camp Required

I encourage you to check those out if you want.  There’s a few triple-boot guides on the net.  This one is more of a journal than a foolproof guide, but usually seeing (there’s lots of photos) and reading about someone’s experience is a better guide than a procedure, at times…

None of these I followed step-by-step.  It wouldn’t work.  There was no “triple boot Canon”.  The step-by-step instructions would lead to dead ends because each directions are for a slightly different bit of hardware or different operating system versions.  So like most programming/dev/coding projects I read most of those and figured out what I had to do for my system.

I probably read over a dozen triple boot tutorials/how-tos but the above popped up in bookmarks and are moderately recognizable.

An enormous crucial note is that Boot camp is NOT used.  Do not partition anything with boot camp.  Apple’s Boot Camp is rubbish.  Like most all apple products it advertises that “it’s turn-key, instantaneously flawless” when in reality it’s locked-down, rubbish, buggy, and a headache.  Anyone who triple boots by nature WANTS to tweak details. They want to learn about and know about file formats, setting mount points, and the differences between EFI and MBR — booting basics.  Not being interested in those, but wanting to triple-boot, is like wanting to make a garden but not wanting to interact with plants.  Or wanting to build a house, but having nothing to do with blueprints.  It’s ridiculous.  Boot camp tries to “build a house without blue prints” or “plant a garden without plants” to perpetuate this now exceedingly peculiar sequence of metaphors.  Don’t use Boot Camp.  It’s like booting into YOUR computer but having some traffic control person installed their shielding you from having total control and ownership of YOUR computer systems.  This is turning into a mini anti-Apple rant, but Boot Camp (Assistant) embodies everything I loathe about Apple.  They advertise “simplicity” (which is usually inaccurate, boot camp is speckled with problems) but said simplicity is riddled with lock-outs so that you don’t have control over your own system!  By triple-booting your inherently interested in a lot of control.  You’re turning one hard drive into at least three partitions so you can run the three major operating systems on One computer!  That’s a lot of control.  Boot camp steals and takes away and negates that control.  Don’t use boot camp.  Use rEFIt.  rEFIt does all it’s supposed to do (basically make the girders of the boot records fit in place).  Jolly good!

Here’s a simple photo journal of the key events.

In my Remember the Milk tasks(for ease of syncing this is what I use for tasks, and it’s much better than getting locked in to a sinking ship overly rubbish unnecessarily complex productivity management system that makes you organize your todos more than doing them. RTM works for me) I had this under the “Triple Boot” Project:

• Boot off hell leopard
• Partition
• Reinstall Mac OS
• Install Refit
• Use Refit to get partitoons a-okay
• Instal IWndows
• Install Linux

And that I did.

Hard Drive Partitioning

• WIN_240_P1 = sda2 (MAIN HD), NTFS Format
• MAC_110_P2 = sda3, HFS+ Format
• LIN_110_p3 = sda4, ext4 Format,  with 5gb swap

I wanted to make and have made Windows my primary OS (web, coding, gaming, most everything) with Linux secondary (experimental, coding, social connectivity) and mac primarily for just file-sorting and garage-band editting and not much else.  Thus I made Windows the largest and the first drive.  EFI is installed on sda1 as the Master boot drive.

As mentioned in the first post, I had encountered most all I needed to know from my Fiesty Fawn Ubuntu 8 tinkering in 2007, but I wanted to review a few boot concepts and jargon to have EFI-savviness:

• MBR – Master Boot Record (replaced by GPT).  The first sector, Sector 0 (a mere 512-byte sector), of the boot hard disk volume.
• GPT –  GUID Partion Table; the layout of the partitioning table on the physical disk.  replaced by EFI.  Microsof’ts definition of GPT
• GPT provides a more flexible mechanism for partitioning disks than the older Master Boot Record (MBR) partitioning scheme that has been common to PCs.
• EFI — Extensible firware interface.
• BIOS – Basic input output system.  The BIOS loads and starts an operating system.
• and just because it sounds piratey (and is a genuinely useful concept in booting jargon)
• Bootstrapping.  Aside from it’s references in the delightful Baron Munchausen, and “as a metaphor, meaning to better oneself by one’s own unaided efforts, was in use in 1922″, bootstrapping refers to in computing basically a very simple program “jump-starting” a much more sophisticated and complex program, like an OS (*cough* thus, when getting a triple-boot to work, boostrapping is significant).

One could easily get by and triple-boot successfully without even knowing what these meant, but I am interested in Operating Systems design and thus found them of value.

I think everyone’s experience installing Linux will be unique.  Riddled with peculiar drivers, components that don’t work, disks that don’t work, but eventually it usually works.

Here’s the amount of disks I had to burn to find one that worked!  The third one (thumb pointing to it) was the winner. Out of this array

I have Linux Mint (worked, but I wanted Ubuntu), Ubuntu 10 32-bit (no go), Ubuntu 10 64-bit DVD (no go) Ubuntu 10 64-bit CD-ROM (worked!).  Bloody hell!  I was grateful to discard all but the working Ubuntu (and the working mint just in case) installation disks after successfully installing Ubuntu 10.

rEFIt

(Note: refit obviously is english person playing a pun with the word refit and how the boot-loader actually refits the Extensible Firmware Interface, but I’m sure you saw that one!)

A successful installation of rEFIt gives you this glorious screen which is the essence of the boot-loader.

PHOTO

I love things that are this compact, and display as much organized information, and that the information is usable.  I guess that information-knowledge-compactness is the essence of computers and most science really.  But you can decipher this yourself, but from this table you can quickly with a mere gander observer that we have:

• 5 total partitions
• 1 of which is rEFIt itself
• 3 are our main target drives for the three OS installations
• 1 is some rubbish boot junk

Rule of thumb: take note of the large drives.  Those are the one you formatted and are working with.  Basically, there’s three drives, but rEFIt has to make things technical hehe.

Now Loading Mac OS 10.6 (Snow Leopard)

And the ultimate test of our installation efforts: do we have a desktop? Yes we do.  Mac OS 10.6

Now Loading Windows 7 (Home Edition)

And the ultimate test of our installation efforts: do we have a desktop? Yes we do.  Windows 7.

Now Loading Linux-Ubuntu 10…

Here’s a mini photo album of this memorable *sniff*!  experience of installing Ubuntu and completing this awesome triple-bootageness!  I included a LOT of precautions such as:

• Installation Disk Integrity Check
• 2 Double-Checkings to ensure correct partition was targetted

to make the installation fairly foolproof and smooth as possible.

For Some Reason my ubuntu  installation was not in GUI format.  No prob.  I worked it out.

Yikes.  Don’t be freaked if you see a blank blue screen.  This I thought would not bode well, but was just loading.

I tried an installation and it bombed somewhere around 60%.  Thus I secured some smoothness by doing a disk integrity check (of the installation DVD/CD-ROM) first.  Good times.

The Non-Gui Linux Partitioning Menu was definitely a bit scary.  Especially knowing that this was the third drive I installed operating system on so a wrong partition could mean accidentally wiping the drive and the other partitions!

Fortunately you just make sure you choose the proper partion and format in linux-style, which is ext4 (as compared to mac’s rubbish HFS+ or Windows’s NTFS).  It’s always nifty to double-check the SIZE of each partition to double-check you’re working with the one you think you are.

I knew the size of my linux destination partition was 120GB and it’s number was the third (4th including EFI partition).   Both those matched up.  Always have a lot of things you can double-check to make sure you’re doing what you think you’re doing.

I had targetted the right partition.  Sweetness.  All three OSes properly installed in the partitions of which I had planned!

And the ultimate test of our installation efforts: do we have a desktop? Yes we do.  Linux Ubuntu 10.04.

Completion & Victory

Okay this is making this post already way too much longer than it needs to be but I put a lot of time and thought into installing these and a heck of a lot of keyboarding-snapping-breaking *cough* troubleshooting, so wanted to take some victory laps.

After Getting the triple-boot EFI menu achievement

I tested all three OSes and successfully booted in all three!

Windows

Mac

Linux

Tweaks

I instaled Compiz for the snazzy Cube-Desktop effects in linux.

Basically completely moved-in to my Win7 HD.

The partitioning sizes were very ideal.  I thought about halving the MAC HD partition, but I like having it the same size as the linux partition for consistency-sake.

For Future Navigation in the Triple-Boot World, here’s a few bookmarks from 2007:

• Tips for Linux Explorers
• Updated Post:  This is an Excellent article on how to build a Linux-running PC for less than $200!  Epically amazing budgetting.  Extremely well-written article.  If you stumbled upon this tutorial, you have an interest in operating systems, and that means linux, and that means you probably know that linux (while free) is still a very good and stable OS.  You might be interested in this.  I will likely document and blog the building of my own PC likely in a way not as thorough as these guys, but it’s a great project to read about and to accomplish.

But after doing a lot of productivity work, I learned that honoring an accomplishment, victory, and/or achievement is really important, almost as much so as actual completion! So..jolly good.

Analysis of Discarding and Keeping

1. Pain Potentially Consequential of Discarding Clutter
   1. Cost to Repurchase something I discard — Repurchasing something I discard rarely happens.  Additionally, the cost of storing and transporting something is probably equivalent the cost of repurchasing but discarding it doesn’t have any of the psychological baggage effects.  TRUE!
   2. Time to refind the item to repurchase if feel need it after discarding the item.  – This is probably equivalent to finding the item amongst heaps of clutter, but true some items cannot be found but some items that discard, you don’t want to ever find again!
   3. Fear of discarding something unpleasant will cause me to repeat that unpleasant experience.  — This is the “vacuum” idea that if I discard the flyers from Los Angeles rubbish apartments, or psychology meetings, or the like, I will then repeat those to “fill the void” of that negative space.  This idea is that if I keep the unpleasant reminder, it won’t happen again.  To some extent this may be true, but it would be very painful to keep and so many unpleasant reminders that you dont’ get away from the spaces that caused the unpleasantness and make pleasant memories.
   4. Erroneous thought that discarding something may discard a “part of me”.  – This is unlikely because I put so much scrutiny into discarding items and it is illogical because some random book doesn’t define my identity.  True!
2. Pain Consequential of Keeping Clutter
   1. Physically trapped — can’t move as easily
   2. COST — cost of storage of keeping clutter and the cost of moving vans or even cars of moving clutter is abominable and gross.
   3. Overwhelm — massive stress simply from keeping track of all the clutter and sorting it and storing it and transporting it! It’s a massive headache and overwhelming source of pain!
   4. Doubt Self — Yes, keeping so many clutter belongings does cause self-doubt because you start to become uncertain if those past bits of rubbish are “me”, when of course they are not. If I pick up a book that turns out to be absolute rubbish, I am not that book.
   5. Anxiety and stress of keeping all the stuff.
   6. My digital files go neglected — THIS IS THE BIGGEST Incentive for eliminating clutter.  I live in my computer.  I’ve written a ton and I study and take tons of notes and almost everything is digital for me. If I have a ton of material space clutter, my digital files naturally (because of their being a constant amount of time in the universe) go

OTHER TIPS FOR ACHIEVING CLEANLINESS AND SPACE.

• Clutter is a vile enemy; treat it as such.  Do not just dive into clutter.  You will be bombarded and assaulted by myriad items, memoirs, things that you had forgotten about or neglected.  Then what happens is the clutter infects one conscience and causes worry, overwhelm, depression, and anxiety.  This sounds a bit inflated, but the negative consequence to treating clutter “lightly” is accurate.  NEVER EVER Just plan on “burrowing through clutter” without a plan without premeditation, just “hoping to find stuff”.  Always have a plan.  Your plan could be to “move stuff around and examine what is there, get scope and then close it up” or to “deliberately take action and eliminate or sort specific items that you already know are there”.

• In other words: the clutter is not a sandbox; it’s not your friend; it’s not a toy; and it will eat you alive if you attempt to lightly mess with it.

• Wouldn’t you agree that there exist some tasks in which you must have preparations before?  When baking a very decadent meal you wouldn’t just randomly open the fridge and try to work with the items, right? You’ prepare adn read up and envision what you’d need.  Using a better metaphor, when demolishing a building to then build up something much sturdier and better, you wouldn’t just approach it with a pickaxe and dynomite.  Of coure not, you have to take very mathematically calculated measurements to properly demolish a building (eliminate clutter).  Don’t misinterpret that metaphor.  ”Demolishing clutter” does not in any way imply the necesity of “building something new in it’s place”.   When doing a road trip, you “could” simply get in vehicle and step on gas but you would likely run into countless obstacles such as deciding which roads are optimal given conditions time, scenery, where you will stop and rest, etc.  The same is true for eliminating clutter, you “could” just dive into it like an absolute buffoon, but getting the goals of clutter achieved that you want to achieve will take probably 50 times as long as if you premeditated and planned out exactly what you will do.

• The best thing to do, therefore, the best approach one must take is to envision what you want to do with the clutter and ONLY ALWAYS ONLY approach the actual physical clutter (make visual and or kinesthetic contact with it) when you have a premeditated not only what is there, but more importantly, exactly what you will do with the items (the books, the old papers, the clothes, the bags, the individual belongings).  In other words, here’s a perfect example:  I recently tackled an enormous amount of “clothes clutter”.  I realized I had 4 great collared long-sleeve shirts that I had already wanted and worked and were mine, so I knew I had a collected and concise (This is important because it cannot be sprawled and amorphorous) piel of old rubbish, ugly, idiotic shirts.
• I knew that I could quickly go through those and feel delightful after having eliminated much of them afterwards because:
  • 1) I knew exactly how much I was working with (it was roughly 8-9 pieces of clothing wrapped in cleaning wrapper all hanging up).  Work with a predefined subset of clutter or else get buried in the avalanche of clutter hell.
  • 2) I knew exactly where it was located.  Often you find things you want to discard or sort, scattered, then in the search process your unravel more cans of worms which discombulates your nice clean crisp sorting and eliminating process.
  • 3) I knew where each item would go.  Shirts that I discarded would go in a huge garbage bag to be sent to charity and shirts I was uncertain about would go in a certain pile and shirts I wanted to keep would go in this pile and those piles would be stored accordingly.  This one is essential.  This is the most crucial component of eliminating clutter because you have to have “an outlet” for every belonging you encounter.  If, for example, you sort out and discard a stack of 20 old seemingly useless books that you 1)know how many are there and what kind of book they are and 2)know exactly where they all are located and 3)know where each will go based on a criteria you predefine, things will operate swimmingly when you process and eliminate the clutter. Here’s an example of defining categories for a sort (say, of books):
    • Discard pile (garbage bag)
    • Already Read & Keeping Pile
    • Already Read (boring or useless) & Keeping Pile (these will obviously be more easily discarded)
    • Unread & Keeping Pile
  • Or another (and simpler ) set of categories is simple
    • Discard!
    • Keep!

Conclusively, whenever you attack and resolve and dismantle clutter, at the VERY minimum, know :

• • exactly how much (with which you’ll be dissolving) AKA Work with a Pre-defined Subset of Clutter.
  • the exact location (of the clutter you’ll annihilate)  AKA Be able to quickly acquire that subset of clutter.
  • the exact spots or zones (for the clutter to be fully eliminated) AKA Define areas of clutter.
  • It doesn’t hurt to have a shovel and/or a blunt heavy object and maybe some pepper spray to attack anything that emerges out of the steaming amorphous blob of clutter that you will dissolve.

DEFINITELY DO NOT. Start “reading through” the clutter items you’re trying to eliminate.  Perusing old memorabilia and enjoying it as a seperate and distinct time from eliminating clutter.  Also, don’t put on clothes you’re trying to eliminate because what happens?  With the books you’ll find reasons to keep them “Oh they mention this author!  I hate xyz book but I like xyz author they mention.   or Hhmm this paragraph is interesting but the books sucks, etc.”  Or you’ll envision some fantastical far-off ridiculous nonexistent utilization of clothing that will never be worn.  Do NOT indulge in your clutter! Process it and then enjoy perusing the old journals from school.

HUGE KEYS to dealing with clutter

NEVER peruse, never treat teh books you’re going to get rid of as something you’re perusing through in like a bookstore.  Instead, treat the books like toxic objects that have weighed down and burdened your life!

FOCUS on all the awesome BETTER, more aligning things you’ll be able to focus on:

• the uplifting friendships you’ll smoothly not just maintain, but enjoy, cherish and love
• and better yet, the friendships, you’ll completely discard as rubbish just like te material rubbish you will discard
• your energy which will skyrocket!
• your digital life!  you can full go digital and have ALL  (or atleast 90% of which) of you memories of somethings in your computer, perpetually backed up, all stored, properly named and organized that you can access at any time. of old dorm, living residence photos, of old memorabilia, that’s incredible,
• In short, you’ll be able to focus on all the stuff that’s truly valuable to you!
• “De-junking allows you to start over. You don’t want your clutter and memories of the past getting in the way of your future.  It’s very idealistic, but getting rid of your ex’s belongings or your old company files can really help you to start over and make a new beginning.” Shed the skin.  A snake wouldn’t go burrowing back into the old crumpled, brittle broke skin it just shed off would it?  No, certainly not.  Don’t try to go burrowing back into your heaps of junk, rubbish you shed many years ago.  Liberate yourself from what you’ve shed off and removed and enjoy your future and new beginning in the new place.

and truly how awesome is it to have so many digital files crisply organized and clear?  That’s rad!!

I’m not an expert in eliminating clutter but I’ve done a Lot of it and want to keep myself from accumulating rubbish so I don’t have to endure the exhausting, awful, indecisive, wreck, hellish, pain of having clutter to process.  I want ot enjoy the smooth, electric, white, bright, scientific, aligned, crystal clear, energized, organized, only uplifting experiences of simplicity and cleanliness of only what I need.

Some of the biggest obstacles for me were attachment and fear of a void or hole that would be present upon eliminating clutter.  But instead the opposite was true.  If I careful scrutinized the clutter and eliminated what was stupid, useless, unnecessary, burdening, heavy, draining, and/or cumbersome, I felt energized and the stuff that is most valuable to me (science, math, health, staying organized digitally, contact with uplifting friends) became the centerpiece forefront of my life.  Rad!

The Odd Categories

Rubbish A Possible Potential Future Use

Nebulous.  Very Unlikely Future Use. This stuff is purely items that you do not think you will ever need nor want, but feel like

REasons why this is such a problem for me?

Because I’m unemotional.  It’s difficult to make these decisions because some of them require an emotional opinion (e.g. I threw out an old striped tie because I saw a picture of me wearing it and it looked like rubbish.)

PROMINENT NEGATIVE Consequences of Clutter

When you travel, you often travel to get away from your clutter as opposed to traveling toward a place to enjoy it. This, quite understandably, wrecks any concept of vacation travel.

You end up buying more junk because of having pre-existing clutter.  The clutter is a SYMPTOM of some problem in your life.  That clutter is a symptom is unquestionably a veracity of the highest order.  This sounds counter-intuitive.  Someone has piles of rubbish, how could they buy more of it, but think about it.  Picture some kind of businessman or scientist; everything about him (or her) is clean, polished.  Let’s say he wears all the same clothes and actually has 5 sets of the exact same clothing that he rewears; his house is impeccable and bleached; his clutter is nonexistent; and all of his “belonging” are digital.  He has very little furniture and his work invovles extremely precise laboratory work with DNA.  He eats consistently the same diet because he knows it’s nutritious and puts him into the peak state of clarity. This “clutter free” person that one has envisioned now comes across a keychain item in a gift shop that sells for $2.50 and a stuffed animal.  Do you think this person would purchase this clutter? Absolutely NOt!!   People who fester in the squalor of clutter are ALWAYS the culprits of purchasing more clutter and the most of it.  Advertisers who sell clutter, target the idiots already drowning in their own clutter!

Some provocative good questions to ask yourself to throw things out:

• Could I set a number (say 30 things) and throw out that amount?
• What blockage is keeping this rubbish being created?
• How good will that mobility and freedom and piece of mind be having eliminated this clutter?
• How much will my anxiety plummet and relaxation skyrocket when I eliminate this clutter?
• Where will I be in life after having eliminated this clutter?
• “In fact, I not only ask them to throw out 50 things but also ask them to make a list of what they’re throwing out, so they can look at it later and actually feel lighter. Here’s why: When you start throwing out a lot of physical clutter and you get on a roll, a new urge kicks in – the desire to clear out all the clutter in your mind.” – Michelle Goodfellow
• At first before seeing it was “sofeminine.co.uk” (good ol brits!) I was perplexed as to why most all pictures contained only women (surely, males need decluttering as well!).  However, while most of these types of articles I long ago abandonded because of their useless, tacky and superficial nature, this article is a stark contrast.  It presents reasons for keeping and discarding things in a kind of photo library format and is extremely clear.  An excellent reminder and source of encouragement to eliminate clutter and stay clear.  http://www.sofeminine.co.uk/mag/psycho/d885.html
  • For the purposes of this article, one can simple adopt some of the qualities of a throwawayer (in moderation to maintain balance of course) while maintaining a few of the memorabilia and organization qualities of the hoarder for the best balance.  I’ve listed the qualities of each:
  • Throwaway:
    • Anti-materialism
    • Starting Over
    • Need for Freedom and Control
    • Fear of Attachment
    • Extremes
  • Hoarder
    • Guilt
    • Living in the Past
    • Fear of Seperation
    • It’ll come in handy (mabye-someday)
    • Extremes
  • Good Balance
    • Get Organized
    • Recycle
    • Sell
    • Give to Charity
    • Believe in the Memories
    • Memory Boxes

Parallels to Computer Programming

In computer science and programming we have a concept called “starvation”.  Starvation in the processing of code refers to a process of an application that is supposed to be running and executing something but it doesn’t (maybe it’s waiting for an output variable from another process or maybe it’s waiting for the result or the “go-ahead” or a threshold to be reached from another process).  The stalled process is said to be “starved”; it can’t move forward until the process that’s causing the starvation does what it needs to do.  The same is true for clutter.  Almost always, if you can identify something as definitive “clutter”, but can’t get yourself to get rid of it, the clutter-identified-but-can’t-discard item is most likely in a state of “processing starvation”.

The goal is to “collect” pleasant memories in life! YES.

Does staying in xyz place geographically doing xyz things surrounded by xyz amount of clutter create pleasant memories?? If not, bye!

he goal is to “collect” pleasant memories in life! YES.

Does staying in xyz place geographically doing xyz things surrounded by xyz amount of clutter create pleasant memories?? If not, bye!

The great Tony Blair once stated the truism:

“The art of leadership is saying no, not yes.  It is very easy to say yes.”

Indeed, when it’s so easy to become toxically riddled with guilt or shame, or simply having a bad habit of serving others requests at your expense, it can be very easy to say yes, and difficult to say no.  But a “No” is what is needed.

Brilliant article excerpt from earthlingcommunication on the different classifications of saying no, providing you with some options (This site had the same list, so I am not sure of lists origin.  Neither site properly cited.)

Variations of How to Say no

There are many variations of saying no. Each are suited to specific situations. Choose which one you think is best for the situation:

Plain No: Guess what this one involves? All you do is say no and move on. This is the least effective of the various techniques. In simple situations this variation can work.

Mirroring No: This variation involves sympathy where you communicate an understanding of the person’s situation and follow it up with your declining statement. Your child’s sports coach asks you to be the team manager. You could respond with a mirroring no by saying, “I understand your after a team manager. It must be tough trying to organize the team… but I won’t be the team manager this season.”

Reason-why No: Many studies have proven that if a person provides a reason for carrying out an action then the action is more likely to be accepted. If a charity worker asks for a donation you can say, “No I won’t donate because I’ve donated to another organization last week” or “No I won’t donate because I don’t want to.” The second example’s reason for not donating seems stupid but even though no new information was provided the reason adds persuasive power. Trust me on this. It is powerful.

The requester can actually use a similar variation of this technique on you. Research has shown your compliance will increase by 30% if the requester makes the request and provides a reason why. Be aware when the requester uses the reason-why technique. You’ll be more likely to get sucked in and leave the situation with a wondering thought of “Why did I say yes?”

Delayed No: Just say “You’ll get back to them at a later time.” In the mean time, the person may find someone else to do the job or the problem may have been solved. This technique can be used in combination with all these variations. Also, when delaying your response you give yourself time to think of what to say and how to effectively say it.

Conditional No: You state the conditions that you would accept the person’s request and if these conditions aren’t met you will decline their request. Only use this technique if you are willing to accept the request. The person may end up adjusting the initial request for you under your listed conditions which will put the burden on you to follow the adjusted request. Your child’s sports coach again asks you to be the team manager and you respond with, “I will be the team manager if you can guarantee that it requires no more than 2 hours of work a week. If not, I’ll have to say ‘no’.”

Painful No: This variation of saying no involves stating the future pain the person would receive if you declined their request at a later time. Your boss asks you to take on an extra assignment and you reply with, “For both our sake I’m going to say no. The quality of my work declines when I’m not focused on one assignment and I don’t want to give you bad work, hurt my position here at the company, and as a result make you get someone else to redo the assignment at a later date.”

Repetitive No: Remember when I was giving you body language tips above and I encouraged you to maintain the same body language when the person persists with their request? This assertive skill, the broken record technique, can be applied to the words you say. All you do is keep repeating your exact same no-statement over and over again until the person stops. Their request will vary in form but just keep repeating your exact same no-statement. Here is an example scenario for you:

“Can you help me move house this weekend?”
“I have to work so I can’t help you move out.”
“I really need help. Can you help me move house?”
“I have to work so I can’t help you move out.”
“It’ll only be for a few hours. Can you?”
“I have to work so I can’t help you move out.”

Respectful No: Firstly, use one of the above variations. If the person persists with their request then use the respectful no variation. What you say communicates your wishes for the person to respect your decision. An example is “Please don’t make the same request again. I’ve said ‘no’ so can you please accept that?” Do this with “soft” body language so you don’t come across as aggressive.



And Joshua has these wise words of wisdom to say regarding avoiding being controlled by selfish people.

I’ve noticed there are freebie seekers that take whatever they can from others with no respect for who they take from and no desire to return favors. Be wary of saying yes to these people. They can control your life.

The only thing to do with such selfish wankers is to say no, terminate the interaction, and then say “bye”, basically.  I’ve experienced these toxic people.  Some of them have been close family-members, some colleagues.  It doesn’t matter how you know said drainers, but they will drain you and destroy your life.  The people who control and steal your time can make life and work unbearably painful.  I think the amount of pain associated with the consequences of saying yes (not saying no) is pathetically overwhelming to the trivial discomfort associated with choosing to be assertive and actually just declining requests of time-greedy people.

These time-greedy people are the worst when you aren’t aware of them gobbling up and manipulating your time.  Often one gets caught up in the “well, at least I’m being helpful Doi!” mindframe and that causes you to just dispense your time to time-greedy people like a malfunctioning ATM spewing out cash.  Stop serving others “to be nice”.  To utilize some unpoised prose, that’s just retarded and pathetically detrimental to oneself.  Look at this consequence too; even beyond the lack of time and lack of control, you have the denatured devalued sense of self.  Even after you’ve recovered from having wasted your time and energy on a conversation and/or a task that you never had time for, you then have the negative self-label of being treated like and objectified as a time-dispensing object. That and of course (*cough*) the devastating physiological and endocrinological ramifications of stress on the body and mind.  If one is going to be labeled as something, make behavioral shifts to be labeled as a person overly-protective of their time instead of a person “who’s always free”.  Refuse people from from gluttonously devouring your time.  Hell, starve people from your time.  Jolly good.

Also, without getting into the complexity of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (from our good friends at changingminds), which basically discusses how survival events we normally overlook (like being able to shower regularly, or getting the monthly paycheck to pay the bills) or almost invisible until they’re inaccessible (i.e. you can’t shower and the paycheck bounces), it’s important to have access to your own bloody time!

I loved this excerpt, “putting your noes on steroids”.  Brilliant.

The third important tip, which will put your noes on steroids, is to maintain nonverbal smoothness. Keep your demeanor consistent with your demeanor prior to the request. Maintain a consistent voice, for example, by speaking at the same volume, tone, and speed you did prior to saying no. Any sign of unease hints at a lie or compels the person to persist in the request. Switching the topic and using sarcasm are two indicators of unease.

Indeed.  In fact I was considering renaming my article because “saying no” is a bit of a misnomer.  When you effectively say “no” in person, it’s very non-vocal.  It’s not really your words that communicate the declined request or the impossibility of yoru involvement.  A lot of it is tone, maybe a bit of sentence structure, but mainly body language.

If All Else Fails…Go Scrooge-Mode

Basically, mate, here’s the epic, most effective frame for saying no: Be Ebeneezer Scrooge.  If you forgot this timeless classic, no fear, for your loyal, reliable, tipworthy blogger (*wink” has recording The Christms Carol by Charles Dickens with foley sound effects in 2008 and again in 2006 (which wasn’t as good).  It gets better every year.  But be like scrooge.  If you want to know how to say “No” without guilt, take notes on Ebeneezer, my dear Watson!

Soo…conclusively, I might ask you to Leave a Tip, but after reading this, hopefully (unless you really want to of course, not out of guilt) you’ll be able to respond appropriately:

.

Top Reasons Why People Find it Difficult to Let go of Hurtful People

• Fear of Rejection
• Strange, but true. Fearing to cross someone off your list means you somewhat fear rejection from others. Don’t ever fear rejection; you must interpret everything merely as feedback!
• Fear of People Attacking Back
• You may fear people retaliating. For me I feared the people cutting off financial support, supplies, and “material things”.
• Fear of New Behavioral
• Old habits die hard. Period.
• Top Most inefficient ways that People Exclude what They Don’t Want
• A lot of this works subconsciously….
• Do things to make them unattractive.
• Outrageously insane, but, yes, true. Some people gain weight, tarnish their image, purposely (subconsciously) look disheveled to “repel” people and things they don’t like, but don’t know how to exclude.
• Punish themselves

Yep the old, “it’s my fault” line creates a lot problems.
Get out of their mind and into yours. Your mind is a colorful, alive, limitless place – trust me, you want to go there!
Every people-decision in life opens a door and closes another. YOUR spirit and existence would benefit greatly to manufacture precise actions that open the door of Welcoming of exhilaration, romance, joy, jubilation, honesty, clarity, and quality, precision, freedom, strength, and grace, while closing the door of Misery of repulsive vilifications, confusion, frustration, angst, and pain. So many of us close the Welcoming door and open the Misery door. Don’t do that! You either welcome the right, good, quality people and events into your life that make you feel sincere, calm, and energized and feel warmth from the world, or you let in the infectious people, situations, things, and habits that taint your worldly perspective obfuscating your weltanschauung with bleak misery. Your interpretation of the zeitgeist reflects whom you welcome or do not welcome into your life. Do not even give yourself the choice to not close Misery doors and open Welcoming doors of genuineness. Just develop an instinctively intrinsic validation system to always slam shut the Misery door and fling open the Welcoming door.
This sounds simple, but, often the simplest things need the most alignment.
Let me know if you think this sounds too harsh, haughty, or haranguing, or if you have related ideas.

(Modified-Reconstructed 2007 Post).

Important words here. Excluding dangerous, abusive and destructive people, habits, and things from you life does not classify as “holding grudges”. Protecting yourself, your mind, your life, from people that hurt you, make you feel neglected, make you feel shitty, lost, confused, and foul does yourself a favor. Whenever you put time into “thinking” about people – even if it’s thinking about how to avoid them – you give them fallacious power. Power does not exist, but I used to spend a lot of time getting enraged when people I didn’t like contacted me. Does that process have a desirable purpose? No, because you can’t make anyone feel blame. Don’t give undesirable relationships the privilege of hearing your words (even if you deliver vilifying insults – that response could still be rewarding for them than ignoring a person).

So, conclusively, one thing I have done to prevent emotionally abusive people, debilitating habits, or miserable places from entering my life is remove them from my contacts list. Then It’s simple. If you get a call or message from someone who is not on your list of people who “support your beliefs, call you back, and are “active” in your life” you just ignore them! Or if you get an urge, a compulsion to execute a destructive habit, you just ignore that impulse!

One common reaction to excluding people and saying “no” to people (implicitly, just cutting them off) is the sensation of guilt. The involuntary reaction of guilt originates from illusion; it doesn’t exist, but it gets you to do things that bring you more pain and turmoil. Here’s an example: I would frequently get calls and emails from people that brought me pain, blatantly insulted me, and hurt me in the past. I’d exclude them (delete emails, delete messages, etc.) but then would feel my unconscious reaction of guilt speaking up saying: “Don’t hold grudges. Maybe those people are different now. Call them back.” I’d listen to my idiotic “guilt-based ego voice” and, once again, I’d go flying into a tormenting, painful, confusing, and denigrating interaction with those people then. Therefore, indirectly, it was “Guilt” that operated as my greatest enemy. It was guilt that tricked me into diving back into destructive experiences.

(Modified 2007 Post).

How does simply ignoring, rather than reprimanding, scolding, yelling, undesirable people, habits, or occurrences benefit our longevity’s efficiency? Because you stay in control that way, while sectoring your time to share it with exciting and authentic experiences. A computer server has millions of requests “knocking on its door” all the time, every second of every day. Yet there are thousands of protocols and “permissions” files within that server that immediately tell it what to do (and what not to do) with “packets” of information received on the internet. Did you ever get that “Error 404 Not Found” error while surfing the internet? If you’ve browsed enough pages, you know what I’m talking about.
An internet server has a busy life. It doesn’t have time to shut-down all operations and yell and scream and get enraged at an “excluded host” when contacted! It can only afford – thankfully – to send a quick, instantaneous programmed response, “Error no access”, so it can focus its processing power on the good, resourceful tasks – exchanging data and updates and requests and gets and formulas with permissible hosts on the internet.
Your interaction with the world and people should be the same. You open up your emotional doors of clarity, honesty, and sincerity to those “permissible” hosts and quickly exclude the “impermissible hosts” (those people that do not fulfill and support your beliefs, nor ideas, nor call you back).

(Modified 2007 Post)

(Modified 2007 Post)

Feynman QUOTES!!

He said, “You see, I’m a stenotypist, and I type everything that

is said here. Now, when the other fellas talk, I type what they say, but I don’t

understand what they’re saying. But every time

you get up to ask a question or to say something, I understand exactly what you mean–what the

question is, and what you’re sayi

ng–so I thought you can’t be a professor!”

Notice how everyone else, every understandable person at the conference was incomprehensible to the stenotypist and that they are not well-known.  It’s because what the speak is convoluted rubbish aimed to impress people of their vast intelligence instead of communicating clear, simple, direct, and honest points like good ol’ the best, one of the most ultimate scientists ever, Richard Feynman communicated.

Then I went over the next sentence, and I realized that I could translate that one also. Then it became a kind

of empty business: “Sometimes

people read; sometimes people listen to the radio,” and so on, but written in such a fancy way that I couldn’t understand it at first, and when I finally

deciphered it, there was nothing to it.

“It isn’t the

stuff, but the power to make the

stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in scienc

e; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they

didn’t understand their time.

“

THREE STRATA!!

So basically I look at all learning in three strata:

1st

On the ground (or basement) floor there’s the muck quagmire, disgusting muddy soup crap of humanities, New Age, religion, a lot of psychology, and the like.  Basically stuff that’s untrue, explains nothing, and is the antithesis of pure.

Here at a symposium conference discussing ethics in education, Feynman thought of some brilliant questions such as

For instance, in education, you increase differences. If someone’s good at something, you try to develop his ability, which results in differences, or inequalities. So if education increases inequality, is this ethical?…The next day I brought my paper into the meeting, and the guy said, “Yes, Mr. Feynman has brought up some very interesting questions we ought to discuss, and we’ll put them aside for some possible future discussion.” They completely missed the point. I was trying to define the problem, and then show how “the fragmentation of knowledge” didn’t have anything to do with it. And the reason that nobody got anywhere in that conference was that they hadn’t clearly defined the subject of “the ethics of equality in education,” and therefore no one knew exactly what they were supposed to talk about.

Feynman slaughters Humanities Social science RUBBISH and reveals for what it is with this awesome quote:

So I stopped–at random–and read the next sentence very carefully. I can’t remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: “The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels.” I went back and forth over it, and translated. You know what it means? “People read.”

Then I went over the next sentence, and I realized that I could translate that one also. Then it became a kind of empty business: “Sometimes people read; sometimes people listen to the radio,” and so on, but written in such a fancy way that I couldn’t understand it at first, and when I finally deciphered it, there was nothing to it.

Explaining nothing except the most obvious and trivial with convoluted useless language, social science is for the weak and stupid and feeble minded!

This was a huge epiphany for me in getting out of the mountain of shit humanities-social-studies inferno.  Before I had always thought that social studies and humanities rubbish was a mind-infection that if I focused on it would disturb my thought and thinking clarity.  However I soon realized far from the contrary, as soon as one focuses on critically interrogatively reading, cognitive scrutiny, truly scrutinizing, rereading, and understanding a sentence or two of the social humanities bullshit, we realize that it is saying the most puerile, stupid useless utterances that have been masked in eloquent, superfluous literary garb gibberish.  True!

2ND

The next floor (a drastic increase, because while that first strata has zero and actually detracting, negative, deplorable value) the second strata is immense value.  This second strata in this “mount paradisio” is a far advancement from teh inferno of the 1st strata.  This second strata is more fulfilling than purgatorio; it represents physics, biochemistry, anatomy, and neuroscience.  This second strata of immense value explains how things work, how we percieve things in the real world; all the clicks, clanks, flashes, utterances, even thoughts to some extent are explained and can be measured in this awesome second strata.

Biochemistry and physics will explain how everythign works.  As I was writing this I heard the sound of Carbon Dioxide particles clinking against the can of Hansen’s carbonated soda to the right of me.  Physics plus anatomy explains to me how the ossicles in our human ears can pick up frequencies between 20 and 20,000 hz and that then chemistry chimes in to explain the rising air bubbles of CO2 in carbonated beverages.  That’s fascinating and awesome, and crisp, and must importantly true.

Where are all my friends, the scientists and mathematicians?

3RD

The third strata is truly paradisio.  In the third strata of paradisio is mathematics.  Math is freedom from the world.  It’s the antithesis of all the “wrong”, obfuscating muck of the 1st strata.  Like the 2nd strata it’s true and stable and accurate, but it joyful tinkers with things with 100% accuracy.  Math on the upscale, is like the next floor up.  Equally as true, but in it’s own private connected perfect reality . Math is perfecton; it’s 100% precision, accuracy, and stability.

Math hones the mind and makes it sharper. I don’t care much about natural history but I do like the witticism of dawkins and how he pwn ridicules the ininite neverendign stupidity of religion.  Math is what the mind needs to stay sharp.  Biochem of human anatomy is useful too, to know what is necesary to stay sharp.  lol.  But natural history is okay because of 1)it’s actually true, rare in teh huamnties rubbish adn 2)dawkins is amusing and decent and good.

math is true precison of mind thouh

Math is the only true subject where you mind has to DO something.  All other things you do what you’re told and in biochem you do truly memorize valuable information and the regurgitate it out and biochemistry IS valuable info, but you cognitively don’t do anything with it. With Math and chess, you actually do things cognitively with your; your mind does actual work and envisioning and calculation.

Like for example, 53042 in base 6 equals 7154 in base 10.  That’s very rudimentary math (base systems), but it’s still unquestionably so crips, clear, true, and exciting, and awesome!  It’s just so convenient, awesome, nifty, precise, meaningful, rad nad almost magical– math truly is a different world — because of the transformation and everything matches up!  There can be no coefficients written in a digit higher than BaseNumber-1, so not higher than 9 and 5 for respectively base 10 and base 6.

This is old stuff and very rudimentary but math and numbers are unquestionably the ultimate toy with which to tinker.  It never breaks down, needs updates, is scientific advanced, and aligned!  It’s so fascinating and impressive and astounding and stable and fun to see how you set the coefficients net to each other in descending order and you get the base-based number!

2 • 6^0 + 4 • 6 ^1 + 0 • 6^2 + 3•6^3 +   5•6^4 ( base6)= 7154 (base10).

Its’ so fun and safe to tinker and use one’s mind to calculate and juggle and examine the always 100% correct, precision, alignment of math because of its 100% accuracy, universlaity (all languages understand numbers from all eras), and freedom and everything about math rocks!

Applying these:

If you want to feel discombobulated, doubtful, infected, lost, dubious, and quite wretched and vile, waste your time and pollute your mind with the 1st strata.  Basically, don’t go to the inferno of that waste.

If you want to understand the world and feel practical and not necessarily wise, but just complete in understanding, definitely check out the 2nd strata.

If you want meaning, joy, clarity, succes, happiness, fulfillment (funny enough all the fallacious and unfulfilled “promises” of the 1st mire strata), go to math.

yeah!

Regarding other academic fields:

I think philosophers share the same “freedom” bubble of mathematicians, but they’re paralyzed in it and can do nothing. Basically, if this “freedom” bubble of mathematicians is the sea, mathematicians are hte fish and sharks that can do things in it, and philosophers are just inanimate, dead rocks; they’re in the same “freedom” bubble of math, but are useless in it.

Math is the only authentic cognitive rigor.  In other words, do math; it’s good for your mind.

Most importantly, doing math puts you in a state of “flow” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Components_of_flow

I know this stuff, I am like a doctor.

“Stress is a normal physical response to events that make you feel threatened or upset your balance in some way. When you sense danger – whether it’s real or imagined – the body’s defenses kick into high gear in a rapid, automatic process known as the “fight-or-flight” reaction, or the stress response.”

That flight fight response thing I experience (that I said I had tons of times outside) to an overwhelming degree IS STRESS..

If I don’t stop doing thigns that cause me stress, I will have a heart attack, digestive problems, and poor respiratory system work.

I have had all the symptoms of chronic stress

scalp eczema

Gastro intestinal problems

heart palpitations

frequent stress flight-fight response

I know exactly what causes this, it’s being in cities and in america.  I know this country is unsafe emotionally, why else would I be so focused on living in other countries? Therefore, me currently being in the usa has become a problematic health issure for me that I need to address.

It’s useful for me to frame things in temporal to London.  Chicago is always LondonTime -6 (because during this DST period, London is UTC+1)  In Spring to Fall, Chicago is London Time (BST) -6, only  because all clocks are moved forward.  And in Fall to Spring, London is GMT/UTC/Zulu And Chicago is that- 6 (because the London time goes “back” to normal), but of course so does every other timezone (Chicago goes back to GMT-6, Sydney to GMT+9, and so on.  During DST it’s a headache a +1 gets added to all those London GMT+1, Chicagy GMT-5, Sydney GMT+10).   Fall to Spring (non-daylight savings time) LondonTime (Chicago time being, now (BST) -6), and now London Time coincides with GMT.  I reckon it’s a good clarification and also headache that GMT timezone DST fluctuations never occur; zulu is always UTC.  In other words, right now, it’s BST 11:02am, CST 5:02am, and GMT 10:02am.  So it’s annoying that half the year all time zones deviate in their relationship to GMT.  London is GMT+1 or GMT, New York is GMT-4 or GMT-5, Chicago is GMT-5 or GMT-6 (in respective DaylightSavings and Non-DayLightSavings Months, respectively).

It’s interesting to note that time and time zones are mere derivatives of man-made sentience placed (or sort of dumped, rather) on longitudes.  And then again, longitudes are geographical trigonometric man-made units of measurement as well.

“Benjamin Franklin first suggested Daylight Saving Time in 1784, but it was not until World War I, in 1916, when it was adopted by several counties in Europe that initially rejected the idea.” — Timeanddate.com

I agree with Europe; DST should have bloody been initially rejected (and remained rejected haha).  The additional fact that some countries don’t even practice DST and that the exact date that countries shift their clocks deviates from country to country is indicative of an incredibly outdated and messy time-telling system that adds to this gear-grinding headache.  Take a look at this page to see what I mean about this lunacy.  (Also, is that really the situation?  It takes all countries literally 3 months to make the clock changes?  Am I misinterpreting this?? Jeepers! Dang.  That’s realy messed up, if that’s the case!)  From August 5, 2010 at 2100 in Egypt to November 7, 2010 at 1100 in the United States clocks jump forward or jump back an hour depending on their location in the hemisphere and on the globe.  The fact that of the DST activation of deactivations occurs over the span of OVER three months (EVERY YEAR!) is preposterous!  It’s amazing anything gets done on time!  It’s a massively confusing headahce really.  I understand the hemisphere thing.  Northern clocks jump back and Sothern hemisphere clocks jump forward in the Fall/Autumn.  Great and understandable because of the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth, but why in all bloody hell would their be non-synchronized clock changes, so that every country just “in their own time” over the span of 3 months (!) all the changes finally get made?  Why not just on a set day, say October 15, and March 15, make the corresponding hemisphere-based DST changes?  That would be so much simpler!  And maybe the reason for not doing that could be some country-based geosdesic trigonemetric reason, but frankly, that should be corrected for and people shouldn’t have to be literally astronomical rocket scientists and physicists (unless they want to be and I certainly dont’ have a problem with those fields at all!) to accurately no one DST commences and terminates.

In many ways, I would almost prefer to tell time by distance, like “it’s 10.2km before the sun’s horizon passes because that’s what ultimately time is, just a measurement based on the earth’s revolution. The fact there’s man-made “zones” based on longitudinal man-made geographical equally-spaced measurement, based on the sphere of the earth, isn’t helped by an additional hour adjustment annually each spring.  Anything that articulates the fact that we’re on a gigantic spinning sphere I am all for.  Anything that seems to detract from that fact, (and indeed I think the multi-layered usage of meridians and timezones does detract from the fact that we’re on an orbitting (and revolving) sphere) is detrimental to understanding proper scientific sentiency.  Good TIMES!!  (hahaha pun unquestionably intended, and something I would’ve said anyways).

I just wanted to share this bit of tech uploading/syncing bit of utter craziness partly for my own records, so I remember how I set this up, given that it’s so complex, and for anyone else attempted such a technological, mult-operating system juggling act.

First off, I’m working with Linux Mint, Winows 7 64-bit, and Mac OS 10.6.3.  I’m migrating away from the Mac OS (because it’s a waste of time, did very little constructive, and might be okay for self-therapy file/photo reviewing, but othe rthan that it’s pretty much rubbish imho).

I tinkered wtih refit, and an enormous amount How-To articles.  Lifehacker was tremendous help as were ones written by various other authors.  Eventually despite all of the “don’t install boot camp to triple boot!” messages I eventually did install boot camp via boot  camp assistant.  All of this was on imac8,1.

The hard drive partitioning was incredible complex and I forget some details but I definitely partitioned the 500gb internal hard drive into a:

• 189 Mac OS Partition
• 130 Linux Mint Partition
• 130 Windows 7 Partition

I may include the details of the file format used but jsut now that I did a partition before any refit, anyinstallations, an boot-camp stuff.

Then I did install Windows 7 successful (Hurray! Great OS. Fantastic OS in my opinion!) via boot camp.

Then I successfully installed Linux Mint, a very clean, minimalist, smooth operating system.  Nothing fantastic but, not much bad about it either.

My current boot sequence involves first Alt(Option)-Booting which provides the selection of Mac or Windows and then I get the linux boot screen and can again choose which of the 3 Operating Systems to boot from.  Obviously choosing the Windows/Mac from the boot-camp loader is unnecassry because whichever selection is made, it will point to the linux boot-loader.

So, jolly good.  I have triple boot (and I can refine that on another machine, and really eventually I am moving towards bulding my own screaming fast PC from scratch which would be obviously a great Windows7/LinuxMint dual-boot.

Calendar and Email Syncing

The next feat (and there is much less documentation on this) was to resolve this problem:

I had local ical calendars, a local archive of 2003-2005 Mail.App (clumsy format not easily uploaded to mail servers like gmail), various (about 6) email accounts, and I wanted All of that (all calendars past and present, all email past and present, ALL in the same convenient program).

To be perfectly honest I’m refining which program and tinkered with gcal/gmail webbrowser, Chandler (excellent open source), Windows Live, and I may check out Windows Outlook Express.  Ical was rubbish because in it I became obsessive-compulsive in 2008-2009, recording everything I did (from sleep, to eat, to activities I did).  I will post a few photos of those here.  It’s great for self-therapeutic reasons to have access to everything you did 24 hours a day for the past two years, but to say the least, it was too obsessive and time-consuming.  I had read David Allen’s GTD book, fell into the mindlessly lost pit of that productivity cult and before I knew it I was spending 3-5 hours a day making lists and organizing thigns.  Said GTD lists (and the GTD_Ultimate_Calendar concept I created with Physiology, Galvanizing, Sleep, and other categories where I stored everything I did) created the illusion of productivity, but I wasn’t get much done and worse, I was operating from the false belief that I was.  So I’m not too big of a fan of GTD anymore.  Some concepts of it are great (like don’t put things back in “inbox”, i.e. when you process something continue processing it, don’t revert it back into the “to-be-processed” file or else that file becomes wrought with psychological negative baggage.  Concepts like “amorphorous mass of stuff” and “psychological baggage with stuff that’s not organized” and “a computer-like workflow ” to a small degree at least are decent concepts, but too much GTD was very destructive and, ironically, unproductive!  So I’m glad that phases is over with in my life.  Needless to say, I had enormous amounts of calendar data to import!

ICAL GTD Ultimate calendar PHOTO

I instantly loved how “old school” Chandler looked.  And the fact that everything happened in panes and your workspace wouldn’t become populated with a clutter of stacked windows is unquestionably appealing.  I ran into some difficulties with IMAPing Chandler and it seems to revolve around POP without that much support.  I made an account on Chandler Hub as well.

Combining my five local ical calendars was a headache, but in a nutshell. I exported those 5 ical calendars in .ics format, and then imported/uploaded all of those 5 to one gmail calendar “galvanizing_gcal”.  I made certain to always denote with a _calendarsource indicator where the calendar originaed from or more importantly where it could be edited (you can’t edit subscribed gcal calendars in calendar apps as far as I know) to keep that clear and straight.  So I piped 5 ical .ics files into one gcal calendar. Great!  Then I created one Chandler calendar and Published that on Chandler hub. So far I’ve got a Chandler calendar on Chandler hub and a historical ical 5-icss-piped into one gcal calendar.

Sharing iCAl.  In the transition away from mac I may add something via iCAl occasionally and that will taper off so that I’ll eventually just add calendar events from a single Windows/Ubuntu-based application.  I needed a way to temporarily publish any new ical-added events I added to iCal.  This was a headache.  I had to publish them to Mobileme (which was simple, but undesirable and would have much rathe preferred dev publishing with a “private server” option).  icalExchange is a free publishing of webdav that got the ics data from ical (I could view my synced calendar on iCalExchange) but then it snafued getting the html-based icalExchange data (originating in iCal) to my calendar program of choice, so iCalExchange was useless.  The mobileme publishing of any ical events added (and then subscribing to that mobileme calendar suffices at least temporarily).  I may end up putting a lot of my photos in iPhoto—>MobileMe, but that’s sort of undesirable.  I’d like to be done with the headache of mobileme now that I use more efficient online backup systems (*cough* Dropbox).  But the outcome of the massive digitally archiving material possessions, people photos, and papers will be some highly organized bunch of albums and ideally online sharing via some yet-undecided method (MobileME, Picassa, Facebook, flickr, etc).

Right…I’ll cut to the chase of a very clever trick.  I couldn’t find ANY information on getting an old Mail.app archive of mail onto a gmail account!  I had 2-3 years of emails from during college seperated into about 10 folders (Work, Book, ColoradoCollege (the rubbish college I unfortunaetly attended, but I did graduate…quickly), Work, Recepits & Business, Family, Friends).  I wanted to 1)Get all those 2000-3000 messages on a gmail account and 2)maintain their folder archiving organization.

I had to use a lot of tricks:

• I created a seperate gmail account “myfullname.archive@gmail.com”.  This way it will be an empty fresh account so that I know it’s the online container for all those mail.app roughly 2.5k messages.
• Getting the Messages on Gmail: Now I could simply drag the “Local” Messages in Mail.app (archived from 6 years ago) in the message-list-view to the IMAPed myfullname.archive@gmail.com and the messages now pop up in the gmail archive inbox! Fantastic!  Finally, I can get out of Mail.app to view those old messages!
• Folder Maintenance: This was very tricky.  Chandler gets it’s email by installing “INBOX/Chandler Mail” and a few othes on gmail (this is hte part of using Chandler that’s headache-ish and a deterrant to using it for email.  Only the said chandler folders are synced with the Chandler application apparently…bollocks…still working on that, but the main goal was get everything (calendars, and email) “up in the cloud” so to speak (and in this case the cloud of gmail) and from it all online it would be easy and simple and intuitive to then just subscribe, import, dial all of that in to a single time-management application that does calendars, email, and possibly tasks.)  So…in noticing that INBOX/ scheme of Chandlers.  I noticed tha only the three INBOX/ folders of Chandler popped up in Mail.app (in a different email account, the main one).  So I custom-tailored the myfullname.archive@gmail.com account by deleting all the current pre-made labels and making the respective INBOX/Work, INBOX/Friends, INBOX/Book…etc folders tha I had on the local folders of the archived Mail.app mail!  Then those folders popped up in the IMAPed version of myfullname.archive@gmail.com and I could jsut drag all the messages (ranging from 50 to 924 in some folders) from the archived mail application to the IMAPed gmail myfullname.archive@gmail.com backup archive account!! Phew! Double Phew!  (Okay, the double phew was cheesy, but I had been trying to find a way to get those 2002-2004 year messages backedup online so now I can view EVERYTHING for the past 8 years or so in email from one email application.  Fantastic.
• Then obviously, I could forward (and leave a copy of the archive now-on-gmail emails to my main email account, validatelife@gmail.com).  Good.

I may include photos of the polished application (likely with me throwing a drunken party of jubilation and victory xD) with everything synced up and all archives included so all messages and all my massive amount of calendar data is accessible (it already is on gmail, but I greatly dislike using that for productive because it’s so sluggish, but I do use gmail in browser alot, albeit reluctantly to ensure some things send/recieve at times, so the email-calendar app I use must have that assurance (that I’m syncing and getting all the email accounts and calendar accounts).  Great.

The main goal (and a huge whopping achievement it will succeed) will be jsut getting all calendars and All old emails (even the archived local peculiar copies) up on a gmail account, up in cloud so easily accessible to pull/subscribe/push, etc to a cal-email app.

Recent Update

This article was originally called “Bleh….About 4 hours finally succeeding in getting cross-OS/application platform syncing cal/mail data Chanlder is mehand maybe winlive.” And indeed, the ambiguity of the title reflected my uncertainty in knowing which programs to use, which ones were best!  Well, Now I have MUCH more clarity on that having downloaded, installed, and tested out over half a dozen email/calendar apps and/or configurations.  I tried:

• Eudora — Old School, but clunky.  No Go.
• Netscape — The Quintessential, Epitome of Old School Email.  Fit like a glove, great.  May keep this for simplistic reviewing of emails or if I want a change from main email viewer.  Netscape email was the email program I used back in the 90s when email was actually fun, back when I got emails from girlfriends or friends, instead of mass viral insanity.  So in addition to being free no cost, Netscape is clean, minimalist and spot on with the old-school-ness
• iCal — Rubbish.
• Gcalendar — Great for syncing but Cannot stand the adverts and cluttered in-browser calendar mode.
• Thunderbird — Likely the best email and cal (with Lightning Extension) situation.
• Chandler — I loved the ability to review all events, but it had some clunky python (programming) .exe that goggled up CPU work and it froze occasionally.  It’s a great program, but ultimately a sloppily-designed open source buggy app. No Go.
• Windows Live — I liked the simplicity of this at first, but then after falling in love (again) with netscape, I realized it’s too hypey and slightly bloated.
• Opera Mail — I read about this, tried the opera browser adn couldn’t find the mail app.  No problem, I don’t really care.  Netscape and Thunderbird work perfectly fine.
• iScribe — Some open source old junky app. No Go.
• Pegasus — Old, lame.  No Go.

That’s about it.  What I’ve got now is FeedDemon for all my news. Sick!  Thunderbird is set up with this Massively Awesome rad, sick, incredible, pretty much exactly what I’ve wanted — simplicity for adding new events, complexity for reviewing all my past events in list form, it’s free, it’s open source, it constantly has cutting edge add-ons and extensions thanks to thousands of programmers working around the clock (and I may add some kind of add-on if I branch into that kind of programming) easily installed from the add-on manager.  It’s stream-lined, not-bloated.  And Most AMAZINGly of all.  The add-on Provider for Google Calendar AMAZINGLY conveniently as All heck, enables me to Modify Google Calendars FROM (get this….drum roll….from….) Thunderbird!!  And I can modify google calendars from any browser and because I subscribed to that calendar in Thunderbird, it will update thunderbird (And thunderbird will update gcal!)  Finally, the any-where-accessible calendars are playing nicely together, live syncing and updating.  Best of all, thunderbird has a “View All Events” option so I can constnatly review my thousands of calendar historical events for self-therapy if I want (see Ultimate GTD Calendar lunacy and headache described below).  Furthermore, I have one calendar really and it syncs with gcal’s servers, thunderbird and everything, so it’s perpetually backed up and perpetually accessible from anywhere in the world!  This sounds like a no brainer (oh..gcal big deal), but really, look into trying to setup a way to modify calendars that you’ve subscribed to (like gcal) it practically does not exist and the two-way modification (changing calendar A on Thunderbird or changing Calendar A on gcal, where Calendar A is a gcalendar that Thunderbird subscribed to, is UNHEARD of in the calendar syncing world and would not be possible without the small, dinky, simple no-name, Provider for Google Calendar Addon!  Big Kudos and Grats and Gratitude, for that matter, to that add-on!

Plus, there’s some nifty as heck addons like FoxClocks.  I’m a Philleas Fogg time zone freak! so I love updates of world time and in a neat, tidy, compact display at the bottom of Thunderbird, I’ve got local, UK, sydney time updates (of course I have international times on my desktop gadgets, gcalendar, and taskbar…but hey, time is one’s most valuable commodity!  Hey that’s true!  What happens when people die?  They have run out of their time commodity!  What exists in the universe?  Space & Time!)

(I still have one that syncs with gcal and thunderbird if I add an event from ical,but I am pretty sure I will delete that within less than a week because I can add events from gcal web browser (bleh, but a convenience) or thunderbird (yipee!!) and it syncs with gcal’s server, thunderbird, anything I have subscribed to me gcal_galv or gcal_tent(ative) (I may abandon the tentative calendar for just one calendar simplicity, but hey, 1 or 2 calendars is much less of a headache than the 5+ I had been juggling!).

That said, I still like the old school simplicity of Netscape.  I ordered netscape mail to download the whole 1427 messages from the myname.archive@gmail.com account I created (see below).  So I can review that era of my life in the highly minimalist stream-lined netscape email program whenever I wish (or alternatively from thunderbird as well).  I like the idea of using Netscape (an old school and comfortable fit email app) for doing self-therapy and reviewing old emails (from like 6+ years ago) and thunderbird for new emails.  But they’re all IMAPed and linked up for offline viewing (key folders are) so there’s no headache if I ever reinstall system software.

Wow, what a mountain of installs and tweakings, from partitioning the hard drives, to install the three OSes, to figuring out the best app for cal/email/tasks to ensuring it’s all synced and automatically backed up and so that I have only 1 or 2 calendars/emails! (I still have over a dozen emails so am whittling that down.)  And tasks I’m currently using Remeber the Milk and/or Thunderbird Lightning’s Task.  If I could sync up Thundie’s tasks with a server (not unlike the gcal-Thunderbird calendar syncing two-way modification is so sweet and refined) I’d use just Thundie for tasks, but hey I had used a smorgasbord of GTD hellish apps (I won’t even get into the dozens of those) and text files.  I like just doing things and collecting the small handful of things that I don’t do at the moment.  Good times!

I just looked at some email settings and tthere’s this continual bandwith limit error.  Other people on forums seem to have had similar problem.  Seems to be the result of gmail restrictions.  It seems like the (now in my opinion, seedy) gmail only limits something like 100 email something (sends, but I haven’t sent 100 emails and am still getting this bandwith error?) possibly per day.  Bollocks.  The quest for good email app and simple email accounts goes on!  I may just use gmail for archive.  It’s caused me tons of headaches and I have wanted to move away from it for a long time.  Indeed, my 40-folder sub-folder nested hierarchy is indicative of not liking the account and festering it with overly-complex sub-structures.  So maybe I’ll just have my co.uk account in thunderbird and load all historical accounts in Netscape, or pop3 the old accounts and only keep one current account IMAP.  Will, see have to resolve bandwith limit error (by new/non-gmail account or adjusting settings, likely the former). This may solidify me switching fully to my live.co.uk account, one that I like much more anyways!  Jolly good.  The emails send, they just get all sixes and sevens in the client and you get bombarded with alert boxes upon sending.  I do like the synced alarms (with snooze in Thunderbird.  I think thunderbird is most likely to be calendar app of choice.  The email app am still tinkering with.

The Goal Achievement Checklist for this OS Project

• √Triple Boot OS — I can boot in Windows 7, Linux Mint 9, or Mac OS 10.6 (which I haven’t and likely will not boot in Mac much anymore).  Notes: May repartition drives, providing different distribution so that Windows has 250GB, Linux 150GB, Mac OS 100GB.
  • √Installed awesome apps.
  • √UK Theme on Windows 7 is sick.
  • √Selective and simplified Install set of applications.  I loathe anything bloated from OSes, to individual apps. So I made a folder “windows7_installers_worked” to keep all the installers for applications that I know I use, and they work (Thunderbird, Firefox, Download Manager, Synergy, Feeddemon, etc).  And the addons that work and I use in any of those respective apps.  After that’s polished and tested (I still use the apps) I can pop all those installers on a flash-drive or burn them onto a DVD and I’ve got my “instant full install DVD/Flash-Drive” after I reinstall the OS software.  I basically test, tinker, try out apps and things that I may/may not like, find what I do like, keep that installer, so if/when I reinstall OS fresh I don’t have to experiment and can jump straight to installing only what I need and use, efficiency and simplicity defined!
• √Calendars
  • √Two-Way Modification – Done.  Thanks to gcal, thunderbird, and the clincher Provider for Google Calendar add-on.
  • √Syncing/BU on Server — Done. The calendars are from gcal, modified in thunderbird.
  • √All old calendars uploaded and removed from local drives.  The Historical GTD 5-calendar “recording every event” craziness is backed up and I can subscribe to it instead of freakishly in a state of panic and worry about it being on a local drive (plus those 5-old-calendars I don’t touch anymore and utilize solely for self-therapy and historical review).  All I need to do is ensure those are individually on gcal, and then delete the local versions.  Sweet!  I much greatly prefer having the main version of something online and then I can setup backups to local areas, but that way, the “local backup” is itself already a backup of a backup (good for security and minizing anxiety of data!).
  • √Good, simple, clutter-free calendar app.  Done. Thunderbird Lightning suffices.
  • √View All events (historical events from past two years) in list form.  Done.  Only other place I saw this was buggy Chandler, so Thunderbird accomplishes this.
• Email
  • Simplicity of only 1 or 2 accounts.  Getting there.  Not quite yet whittled this down.
  • √All email on servers, IMAPed.  All email from all the funky local POP3 formats I have uploaded on various gmail accounts.  This was a headache and a massive relief and “missing piece of the puzzle” to have those 2003-2006 emails all on server.
  • Only thing left is to maybe designate a work-email, everything else email, and archive email.  But it’s all backed-up and off local hard drives, so that’s excellent success.
  • √+Simple, intuivie, non-bulky email app for online and offline viewing.  Thunderbird and Netscape accomplish this.
• √Tasks — Handled with Remeber the Milk at the moment, and/or Thunderbird.  After GTD hell, I’m not as interested in an imprisoning multitude of task-lists, so the fact that this isn’t so solidified isn’t as much of a problem and reflects my disinterest in many task management files.

Jolly Good!  This was very successful.

s2010_17_06._08:10:56 I’m using Netscape for email.  Calendars in Thunderbird (likely), but definitely netscape.  I have cutting edge most of everything else (the latest firefox addons, triple-booting etc).  One thing I’ve learned in life is somethings you keep, even though they’re old, because they work.  I’ve dried 5 different wallets and still have the exact same one (not the same style, but the exact same wallet) I had when  Iwas 10!  Netscape works, there’s few bandwith errors (even if that’s a gmail problem), it’s simply and emails can get complex so I can’t have a complex email program (yin/yang right? right.) .  It’s free, it’s simple, and it was the first email app I really used back in the 90s haha! Good times.

Reviewing Booting Terminology

After being marooned and imprisoned in Mac-Land (where Apple locks it’s cult-worshipping users out of interacting with a lot of the hardware, which really bites, because that’s the best part of computer!) I had to reacquaint myself with some jargon used in Windows and Linux booting for multiple-OS savviness.  Obviously I could’ve gone much more in-depth.   There’s full books written on just EFI let alone the transition from from the different partition

MBR – Master Boot Record (replaced by GPT).  The first sector, Sector 0 (a mere 512-byte sector), of the boot hard disk volume.
GPT –  GUID Partion Table; the layout of the partitioning table on the physical disk.  replaced by EFI.  Microsof’ts definition of GPT

GPT provides a more flexible mechanism for partitioning disks than the older Master Boot Record (MBR) partitioning scheme that has been common to PCs.

EFI — Extensible firware interface.
BIOS – Basic input output system.  The BIOS loads and starts an operating system.
and just because it sounds piratey (and is a genuinely useful concept in booting jargon)
Bootstrapping.  Aside from it’s references in the delightful Baron Munchausen, and “as a metaphor, meaning to better oneself by one’s own unaided efforts, was in use in 1922″, bootstrapping refers to in computing basically a very simple program “jump-starting” a much more sophisticated and complex program, like an OS (*cough* thus, when getting a triple-boot to work, boostrapping is significant).

Reflecting on Multi-Operating Systems

Regarding Mac OS and Windows, I’m interested in operating systems in general so delaying eliminating Mac OS from my work may be a slight incentive to tinker with mac, but that’s not really an interest at all.  I felt I wasted a lot of time on mac and compared to the fully-amped aviation-like Windows 7, Mac OS seems like tinker toy with few features, relatively few collaboraters, and just the result of cult product.  But that’s a little too opinionated.  Features alone, Windows 7 is soo sooo sooo much more professional and smooth and efficient and quality from the right-clicking features to the efficiently-designed Windows 7 .  I’m impressed with how Win7 hasloads of features but still maintaining an incredibly streamlined and non-bloated effect.  I’m a huge fan of Win7 and given my massive interest and experience with computers over 20+ years it’s preposterous how long I’ve delayed fully trying out ANY distro of Windows (and Linux for that matter)!  I’ve been trapped in Mac; I’ve craved Windows (and a bit of Linux!).  Regarding actions on each operating system, I’ll just say this:

• On Windows 7 I’m writing this blog entry (highly technical, professional, about a 40-20,000 foot planning perspective)
• On Linux I wrote a very impassioned facebook not that may become a blog entry on my love atheism (unquestionably a 50,000 foot planning/discussion perspective)
• On Macs…I basically eat food and don’t do much, but I was scanning in a few photos from elementary school (the tail end of an enormous 1000s upon 1000s of photo archiving almsot all papers and material things from past memories onto the computer, which I then can access from any OS).

So maybe because Linux is “open source” I think of things that are “free and non-business” like atheism.  Maybe I feel very productive and professional with windows so that’s why these very techie blogs emerge in that OS, and Mac is just the OS I’ve used for over 95% of my computing experience in the past (*cough and tha twill be merely past because all efficiency has increased using Windows 7) maybe I just dink around. lol.  I am finishing up some old archiving projects on Mac OS but that’s only because of drivers for the scanner and digital camera.  Jolly good.  Will be massively relieved when the last few scans and digital photographs have been taken and all hard-copies are practically gone (many burned! xD) is over and everything is digital and I’ll have the rewards of my efforts!

I’ve evolved my past 5 studies to more uplifting, validating, clarifying studies.  The transduction are as follows:

• Psychology —> Video Games!  Simply the opposite of psychology. Instead of imprisoning one self with self-dialogue “snares” , actually just doing things in a game or real world.  Escaping prison of mind.  This one’s complex and I fully don’t understand it honestly, but it’s something along the lines of gamers are a community, they’re a niche (or “we” are a niche really).  We help each other out.  Friends are the best shrinks, psychologists, coaches in teh world and better. So gamers are friends, thus gaming (via the community of gamers) eclipses psychology completely, replacing it with something progressive, fun, cooperative, exciting as, and full of tons of free expression within the uplifting confines of a great game.  There’s room for passion and interacting but always the forward-moving, measurable progression in game.  Both those (the progress and passion) create massive clarity and peace.  This sounds a bit “zen huey-looey” but hey, I reckon I take gaming seriously.  I’m serious enough about it and the gaming community to recognize that hte best “therapy” one could ever provide or receive occured with mates!  Heck, I even consoled a mate about his dad’s cancer on vent once!  Bloody hell! I don’t expect gaming community to be that intense, but video games are moving in the right direction: involved, not paralyzed behind a 4th wall, and not to mention fun and structured.  Most of all, I LIKE video games!  I get charged with a group of gamers cooperatively working together in a player verse player basis to meet a goal that can only be ascertained with such cooperation!  Rockin’ good time!
• Computers —>  Neuroscience and Mnemonics and NLP and a few “conditionals” to conduct social interactions.  Utilizing the mind with it’s far-more-advanced technology than a computer as if it were a computer that’s always with you! Mnemonics has been a massively reoccurring interest in my life.  I studied it extensively after returning from my trip in the Mexico Yucatan in 2002.  I had the lobes of the brain on my desktop throughout college (this is also because my computer(s) basically are my brain(s) haha!), and NLP can create some aligning visualizations and NLP is great for anti-persuasion, so I only make choices that are keyed in with what I want and need not because someone else is effective at sales or persuading me off center.  NLP has some interesting hypnosis trance stuff which I may be trying to avoid but at least learning about it is effective.  The computer science moving towards social behavior deserves some explanation.  In fact all of these transmutations, uncertainly deserve more explanation, but hey, one step at a time.  Using computer science for social conditionals would mean setting up, for example, and if statement so that:
  • if (xyz_conditional) {
  • do_abc_expression;
  • }
  • which would conduct and organize my social interactions producing more flow, greater ease, heightened simplicity, and less anxiety because it’s all “programmed”!  This could be imprisoning in once sense, but when you’re constantly worried about what to say or do, this creates a very stabilizing ease.  Excellent!
• Drama        —> Music, namely classical, and Math.  ufoMathematical, auditory, some music has “performance” but is so much more precise, it makes drama look like sludge.  A comparison I think would be a commercial is to drama as a great feature film i to music.  That aside, some talented performers are very musical in their performance even if labeled “drama”.  Drama, especially with Eric Berne’s “drama triangles” with social “transactions” is the exact rubbish that I am moving away from.  Perpetually hold the adult title and discard the time-consuming and confusing states of stagnation and stuckness that produce quagmires of social confusion.  Math and classical music are the respective left and right brains of crispness and clarity. Quality times.
• English       —-> Voice work.  Not stuck trapped communicating through keyboard-pecking and expressing self though voice but WITH the structured composition learned from writing is marvelous and unquestionably an advancement.  I just spent about an hour photographing for digital archive, my book…that I wrote…that was basically notes on self-help book rubbish…and (it was called Validate Your Life) and get this utter blithering insanity…I actually took notes and highlights and bloody MARGIN comments on my own book!  So I photo-scanned all that in and put all the crumpled paper in a bag to burn, discard or just rummage through for remembering of how pathetically stuck my life was in the past withe self-help rubbish and religion infecting my thoughts! Math, anatomy, games, all of these new transmutations have revealed to me that illusion spell I was under in writing that self-help rubbish which was just regurgitated self-help rubbish I had previously read.
• Politics        —> Honesty and Journal-writing and Sharing!  Additionally possibly aquatic, swimming workouts, health.   The antithesis of politics.  My goal is not to be invulnerable, but vulnerability makes you incredibly solid and strong and connected.  To quote an unsophisticated source, Ferguson says “if you’re honest, you’re bullet-proof”.  I’m interested imperfection.  Conveying my faults, my problems, my confusions, my anxieties.  That’s being real for me and that leaves politics in a pathetic useless mangled dusty pile of rubbish.  Journaling and sharing that is clarity.  Also I know a lot of aquatic fun is tied in with these transmutations.  Maybe swimming and aquatic snorkeling and whatnot would be the antithesis of politics because there’s absolutely no red-tape (assuming you’re allowed to swim where you can) and there’s no political sticky rubbish.

I don’t know which category this belongs to but I’m at the tail end of migrating all of my belongings to computerized format.  So that I review material possessions namely in thousands of photographs I have of places visited, pottery made, old board games, and the like.  Massively convenient and congruent with simplicity and mobility.  Jolly good to that!

Nature and Wilderness has always been an ongoing interest.  The intelligence of Nature is stuff that poets ramble on about yada-yada…I like Nature because there’s so much math in it.  Fibonacci in leaf formations and petals, the incredibly intricate electrical “wiring” and indeed “voltages” of an organisms nervous system.  Fantastic stuff.

One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned in travel is that different people have different flexibilities.  Use this to your advantage. The ultimate example:  I flew Dubai airlines.  To say the least, it doesn’t allow as much checked-bagged weight as they allow in usa.  My extra kilos would’ve cost me $980.  I eliminated much of the weight but was still 1.5 kilos overweight and at $70/kilo I should’ve been charged 105 dollars.  I approached a different clerk and he off-handedly said “Oh it’s only 1.5 kilos over.  No problem.” And I was allowed on board.  I KNOW the other clerks would’ve charged me the $!05 fee.

Another perfect example was I was in a French Gare (Train station) and needed my water bottle filled.  I asked this woman working in a cafe if she could help me with that endeavor.  She said (in french) “Yes, I’ll fill it, but my two other colleagues will not.”

This has been a HUGE lesson.  Being a do-it-yourself guy, I hate dealing with customer service in general.  But when I have to (which unfortunately, for traveling, is a lot — from flight attendants, to barristas, to ticket vendors) I’ll always remember and engineer ways to utilize the fact that some people are nicer, more leniant, and more flexible.

Knowing that another person may be more flexible with “the policy/rule/etc” can save you money, time, and make you feel much more satisfied in the unfortunate event of having to interact with customer service. I think in the future if I encounter a person and think to myself “this person is being ridiculous.  I’d never be that restrictive”, I think I’ll just say “Okay, thank you,” step away, and wait for a different person to emerge.

The success of hypnotists (and this is not about hypnotism, but rather, finding a person who’s flexible, but nevertheless parallel does exist) is 50% composed of purely selecting people hypnotically susceptible. Indeed, there exist very elaborate hypnotic suggestibility/susceptibility score charts.  One of which I think was designed by Stanford, so it’s pretty formulaic and definable criteria: whether or not someone is hypnotically susceptible.  Similarly, I think it’s good to be observant and cognizant that if you show up 5 minutes late, there exist inhumanely annoying people who will make you pay some fee and others who will simply say “Phew, glad you made it!” XD.

Bottom-line: picking the right people to interact with can change your experience from

• Having to pay a fee, being reprimanded, and being refused

to

• Being welcomed, no fee, and being helped!

Ultimately, my ideal travel people would interact like the fictional characters of Tolkien’s novels interact. They welcome travelers, take care of them, heal them even, hear their story, set them on their way, and it’s all very commonplace, and most of all eloquent, cordial, and respectful.  I love the amount of propriety with which the characters in Tolkien’s novels address each other.
Cheers.

Don’t need to respond at all, just kind of sharing process.   The piles of books are big a lot of chess books, miscellaneous sport/helath/martial arts , miscellaneous travel language stuff (like spanish).

Unfortunately there’s some book piles and electronci stuf.  I’m whittling it down and dejunking magnificently though . just stressful all the hard-copies bleh.

Processed almost all file folders which is GREAT.   Scanned and photographed everythign individually so fully safe to discard.  sweet.

I got a bunch of questions about “water-striders”, the life-span of turtles, and the function of tails.  Frankly, I loved responding, liked my response, and love sharing this biological awesomeness.

Water striders are some of the coolest organisms imho.

This is such a cool biological adaption.  They utilize COHESION TENSION.  this is so frickin cool I love this stuff.

Fill up a glass of water to the brim.  Notice that the top of the water (the meniscus) is actually above the rim of the glass (this works best if you slowly add water and will not work as well if you gush water in).  It’s almost like there’s a “skin” on the water.  This is cohesion tension.

The negatively charged oxygen atom forms a weak hydrogen bond with the positively charged hydrogen atoms of the H20 molecule.

Cohesion tension froms the “skin” of water, but more importantly (and a seperate and more botanical discussion) is that it is what makes transpirationa-pull of water through plants, possible.

So you the water strider simply adroitly and delicately avoids breaking the cohesion tension on the water.  It does not have some super-hero water-walking ability, and thus, there’s nothing we coudl “inject” ourselves with.  Our best bet would just find a way to avoid breaking the very weak (but strong enough for plants to utilize it for transpirational pull) cohesion tension force.

Water striders are extremely lightweight and don’t break the cohesion tension on the water surface.

Turtles lifespan

“. A typical pet turtle can lives 10-80 years or so while larger species can easily live over 100 years. The oldest recorded age of a turtle was 250 years in India.”   (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_life_span_of_a_turtle)

This article is excellent

http://www.slate.com/id/2138560/

Basically it says that animals and their lifespans revolve around how quickly they can reproduce.

Animals have adaptations to help their genes get passed on such as:

reproducing quickly (these animals usually have shorter lifespans)

having poisons (protection)

being larger

having armor (like the turtle)

sea turtles are large and have armor, thus, both those contribute to their longevity.

TAIL

Basically, tails serve different purposes for different animals.

Deers use tails (the underside) to signal and flash it’s friends to warn of danger.

Fish use their tells form locomotive movement through the water.

Monkeys and opposums use their tails for grappling branches.

Cats and kangaroos (sort of similar to the monkey function of the tail) use their tail for balance.

Scorpion tails inject venom as a protection.

Dog tails show mood.

So you see, the tail is quite and amazing thing and depending on the animal, the tail could

inject venom

signal friends

show mood,

maintain balance

grab branches

propel through water.

WOW talk about versatile appendage!!! Awesome!

From  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail

DNA — Deoxyribonucleic acid is the “blueprint” for our cells and cells make up body parts (including tells) including the lightweight ability of water-striders.

I could tell you weren’t trolling.  Your question is interesting.  Seems like you’re interested in getting a tail and walking on water??? haha!  Basically, without genetic mutation, we would need to slowly adapt through natural selection to need those things.  But we don’t have a use for tails anymore and we used to have them!  Our ancestors (thus, or geneological dna) used to be swinging from the treetops with our prehensile (tree-branch-grabbing) tails about 65 million years ago.

Also, we don’t have a need to float on the cohesion tension of water?  Why?  Humans can build boats!! xD.

With advances in genetic copying i’m sure some geneticists could isolated the genes/alleles for extracting the “tail” dna “code” or the water strider’s code for being lightweight and not breaking the cohesion tension, but “injecting” that in and just expecting a tail to pop up wouldn’t be practical.  Also, you ahve to understand that the water-strider ability is based on it’s lightweight and it’s distribution of weight over the surface of the water (and not some special ability to turn water into a solid while standing on it or something).

Cheers!

Going all Vegan with Intellectual Subjects

I LOVE Eating Vegan.  So much more digestive time for the foods I enjoy, savor, and that are healthiest. Best of all, nothing I eat feels heavy or burdensome.

I remember my brothers (both whom of which are also vegan but are so because of animal rights reasons) asking me what compelled me to go vegan. For me, the animal rights, the better for the environment, all those reasons are dandy, but for me it just plain out felt better.  Even when I drank a glass of milk I remember saying “it felt like an invasion of crap!”.  And I felt as though I had to wait for that to digest.

Being vegan crept up on me!  If someone said 9 years ago, you should never eat red meat, dairy, fish, nor chicken again I would’ve thought they were crazy and would have struggled it.  But in the past 9 years just naturally, I’ve gravitated towards grains, vegetables, fruits, and non-animal protein and slowly eliminated the staples of a carnivorous diet.  It’s only now that I look back on my diet selection can I go, “Oh wow! Cool I happily actually enjoy a cuisine of primarily all plant, grain, and root produce!”  If I would’ve started veganism like that “Just deciding one day to eat only plant, grain, and root produce” it would’ve sounded awful.  But I naturally drifted towards that and looking at now how healthy my nutrition is, it’s very rewarding.  It’s also rewarding for all the bonus animal rights and environmental reasons.

But I’m interested in taking that a step further with intellectual studies.

So what subjects are definitely “vegan” — light, healthy, savory, and uplifting, and which subjects are definitely “not-vegan”?

Definitely Not-Vegan

• Political Science
• Drama
• Acting
• Self-help books
• Religion (the epitome of eating dirt and animal fat mixed with fecal matter).

All those are obviously heavy, burdensome, take you no where, make you feel like shit, and are a total waste of time; the definitely non-vegan subjects are crippling and disgusting.  These topics are all repulsive and highly toxic.  They must never be “intellectually consumed”.

Unfortunately Likely Not-Vegan

• Chess
• Computers
• Magic
• Fictional LIterature
• NLP
• Anti-Persuasion

NLP is too non-scientific.  Some fictional literature is amazing, but it’s not true.  Computers are light, but loopy, and unlike math which is direct; computers is really repackaged kind of more “political” wannabe math.  Magic is just illusions that are most fun debunked, besides physics offers some of the most amazing and TRUE astonishing feats possible.  Chess is a tough one because I like it so, but, alas, it seems to have too many parallels to political science unfortunately.  I hate political science.  Chess is a tough one to deal with because a part of me really likes it.  It’s cool to win games at chess, such an ancient game, one of the most ancient!  Chess might acceptable at times.  Anti-persuasion is just pre-emptive to avoid even worse non-vegan intellectual material.

A few of the “unfortunately not-vegan” subjects may be acceptable to study in small amounts to avoid the “certainly not-vegan” infections and intellectual viruses, but even that should likely be avoided.

These subjects are on the fringe.  They likely will be definitely not-vega, but for the moment they’re “guilty pleasures” of sorts of intellectual cuisine.

Definitely Vegan

• Math
• Classical Music
• Neuroscience
• Botany

All those are UNQUESTIONABLY light, lucid, direct, forward-moving, easy to apply to life (equations you work out and can instantly check, all the neuroscience is relative to your own body, and classical music you apply on an instrument!).  They’re fulfilling and forward-moving!

Maybe by eliminating the all Not-Vegan material, the three Definitely Vegan intellectual subjects will expand and I will discovery all kinds of hosts of diverse and exciting reads from the definitely intellectually vegan selection, just as I did with vegan nutritional cuisine!!

Mingling less and less with the Unfortunately Not-Vegan stuff will be liberating and make me feel safer in life because I’ll be “feeding my mind” healthy, truly, safely material!! And then just as with veganism, once I’ve got an all vegan intellectual diet, I can just safetly eat as much as I want of the “vegan subjects”!! SWEET!

September30

I sprinted around a ton and bought icecream pops and spent some of day moving out belongings and had walkthrough.

October 1

I moved out much of my stuff from the apartment.  5 Car loads and moved them into the storage shelter.  I moved out the last bits of stuff (some bags, vacuum, and a lamp).  It felt great to move out of there!  But I couldn’t find a place to stay so just kept driving north, possibly thinking about going to Vancouver, but honestly have little to no interest there.  More interest than america, true.  But that’s about it.  So I drove through the night and day.  Sweating a ton in the car.  Then came to this place past Bakersfield and really enjoyed the rural area.  Wrote Justin Howard long emails and sprinted on rural road.  Came to Kings Canyon park and saw “Cat Haven”.  Got a tour and saw AMAZINGLY hot two blonde women.  One was very smart and bio.  The other was all body and attractive, but quite dumb.  Saw lynxes, lions, tigers, leopards, jaggerundi, serval, panthers.  Was SOOO cool haha! The most gnarly cats.  Roaring tigers.  Nimble servals.  Huge lions.  Was incredible.  Went back there the next day to try to volunteer but was early and no one is here. Then went north and realized I felt pain everywhere and stopped at this Snowmill Lodge to ask for rates.  They said they were looking for someone to help them pick up the place.  They had an Australian flag!  And tons of other flags.  I gave them my vacuum and they said that would be okay for night, but I wanted to get moving anyway and checked out the huge Sequia park around 6pm October 2.  I sprinted around there and saw a Polish woman outside the gift shop.  Then I went back to the snowill lodge. The two women and the dude, Buddy, were oddly nice. Their place was an utter dump with tons of clutter and I realized my words about clutter were relevant to them but ones they did not abide.  Tons of rubbish, multiple vacuums etc all strung around.  It made me realize that america is like that.  Just a collection dump of everyone else’s stuff that rarely gets used.  Buddy was cooking chili in his room and said “I really like my room”.    I couldn’t imagine anyone staying there even though they said they had all these foreigners. I imagined it bustling restaurant, but it was a dump almost dorm-room like.

Suddenly french people showed up and I had to translate.  $125 for floors, but the place was so umkempt. The french looked clean, clear, white, nice, neat.  So I wrote my name on the wall of the Snowmill lodge and went to catch up with the french people for dinner! It was awesome and fun! I almost sat at the head of the table but felt it would have “authority”, which is ridiculous, so I didn’t and would’ve been better if I had.  But I practiced french, was great!  People looked like Jeff Smith, one like thomas. Family of 7.  4 Sibligs, a mom, 2 spouses.

That night I basically drove on all the Sequiao park trails and got horribly lost, was cold and met many dead ends and decided to thus go back.  On the October Third (not having slept since October 1 at noon) I drove back to Aguora Hills.  I stopped on the side of the road and overlooked traffic and called Car dealer, Lee Flayton, mom etc. and had fear of if I went back I would be into porn and if I went north I would be into music, which is just disgustingly illogical.  I missed the storage shelter time AGAIN after stopping at Auto Zone and some weird guy said he went back to check on havinga car cover and I never got what I wanted again.  Americans do that.  Focus on what you want and do checks until you get it. Good. I killed time in Glenwood, which, while clean, was GROSS.  This gross bar Charles Billiards with this pig of a bartender who gave me bloody mary mixes. I met a russian who talked about wow and who ended up stealing the bartender’s tip and got kicked out.  I met a guy named Jonathon who was like Vos and just drank beer nonstop.  Everyone watched the games. It was a really gross place but stomachable because atleast glenwood was a little bit cleaner.

So I drove off that night and got out of LA. Dawkins had been there because it was the 3rd Saturday.  Then I drove north. Stopped to sprint to ocean in lompoc.  Woman thought I was shoplifting but I said “Yeah after I get this icecream” in regards to paying for orange tc.  Hot and great!  Then felt nervous and needed to go to Europe in grocery store.  Stopped at weird random round table pizza place.  Then sprinted outside a ton, got lost, ate chinese food (tasty). saw  blue cross country shirt guy and finall 5am motel 6.

Reflections.  Talking to susan isn’t good.  She’s a spoiled, control-freak, nobody.  If have to talk to biofam, tdk, jsk, or tmk are okay, but preferably none of them.

Moved “into” the motel and it feels JUST like the damn apartment! Of course with a better smaller subset of everything.  I can’t let taht storage stuff to creep up on me.  It’s nasty.  I brought 2 suits, 3 collared shirts, 3 pants, 2 undershirts, vitamins, and variety of weird clothes don’t wear.  All that clutter WAS brutal, deafening.  But it feels the same! It feels exactly the same here ffs as the apartment.  I gotta try something else uk.  Factors styming that

Baggage.  Should I bring just what I brought to aus?  Namely, no laptop, no suits????

Interesting models of the world to frame. you’re an author who “wrote” all the people in the world story.

What’s kind of freaky is how things don’t change.  Very few things change!  I just moved to this other place and everything seems the same more or less.  almost disturbing.  Well it’s not that far away, but good to know that if I ever need to crash, I could

this is like identical to malibu canyon apartments ffs.  I gotta get out of here!

Okay London, I’m bringing 2 backpacks, 1 with laptop, 1 with rolled up suit, reckon.

Wow. I realize how massively lonely I’ve been.  What’s veiled me from that awareness?  Computer addiction, writing addictions, all of that plus the clutter problem made me realize how lonely I’ve been in usa.  THAT’S why eliminating clutter is so huge.  Doing so makes me aware that I need friends!  So I am looking forward to making friends in europe.  But i think the best friends are friends made through work.  So a good work environment upon where I could meet friends would be ideal.  Additionally, I will attend Atheist Alliance International in future.  I was in LA same time dawkins was there.

Also, Regarding your old partner:  Chi ha compagno ha padrone.  I think in italian that’s “he who has a partner, has a master”.  Now seems like you’re completely your own boss.

SUITS!!!!! Do you wear them? Ever? If so, how often?  If so, when, where, and why?  Do you travel with suits?  How much luggage do you have?  I took a small portion of my stuff (there’s a blog post listing most all of it from many months ago) and feel INCREDIBLY liberated. The epitome of freedom just having this stuff. I think what I currently have is MAXIMUM what I want to have.  Anymore, creates IMMENSE clutter and pinions my life.  Horizons open, future emerges.  GOOD stuff happens when eliminate clutter!  I am a happy (much less of a  and finally not a) camper!

I’ve given this a tremendous amount of thought.  No, more.  I’ve written chapters in books to this topic. No…More.  I’ve devoted many years of my life to interacting with people and trying to treat all people as equal of equal intelligence.  My mantra, rubric, guideline, personal manifesto, what have you, was something along the lines of this (outlined in the 8th chapter of the complete rubbish book I wrote, Validate Your Life):  “Everyone is of equal intelligence; we all simply channel our intelligence cultivate intelligence rather into different areas.  Meaning that someone watching tv beomces “an intelligent couch potato”, someone who studies manifolds and topology, becomes an intelligent mathematican.” Right, sounds elagitarian, equal,  all for one one for all nice humanitarian perspective of the world and the minds it, right?

You are not a leming.

Guess, what my hypothesis is disproven.  There’s many idiots in the world (MUCH much much more idiocy and idiotic minds than intelligent people).  Therefore, you have to view people as unintelligent by default.  For the past 8-9 years, be it a paint-smeared construction work or a Phd professor in a suit, I treated everyone as possessing the same intelligence trying to be some naïve, compassionate iditoc “Jesus all loving” stupid fool.  A stupid fool I was indeed.  There exist some (many) people that you must simply say in your mind: “This person is an absolute buffoon from which zero, literally ZERO advancement, progress, success, excitement, nor cultivation of more intelligence will arise OTHER THAN the reaffirming experience that there are a lot of idiots in the world”.

That’s simply a fact.  Believing we’re are all of the same intelligence but with different derivations of it I “felt” (haha ridiculous emotional garbage) as if that compassionate “all loving” belief was in a way protecting me.  That some divine protector would look upon me and say “Ah what a benevolent soul who views everyone as cognitively equal!”  But there does not exist such a divine being because we all (intelligent people) know there is no “sky god”.  Indeed, No ridiculous fictional nuisance hovering in the stratosphere awaiting a calculation of our sinfulness upon death like some vindictive biblical Santa Claus.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter what mindframe, what mindset, what perspective you have about the intelligence of others for some kind of fictional afterlife. All that matters is the intelligence perspective that maximizes your survival.  The one that does that is knowing that there exist copious, a plethora, an unfathomably high amount of idiots compared to brilliant people.  The number of genius: to idiots is such an astronomically, outrageously, pathetically, gigantically SMALL fraction that it makes shocking concepts such as The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – that you can never know the simultaneous velocity and location of an electron – or the Bizarre but true FACT – seem humdrum and boring.  Indeed, the ratio of genius: idiots is so far below 1% one must take serious measures to avoid being discombobulated into an unintelligent mess of residual stupidity!

I will revise, experiment with, and analyze my data further, but as of now, my working hypothesis is : “The ratio of genius: stupid people is so horrifyingly, pathetically, and monumentally small that one must adopt and fully accept and understand out of preventive safety, the necessity of presuming that someone is an idiot and not worth your time and very unlikely a genius or someone of moderate value to my life, success, career, and happiness.”

In hindsight, I realize I developed the hypothesis of “all equal intelligence but different cultivations of that intelligence” because my intelligence is so incredibly superior to many people.  I felt uncomfortable about that.  Maybe with the not burden, not responsibility, not awareness, not scope, but just understanding that provided.  On many occasion I took refuge in being a moron, acting stupid simply because then I could let idiots be idiots and pretend I didn’t notice.

1. The fearlessness, humor, and outspokenness of his voice (when he speaks he just speaks his mind and he’s usually thought about what he says a great deal, so he just projects, barks it out and delivers truthful and illuminating utterances.  When he detailed how the O-Ring on the Challenger Shuttle lost resilience below 0° celcius at the Presidential Rogers Commission of 1986, he just dunked the ring in ice water and spoke this discovery.  It was the crucial key-pin discovery that explained the Challenger catastrophe, and he just opened his mouth and said it.  He didn’t conceal his words nor use trickery nor politics of any kind and it showed in his voice.  I aspire to do the same and sometimes recognize (albeit short) pronounced moments where I feel I have the same simultaneous clarity, boldness,and just naturalness of communicating as Feynman.  But his “communicational style” is not the interest with this point.  Don’t get confused. It’s the clarity, intelligence, self-integrity, and humility that he held that make his voice fearless and outspoken.  I think one could say he didn’t care about perceptions, but he was viciously committed to explaining how things worked to people. What I mean by this is if he wanted to explain the details of the weak nuclear force he would just say it like it is, no strings attached, no air of pomposity, no boasting, no bragging.  Indeed! That is the very most admirable quality of Feynman’s voice that he DIDN”T try to communicate.  See a lot of people, I guess you can bring Reagan, the Great Communicator, into this although he’s a bit of an acception being a pretty solid guy it seems.  But a lot of people try to communicate.  They focus on pronounciation and delivery and how to stand or when to say what or something and their message is hollow.  I guess it’s kind of like trying to build a house and all you do is focus on the where to put the house and the millions of details of placement and foundation etc but you never actually construct anything when you speak.  Feynman on the other hand, just seemed to think about things and then just “build the house” to follow this increasingly odd analogy.  In other words, he didn’t have an agenda under than making someone understand.  Now THAT is extremely, extremely rare.  Even people whom I met whom have that agenda, usually their’s some splinter of “I want to look smart so I’ll explain this” or ” I want to have some reputation of a good explainer” or something of the sort.
2. 2)His ability to Discover.  Feynman said  “The thing that doesn’t  fit is the most interesting!– (Feynman)” Because it means that that’s some new law of nature (or of the great grand chess game or something which he referenced as an example of figuring things out) and it menas you’re just spotted a hidden (and tip of the iceberg emerging) element of a whole other law of Physics or detail of Nature.   He talked about how he loved interpreting Russian and Mayan hierglyphics just because they were this awesome puzzle to work out.  I love puzzles because solving them is an accomplishment in itself.  ”The reward of a thing well done is to have it done”, wrote Emerson.  And Feynman’s discoveries and excitement to intellectually discover earned him man got-it-well-done rewards.
3. 3)His intelligence. The guy was wicked smart. Done.
4. 4)His adventuresome almost partying personality.  If anyone ever thought of the idea of a “Rock Physicist”, Feynman would probably fit the depiction.  He frequented a strip club now and then, played the bongoes like no other and played some excellent pranks, but still — first and foremost — held the dignified and well-qualified demeanor and hosted the cognitive abilities of a Nobel Prize winning theoretical Physicist.
5. 5)His total and utter lack of snobbiness.  He easily could have held the “I know how this works and you don’t” POV, but it he didn’t.  He told stories.  He was extremely kind (but not in the cheesy “look at my generosity” way), but in a sharp kind of way, mitigating the chances of his intelligence being exploited — of that I seriously admire as well.  He made attempts to explain these freakishly complex quantum topics to laymen.  He Shared a good laugh and was an awesome gentleman dude.

Man, this guy was just so indescribably awesome!  But I will attempt to describe.  He was a master of logic.  Things he says and describes are always clear and rock-solid in their structure and stability.  Meaning, when Feynman described something you also were getting a dose of logic, natural sciences, math, learning process-theory, and probably a dash of humor.

He was clear, pure, genuine.  The kind of person from which you could learn heaps of truly worthwhile stuff and trust that you’re in Good company.  I distinguish worthwhile learning (actually truthful knowledge of natural sciences and math) from unworthwhile learning (religion, subjective beliefs, New Age bs, most all of psychology — indeed Feynman condemned psychology as a crock, which it is — for starters) because what Feynman knew and taught – Natural Sciences, specifically theoretical quantum physics — was the undeniable truth and quintessentially, inexplicably “worthwhile”.  That’s how things worked.  That’s how and why the sun rises and sets (okay that’s more of the classical mechanics branch of physics).  But the composition of matter is the very stuff in which he explored and made breakthroughs.  If anyone thinks that kind of knowledge isn’t worthy to learn, they should get their head checked.  I guess he kind of new the underpinnings of matter and energy and as a result of that incredibly electrifying (couldn’t help the pun) knowledge, he always had that never-pompous, always humble, but joyful look in his eye of “I know how this works.  I figured it out, and if there’s still more to discover, I’ll enjoy figuring that out too.”. Indeed,  if there was any person who directly personified Emerson’s quote of getting a job well done, it was Feynman.  I don’t think Feynman saw things as work or play.  Of course not.  He couldn’t.  That capacity of not distinguishing between work and play is something I do (but of course on a much less advanced caliber than Feynman) and it definitely puts you at a different rhythm or cadence with the wolrd (most whom of which lives for the weekly paycheck and operates as a brain drone living paycheck to paycheck never bothering to discover why they don’t atomically sink through the floor when the particles of the floor and their own feet are mostly empty space).

With Feynman, you knew you were getting getting the essence of clarity.  Not just mentioning his schooling — Caltech, MIT, Princeton, and more — because that wasn’t Feynman, it was Feynman’s clear-thinking mind that got him to and through all those schools.

He was the antithesis of “stuffy” or snooty.  He was like a partier with nobel-prize winning physicist mind or physicist with a strong partier itch.  But maybe those aren’t as mutually exclusive as they may appear.   I think the very act of discovering some of the things he disvovered on his own has got to be one of hte greatest “thrills”, an apex of elation, in any sense.   Consider the following:

Like how the Mayan’s coded their numbering system based on the revolutionon venus every 580 days.  Feynman unraveled that just by scrutinizing and making some calculations and interpreting the symbols of an ancient mayan tab.  He archaeologically decoded a Mayan mathematical system on his own! Now, granted, I’m sure proper archaeologists had already decoded the system before him, but Feynman just set out and did it on his own.  That’s kind of awesome guy he was.  He didn’t compartmentalize his work and discoveries to physics; he was the renaissance man who discovered and worked out puzzles on bits of everything.  That’s fascinating stuff! Deciphering an ancient hierglypnhic that a bunch of villagers in huts (not intending to relegate Mayans at all) composed over two thousands ago?  That’s pretty awesome.  But I guess you can take that to an infintesimally greater magnitude when you consider the laws of physics, “composed” over 13 billion years ago, were some of the discoveries with which Feynman worked.  So the age — indeed you can’t get any more ancient and enduring than the duration of the Universe! — of the knowledge with which he worked combined with its veracity is awesome.

Indeed, he took a biology class one summer (instead of his typical drive across the country), and discovered something about bacterial macrophages and viral replication.  His curiosity was his genius and of that I take after him.  I often look at my life and think “this doesn’t make sense” how could I have just studied this (accounting or acting or english poetry, for example) and now be into this (natural sciences, physics, and mathematics).  For me the answer is usually I discovered a previous interest or curiosity is a fallacious crock of shit and decided to focus on something that had more veracity, integrity, and truthfulness in it.  But that curiosity is what motivates me and continually serves as a bearing for what’s worthwhile to study and learn.  So seeing a guy who’s massively successful and his curiosity is what indubitably stabilizes his success is definitely encouraging.

Not Doing Something Often ==  Can’t Do Something.

He volunteered for a hypnotist once.  The hypnotist hypnotized him to do various things.  One of which was circling the auditorium before returning to his seat.  (Let me just interject on the topic of curiosity and discovery.  Take the word “auditorium”.  If you deconstruct it you get the root word “auditory” and realize that yes an auditorium’s purpose is room in which things, most likely people, are made to be heard.  So an auditorium — atleast a well build and designed one — will have optimal auditory acuoustics in mind.  Common sense when you deconstruct it, but still a cool and miniscule (but worthy) mini-discovery. )  So, Feynman went back to his seat and planned to boycott the hypnotist’s design.  However he found himself going along with it and circling the auditorium first.  His comment on his own actions was brilliant: “If you can do something but decide not to, it’s the same thing as saying you cant”.

Have I done this and is it interesting?

My extrapolation of Feynman’s quote “If you can do something but decide not to, it’s the same thing as saying you cant” is as follows and is quite honestly, quite good.  ”In a sense that’s very true and distingishes a talker who validates and supports his words with what he does, his actions, and someone who kind of just says things.  I can relate to that a lot with something like a marathon.  I think something like a marathon is one of those things someone says they can or can’t (people usually say they can’t) do but what matters is actually doing it ore not.  Have you done this?  Not can you do this? Is the question I think.  In other words, asking the question of something that holds your interests “Have I done this and is it interesting?” Prompts you to simply check your past and your own curiosity.  Is xyz action in my past?  Does xyz action pique my curiosity?  If you get a “no/yes” (/No, I haven’t done it and yes it’s interesting), then it may be useful to actually start trying to do it!  That’s exactly what I did with a marathon.  I had no idea how to get in shape to run that insane distance, but I hadn’t done it and it was interesting and seemed worthwhile, so I did it!  Learning about physics is something that I have not done (with the exception of classical physics employed making booby traps as a kid and physics is very interesting and worthwhile, so I am doing that.  If you ask yourself the question “Can I do this?” you automatically short-circuit yourself and your brain trips up and you go into “evaluating your capacity” mode.  You don’t want to  be in “evaluating your capacity” mode.  Trust me.  I’ve been there.  What happens is “evaluating your capacity” mode branches into to “understanding your identity” mode, which then spirals into “comprehending your life” mode, which then becomes….You get the picture.  Asking “can I do this” brings in capacity and capacity is determined primarily by what you have already done.  So skip the “evaluating your abilities” downward-spiralling nonsense, and simply ask “Can I do this and is it interesting?”!

Feynman is unquestionably a hero of mine.

Gotta love aus news though (it may not be as topnotch as uk, but it’s much more worthy than an american news).  A cat somehow ends up in Tasmania and safely arrives back at home in Queensland another cat was shot 13 times and survived.  What’s with bizarre cats surviving the worst?

Also, this epic sandstorm (worst in 70 years apparently so since 1939 roughly) hits Sydney. Interesting.  Also the pizza ransom row was ludicrous, absurd, but amusing.  Obviously the pizza delivery dude on low wage couldn’t handle not getting paid probably.

In UK, this epic treasure find illuminates the silent and shadowed dark ages, a token reminder that that awesome land holds immense and incredible history in the ancient land (Londinium, for example) .  Couple that booming discovery (revealing something of the here feudal times reigned and so much of the modern europe’s skyscrapers or fields are hovering on grounds that previously held treasures, cDark Ages, back in the days of yore, loot & pluder, damsels and knights) with the discovery of water on Mars?   This is epic, breakthrough and exciting times for very cool areas.  Fascinating times.  The martian agua discovery is absolutely fascinating.  There’s so much exciting news currently from epic sandstorms to martian discoveries, to illuminating the dark ages? This is epic!

For something completely different.

Response to this:

Excellent article. I stumbled upon this earlier before I had known of Tim ferriss, but gave it a second and more scrutinized read the second go. I like the simplicity of the rules. Seems like this holds together (especially with the surprising tat-loss-inducing 1day/week junk food binge) with the repetitive no-white carb food groups and then repeating meals.

Currently I’ve been doing 2 meals a day at 8am and at 1pm. I have very different sleep schedule though and usually rise at roughly 1am and sleep by 6pm ish. This may fluctuate, but I hope it does not. I usually have a piece of fruit at 6am. The pork and beef look vile so those are out.

Substituting a lot of vegetarian-based protien (the beans, fallafel, etc) is good.

I’ve never been a diet person and loathe diets because most always induce yo-yoing. I’ve always had robotic eating patterns so that’s great repetitive nutrition is built into this diet.

Most diets people can’t stand to get off and yo-yo. Additionally, diet based on “1 pound of fat down!” 2 pounds of fat down! are fail. A diet cannot be weight-based or it will always, inevitably collapse. Has to be a nutrition restructuring relationship with your body (whatever that means, and I think that means. You have to like the new nutrition timing, amounts, and substance).

I like how you have set 3-4 categories and then 4-5 options from each of those for roughly 20 different foods you can have with each meal to pick and choose variety. That makes for easier grocery shopping too.

It’s easy to get creative and create good high-protien stirfries with a lot of spices and the like. anyways, cheers. I doubt I’ll try this completely because I don’t usually ever copy other people’s methods (it’s impractical because every lifestyle is so vastly different) but I have integrated a few ideas (like

the 20 food group selection array,
consistent eating times,
1 glass of wine/day is nice,
the caloric distribution in greens versus for example white rice (which I eat A LOT of) was interesting. About a 20:1 Rice:green caloric ratio. THAT’s FASCINATING and useful.
the junkfood day is also fairly practical.

In a lot of my massively alterred eating habit bouts (some of which have included fasts), you get this wave of junkfood eating when the interest dissipates or changes so it’s good that that’s built in.

Flexibility with adaptability some cool ideas. cheers.

“So men are not from Mars, nor are women from Venus. Men and women are from Africa, the cradle of our evolution, where they evolved together as a single species. Men and women have all the same genes except for a handful on the Y chromosome, and their brains are so similar that it takes an eagle-eyed neuroanatomist to find the small differences between them. Their average levels of general intelligence are the same, according to the best psychometric estimates,24 and they use language and think about the physical and living world in the same general way.”

== Steven Pinker, MIT & Harvard prfoessor and cognitive scientist.

YES Finally, something that dissolves the pop-new-age ludicrous falsities claiming men and women are biologically different . They are not. They are very very similar and almost 100% identical, genetically.

This isn’t so much an interest in masculine/feminine studies, but rather a dissolution of fallacious belief, hyped by superficial media and pseudo-science.

Hearing Pinker’s wise words is not only comforting and alleviating from the intoxicatingly vile untruths I heard uttered to me by so many pop media feminists or people interesting in pointing out the “inherent superiority of one gender over the other”, but Pinker’s words move forward with dissolving untruths that clog, obfuscate, and blur our scope of reality.

I think the most concise and most lucid article that encapsulates this entire pseudo-truth-unraveling behavior is Dawkins’ article “Hall of Mirrors”, where he enunciates the validity of scientific truth.

Pinker’s dissolution of and illustrative evidence provision of the noble savage, blank slate, and ghost in the machine fallacious paradigms of human nature is brilliant.

Of course, while others put forth similar ideas, it was pop-hype author John Grey who further propounded this disillusioned idea that men and women are so inherently different.  So John Grey is obviously the nemesis of the subject of this article.  But it’s wise and prudent to if one recognizes a nemesis, to not speak frequently of him.  So we won’t waste time unraveling Grey’s fragile arguments and absurd “wave-welling”, “elastic-rubberbanding” feminine and masculine analogies.  Instead, let’s focus on how toxic said authors are on our collective conscience.

If one wants to have an intelligent conversation with another human about, say, human nature, or gender roles, or cognitive evolution, I think the best course of action is to completely evade the possibility of entertaining such a conversation with a status quo, average, pop-hype-book-reading human because of the eventual inevitable collisions with these hype media falsities.

These hype media falsities that sell simply because of emotional reaction flurry, permanently scar the perceptions some people make.  I am not proposing that they should be banned, but rather, that some kind of warning be put on said books indicating it as completely unproven, completely unscientific.  The Bible, John Grey’s “Men are From Mars, Men are from Venus”, most all non-scientific works, would all be pooled under pure 100% fictional works, for that they are.  I think it’s vitally important to clarify that certainty.  And to then of course distinguish those books (the majority of which make up most bookstores unfortunately) from the proven, cut & dry, scientific books that are actually true, that have the potential for containing material that is genuinely true!

Many of the “non-fiction” books in bookstores are grossly miscategorized and the social and cognitive consequences of this are drastic.   Abolishing fiction would be absurd, dangerous, bleak, and depressing, but when I read fiction, I want to read of Tolkien’s lore, or of Verne’s punctual characters, or of any of the other much more rich and inviting works of true fiction.  Instead of these pseudo-non-fiction works that are like weeds amongst the truthful scientific books and the pure, original fiction books, or the scientifically-proven and tested books, I think appropriately labelling all the pseudo-non-fiction (unproven) books as what they are, fiction, will cause people to drift to the healthy extremes: pure fiction  or pure scientifically proven books and these pseudo-non-fiction hype media works will simply drift off and plummet in sales simply because of appropriate labelling!

The pseudo-science books written by non-scientific, usually very uneducated authors that claim to be true are, frankly, deleteriously cognitively malnourishing.  This analogy to food is interesting.  I think an appropriate set of parallel extensions would be fiction is oh some kind of stirfry, scientific books as some kind of healthy natural produce or fish, and then these hype media false non-fiction boks as something similar to the cigarrette: addictive, intoxicating, wrought with flair and hype, and massively destructive.

If you extrapolate this idea out, yes, it would mean finally appropriately labelling all “religious tomes” as merely (in my opinion horribly written and very bland) fictional stories.  These pseudo non-fiction books are toxic books 1)they are unscientific untruths, 2)claiming to be truthful!  Pure fiction of Tolkien or Verne or Doyle is not the slightest bit toxic because the readership of those epic works know that the respective Frodo, Fogg, and Holmesian heroes are fictional.  Increidbly descriptive, brilliantly crafted? yes, but indubitably fictional.  Religions and similar books preachign fiction as non-fiction is a direct cognitive dissension into insanity.

Books by scientific authors containing scientifically-proven data should be the only books acceptablly labeled as “idea-sharing” books.  Fiction books should serve the purpose of image-sharing (some of which can have ideas) pieces of literature.  New Age, pop culture self-help books have become the new religion for the “semi-educated” average intelligence (typically american).  This newest incarnation of this vile, toxic, dangerous entity (religion) is even more surrepticious and dangerous because it’s packaged as this “life improvement” device, but it’s really toxic and fallacious repackaged religion.

The religious folk’s clever malign doesn’t really have much downtime.  It’s always crafting new ways to infect peoples’ minds.  Religion discourages critical thinking and that is one of the greatest causes of its toxic and viral-like perpetuation.  The example of this is the biblical quote of  saying “Don’t argue with the devil, he’s had thousands of years to practice”.  That’s religion discouraging critical thinking and encouraging blind submission.  Religion is how people devolve into drones hiding behind sanctity, eager to kill on command.  Domesticated house pets have more cunning than humans under the dangerous, deluding, and deleterious spell of religion.  So obviously greatest perpetuation of this mind virus, religious books, should ulitmiately simply be eliminated.  This is very brash, but the proposition of any religious books to be labelled simply as what they are: fiction, will lead to the natural extinction of religious texts simply because no one wants to read extremely insipid and poorly written fiction when there’s extremely well-written and colorful and adventurous genuine bona fide fiction authors on the next shelf, or genuine bona fide scholars, academics discussing scientific truths!

Indeed, Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit as well as the entirety of his book, The Demon-Haunted World, is an indispensible survival item for cognitive clarity.

Books that have not undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny and claim to be non-fiction truly pollute any attempt for clear thinking.  There’s so much astonishment and shock and “Wow” in scientifically laboratory-proven evidence that there’s absolutely no need for this pseudo-non-fiction rubbish.  There’s a need for fiction, for escape, and a need for scientific articles and books for truth.  There exists no need of the desire “to be deluded into a hype media falsity belief to prove or disprove some opinion one currently holds”.  I’ve been a victim of believing so many of these pseudo-non-fiction books and therefore found authentic, genuine scientific and true books by the authors of Pinker and Dawkins for example so remarkably mind-shatteringly good that the need for any other kind of “non-fiction” book or a book that hedges the fence of fiction and non-fiction seems pointless.

On a side note, one of the most indubitably unique, often quite humorous, and unquestionably impressive characteristics of Pinker is his ability to list a smorgasbord of highly diverse, seemingly random, and all entirely relevant examples that illustratively delineate and provide meaning, color, and texture to what theorem or point he is making.

After having a mind clogged with all these pop fiction media hype authors such as Anthony Robbins, John Grey, most any of the non-scientific-authored books you’ll find a book shelf that claims to be fiction, the works of Dawkins, Pinker, Hitchens, and many others is like having a full feast from all the food groups after cognitively starving off of an obscure, meager, and deprived diet of say only beets.  The non-scientific books that claim to be non-fiction are mind pollutants, and their fallacious points offer at best meager (and at worst, outright toxic and poisonous) sustenance for an already ravenous cognitive conscience.   People are starving for truth and they’re being fed preservatives.

Personally, I would like all the pop hype media books not written by a scientific author and lacking in scientific data, removed or banned in someway unless they’re explicitly labeled as fiction.  Meaning that bookstores would contain scientifically proven books and fictional literature.  I don’t think such a change will happen any time soon nor ever at all, but the fact remains that these pseudo-science hype media falsity “non-fiction” books that are wrought with fiction, do scar the clear thinking of the status quo.

So conclusively, the best solution for an intelligent conversation regarding any of the aforementioned topics is to circumvent the status quo American (actually, bypass all but the most educated americans) and find an academic savvy in the fields of cognitive science, neuroscience, or any of the natural science fields, or simply a noble lad whose a solid bloke from the UK or Europe. haha.

“So men are not from Mars, nor are women from Venus. Men and women are from Africa, the cradle of our evolution, where they evolved together as a single species. Men and women have all the same genes except for a handful on the Y chromosome, and their brains are so similar that it takes an eagle-eyed neuroanatomist to find the small differences between them. Their average levels of general intelligence are the same, according to the best psychometric estimates,24 and they use language and think about the physical and living world in the same general way.”

== Steven Pinker, MIT & Harvard prfoessor and cognitive scientist.

YES Finally, something that dissolves the pop-new-age ludicrous falsities claiming men and women are biologically different . They are not. They are very very similar and almost 100% identical, genetically.

This isn’t so much an interest in masculine/feminine studies, but rather a dissolution of fallacious belief, hyped by superficial media and pseudo-science.

Hearing Pinker’s wise words is not only comforting and alleviating from the intoxicatingly vile untruths I heard uttered to me by so many pop media feminists or people interesting in pointing out the “inherent superiority of one gender over the other”, but Pinker’s words move forward with dissolving untruths that clog, obfuscate, and blur our scope of reality.

I think the most concise and most lucid article that encapsulates this entire pseudo-truth-unraveling behavior is Dawkins’ article “Hall of Mirrors”, where he enunciates the validity of scientific truth.

Pinker’s dissolution of and illustrative evidence provision of the noble savage, blank slate, and ghost in the machine fallacious paradigms of human nature is brilliant.

I recently saw the Fantastic, utterly incredible movie In Bruges.  It was incredible because of the Irish component, great acting, fantastic direction from McDonough, Ferrel was A+ and his exchange with Gleeson (all three Irish dudes, mind you) was beautiful and humorous rapport)….BUT but but! But the most prominently cool and awesome part of the the movie was it’s seriousnesss and incredible depth!  That movie was deep!  And it had a reoccurringly profound theme of the necessity of abiding to principles.  I won’t give away the shocking ending, because you don’t want to spoil anything, but the relationship with allegiance to principles was an extremely strong message.  If you’ve seen the movie you know the concept of “principles” definitely defines the shape of the path the characters have in the movie.  Actually in the movie, disastrous things occurred because people were obdurate with sticking with principles.  So the actual message of the movie was kind: “You have to look very closely at detail to apply a potentially good principle effectively.”  But the whole brew-haha about got me thinking about how everyone has these upper-level, high-level principles and beliefs.

So that’s what this Validate Your Life “Linguistic Code” ebook is about :  Defining Principles that install the changes you want to occur and the freedom you want to experience.

What happens when you don’t abide by these principles?  What happens when you don’t take these principles as life or death truths that you must follow?  What happens when you fail to take these principles as a biological necessity for life?  You fail in the game of life.  You experience failure upon failure.  You experience the complete absence of success.  You get hurt — emotionally and physically.  You become overwhelmed.  Bottom line (are we getting the point yet? These are important!) Bottom-line: You don’t survive without implementing these principles!

I went into Shell station the other day.  I had an agenda.  to send a package that I had sold.  I did not want to chat with a person.  I don’t like the people that work in shell station.  I have no interest in continuing to waste my time with them.  And this woman asks me ALL these questions!! It was REALLY annoying.  Why are people so rude and obnoxious and hideously atrotiously intrusive to me?

I asked her about the boxes and she blurted out “I Told you the options!!” and She had NOT given me the prices of the individual boxes, which was hte information I sought.  I also wanted to know and see the different types of boxes.  SHE’s the loser who get paid to work at the post office, she HAS to show me that information.  But she didn’t and she invades my privacy.  She had hte audacity to ask:
Did you Sell this on ebay?
And I said, “Yes, but people also sell things on craigslist.”
How much did you pay for it?

Nosy
good
halt her attempt be intrusive

And I drew the line there.  I don’t want to tell her that information! How dare she be so intrusitv.e  I didn’t even want to have a conversation in the first place!!!!!  And she’s asking how how and where and for how much I sold something.

(it was gummy bearS)

Then she tells me: “Someone in my house gave me gummy bears.”

WTF?!! She’s purposefully trying to confuse me.  So vague.  Someone just walked into her house and gave her gummy bears??? IT’s like these people are trying to coach e and 1)THEY SUCK AT COACHING (atrotious) and 2)I DON”T WANT THEIR COACHING b/C IT’S DESRUCTIVE!!!

So I go: “Who gave you gummy bears in your hosue? Someone you live with?  Someone just walked up to your house and gave you gummy bears?”

and she mumbled something and then said “He’s a Trucker”.

And I thought WHO is a fucking trucker? Why the fuck should I care if a trucker somehow (in relation to her or not) walks into her house and gives her fucking gummy bears.  That person is not me.  I am not a trucker.  I felt like saying that because I felt like she was trying to frame me as some trucker.  And I most certainly AM NOT.  I am a scientist!  most definitely.

So then she goes: “I am from nepal” And she all points to herself like she’s flustered like I was confused a bout somethign and she goes “I am from nepal.”

I think Why the fuck should I care? but I say: “Have you done any climbing?” Just very nice.

And she goes “I KNEW you were going to ask that” and she implied: “your boring your trite” WTF So far All I’ve tried to do is mail a package and this OBNOXIOUS TERRIBLE atrotious slimy unfahtomably obtrusive woman has kind of framed me insultingly as a trucker (an insult), intruded into my financial affairs, and implied that I’m hackneyed.

And I didnt’ even get to see the package costs and she declared “I’m trying to help you!” when I was getting package prices but she iddn’t provide ANY prices!!!

Then she mentiones : “I got fat from eating gummy bears.”

and Then I quickly say : “I used to eat like 60 pounds of gummy bears and sour gummy snacks. and it didn’t make me fat. but it was an addiction I didnt’ want so I stpped it.”

and then she implies: “Oh well IT DID make me fat.”

I asked her if she’d climbed everest and she said no. And I mentioned climbing pikes peak and she said: “That’d be good!”  And she implied that I should climb everest????!! WTF?!! I wanted to spent $5 and send a package and NOT have a conversation and I have this obnocious woman telling me…

See all this garbage that pops up.  This is why I’m afraid to go outside SERIOUSLY. This is what happened in an exchange where all I wanted was to pay without talking with a perosn.  I DID NOT want to say a word with that person!!  I’m not getting paid to coach her!! And this is what she did:
she implied:
“your boring your trite”
was insultingly framed me insultingly as a trucker (an insult)
was confused by her bringing up the ODD phrase (someone in my house gave me gummy bears)
the privacy of my financial affairs was invaded
I ws indirectly inulsted as being hackneyed (I knew you were going to ask that question)
I was “forced into coaching” by her mentioning “I got fat from the gummy bears” she can bring that up in a coachign session but not when I’m ON MY TIME.
implied that I hsould climb everest.  I have ZERO interst in climbing everest! I Do not want to climb everest.

Comedy clubs don’t let me have an open mic.  So I can’t turn this into a comedy bit.

but It DOES impede me.  PEOPLE DO treat me obnoxiously!!!!!! I REALLY DISLIKE IT here in america in the ghetto of los angeles.

and then she implied
So I need to a way to mute people or get out of america.  I had those festering disgusting slime-ball women. and they are NOT all women, just usually very young, stupid, uneducated women

And this is like Tony Robbins.

AnD ALL ALL I wanted to do was Go into mail a package. I DON”T wan’t fucking dramma.  I have ZERO interest 0% interest in the shell station person.  But All that happens (See above) if I go to mail a package. THAT’S WHY I’M AFRAID TO GO OUTSIDE.  Because people

I need to go apathetic.  I operate on a wavelenght of natural compassion (that has become destructive and draining wherby people exploit me and I won’t stand for it) so going apathetic for ME will put me the level of most people. Great!

Why do people trample on me?

A theory.  They recognize me as someone who has been exploited and continue to do that.

They recognize me as someone who USED to give out free lifecoaching so they try to apply their

I really dislike americans.  Most americans especially the one’s in the foul ghetto squalor HELLHOLE of los angeles are manipulative wankers.

I told
I

apathetic

Honor thei
Electric Agenda: The Equation for Taking Ownership of Your Time.

I’ll be frank, upfront, highly direct, and incredibly honest: I used to be royally atrotious with using my time effectively. I would visit friends, overstay my welcome, become disgruntled about staying too long, hit on a woman, have some freaky belligerant and pugnacious Iraqi neanderthal thug almost try to beat me up….okay what a rant.  I have MYRIAD examples of the negative consequences (from feeling overwhelmed, confused, and abused to get physically beat up from arguments nad fighting) ALL because I stayed longer than I wanted to stay at a given time.

Expect Resistance to my Departure, Honor, and Abate Cordiality Appropriately.

Catch-phrase: Expect Resistance to Departure.

What’s this mean?  This bit of time code implementation refers to the script that “Yearners”, “Energy Drains”, “Time Exploiters” use that goes something like:

• “You have to go? What? Why do you have to go?”

• “Awwww Really? Come on just stay for another 5 minutes.”

• Pout. Pout. Pout.

• Anger that they aren’t getting what they want from you.

wor

t people who yearn for you, who are trying to exploit or manipulate you, or who are simple greedy with time and want more of your time, or it’s very useful for doing dealing with those people who want entertainment or “free services” or something from you other than what you’ve got, which is just leaving when you want to leave!

honor value of being OCD setting a watch timer.  This sounds Obsessive-Compulsive. GOOD!! It should!! Time is ALL that you have in life.  On the highest level up on the hierarchy of possions — “what do I OWN”? — TIME is the highest up you can get.  What do you feel like you should have more ownership of:

A metal transportation device that uses two axles and 4 wheels

An odd contraption that has four legs and is used for something animals refer to as “sitting”

The time used to MAKE, DESIGN, CRAFT, ENVISION, and

Set a clock with a buzzer and a beep.  Set a buzzer on your phone.  Wear two watched (I have a watch that actually vibrates so it’s a kinesthetic as well as an auditory alarm)
experiment envisioning adults as kids (kdis adult)S for the purpose departing and taking ownership of my time
Treating driving away or when teh buzzer goes off as catching a flight.
Setting a time constraint — ” I only have a minute”
be very crips when I’m not coaching and when I’m coaching.  Because that ensure that I don’t get involvd in peoplle’s problems.  Becaus
earning money is an inherent characteristic with taking ownership of your time.

No, This angry asian is not me. But his demeanor portrayed what I was feeling about self-help books.

I think I’m interested in being mindful about reading, what I’d want to read, reading science reference books, and questioning the nature of reading before starting another book for a very long time.  Reading books is massively painful for me.  People say “you have to keep learning”.  I agree, but also greatly disagree.  You must keep learning and APPLY that learing.  I just spent over a hundred hours of my life reading 3 different NLP books and they all basically communicated the same information.  Most people in the world aren’t intelligent enough to realize this.  When you have read one book by an author, you most likely have read every book.  All authors will simply recycle back their ideas.  Reading too many books is toxic simply because it’s shoving in your brain the same data over and over and presupposing that you haven’t learned it yet, when you really have!!! So I’m an enormous fan of ceasing reading books and instead applying what you know.  Rereading stuff youv’e already learned is dangerous because it moves you further away from applying it.  It’s time to embrace the “quick-reference” charts, abandon most all books (Except reference books), and work with what we have.  I know I grasp 100% of NLP, so WHAT if there’s one other smidgen 1% of NLP that I am not aware of?!! Moving forward is applying applying.  IF I have to read another self-help book I will vomit.  I loathe self-help books because they use phrases like this:

Do not give self-development affirmations an exact deadline, for example, In

three months’ time t shall be a more relaxed person.’

Don’t just think it. Ink it!

Think back what your goals are?

They focus on PROBLEMS and YOU.   I hate that.  Focusing on something objective and universal (like stomata in leaves or thermodynamics laws or combinations and permutations) ALWAYS make me feel better because I am removed from the problem, from the equation. That’s relaxing!! It is NOT relaxing to have some idiotic, subjective author barking at you “write your goals on a piece of paper”, “now write obstacles to those goals…” crap!  That’s demanding of self and creates stress.  So, while science reference books are okay in moderation, I’m steering clear of all self-help books and basically any book that repeatedly uses 2nd person “you”.  Those books induce hypnotic trances, deluding you into false senses of securities, and other.  I think it’s really for quite unintelligent, stupid people.

You’ll never see a scientist in an NLP class, because NLP is retarded!! Well, it’s an upgrade from self-help.  I do not read self-help books anymore.  NLP is the bottom of the barrel of acceptable reads, and barely acceptable, only acceptable because it’s highly technical.  So what ARE acceptable reads?  Science, physics, chemistry, reference book reads that move towards a test where you can test your understanding.

I HATE the west coast and all of its sleezy, trippy, hallucinations, and “religious” spirituality, Mysticism.  Oohh!!  CRAP. Utter crap.  Bullshit.  I also hate chicago because it’s old vapid deflated, shit.  I LOATHE the fucking west coast.  They’re enemies! They’re sleezeballs who want you to “be spiritual”. What other stuff “you should read autobiography of a yogi!”  ”do yoga!” “have faith!” screw yoga, i’ll shove a yoga ball in your fucking face, you stupid fucking hippies.  I hate hippies.  I HATE the squalor, muck of california.  This place is PURE enemies.  I like my fucking dog.  My dog is cool.  I hate west coast people.  I hate my stupid bike and stupid surfboards.  Well not sure about those.  I don’t like surfing.  I like swimming yeah that’s good.  I HATE fucking random ass people!  I like the looks of britain, new york, london, sydney, because they’re real.  California is ALL fake!

Places that may be acceptable:

Vancouver and Toronto

New York

London

Sydney

1. Movies leave you under a spell; an illusory haze so you cannot see. Books give control of the haze others are under.
2. Movies manufacture illusion without you knowing it, while books allow you to choose experience illusion, without decoupling awareness from experience.
3. Books enable to you to explain and teach about illusions and reality, placing you at “cause” instead of at “effect” where you are a victim of illusion. You’re in the driver’s seat reading and writing books.
4. Books clarify and provide understandings. Movies merely create suspence and foreshadowing. Movies are hollow, they foreshadow and build suspense, but they leave you empty with no treasure, no gem. Books have the gem. Books, sure, create suspense, intrigue, and connection. I remember countless “on the edge of my seat” reads of Sherlock Holmes and bawling at the end of Where the Read Fern Grows in early elementary school. And just in 2008, I was completely engaged and in awe of the adventure created by Jules Verne in around the world in 80 days. Those fiction reads provided massive suspense, BUT BUT BUT, unlike movies, the books also provided incredible value and understanding!! I learned so many lessons from those books above. For example, inductive observational skill from Doyle’s book (Sherlock Holmes), the touching experience of pet comraderie (from Where the Red Fern Grows), and the necessity of time, precision, and the cool collected travel making things happen skills of Mr. Fogg from Around the World in 80 days. Because I READ those experiences as books as opposed to watch what was blasted at me with pixels from a movie, I experienced them more wholistically and I acquired the lesson and understanding, with the entertainment and fun of a very absorbing and exciting read!
5. You think more clearly with a book because your brain gets neurological activity firing that is congruent with the logic of the book. Kind of like a “mental-cerebral” version of “if you smile, you’ll feel happy”. If you read a smart book, you’ll think more intelligently. Movies trick and obfuscate intelligence.
6. Books, you have total control over the pace, and “order you read”, movies (unless you fumble with FF and RW buttons, you do not have the same control.
7. Books, your vision is the movie and you are the director; movies lack that customization.
8. Books teach and entertain and create more cohesive thinking; movies, merely entertain with an inkling of “teaching”.
9. Both movies and books inspire, but books provide an inspiration that is more enduring beacuse it is “your own version” of the inspiration.
10. Finally, books don’t need electrical outlets, high-tech dvd players, surround sound and the like. Books are portable; you can bring them anywhere. Laptops are fixing that with movies, but with a book, you use your “built-in” surround sound, imax, widescreen mental imagery vision, which is infinitely more crisp, alive, and exciting than a movie screen.

I’m a former movie junkie (thousands and reruns) and have rediscovered the joy of reading!

Refuting Preposterous Counter-Arguments

• Books are hard to preserve — ebooks hard copy, soft copy. egyptian documents have been found that are over thousands of years old, our declaration of indendence has been perfectly preserved for 200+ year. Books have been around longer than movies and will likely stay longer.
• Books are expensive — nope. your average dvd (say $20) is infinitely more expensive than a library book (free), but even if you buy a book, it’s likely to be less than film.
• Books are heavy — ebooks, my friend. wieghtless
• Books can fall from tall places and kil your children — so can movies.
• Books smell bad in high humidity places — film will corrode and become inoperable in high humidity places. Books actually have a broad environmental survival capacity when you think about it.
• Books becomes ugly looking after soaked in water — try putting a wet VHS in the video player and see what happens. The pages might be wrinkled, but a book won’t damage your electronic equipment.
• Books are written by old people mainly — haha. first off, not true. I’ve written a fair share of books and am in my youth. There are tons of youthful authors. Besides, whats the average age of your typical movie director and producer (older than the average author). Besides, whats wrong with some wisdom from elders?
• Books are against technology — apparently you aren’t familiar with the sci-fi fiction genre and the entire nonfiction line devoted to teaching and theorizing about new forms of technology.
• Books use large amount of trees — true, but ebooks refutes this.
• Books are ancient tools — they’re ancient learning devices, tools, forms of carrying messages, passing on research that took years and thousands of people. Yep. they’ve stood the test of time and have endured in their utility.
• Books lack user interaction — no. Books require you (especially with fiction) to 3-dimensionally interact with the interpretation of the material and your mind via visualizations. Movies cripple your ability to visualize. You create “the mental movie” so to speak, but movies just have little creative interaction where you see what everyone else sees.
• Books don;t have any moving things in them — the images created by books (your mental picture) ceaseless changes and dynamically moves.
• Books are rigid — this point, of course, doesn’t necessarily descredit books, but last time I checked, isn’t a paperback much less rigid than a dvd? If you “bend” a movie, it breaks, bend a paperback, it bends.
• Books are 2 dimentional — no, again, 3-d with your mental imagery. Actually, with very creative mental imagery you could visualize a book’s material in infinite dimensions with thought experiments, something impossible to do when just “observing” what happens on a screen.
• Books are usually unclear — haha. A distaste for literature is becoming more and more clear. Unless you’re a cat, scientist, or the rare exception of a courageous person, we usually fear or dislike what we don’t understand. Read books that interest you and work your way up to the complex ones, otherwise, you won’t like the experience. You’ll find some literature that fascinates you. Given that many more books exist than movies, it’s almost a probablistic certainty you’ll find an interesting book, if you found an interesting movie.
• Books have to be copied and printed — and movies have to be spliced, edited, printed, copied, and distributed as well.
• Books can’t be edited easily — actually neither books nor movies are designed for post-final print editting, but changing one word is MUCH easier than having to call back in the director, the camera crew, the actors, the editting crew, and reshoot, refilm, reprint and republished one line of s movie scene.

That said, I just wanted to say, I don’t dislike movies. Movies have reached and inspired me in ways that some books could have never have done, but, on the other hand, books have done the same — evoked intrinsic understanding that open up new doors of thought that completely change my life. Both definitely possess the ability to inspire. However, in my experience, the quality of the motivation and change you experience from a book feels MUCH more solid and grounded. In other words, the longevity of inspiration received from a book is greater — the fictional scene, or idea, or inspiration — sticks with you longer than with most movies (unless the rare exception of incredible filiming and cinematography) because you have to “design the mental movie” cognitively. But I definitely wouldn’t be person I am today without movies, and certainly without books. In part, I feel like I was “raised” by books and movies. Lessons from authors and films that teach what was skipped over at home or school. Good stuff!

I think the ultimate underlying mutual understanding here is this: “You read the right books, on a topic, skill-set, or value you want to acquire, and you will program your mind to genuinely live that life”. Movies are a quick way to glimpse at, and live vicariously through the characters and plots of other (fictional, screenplay) stories.

Why do so many Millenials (almost every member of the IWR club) LOVE Office Space? Because we’re constantly mobile, we loathe actual stagnant office spaces, but don’t mind the internet and that dynamic exchange at all. However, watching the movie “Office Space” will merely create a vicarious, temporary, short-lived feeling of “freedom” from something in your real life that you wish to escape. If you actually want to CHANGE your life, books will do that for you. I guess an analogy is a movie is the ignition (it can start the desire or create awareness of a desired change) but then the book is the actual car (it supplies the programming you need in order to get you where you want to go).

Books connect your body, mind, and voice.

I am not you, and you are not me.  That is the way things are.  I like that.  As you ponder that, let me explain to you why I find tremendous value in that distinction.

Distinctions create boundaries.  Without distinctions, everything would be porous and absorbing this information or that information would generate confusion.  But that confusion is instantly absolved when we utilize distinctions.

There’s a tendency for people with whom I communicate to think that we have some connection, as-if they “know me”.  The way they communicate and the advice they give comes from the perspective of “I know this person in every dimension and in every aspect”.  But then I mention something that I have done that the person with porous distinctions has not done, like ran multiple marathons,  the person shirks back and immediately says “Oh, I couldn’t do that!”.  Instantly their slurring and blurring of our distinctions of you being me, and me being you –gets mutilated when an element of capacity enters the conversation.

You see, as you listen to this closely and intently you realize that intention should govern our behavior (and often it does when we are not being persuaded, manipulated, or under a hypnotic trance by the media), but  many times our perception of capacity limits our behavior.  When I mention to someone actions I have taken that they deem outside of their capacity (for example having written 4 books, or ran multiple marathons, or any other task of which people are incredibly capable of doing, but don’t believe they have that capacity to do so) who has a ruptured their perception of boundaries, what happens in their mind?  First they recoil.  They instantaneously have a thought process of “this person is not whom I thought they were and there exists a distinction in our capacity”.  Such distinctions are good.  Because in many ways, what makes you you, and me me, is our logical levels, which of course, include beliefs, identity, capabilities, and behavior.  If I am talking to you in person, we share the same environment.  That is it.  I’d say environment is roughly 3% of “who I am” and “who you are” at best.   Without logical levels, we are all practically identical twins because our only differences would be blemishes on our epidermal layer of our skin, hair coloration, simple, trivial distinctions bound into the same sequences of deoxyribonucleic acid.  So it’s truly our logical levels that spark this kind of Lamarakian

For awhile in my junior year in college I engaged this belief that we were all this spiritual, interconnected, “Universal One” person.  I enjoyed entertaining that belief because of many reasons.  Reasons for entertaining the “universal one” delusion:

1. It was a good remedy for loneliness (If you’re lonely, thinking that everyone is interconnected creates a delusion of togetherness).
2. I thought it would be helpful to creating a connection with people.  (After all if you are interconnected with people “as one” then it’s very easy to feel harmoniously connected with another human).
3. I felt the idea of a “universal one” would somehow bring success believing that people were “working with me on my specific goals”.
4. What sparked this belief?  Likely a reading of Whitman’s Song of Myself

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

–Whitman 1819-1892

Yep, taking a gander at the American poet and essayist’s verse was likely what sparked that delusional belief for me.  Now am putting forth a criticism of that belief that “we are all universally one” where I will detail how toxic it truly is.

First off, we must first acknowledge that yes, “we” humans are taxonomically very similar in that we share the same class (mammalia), order (primates), genus (homo), and our species of course, sapiens, are also identical.  But there are VAST differences beyond that species classification.  We have homo sapiens who can program themselves to run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours, 10 minutes.  We have homo sapiens, like Nikola Tesla, who create magnificent inventions like the wireless communications radio and polyphase power distribution. Tesla was fluent in 7 languages.  Few people even fathom learning a “second” language”!  Indeed, the person who thinks we have 6.8 billion identical people walking around the planet is in effort to be as uncolorful as possible, an idiot!  There exist 6.8 billion exact DNA copies, but each and everyone of those bundles of cells is simultaneously a bundle of beliefs and identities and what I refer to as “life program code”.  Our internal cognitive programming that creates addictions and creates discoveries and breakthroughs previously thought impossible are derivatives of our internal code.  It is our internal code that makes us distinct.  Going beyond the given cellular similarities, humans, because of the existence of the cerebrum, are each individual bundles of code.  As a species, I’m convinced our belief in capacity has slowly decreased since the late 19th century, the Einstein and Tesla era.  Sure we have, in regards to technology, expanded in the realm of software with personal computing platforms with inventors like Wozniak (Jobs and Gates were merely businessmen, mind you), and in physics with the utilization propulsion, aerodynamics, and the employment of the LOR method at NASA we were able to land on our neighboring natural satellite .  Although I am not an enormous fan of art and frequently denounce religion for its destructive mind-virus-like properties, it is undeniable that the intricacies of Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel or David or Da Vinci’s Vetruvian Man are creations that few people could honestly say they have the capacity to create.

Most certainly, one could argue that it was not just Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin who individually “landed on the moon” first (Collins never set foot on the rock, but orbited in the Command Module) but rather the “universal one” of Mission Control, the past inventors who had paved the way for such launches and maneuvering to occur, as well as possibly a “sprinkling” of that “human spirit” universality.  But when it comes down to it….

ONE INDIVIDUAL DISTINCT person invented the polyphase power distribution system, Nikola Tesla.  Do you not think that Tesla’s fluency in 7 distinct languages was absolutely essential to his capacity to “think outside the box” and go beyond the capacity of so many of his scientific predecessors?  Linguistic definitive diversity is without a doubt an intrinsic component to scientific creativity and precision.

ONE INDIVIDUAL DISTINCT person outlined the paradigmatic ground-shattering breakthrough in physics known as special relativity, Albert Einstein.  But did you know that it was the photoelectric effect that won Einstein the Nobel Peace prize in 1921 and that it was his Annus Mirabillus papers written in 1905 that, although less known, had a larger impact on physics than any of his other work, including special relativity?  When Einstein first proposed the special theory of relativity on June 30 of 1905, his third paper that year, in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” he referenced

One person surveyed, calculated, and documented the actual origination of our very biological species in 1859, Sir Charles Darwin.

Now I have been inductively drawn to the late 19th century….all of its inventions, ideas, fictions, and beliefs.

I have a penchant for late 1800s Scottish and British Authors!! I just inductively became aware of this pattern!

• 1859 British, Dickens, Tale of Two Cities (2 books)
• 1859, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
• 1873, French Verne, (Around the World in 80 Days and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea)
• 1886, Scottish Stevenson,  (Treasure Island and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)
• 1891 Scottish, Doyle, Adventures of Sherlock (2)
• 1897, Irish, Bram Stoker, Dracula (1 book)
• 1980s, British, Douglas Adams (10 books)
• 1950s, British, Roald Dahl,  (10 books)
• 2000, British, Mark Haddon
• 2000, British, Richard Dawkins
• 31 Books by British Authors!!!! Jolly good!

Young Eintein (1879-1955) was a mere toddler during the time most of those fictions were published.  But we are not focusing on Einstein, because there exists a greater capacity and a more greatly overlooked genius, of Nikola Tesla (1856- January 7, 1943).  Do you ever view a picture of a person and feel some kind of connection as-if you know them or can relate to them?  Such delusions are common and for the reasons I outlined above in the “Reasons for entertaining the universal one delusion”, appealing.  However, when Nikola Tesla invented the wireless communications radio in 1894, he did not accomplish this amazing feat by staring at a picture of english chemist Michael Faraday and  sottish physicist James Maxwell — the 18th century theorists of electromagnetic waves — and “willing the universal one” to enable him to craft a wireless communications radio!  If Tesla believed that “we are all a universal one working harmoniously together”, we would not have FM and AM radio as we know it today because Nikola would not have had the resources to design the wireless communications radio.  You are beginning to understand!  Believing in the “universal one” or any derivation thereof is “acceptable copping out”.  Saying, “Oh i could run a marathon or have a great scientific invention or accomplish this great feat…but I’ll just leave it up to the universal one” is a way of failing to achieve but stated in a way that it slips under the radar.  I can assure you that it is only the status quo who believes in “the universal oneness of things”.  Great achievers who accomplished very unique and highly specific feats — inventions, athletic achievements, great papers, paradigmatic mathematical formulae — did so out of acknowledging “Hey, I am unique in this area.  I have an attraction to xyz subject or field.  Few other people are focused on this.  I am going to pursue an interest in that.”  Most people are deluded by the obfuscating sludge that is religion, media, newspaper dribble that occupy the clarity of our mind, that hypnotizing us into thinking that “some universal one will take care of it”.  Let me assure you that one and only one person

Traversed 26.2 miles in Munich, Germany in 2 hours 12 minutes of the 1972 Olympics to win a gold medal, Frank Shorter.

Wrote the ground-shattering paper that completely revolutionized our perception of time, Albert Einstein in 1905.

Popularized the breakthrough discovery known as the copernican revolution, which made “the universal one” realize that our solar system is not geo-, but heliocentric!

Swam 100m butterfly in 50.77 seconds at the 2007 World Championships in Melbourne, Australia, beating his own 51.25 Athens record.  This ONE person was Michael Phelps.

Designed myriad inventions in at least 278 distinct patents in 26 countries that contributed incredible new technologies.  This ONE person was Nikola Tesla.  Out of all these distinct, individual achievers, I think it is Tesla whom accomplished the most and simultaneously received the least credit.

As you can see “the universal one” by DEFINITION is inherently outdated, obsolete, old-fashioned, and unadvanced!  It was the universal one that believed in geocentrism.  It was the universal one that believed that the sub-4-minute mile was humanly impossible.  It was the universal one whom believed transference of information without the usage of wires couldn’t be done.  It was those individuals, those people who acknowledged distinctions between them and other members of the same species (in regards to the above  three accomplishments respectively Copernicus, Roger Bannister, and Nikola Tesla) who proved the universal one wrong.  And for those who actually go around believing that their answers lie in the universal one are seriously setting themselves up for massive capability limitations!  All of the “I can’ts”, “That’s Impossibles”, “I can’t do thats” are components to the universal one.

As a conclusion, I present 5 of my current heroes all of whom exemplify the incredible capacity to neglect the condemning and restricting “universal one” and who rise above it, creating distinct and very constructively elucidating breakthroughs in music, logic, science & electricity, for our species.

Richard Dawkins.  1941-Present.  British Evolutionary biologist.

Nikola Tesla, 1856-1943.  Serbian-born scientific inventor who individually created roughly 300 patents for countless inventions that paved the way to the technology we see today.

Gustav Holst. 1874-1943, British Composer known for distinctly composing The Planets.

Sherlock Holmes, Fictional Detective crafted by Scottish Author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  1887, first appearance publication.

Derren Brown, 1971-Preset.  British illusionist, stage hypnotist, and mentalist.

Sherlock Holmes (A fictional creation can hold some invaluable lessons on the process of deduction) and Derren Brown (both masters of microcosmic observation).

Ludwig Van Beethoven, 1770-1827.  German composer who Distinctly assisted in the transition of classic to romantic music.

I encourage you to look at all those individuals and observe how by NO MEANS could they have crafted the magnificent creations that they authored, invented, composed, conjured, or observed with the assistance of the “universal one” concept.  They all focused their minds and bodies and genius to create authentic advancements for our species.  I encourage you to do the same!  Disown your relationship to “uiversal oneness”; honor your distinct individual genius be it in athletics (undoubtedly Michael Phelps and Frank Shorter both, unquestionable have cultivated a distinct genius in the fields of swimming and running), science, music, authoring, or whatever field you notice a distinct and unique pull.  This is a call to action that is much more demanding than embracing self-reliance or non-conformity.

I think it’s worthy of note that the above heroes of “Distinction” are personal predecessors to five heroes that brought me to the above five great individuals.  The previous ones are shown above.

The moment you realize your individuality and that you are a distinct network of electric neurological electrical firings directed and managed by a 8-pound nervous-system center containing two distinct hemispheres intersecting at a corpus callosum that controls endocrinological chemical mini-sub factories such as the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, thalamus, thyroid, adrenals, and testes/ovaries woven into 206 distinct sticks of calcium matrices, pulleyed together through over 600 distinct muscular strands, and sheathed in a kinesthetic epidermal layer, you realize that you are not a universal one.  You are you.  And I am me.  And that is the way things are.  And that is very, very good for the sake of advancing our species!

This work is licensed by John Thomas “Kooz” Kuczmarski and Validate Your Life under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/.

This article is primarily about the outcome frame: applying it, it’s inherent awesomeness, and connecting up with what you want, need and deserve in life through utilizing the outcome frame.

Picture your life — I’m serious.  Actually do this.  Visualize.  You’ve discarded all your crappy cult of hollywood movies by now, right?  So you have to start to visualize.  Do this. — after everything’s done.

Picture your life after:

• The website is up and completed
• All your sales, all your products are not just available, but there’s a high turnover rate of sales
• Your services are not just available, but business is booming and you have clients.
• Your books are not just finished, but published and selling.
• All those nuisance annoying errands like get the “car’s brakes fixed” and “update xyz” are complete.
• All the loose ends to all projects are complete and filed and finito and done.
• Everything your reading, watching, or listening to from podcast to magazine, to web article to book, to research, to novels to important non-fiction reads you’ve already read high-lighted, taken notes on and fully processed and archived.
• All of your notes are applied triple-synced, archived, and used in your profession.
• You have a consistent health routine and all your health goals are achieved.
• In short, all of your “todos” all of your projects are DONE.  Finito.  Complete.  Total. Comprehensive.  Completion and Victory.
• RAD!!

What now?!! Seriously.  Visualize that state.  And for those of you who constantly find warped pleasure trying to add more and more things to do this may be particularly difficult.

But if you’ve done this correctly, it will be life-changing.

Do you still have the same outlook?  Do you even have the same profession?  Do you have the same relationships?  The same life?

Outcome state is very very extremely effective for creating massive change.  Use it!

Like this article?  The Validate Your Life blog by John is likely going to a subscription basis where you’ll get weekly and monthly articles like this one, free audios, and free ebooks for a monthly rate of $14 USD!  Contact John for more details to lock in your subscription early!

The whole “work hours” thing is a foreign concept to me. Maybe because I just don’t make a distinction between work and play, or (most likely) I just always work.  Sometimes I wake up and start work at 2am. Sometimes I just don’t ever go to sleep and take a nap in the middle of the day.

It’s easier for me, I realize, to just say my sleep patterns (the times where I’m not working) than the times I am working;  I sometimes sleep around the 12ish to 3ish zone. I like exercising at night (moonlight runs).

So it’s strange, I work about 80-90 times harder and am more demanding of myself than I would have been if I worked for an employer other than myself.  This increase in work motivation, results, and demands is probably inherent to any freelance work or “business owner” work.  That’s an interesting pattern and managing the work that you do as an entrepreneur is what we’re talking about today. You have to develop this weird relationship with yourself where you’re the administrator who decides what we need to do (as a business) and then you put on the “employer cap” and do the stuff that you decided to do while wearing the administrative hat. Finally, you clean it all up by wearing, possibly a “customer hat” and test-running for the purposes of debugging your business feature.  This works with websites, products, services, expansions of any kind.

Having access to multiple outcome frames from multiple hats (points of view and angles) is a must for any entrepreneur. How do you do this? How do you don and even design the array of chapeaus you have to wear to be a successful entrepreneur?

Map it out

Map out which hats you need. Read my excerpt from my fourth book, Compassionate Reservoirs, where I discuss De Bono’s thinking hats.

Recognizing Venues of Impact

It is incredibly challenging and essential to discern when we do and when do not have an impact.    This can be accomplished by examining the people in the room.  Are they laughing at you or with you?  Are they looking towards you or through you or at you?  If their relationship with you is aimed so that they look or laugh or talk at you, you can’t have an impact because the people have either labeled you negatively or chosen not to change. In situations where people interact at you — the prepositional connotation is key — where you cannot have an impact, give up control and stop speaking.

When we don’t have the potential to impact — because of external factors with the people or internal limitations in ourselves — we should, obviously, aim cease conversing.  Continuing will only manufacture agitations and doubt.  Giving up control where we have no control is incredibly liberating, as well.  Acts of relinquishment provide freedom to stop bashing our psychological brain against the wall.  It inspires us to ascertain certainty in our convictions.  Whenever we certify our capacity for invigoration, we create opportunities for growth.  Pinpointing those areas of certification and linking them to areas that behold a capacity for impact is the vital consideration. Go to your studio and converse and make stuff, but make sure you studio is the place where you have control and an impact.  If your studio doesn’t have those qualities change the studio or find one that connects to your wisdom.

Wherever you have the potential for leaving an impact, you can experience with leading discussions by wearing different hats.   Edward de Bono’s “6 Thinking Hats” describes the six hats that successful people where and must wear in different situations.  Here’s the breakdown of the empowerment hats:

·         The White Hat – resourceful, use what data is available

·         The Black Hat – criticism and pessimism;

·         The Green Hat –- creativity;

·         The Red Hat – intuition and gut thinking;

·         The Blue Hat – control and managing, often links to other hats for problem solving

·         The Yellow Hat – optimism

The white is the ultimate hat of adaptive resourcefulness.  You connect with what is in front of you and around you and use it for that agenda.  It is the hat that you wear when you live out Teddy Roosevelt’s idea of “do what can with what you have where you are”.  I mentioned Teddy Roosevelt’s incredible ability to access his child-like voice and adapt when Teddy Roosevelt said that phrase and created the successful Rough Riders in my first book, Validate Your Life. De Bono is simply phrasing this capacity for adaptation and expansion in another context using the hat metaphor, but the underlying principle is the capacity access our inner voice and adapt beautifully.

Although the black hat may not sound like a hat of empowerment, the ability to criticism can toughen and make your agenda more connected and secure.

The other hats are quite obvious in their application.  This hat idea is quite interesting, but I don’t think people have a choice to wear these hats.  They are patterned into one specific hat.  The most liberated person not only has the potential to wear all the different types of hats, but they have the awareness and scrutiny to decipher precisely when a certain situation calls for a specific hat.  Knowing when to communicate and when to liberate your control, or knowing which hat to wear, are different ways of expanding your potential for interaction.

Great, now that that’s all in the clear…

Visualize which hats are most important to you and then cut that number in half. If you think you need 4 hats to run your business, you only need two. Minimize. Make the differences between the types of hats you need to wear HUGE. In other words, make sure a “different hat” truly links up to a VERY different kind of thinking, cognitive questions, frames, and outcomes.

At most, I think three hats is by far all you need: Administrative hat, Employer hat, and Customer Hat. Keep in mind that these hats are just merely collections of cognitive frames.  What I mean by cognitive frames is that in NLP (something I study, teach, and practice) there’s multiple frames where different criteria and outcomes are envisioned.  The way you should structure your 2-3 entrepreneurial hats is so that each of those hat points of view is a collection of frames that achieve the objects of that point of view.  For example, if you decide to go with a customer hat, the customer hat would likely want an “outcome” (that of buying a product or service) but that would be very different and distinct from the type of outcome frame utilized the administrative hat.  Additionally, with a customer hat you’d likely want a backtrack frame so that you could reconnect with your original purchase idea to see if whatever you’ve installed (a website, a service, a product) moves in congruence with that frame.  Here’s the most common NLP.  Just pick and choose which one of the frames you’d like to associate with each of your hats and plug those into the cognitive structured Point-of-View!

When I coach clients some of the most effective techniques I use for remapping the clients’ model of the world to achieve the success results they want is framing.  I use framing all the time.  Framing is used by advanced NLP practitioners, and although they may not know it at the time, anyone who embraces a “different Point of View” mentality embraces a form of framing.  Frames are an incredible NLP tool and an amazing bit of transformation technology.  If you learn one thing from this article: learn the ability to frame and different types of frames.  If my clients knew how to frame (and I do try to teach them how to do this , they’d likely be clients for a much shorter period of time!  Learning to frame is like adding “another mind” to the problem.  If you can take problem x and frame it in 3 different ways, suddenly it’s like you have 3 cerebrums working on that same problem!  Framing is definitely part of the equation to using that so-called other 90% of your mind.  So onward!  What are some frames?  Alphabetical list of all 8 frames with major (most common frames) frames in bold:

• As-If Frame — How would I go about this goal as-if my desired state had already been realized? The as-if frame is a very intriguing one.  It was taught to me in acting class.  I was supposed to, if playing a scene where, for example, I had to congratulate you on achieving a degree, but in real life I had trouble congratulating you if I never knew you to achieve anything.  So I was supposed to think of you “as-if” you were a brother who’d just won an award and then that as-if would get the desired result for a scene.  So that was a small taste of the impact of as-if frame.  It’s most potent application is of course in coaching.  Envision how you would go about your life as-if the outcome (from outcome frame) had already been achieved or to go about a meeting as-if xyz person were there.  A great trick is to plug in an as-if outcome frame so you act as-if the outcome has been achieved then plugin a backtrack frame to examine the “backtracked steps” necessary to achieve that outcome frame as-if it were complete.  This is rad!
  • Similar to Dreamer Disney Reality Strategy
• Backtrack Frame — Does where we are now and where we are going have concordance and agreement with our goals and aims of a project or meeting? Backtrack frame is analogous to a “double check” frame.  Backtrack to make sure all ends are in agreement and understanding.  I like to think of the backtrack frame as though you observe all the “decision and action branches” of a project.  Every project has variety of action branches, and those branches have sub-actions, and a backtrack frame is just taking that entire action and/or decision “tree” if you will of a goal or outcome to make sure it’s heading in the productive and desired direction!
  • Similar to Open Frame and Evidence Frame
• Ecology Frame — What will the impact on my body, family, society, work environment, and/or community in pursuing this outcome? Ecology frame is one of the main and incredibly important frames because you ask “will this work?  can this be safely implemented?”  For example, staying in the same place is ecologically easy to do externally, but on your body and mind would staying in the same place be good?  Or, changing your diet may not ecologically effect work environment, community, family, and will hopefully make you “look attractive” but what will the impact be on your immune system?  Ecology frame is similar to Ed de Bono’s judgement hat.  Ecology frame is also very similar to the Realist Disney Reality Strategy.
• Evidence Frame – How will I know — what’s the exact criteria — of having achieved an outcome? Evidence frame is an outcome sub-frame. It adds detail and a more crisply vivid vision to manufacture a more rich and lucid end outcome frame.
  • Similar to Outcome frame
• Open Frame -- What are some comments and or questions to the topic? An open frame is just a frame for people to ask comments or questions about the topic.  Usually an open frame can be a corollary to an outcome frame.
  • Similar to Backtrack frame
• Outcome Frame – What will this look like when its finished? Easily, the most common and one of the most universally useful frames.  When you focus on the outcome frame you’re envisioning the end result.  The outcome from is essential to the Present_State comparison to Desired_State test of the TOTE model.  You needed to determine an outcome for all of your activities.  An outcome frame provides a focus for what you want to achieve.  Better yet, it’s the frame where you focus on visualizing what you want to achieve.  Do you have problems making decisions?  Having a clearly defined — crisp in immense detail and visualized — outcome frame is absolutely essential for having success in getting things done.  Ever merely have a meeting but nothing gets accomplished?  You need an outcome frame!  Not having an outcome frame means you can quickly experience overwhelm by taking on too much or not achieve your dreams at all because the actual “I’m finished!” state and criteria has not yet defined.  You can use outcome frames for projects, for meetings, for anything where a specific result is desired!  Achieving anything successfully, efficiently, smoothly and intelligently involves the outcome state.
• Problem Frame — What could go wrong in achieving this outcome? Problem frame kind of works from the opposite direction as the outcome frame by focusing on all the possible weird or unexpected things that could arise.
  • Similar to Critic Disney Reality Strategy and a sub-frame of the Ecology frame.
• Relevancy Frame – Is this behavior comment or question pertinent to an agreed upon outcome? This frame is essential if you have an open forum and embark on an “open frame” and take questions from a crowd.  One of my favorite radio programs at the moment is an Australian local radio program and the host is brilliant at maintaining a good relevancy frame; if a caller deters off the topic he’ll end the call or pull them back on topic.  He’s great at staying very open to a variety of opinions, but if one of those opinions becomes irrelevant, he moves on very quickly.  Relevancy frame is essential to staying on target, keeping the nose to the grindstone, and moving forward in the direction you want to go.
  • Similar to Evidence frame.

Here’s some suggestions based on how I structure my hats in relation to the consolidated frames integral to each hat (each hat represents a unique cluster of frames).

Who’s Time Is This?

I’ve introduced (a year after the original post) a concept of whose time is it?  Under each frame, the time belongings to either you off work, your boss, or you planning what your employee will do.

Administrative Hat

• Who’s Time is this?  This is just the boss’s time to plan and assign things for the employee to do.
• Ecology Frame — Consider how this will effect your environment, your belongings, your future, your past, your relationships, your friends, community, your body.
  • Trigger Question: How will achieving this outcome and living in the state of having this outcome achieved effect my body, ideas, beliefs, my community, my friends, family, society?
• Outcome Frame — The vivid visualized end result to be compared to the present state using TOTE, so you know when the outcome is achieved and if you have more work to do or you’re done!
  • Trigger Question: What does this outcome look like?
• Backtrack — Check agreement and understanding during or after a meeting to update a new idea arrival or to restart a discussion.
  • Trigger Question: Wait…what were we talking about again?

Employee Hat

• Who’s Time is this? This is your boss’s time.  You have to make a non-porous distinction betwen your boss’s time and your time (while of course, neglecting the cognitive dissonance, and inducing some productive amnesia, that you’re also you’re own boss).  Your boss’s time (yes, I’m aware you’re the boss and thus is your time as boss) must not be looked at as your time, because it’s not.  When you’ve got the employee frame going you are working for some other person, another archetype, that person is not the person working for that.  You aren’t the same person.  The person (the boss frame) who defines the work that the employee frame productively accomplishes are distinct individuals (although they possess the same brain and body).
• Evidence Frame– Gauge how well you’re progressing.  Looking at evidence.  Assessing progress.
  • Trigger Question: What are milestones and how will know — what will I see and feel — to understand that I’ve completed a sub-outcome?
• Outcome Frame — Implement strategies and actions to achieve sub-goals that are congruent and components of the major administrative outcome.
  • Trigger Question: How can implement this sub-goal that ties in with the administrative main meta-outcome?

Employee Hat – Customer Frame/Hat

• Who’s Time is this?  This is still your boss’s time.  You’re in the employee frame, but because you’re an entrepreneur, you also need a way to test the boss-defined, employee-accomplished work.  The customer hate frame accomplishes this.
• Backtrack Frame — Focus on a customer outcome and constantly backtrack to ensure the interface appropriately matches up.
  • Trigger Question: How does this interface help me get the product or service I want?
• Outcome Frame — Get the desired product or service you want and shape what that will look like and even possibly what the process may be like (you will obviously use the framework designed by the Administrative hat and created by the Employer hat for this one!) .
  • Trigger Question: Do I trust this service-provider? How can I find the service (or product) I seek? How do I know it’s legitimate? Is this a good price?

Off-Work Time

Whose time is this?  This is your time.  This is what you would do when not at work.  It could be scheduling, gaming, communicating, planning.  This is basically the “not wearing a hat” frame.

Ideas for implementing these different hats

• Different Logins  – If you have blog or other kind of customer-driven interface you could create different logins to explore the product or service.  For example, if you’re creating an iPhone app that requires a login, you could create “john_adminhat” “john_employerhat” and “john_customerhat” logins.  These will function to remind you that “Oh yeah! I have to be in the customer hat to see how this goes and plug-in the backtrack frame and outcome frame for getting a a product!”  or “Oh yeah I shouldn’t be focused on product buying, I need to focus on design for the customer” (admin hat), or “I need to implement the design I decided upon (employer hat or “design hat”)
• Different Emails -- This one is similar to the different logins. But if you’re setting up something with e-commerce, and want to “test buy” a product you’ve put up, then having all those debugging test buys (undoubtedly the “Customer Hat”) consolidate toward your customer email (yourname_customerhat@gmail.com would work) is a great way to keep track to see if all your welcome messages and auto-responders work.  This sounds overly organized (and it is!) but when you setup something like an online store, or some advaned bit of ecommerce, knowing the difference between “Hey, yeah I sent myself this email when I was troubleshooting wearing the customer hat!” or “Oh yeah, this is a little administrative hat note to myself to change the usernames around!” is very valuable.
• Different Accents — Yes, I know this one is strange, but with my voice acting experience, I’ve found actually speaking in a different accent is conducive to getting things done more efficiently and structuring auditorially when I’m in a different cognitive mode.  I’m convinced you truly do think differently when speaking in a different accent.  Therefore, although the idea of accent utilization is very peculiar, I recommend this anecdote for implementing your different kinds of entrepreneurial points of view.
• Inter-relationship — What’s so cool about using these different hats for your business, is you make the functioning of your business hermetic, and airtight, with no problems or flaws or cracks where stuff can happen.  You’ve thought through all those by employing, administering, or “customering” scenarios and outcomes and cycling through the various frames.  Frames and applying these hats catalyzes growth, expansion, and new ideas, but such application also makes ideas and concepts and projects airtight and moves them forward and makes them seamless and extensible!

Also, this guy I think is awesome.  1)He offers a GREAT explanation and 2)He’s a bloody aussie, mate!

Basically a put (pun surprisingly unintended maybe subconsciously intended, yes, definitely) a put option is buying a contract that provides you insurance; insurance to sell something at a price.

In what market is (put and call) option trading?  Options are not in the “Shares Market” (because an option doesn’t exchange shares, it exchanges contracts to buy or sell shares at an exercise price!).  Instead, options are in the “Derivatives Market”!  Yay! Go calculus! (LINK).  I love the word derivative. So technical.  Delicious.  Without getting too technical, futures, forwards, swaps, credit derivatives, and hybrid securities are also part of the derivative market, along with options (oops, I got too technical .  Don’t worry about those 5 other kinds of derivative market trading.  Solidify and possible exercise (again, pun had to be somewhat intended ) your knowledge of put and call option trading first!  That way you can gauge if options are for you.

Before you delve into this excitingly numerical and mathematically exciting rockin world of options trading, you may find value (intrinsic or just numerically comedy ) in acquainting yourself with some factoids of the stock exchanges, especially “What the hell is up with stock exchange trading hours?” from a previous post of mine.  When you’ve graduated yourself from the joys of compound interest and basic stock investing and have skirted the real estate investment “thang”, but still want some advanced high tech investment ideas…you might be ready to get savvy for stock option trading!

In my own words:  In simplest definitions, buying and selling options is buying and selling contracts to buy stocks at certain prices.  There’s only two types of options.  Put options (upon expiration date, I have the the legal nifty awesome stock-trading right to SELL xyz shares at abc exercise price) and call options (you guessed it, upon expiration date, I have the legal nifty awesome stock-trading right to, yep you guessed it, BUY xyz shares at abc exercise price).

For more details, check out this INSANELY well-written, lucid article.

Example:  July $50 call option for Walgreens is $1.66 (1.66/share, always in round lot, so $166)

July = Expiration Month (it’s always the 3rd friday of the month!)

$50 = strike price

When the Option Expires.  Decision Flow

When an option expires, you either sell it (sell the contract), exercise it (buy the call option (or sell, if it’s a put) the shares for the strike price, which shows no regard to the current price!), or do nothing (lose the original investment of the option cost.

———-> Excercise the option   (yes = buy (with calls) or sell shares (with puts); no = Sell the Option || Neither Sell the Option Contract nor Exercise it

———->Sell the option   (yes = sold;  no = lost money)

Also, this guy I think is awesome.  1)He offers a GREAT explanation and 2)He’s a bloody aussie, mate!

Our Friend, Jules Dawson explains how Put options are a congruent to insurance.

This is valuable, true, interesting, and a good analogy to understand puts.

Basically put (pun surprisingly unintended maybe subconsciously intended, yes, definitely), a put option is buying a contract that provides you insurance; insurance to sell something at a price.

Extensions

In what market will you find (put and call) option trading categorized?  Options are not in the “Shares Market” (because an option doesn’t exchange shares, it exchanges contracts to buy or sell shares at an exercise price!).  Instead, options are in the “Derivatives Market”!  Yay! Go calculus!  I love the word derivative. So technical.  Delicious.  Without getting too technical, futures, forwards, swaps, credit derivatives, and hybrid securities are also part of the derivative market, along with options (oops, I got too technical .  Don’t worry about those 5 other kinds of derivative market trading.  Solidify and possibly exercise (again, pun had to be somewhat intended ) your knowledge of put and call option trading first!  That way you can gauge if options are for you.

Is this too high-tech? Is this for me?

That’s up to you.  Check out the articles linked above, this one, and this dude’s 10 Keys to option trading in any market, bull or bear.

Remember, with options, there’s a high risk factor

so do your research and get it done, to reap the reward!

Basically if you effectively purchase puts on a falling market and then exercise them, and/or purcahse calls on a rising market and then exercise them…you’d be a successful options trader, and it’s very safe to say that option trading is for you!  Beautiful!

Sure there’s a few rare incidents of them attacking humans

but the same is true of lightning

and lightning strikes are actually more frequent than shark bites.  If Spielberg had created Zappers instead of Jaws, about how frequently people get struck and killed by lightning would there be a greater fear irrational fear of the atmospheric discharge of electricity and indifference to our cartilaginous friends?  I think so.

Sharks are beautiful.

And the belief that they’re man-eating, devouring, aquatic killing machines is a purely irrational fear.

Not too much to say here.  Rob Stewart says it all.  I’m a huge fan, benefactor, philanthropist, afficionado, and exited knowledge learner of sharks.  They’re endangered.  The shouldn’t be.  Spielberg’s Jaws started irrational fear.  I’ve said that message to many a people, but Rob Stewart says it with incredible clarity.  His message is important!

Check the sharks tag for more insightful reads on the beauty and sophisticated of sharks.