Posts Tagged ‘Self improvement’
Saturday, July 18th, 2009
Almost one and a half years ago, on January 23rd 2008, I have finished reading George Orwell’s legendary book “1984″. Immediately after finishing it I was inspired and I had an idea and I wrote it down into a note I still keep to this day:
A website called “DoublePlusHuman.com” – based on the notion that by being real self thinking, inquisitive, exploratory humans we can overt any threat of dystopian future. The name is a reference to 1984′s Newspeak and translates as Super Human. The intended message is “Be as human as possible and you’ll be free.”
“1984″ was a bit of a mind chow (or mind f*ck for a more technical term), but what was obvious to me was that the whole point of the totalitarian regime that ruled the fictional Oceania in the book was dehumanization. It occurred to me that the root cause of all tyranny in the real world, all loss of liberty and all oppression is dehumanization. It is the idea that a human individual must repress his or her urges, must sacrifice himself for the society, the so called greater good. It is this idea that has humans in constant fear of each other and consequential constant desire to control each other, as absolutely as possible.
I felt defiant as I was reading through the end of the book, as the tyranny of illusion and repression of humanity was winning. Being enamored by the book’s “NewSpeak” a hack of its own language came to my mind as a pronouncement of protest: DoublePlusHuman!. DoublePlusHuman, not the compromised, self repressed and self sacrificed human, but a human in all its glory, in its “full bloom”, pursuing the maximum of potential and letting nobody, NOBODY, control him or her against his or her will.
I immediately registered a domain name, DoublePlusHuman.com, and put it aside. Year and a half passed as I was exploring myself and evolving my ideas. I became a staunch support of voluntary interaction as opposed to coercive governance. I strived to rediscover myself, to find what I truly love to do, what I can do that would make me happiest and provide most value.
I went through this process twice. First time I seemed to have reached wrong conclusions. I went through it too fast and too keenly and as a consequence I ended up trying to jumpstart two projects that went nowhere (Site2Review.com and Gamelapse.com) all the while knowing somewhere in the back of my head that it was really DoublePlusHuman.com which I was supposed to be doing.
So I redid the process, but this time I used a whole book on the topic, “How To Finally Find What You Love To Do And Get Paid For Doing It” by Brian Kim (long title, short but brilliant book). I gave myself weeks of almost aimless floating about, doing only what I had to do and otherwise just exploring, reading what I want, doing what I want and trying to answer the dozens of questions I was supposed to answer and wanted to answer about my talents and interests. I deliberately, prior to finishing this process, read Stefan Molynex’ “Real Time Relationships”, another brilliant book which helped deepen my introspection and further enticed me to trust my feelings and senses.
And prior to all that I was already armed with ideas and encouragement from Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich” as well as the simplified “The Hidden Secret in Think and Grow Rich” by Brian Kim.
And I ultimately, and not to a too big surprise found my way. It wasn’t so far off from prior conclusions in that I again concluded that what I really love to do is web publishing, but doing it my way, as a one man show envisioning something in its entirety and then creating it from the beginning to the end. I do the conceptualization, web design and finally write most of the content. As I was approaching this conclusion it became more and more obvious that what most embodied what I love to do at this point in time was exactly everything I hoped DoublePlusHuman.com could be.
And so I ditched everything else, put the more important projects (Nuxified.org and Libervis.com) into a maintenance mode (in which they were for some time anyway), and made DoublePlusHuman my main project. Couple of months passed and here she is.
I personally believe that it is the best web site I ever made and the best project I ever started. It most perfectly fits who I am and it fits a grander plan that I now finally have for my life. I’ve never felt the kind of sense of direction I do now. My puzzles are finally being put together. DoublePlusHuman.com is a start of a new era for me.
The site is made to be accessible to the widest possible audiences, complies with standards, is compatible with screen reading devices, has a mobile version and allows people to switch width to short or wide depending on the size of their screens. It will contain original content and links to content published elsewhere categorized in the same way. Forms of content are articles and media (video, audio and images) and main categories are “philosophy”, “technology” and “culture” representing the means to the ends that are the goal of the site: self improvement, personal freedom and social change.
I plan, for the first time, to be producing original inspiring and moving video infotainment on a semi-regular basis to attract and inspire the readers and build a community. And of course there is a business aspect to it that is also better worked out from the beginning than with any project I did before. Hence the unobtrusive neatly positioned sidebar ad and the amazon store. I am not ashamed of this. I will be able to monetize this site only if I provide enough people with enough value! I aim to provide value, not to make money! Money must be a mere side effect. And since I love what I’m doing here this shouldn’t be a problem. I no longer see failure as failure, but useful information for success. (And needless to say, money will be necessary for the achievement of the mentioned grander plan. )
All this said, there is no official launch announcement. I simply start with publishing articles and the first is a series of articles defining the key terms of the site: “self improvement”, “personal freedom” and “social change”. The first one is already published: “Defining Self Improvement”.
This seems like a good beginning, defining the key terms, setting up the basic paradigm.
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009
I’ve watched a Star Trek Voyager episode last night called “Think Tank” and was a little intrigued by a strange group of problem solvers that it was about. It was mostly the idea of being able to find a solution to pretty much any problem that could ever come up by just thinking through all of the variables, correlations, causalities, probabilities and other factors to come up with actual solutions. It’s about manipulating everything that can be manipulated and in a Star Trek world, it’s just about everything, albeit in this particular episodes, the issues were of tactical nature.
The think tank persona in the episode talked about expanding one’s abilities by exploring the unknown. Given the context that would more likely be “cracking” the unknown, that is, making it known. Actually, every problem is a problem for no other reason than lack of knowledge anyway.
I identified with this immediately in terms of my self improvement and self government efforts and individualist thinking. I believe an individual not only has the right to, but the ability as well, to become far more than (s)he currently is. The individual in the think tank, however, was willing to use coercion in his quests. People were nothing more than another variables in his equations, something to be manipulated, by coercion if necessary, to achieve the desired result, or “solution” to his particular problem.
And so I thought.. if I were someone who developed his thinking skills to the point at which I actually can often manipulate other people to my ends, even through coercion, wouldn’t it be tempting to try that? After all, being “caught” or retaliated against is just another factor in the equation to deal with, and can theoretically be dealt with. Of course, I have a moral principle of non-coercion, so the answer is that while I would be tempted, I would find more greatness and satisfaction in achieving my ends without the use of coercion.
But the best realization came to me today just a short while ago.. It’s not really just about a moral principle for the sake of a principle. There is something intrinsic about coercion – it is actually always an anti-thesis to your victory, to your solution. If among your manipulative strategies you include coercion (including force and fraud) you are by definition leaving enemies behind, people who WILL eventually feel hurt and naturally have a desire to retaliate against you. Therefore, by using coercion in your strategies you keep on seeding the seeds of your own doom, your own ultimate or immediate failure.
If, on the other hand, you consider coercion itself to be an inevitable problem creating tool rather than an effective solution solving tool and therefore ban it from all your strategies and success formulas, you are gonna leave behind yourself a trail of people whom not only have no grudge against you, but have also genuinely benefited from an encounter with you. They wont tell people you’re a fraudster and conspire to take you down in retaliation (like they did in the mention Voyager episode). They will recommend you. Thus would would keep planting seeds of your ultimate or immediate success.
Coercion is a value destructor. Value cannot exist without a person assigning it to something therefore all value is subjective and individual. Your interaction with a person can either have him or her have more in value (material or immaterial, things, feelings, knowledge etc.), less in value or equal as before. Coercion is always a sure way of leaving someone not only with less in value, but feeling determined to in seeking justice have YOU have less in value as well. Therefore coercion is a tool of poverty and failure generation whereas voluntary interaction void of all coercion is a wealth and success generation tool.
Coerce and you shall be coerced. Violate and you shall be violated. Give and you shall receive. Bottom line is, what you do to others you can expect others to do to you. If you want to be rich, happy and wealthy make others rich, happy and wealthy.
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
I have just read a book “The Science of Getting Rich” by Wallace Wattle which likely influenced Napoleon Hill, the author of “Think and Grow Rich” which I’ve read and praised earlier.
I have to praise this one too and without hesitation I can recommend it to everyone looking for constructive insights on how exactly to attain wealth and success, especially since it’s just 66 pages long.
“The Science of Getting Rich” is what also largely influenced The Secret, a popular movie from 2006 that popularized the concept of “The Law of Attraction”, albeit such a term isn’t found in the actual book.
That said, just like “Think and Grow Rich”, this book greatly resonates with me. I can see the logic in them and I can see exactly how applying philosophies expressed in these books can lead one to success. Think and Grow Rich especially has a pretty solid mount of evidence in support of the positively transformational power of its ideas as many successful and wealthy people reportedly cite that book as being a major influence to their success.
I can also say that it certainly made me a lot more likely to succeed as I can with absolute confidence say that in part thanks to these books I am far more confident about myself and far more daring. I have transformed and solidified my view of failure as part of success, of limitations as primarily mental and self-imposed, of wealth creation as a noble rather than morally reprehensible goal, and so on.
Yet I am still somewhat uneasy, or at least, I am eager to express something that I feel could make the philosophies presented in these books more complete, and put them deeper within a rational and scientific context. There are two reasons for this.
Confusion over The Law of Attraction (and The Secret)
As much as I could say that “The Secret” movie brought philosophies of these books to the masses I would say that it perverted them or dumbed them down to the point at which pretty much the only thing an average person could get from it is that “I can get whatever I wish in my mind by the simple act of wishing”. And I can see how can these philosophies be brought down to this incredible oversimplification. The fact that they zeroed in to this term “Law of Attraction” which immediately implies that the core of the idea is attraction, not action, doesn’t help at all.
Yet both Wallace Wattle and Napoleon Hill emphasized the importance of taking action. Even the movie itself, The Secret, glossed over this briefly, but insufficiently.
That said, Wallace did pretty much say that strongly envisioning something you desire in your mind and being grateful for getting it even before you actually get it (in order to affirm your absolute belief in that you will get it) will directly cause a chain of events independent of your physical action that will make the thing you desire to be attracted to you. In a nutshell, this guy believed in the Law of Attraction.
However, this is what leads me to the second reason of my “uneasiness”. He uses terms which CAN be interpreted in a different way where a different light is cast on the whole “attraction” business and where thought itself doesn’t necessarily have to be considered a direct cause of your getting what you desire. In essence, the whole action-reaction chain that ensues once you form the desire filled and confident thought in your mind may be slightly different than what most readers of Wallace and perhaps even Wallace himself, is led to believe.
This would be a result of our limited understanding of that which we are, through these ideas, beginning to discover. The ways in which we are describing it are still inefficient and insufficient to precisely pin point the exact science in question. Due to the amount of people that succeed by applying these ideas it seems plausible that we ARE looking at a glimpse of truth rather than a fallacy, but due to the limited understanding, we may be getting some of the crucial details wrong, which is the case regarding “The Secret” and “Law of Attraction”.
Thoughts, energy and action-reaction chains
First of all, it is currently scientifically understood that all matter in existence comes down to energy. When an object, no matter how big or how small, is inert, it has potential energy, albeit on a more fundamental level it is never inert so inertion is relative to the observer. When the same object becomes active it converts its potential energy to kinetic energy. And due to the conservation of energy law energy is never actually destroyed or “spent away”; it’s simply converted from one form to another.
It is then conceivable that physical forms of shape could also be considered as specific forms of energy, of potential energy if anything. Wallace Wattle talks about “formless substance” and this is where it appears that energy fits right in. But then we enter the realm of thought. Wattle also describes this as “formless substance that thinks“.
If formless substance is energy then the question is can energy think? If everything in existence is fundamentally energy though then human beings and other thinking life forms are energy as well in which case through them energy can and does indeed think. Observing what happens in our brains when we think does reveal that our thoughts are in effect just a complex stream of impulses, of energy!
But the concept of “formless substance that thinks” seems to imply that energy thinks regardless of whether it holds a form of a thinking life form or not, in which case a tree thinks itself into existence as a tree, a rock thinks itself into an existence as a rock and so on. Can this be?
Well, to answer this would require defining “thought” and this again refers me to the observation of thoughts as streams of energy in which case thought is nothing but a patter of energy flows. Thoughts then ARE energy. Thoughts then could be considered a fundamental building block of everything in existence.
In that case by the very virtue of being, a tree thinks. The only difference between a tree that thinks itself into existence and a human that thinks itself into existence is that a human is aware of his thoughts whereas a tree isn’t, giving a human the power to transform his thoughts and therefore himself and direction of his growth whereas the tree just “instinctively” grows according to parameters established by itself and the rest of the thinking reality.
So where does law of attraction or its rebuttal as it were fit in?
Well, it implies a very specific thing. It infers from the above realizations, provided that LOA supporters have these realizations, a particular action-reaction chain without actually seeing any empirical or logical consistency evidence of such an action-reaction chain occurring. It infers that because we are all made of thought-energy that our envisioning a particular image strongly somehow materializes this image into a physical equivalent. But what basis do they have for concluding this? This is NOT a necessary conclusion of everything being consisted of thought-energy and it ignores the many intricate ways in which thought-energy actually flows or interacts with that which it constantly creates.
So even if all of the above is true, that everything is consisted of thought-energy thinking itself to existence, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I can think something else aside of me and my actions into existence, something that on a macro scale never actually interacts with me. I think this is all coming from a gross misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, of the laws which actually govern “thinking”, that is, a process by which thought-energy shapes itself into forms we see around ourselves, and the universe at large.
What we CAN conclude based on actual evidence though is that a thought can cause an act and that therefore one indeed cannot achieve anything before previously envisioning that something in the mind. The efficiency of any given act in its ability to bring us closer to the achievement of our goal is directly dependent on our understanding of the action-reaction chains which are necessary to achieve it. Most of us probably still use crude methods and do things which we might not necessary have to do, that are superfluous to our goals, but we’re still learning.
Theoretically though it is possible that as we begin learning more and more about precise action-reaction chains involved in how everything comes into being (or in other words the process by which thought-energy creates) we MAY be able to by the power of our mind alone replicate things we envision out of thin air, by arranging our thoughts in such a way to create an energy impulse that arranges molecules of air surrounding us into whatever we have envisioned.
But we’re likely a very long way there and still have plenty to learn.
In conclusion, I think that it is worth considering what was written in “Think and Grow Rich” and “The Science of Getting Rich” as it IS evidently changing people’s lives for the better. I think that they are scratching the surface of a new understanding that may soon become a real science. The fact that they sometimes sound almost mystical or add what appear to be superfluous conclusions (like law of attraction) merely reflects the limitedness of their understanding of the actual source of the ideas they have through their thinking and observing discovered, not that these are ideas are completely false.
So let’s keep exploring this and evolving.
Thursday, September 4th, 2008
I am working on the selection of my major new venture and in doing so I tend to browse through some inspiring or helpful material relevant to the process of selecting candidates and making the right choice, coming up with the right strategy for the achievement of my major goal.
One of the posts I’ve read is about focusing on what other people need instead of money, when you want to develop a successful business. Of course, since I know that this doesn’t mean I shouldn’t also take into account what I want as well, I’ve started thinking. And since I like to think “bottom up” or foundations first I ended up coming up with a sort of hierarchical image of what fits where. The result is the following, and I think it might be helpful to.. whoever you are.
The question “Who I am?” is the central question for anyone who wishes to attain great success, however they define it. What I find as constituting the answer to that question comes from our genes and experiences or our “hardware” and “raw sensory data” respectively. Our hardware is everything that we are from the moment we were born (or before). From that moment on our experiences shape who we are today. They are nothing but the data that we perceive with our sensors and then proceed to process with our minds.
And that in turn results in two basic things: beliefs and knowledge or data and know how and “love” how, or what we know how to do and what we love to do (are inclined to do), which is constituted of our skills and interests. Those are our “programs”, sets of instructions we know how to execute.
Of course, the two tend to intermingle. Our programs use the data and the data can influence the content of our instructions. Together they form who we are. Thus, I am a voluntaryist, atheist, web publisher, web designer, enthusiast about technology, electronic music etc.
It is from who we are then, that we extract our desires. Desire is an emotion and emotions are part of our hardware (like firmware). Specifically the program of desire is integral to the system which defines the direction that we are likely to go in life.
Desires are potential goals that we would set for ourselves. From my own learned belief, I think it is best to write down all of the desires as goals and then among them pick one which if accomplished would help accomplish most of the others – that goal is what would serve as your purpose at this time of your life and until it’s achieved. It is the question: “What do I want to get?”. I have my answer.
But to achieve this, no matter what “The Secret” tells you, it is not enough to desire it. That’s where faith (self-confidence), planning and persistence comes in. I am in the planning stage.
And in that planning stage we inevitably face the question: “How do I get this?”. The answer must come from the answer to the question: “What do I want to give?”.
As you can see, you can’t hope to answer any of these questions without knowing the answer to “Who I am”. In fact, answering these questions seems to be a part in answering the first one. It’s all interconnected. You can’t achieve anything without giving anything. If your goal is money, you wont get it without giving anything.
But pay attention to the word “want” in this last question. You can give something, but is it what you want to give? If your goal is money, you can get any sort of a job doing anything and get it, but will that job be something you want to do? Most people who want money make the mistake of “doing anything I have to do to get it”, and they will, but that’s like taking a bargain of sorts and seldom, if ever, results in the kind of success they hope for.
This is because you’ll be most effective in giving what you want to give rather than what you have to give. Doing what you don’t really want to do, which isn’t congruent with who you are, is akin to putting a router in a job of graphics processing. It doesn’t quite work out. A router is most effective in routing network traffic.
But there’s a catch, and it’s an important one. Is what you want to give in line with what a lot of other people want to get? Is there a need or desire (demand) for what you’d be giving?
Ultimately, the best question to answer then becomes: What is it that I want to give that a lot of the other people need or want?. This way you strike the gold, perhaps literally. You are aligning what you’re best at offering with what most people want. You’re capturing the formula for releasing your absolute maximum potential. Isn’t that awesome?
I’m still looking for mine. It’s, of course, possible to make mistakes. Knowing self can be a difficult job, but never mind that. I’ll keep trying and if you’re into it, keep trying as well. We’ll get it!
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008
At this point in time my whole being is centered around these two concepts: self liberation and self growth. Self liberation is about personal liberty and self growth is about my life – making it what I want it to be. Making it great.
Self Liberation – Liberty
In a nutshell, this is why I am a voluntaryist. As such I am liberating myself from fear of coercion and from a desire to coerce. I am coming to a full understanding of myself as an individual human being with a self aware mind and a nature which requires liberty and property, as one and the same, to be. Through my senses I receive information. With my mind I process and feel it. Processing it is ideally consisted of applying a scientific process to it and feeling it is assigning personal values to it (good vs. bad = desirable vs. undesirable). This process is what creates my sub-reality, my world – built on the foundation of the absolute real world around me that I perceived, processed and felt.
Being aware of the fact that my world is MY world, MY sub-reality, and nobody elses, because it is MY senses, MY mind and MY feelings which created it, I cannot believe in the right to impose it on somebody else nor can I believe in the right of somebody else to impose his own sub-reality on me. This is not isolation. It is liberty. I can interact with another by cooperating based on what we do have in common – which is how trade happens and why free market works.
From these fundamental grounds I perceive the social world much differently than most people. I see wrongs where other people see rights. I see unnecessary evil where others see necessary evil, or even “good”. I see fear and corruption where others see virtue. But since I do not fear them, nor believe with them, I am free.
Self growth – Life
Now that I am free, what do I want to do with my life? This is where I largely adopted a strategy, as talked about before, by Napoleon Hill, presented in “Think and Grow Rich”. I found sufficient evidence to support his strategy to consider it factual and I am thus basing my self growth plan on it.
This however does not make me an automatic follower of everyone who claims to preach self growth and self help. It does not by far make me a follower of propaganda like “The Secret”. I think such propaganda is pseudoscience, something you get when you collide self-growth facts with some sort of a yet unsubstantiated and unproven religion, like New Age. It’s same as the movie “Expelled” by creationists, which is what you get by colliding science with fundamentalist christianity.
I am, however, much more interested in explaining “spirituality” by science. I’ve seen many people say they’ve changed their life by “finding god” and I don’t have to tell you about the amount of people who actually did somehow manage to change their life based on New Age as well (per The Secret). Spirituality seems to be this state of mind which automatically induces just the right kind of actions on your part to make you feel fulfilled and successful. It’s sort of a short-cut. I believe such a short cut exists, but I will not believe in that it is not something that can’t be achieved by science alone.
In fact, I think that the ultimate spiritual enlightenment WILL be achieved by science. We will simply discover as facts a way in which we can put our mind in that blissful state. I think Napoleon Hill came dangerously close to that, but he branched it off to “infinite intelligence” and that’s where my doubts begin. I need more evidence and I am interested to discuss this with really scientifically minded people.
After my research for the last days on this topic I can therefore say this:
Science is the only religion you will ever need. Hence, you will need no religion.
So all these people who “found god” may have just accidentally stumbled upon a yet not entirely scientifically discovered or explained process which made them feel like “they found god”, feel utterly enlightened etc. I doubt they really “found god” though. They just found the yet undefined process.
This makes further sense when you consider that many people from many different religions have similar claims. They can’t all be the “one true religion”, so there must be something deeper involved – a process.
We will probably discover it soon.
But, I’m sticking with science above all else. I want to emphasize that because it may have seemed like I’ve ran off to some strange New Age and pseudoscience waters in my previous posts. No. I stick to science. I have three categories in which I will put the ideas and theories I encounter.
3. Neither. Keep looking, whenever motivated.
I accept as factual truth only those ideas which I or enough of other people have reproducibly tested and proven right. I reject those that have been beyond doubt proven wrong.
The “neither” category are all the rest, and there’s quite a bit of stuff here. It’s all of the ideas which I can neither definitely prove nor disprove, but are interesting enough for me to keep my mind open to more information about them. I have a scale in this category, from “almost accepted” to “almost rejected”. For instance, the idea of infinite intelligence would be closer to “almost accepted” (but never accepted until I can fully prove it) and the idea of ancient alien race (sun gods) seeding human life on Earth would be near “almost rejected”.
You can imagine that I definitely reject very little. Today there’s just too much information out there. I find it hard to reject things off hand. I suppose I can call the third category as “I don’t know.. yet”. I like that category, not because I like not knowing of course, but in a contrary because it encourages me to know more. Too many people just reject or accept and thus everything that they really don’t know must either be rejected or accepted. Just think of the “god of the gaps” or a new one I heard about New Agers, “consciousness of the gaps”.
Monday, September 1st, 2008
A few hours ago I watched a movie called “What the bleep do we know” and then went on to hunt for some reviews and critiques of it. The best I’ve read comes from an excellent skeptical blog and I have to say I agree with that the attempt to make the theories presented as scientific were largely a fraud. The truth, from what I gathered, seems to be that there really are no definite answers when it comes to the mysteries of quantum physics and that it is therefore premature to come up with any sort of an explanation and call it real.
So I have to count the bleep squarely in the same category as “The Secret”, which actually came later on and probably made an even bigger splash. It’s taking some truths and mixing them with half truths and unsupported claims (“lies” wouldn’t be too far off) and presents it through nice animations, effects, inspirational talk etc. to appeal to the gullible.
What bothers me most about these kinds of movies and resulting “philosophies” is that they seem to taint the real thing. The reason I was attracted to watching these kinds of movies in the first place is reading “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill, which made so much sense to me and felt so positively empowering that I found myself easily believing it. And I still do think that “Think and Grow Rich” is the real deal that can really and actually help people achieve what they desire to achieve.
However, movies like “The Secret” took the ideas from people like Napoleon Hill, using even their own words in rather subtle ways and then in the process of marketing it to the masses dumbed it down and bastardized it to a point at which it becomes hard to discern where the real original philosophy ends and their fantasy conjectures begin.
For instance, Napoleon Hill never mentions “Law of Attraction”, nor does he say that the ideas he is presenting are a great secret that has been suppressed through centuries. Mr. Hill does mention the secret though, but it is something entirely else. It is a label he briefly puts on Andrew Carnegie’s strategy of success and a sort of a “plot device” of his book that encourages the reader to try and be perceptive as (s)he reads the book. He deliberately does not just “spell out” this secret, but instead wants the reader to recognize it himself as (s)he is reading, because it is evident from each chapter.
Brian Kim, in his “Hidden Secret in Think and Grow Rich”, spells it out and using “Think and Grow Rich” as a base, also spells out a very practical strategy of success which is so down to earth that it presents a tremendous contrast to the hot air of “The Secret” movie, as well as “What the bleep do we know”.
Napoleon Hill also talks a bit about something he terms as “infinite intelligence” and the reasoning behind this is simple and does not even begin to involve quantum mechanics, something that authors of both the bleep movie and The Secret have readily abused. He simply concedes that all universe is made up of matter, time and energy and that, being a part of it, our thoughts are actually energy too. It isn’t too surprising that he’d conclude that on some level this energy of our thoughts and the rest of the energy in the universe is connected and that this then means that all thought energy of the universe is connected into “infinite intelligence”.
Now, sure, that sounds quite close to the New Age stuff propagated through bleep and The Secret, but when you compare the level at which these modern movies rely on this theory with the content of Mr. Hills book the contrast is again quite stark. In “Think and Grow Rich” the idea of “infinite intelligence” merely seems like a sidebar, not the thing on which the whole premise of the book hinges on. Whether you choose to believe in “infinite intelligence” or not the book remains incredibly useful by the merit of the practical advice it gives alone.
And what better proof is there than the number of people who read the book and in their reviews repeatedly claim that it helped them successfully achieve such things as start their own businesses, beat an addiction problem etc. Just do a search for “think and grow rich review”. It’s very easy to find them. I tried looking for negative reviews as well and it isn’t as easy to find, and that’s after 70 years of the book being available.
That said, I did say earlier that even if I don’t believe it as a fact, I do think that the theory of “infinite intelligence” is fairly plausible. But I have to emphasize that this mere belief in possibility does not constitute a claim. I am by far NOT siding with the New Agers and the like who claim that we are all a part of god or gods ourselves etc. And even if I did start believing in one version of that, I seriously don’t want to be associated with them, at least those who so readily deceive people by offering them dumbed down versions of the truth which in the process of being dumbed down actually ends up being a half-truth or a lie.
Also, the belief in the existence of “infinite intelligence” (which again I’m not necessarily holding) is not the same as belief in thoughts shaping reality. At best it is a belief in the possibility of communicating with other minds on Earth or in the universe, intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, instead of being a tool of direct creation or “attraction”, thoughts may merely be a beginning to the kind of action which fascilitates a sort of “telepathic” communication, much in the similar way thoughts are the beginning to action done by our own hands and legs. Action then leads to reaction and this is how we see results of our efforts. But those still are real efforts, beyond mere thoughts.
And furthermore, since quantum physics, from what little I know about it, does not exactly provide definite answers yet, it doesn’t see inconceivable that it would allow for the reality based existence of “infinite intelligence” (sum of all thoughts in the universe) and such abilities as telepathy. I just don’t take those as facts yet, but wouldn’t rule out the possibility either.
Anyway, these days I am actually trying to apply the practical philosophy of success presented by Napoleon Hill and made even more practical by Brian Kim. I’ve set up a rather ambitious yet believable goal based on my desires, decided to pursue it and to consistently try to instill in myself the confidence and belief that I can achieve it. Yes, I am applying positive thinking, but NO, I am NOT applying “The Secret” as they are defining it. I am not expecting anything awesome to happen to me merely on the basis of my positive thinking.
What I expect instead is quite natural, that I will be more inclined to take action and consequently WILL take action to achieve my goals; from the first stage of collecting knowledge I need to achieve it, to organizing into primary and secondary plans to the actual execution of them that will lead me to the achievement of the goal.
And there’s nothing especially supernatural or even spiritual about that.
If finally starting DoublePlusHuman.com is going to be consistent with the achievement of this goal, something I’m still researching, then one of the things I will write about on that site is this incredibly important skill of discerning the real self-growth philosophy from those who abused it for their own fame and profit because I think the message people like Napoleon Hill have for individuals of this world is far too important for it to be destroyed in the minds of many by such scam artistry riding on the tails of wisdom and success of the original true thinkers in the field.
Wednesday, August 13th, 2008
For a second day in a row I feel “all-powerful”. It is the effect of reading that book, “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill, which I mentioned earlier, and beating on the ideas I discovered there by following through the “Hidden Secret in Think and Grow Rich” by Brian Kim. It is easy for me to just say that I feel like I can do anything or that it is possible for you to feel like you can do anything, but it is a feeling and thus escapes words.
You have to read the book and if you don’t understand, try the Hidden Secret book I mentioned as well, since it clarifies a lot of the core ideas in “Think and Grow Rich”. The book is so deep and so profound that it is hard to just classify it as a “success” book or let alone “how to get rich” book. The ideas it presents are like a recipe for succesful happy living not just in a material, but even in a spiritual sense, but WITHOUT what is commonly know as religion, yet also WITHOUT contradicting those who do believe in some religion.
It is therefore entirely universal and universally applicable. To give you just a peak into how powerful it is, I will say that the book made me actually believe in the possibility of humans having telepathic abilities, in the legitimacy of prayer that involves no gods and in the power of thought as more than mere imagination – as a creative power which can truly be transformed into real matter. I think and therefore I am. I think and therefore I create. I think and therefore I make reality around me bow to my desire, my burning desire.
I would say that the ideas presented form more than a religion, because it spans religions, being more fundamental, more open ended and more logical and scientific.
I can do anything I set my mind to. I can because now I know I can, because I know how is it that I can set my mind to something, because I know more about thinking, feeling, imagining. I can almost understand fully what is meant by this verse from the bible:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word. What is it but an outcome of an idea, a thought? What bible further describes is that it is with his word that god created everything. Indeed. Perhaps it may come as a surprise to some to realize, however, that you too can create with words. But it is not enough to just spell out “create me a second moon orbiting Earth”.
You first have to have a genuine burning desire for something, not just a shallow “wish”. Then you have to have absolute and utter confidence, that is faith in your ability to realize what you desire, then decide that you WILL indeed realize it just as you decide to go and get something to eat and then without thinking and doubting your ability to eat, just do it. You have to write your desire in words where you can read them in order to inject yourself with the same kind of exactness and feeling you had when you first uttered the words. You’re essentially renewing your vow with yourself and your power to do it.
The subsequent steps will come naturally – the creation of a plan of action, of how to achieve it, the total persistence even through so called (by others) “failures” (failure doesn’t exist, it’s merely a piece of information that helps you succeed). In the end you WILL create what you desired.
So you might say this is an ardous process and how can I possibly compare that with the instantaneous creation by word of god. But bible doesn’t quite specify that he created everything instantaneously. Maybe it was indeed an ardous process, or maybe he could do all of the above in a fraction of the time we need because he was of such an advanced species. Or maybe christians are just taking the verses too literally.
Napoleon Hill talks about something he terms “Infinite Intelligence” which is essentially a common pool of all intelligence in the universe, I presume. Because right down to it thoughs are actually nothing more than streams of energy and the whole universe is consisted of nothing but space, time, matter and energy. Energy is the one which uses matter and time to create. If thoughts are energy you can see how thoughts can create. And you might also begin to see the logic behind the proposition of “infinite intelligence”. If thoughts are energy and energy is everywhere then our thoughts are essentially binded to the thoughts of all other thinking beings on this planet, but also of thoughts of all other thinking beings in the universe.
We’re just not as evolved mentally to practice the ability of receiving from this stream of thought, but such thing has and does happen. Napoleon Hill calls such things as “hunches” and flashes of incredibly brilliant creative ideas as possibly having come from this “infinite intelligence”. Incidentally, such hunches and flashes come when the mind is in a rather peculiar state (extremely active, energized by special emotional mixtures etc.) which suggests that in those states the mind actually “switches on” the receptor of information from the inifinite intelligence or “tunes in”.
Perhaps it is this “infinite intelligence” that people call “god”, but obviously being still under-evolved and therefore unable to understand it they personify it and they treat such great men, great thinkers indeed, who managed to evolve to a point of using this power (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.) as prophets and emmisaries of “god”.
Yet they may simply be humans who have come to learn how to use their minds better than anyone else, and “tune in” to the universal streams of thought. It’s a darn intriguing thought!
I wont say I fully believe all this. At this point I merely take it as a plausible theory. I know one thing however, one thing Napoleon Hill managed to convinced me pretty strongly off – thoughts are much much much more powerful than most people believe. We might just have seemingly “godly” power beneath our skulls, yet just seldom learn how to use it.
So you can imagine the thrill I feel as I am discovering all this. I feel like I’m beginning to revive this incredibly powerful tool beneath my skull, like the energy is building up, the fire is starting to burn and my personal power rises.
It feels so good that I could scream of happiness.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
–> In the beginning there is a thought, and the thought is from infinite intelligence, and the thought IS a part of infinite intelligence.