Personality is Force of Habit

Your brain reacts to stimulus (element of life) through a model of behavior. That model of behavior is dicated by the conditions of early encounters with the stimulus and the continous history with that stimulus. This may mean that one's behavior is almost completely maellable, even in later stages of development. It also supports the idea that you are not your thoughts (also a reaction to stimulus, or your behavior). Most importantly, this can change one's perspective on how they interact with the world from a helpless view to an empowered view.

I will have more on this soon...

Futurechoes

What you have to realize is... It's not about You

Futurechoes

Be Like Water

Futurechoes

The Buddha In You

Today, I was in a workshop entitled "The Buddha in You." These are the major axioms that were addressed:

1. No one has ever done wrong to you.(It is never personal. and all seemingly bad experiences ultimate contribute to something positive within you.)

2.Therefore, no person is the source of your resentments.

3.You have never made a mistake. (Only in hindsight do we know and understand our choices. Choices, at the time were made to meet a need. And seemingly bad choices ultimately contribute something positive within you.)

4.You are not your thoughts. (Thoughts and feelings are not facts. We assign meaning or create narratives, when we attach ourselves to a thought. The most common thought is "I am not good enough.")

5.No one can affirm you or deny you. (Our search for approval is, like going to watcha movie, a temporary distraction from the reality that everything comes from within. You must be your own parent. Self-acceptance is a key avenue to the Buddha within.)

6.You are perfect. (You are perfectly human. Excuse yourself. Excuse the guilt. Be less demanding of yourself and others. Rumi says: "The beloved you seek is none other than yourself, hang on to this truth and don't be afraid.")

--Peter Matthews

As a note, I must warn you that any of these axioms can be seriously misinterpreted and used to fuel the neurotic complexes they are meant to fight. It takes a lifetime to master this advice, however reading it is one small step forward on the path to that mastery.

Futurechoes

Inspiring

Villa Manin Centro d'arte Contemporanea of Udine, Italy will open the exhibition, "God and Goods: Spirituality and mass confusion" on April 19th.

Futurechoes

Why We Shouldn't Listen to Bomb Threats

This goes out to any and all who deal with policy towards a bomb threat, and to settle the stomachs of those who hear of a bomb threat. I've noticed that in a lot of my experience in conversing with people about the bomb threats that many say that the administration is overreacting to the situation in pulling everyone out of class and essentially killing the day, by wasting everyone's time. However, whenever such an intuitive reaction is brought up someone responds with the cliché, "Oh well they have to take the necessary precautions." I'm here to tell you that evacuating 100% of the time given the conditions of a bathroom threat is beyond the necessary precautions.

I'm going to assume that if someone is going to use a bomb they either have two motivations: to fulfill their sadistic desires to kill as many people as possible or to make a statement of some kind (it is possible for these to intersect, but as you'll see it doesn't matter).
Now if they are a sadistic killer and want to kill as many people as possible, then they would not even bother to make a threat because that would be counterproductive in achieving their goal. Sure enough, in the three most recent mass killings, Columbine and the Virginia Tech Shooting, no threat was made prior to the acts of violence.
A statement by the bomber simply means that the bomber is committing such an act to communicate something, in other words, he is bombing for more than his own sadistic motivation. If the bomber is trying to make a statement, then he will still either want to kill as many people as possible in making that statement or try to kill as few people as possible (or none). In the case of the former, the same logic still applies that applied to the sadistic killer and so no threat would be made. However, if the bomber wanted to kill as few people as possible (or none), he most certainly would make a threat.
There is no reason why a killer trying to kill as many people as possible would make a threat or why a killer trying to kill as few people as possible (or none) would no make a threat. 9/11 is a perfect example as no threat was made, yet those who committed the horrific act were clearly acting beyond their own sadistic intentions.

This means that if a bomber is making a threat, he is trying to kill as few people as possible (or none). The only variable in a bomb threat left to analyze is the nature of the threat, since we already know the intention of the bomber. If a bomber is trying to kill as few people as possible, then that bomber will make sure that his threat let's those that are in danger know that they are in danger. Think of someone holding a mall full of people at ransom, it wouldn't make sense for him to make a threat that does not make it clear that he would mask his intensions because if he were not to achieve his goal of receiving the ransom money that would make his attempt at bombing pointless. The only way he could achieve receiving his ransom money is to let someone who could pay the money know of his intentions. This means that, if there is a threat, then that threat has to be strong and clear enough to let those in danger know they are in danger or else it can be assumed that the threat is not valid.

Writing a message that there is a bomb in a school on a bathroom wall is not an adequate, clear, or strong threat of any kind. It can then be assumed that such a threat should not be taken seriously. However, to react to such a threat in the same way 100% of the time would be poor judgment in either overreacting or under reacting. This is because this allows those who threaten to know the outcome of his actions, which would reinforce one's decision in making such a threat. By making the outcome of one's decision unpredictable, this decreases their confidence in such a decision and makes it less likely they will make such a decision. It would be best to evacuate from a threat of this nature 50% of the time (decided on a coin toss).

Of course, I just want to reinstate that if a threat is strong and clear, it most definitely should be taken seriously.

I also want to state one exception to the rule, if someone is so sadistic that they put a weak threat knowing that there would be no response, so that after they committed their bombing they could say "I told you so." However, such a scenario is addressed by the coin flip decision to evacuate or not. Such a sadistic person would not risk such an action in this case because they would jeopardizing their true desire to kill people and so they would resort to a guaranteed surprise bombing.

Futurechoes

Two Years for a Hell of a Country

Originally Posted: 12:42am Thursday, Sep 13


2 years mandatory service for every individual, what da hell am I thinking? Then again, what am I thinking, thay's it! That's the step our country needs to take to start heading in the right direction.
Why?
Because our country is lacking one thing more than all other, a strong morale. When people criticize our people as being idiots for re-electing our President or for obsessing over Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they're wrong. We are not a country of morons, it is wrong to expect people to make a decision on something they have no conception of.
A large portion of this country (especially the youth) is made of two damaging mentalities:

1. People who don't want to work hard and who just want a free ride (the "The Hills" mentality).

2.People who only care about their own self interest, and are bound to become greedy and corrupt. They fail to see that they're neglection of issues that don't directly effect them will come back to hurt them (the hustler and wall street mentality).

Our country is as now, headed in the toilet, we have a war that no one is willing to pay for, fight for, or even face the consequence of leaving. We have a democratic system that is saturated with corruption, and major media essentially controls the minds of the people through fear, commercials and entertainment. We also have an array of pressing issues that need to be addressed such as global warming, social security and health care. Yet, we have not came together as a country on any of these, oh and that war.

Why is this?

It is because we have no sense of what it means to be part of a country, we are disconnected from the reality that we are all connected.

What do we do to fix this?

If each person worked in public service, whether it be the military, public works, a hospital, a research institution, for the government, for 2 consecutive years of their life...We would see change. People would be more enlightened as citizens and would make better decisions in the poll booth. They would be willing to take upon the responsibilites they hold as citizens instead of avoiding them (actually voting is one). The morale of the country would be booming.

Now I've taken into consideration this is not a pratical policy, however it is pracitical in its design, but only inpractical because the public is not ready for it (they don't want to take upon the challenge).
Here are some frequently asked questions about my plan:
1. I want money, how will I be paid?
The government will pay you for your service, and give you free room and board. This pay may not be enough to buy a mercedes with, it will however be enough to keep you happy and healthy?

2. How can the government force everyone to do this?
Well there are a few ways. They could actually force you, send you to prison if you refuse, but I think there's a better solution. The government could offer you a major incentive that would be essentially impossible to refuse such as free health care, social security, college tuition and/or citizenship (which would probably be the best solution but it might be unconstitutional).

3. How could the government pay for this?
The service pays for itself. If millions of people are suddenly doing projects and work for the government, well that's going to cut a lot of taxes, and that's going to stimulate the economy and provide revenue for the government. Also, this would be more efficient than just paying taxes because the work done will most definitely be effeciently done, unlike a lot of government handouts which do public works/military projects.

4. What would my life be like?
Whatever you do, it would be in a military like living scenario. You would live in a government station, and you would be given assignments. Exercise and manual labor would be required for everyone though a lot of people, like in the military, would primarily be doing jobs that fit your specialty as a person. In other words, you'd basically be doing the work you want to do, but you would have government assignments instead of having to look for a job.

5. Why is this good again?
We as citizens would gain a stronger sense of nationalism, know what its like to serve our country and be better citizens and people for it.


No President would advocate this, but this is the solution to our countries problems. We must strengthen our countries heart before we can test its muscle.




Brian Liebman

Futurechoes