05 August 2011

'The Valley' - Night Shift

We know that sometimes photos simply don't do what we expect them to do. Well, of course I mean with me this can easily be the case.

Mai pen rai - sometimes these can turn out so special that I like what otherwise would be junk. Last night, this happened with a gorgeously coloured, low hanging moon over the scenery of a beautiful lakeside festival.

Here you see what the camera - disregarding my original wishes - wonderfully created itself.

Or simply ... blame it on the user.



04 August 2011

'The Valley' - Morning Moment


I am lucky. This morning, I just saw the alpes glowing in the yet disguised, upcoming sun.

Rags of fog dwell from the little valleys, building up new formations, changing their appearances each very second. The light is fascinating. Just now, a blackbird chats on the balcony, only a meter away. Rain falls consistently. The local birds are chirping in the hedges.

Thanks for this.


 





Lyn

Powerplay, the Other Way

When it is about power and powerplays, many people imagine a strong, powerful person doing such things. It might confuse them that the opposite is true. It is the weak who mostly are in need of and are playing those games.

You'd better beware of the weak. As they will rip you off without you even recognizing what's going on.

Strong individuals can stand in for what they do and think, and also have a healthy sense for self-assessment. When you are strong you can face your weaknesses, look at them without having to fear this will cost your existence, and you can work on them. When you are weak, this gets some kind of impossible. These individuals flee into manifold weird behaviours to keep alive a picture of themselves which allows them to dwell in the illusion of strength. While they use undercover strategies of controlling their environment, they assume they have power. But as mentioned, the only power we can achieve is the power over our selves.

These individuals though seek the power of others to back them up and shelter them and act instead of them. The mask of the weak who abuses power over others (and use the power and energies of others to achieve their very own personal goals) in their environment is difficult to look through and even more difficult to take it off so that also others who are played with, might realize which games are played with them and on them. Their strategies are manifold and they can change easily from one tactic to the other when they sense their masquerade is near to becoming reveiled.

To my sincere regret, even though there are many males these days who play such games, the field of power and control in disguise is the dominion of mostly females.

We may ponder about the factors and influences that lead to the development of underhanded strategies especially in women, and we can and might think about creating another, better environment which clearly must be a joint social effort and can not be done by just some few. Women these days, especially the younger generation, severely suffer a grandiosity complex as an earlier generation has prepared the ways directing into better life conditions for females. But the path is not finished, and with the perception that it is done we all drift backwards.

I really like that quote from a Batman movie, expressing it well to the point (and marvellously played by Uma Thurman):
"Using feminine wiles to get what you want, trading on your looks? Read a book sister, that passive agressive number went out long ago. Chicks like you give women a bad name!"

Passive-aggressive behaviour is therefore such a problem as it is so difficult to be reveiled.

And it is a problem because it often is perceived as common female behaviour. As soon as a female is openly straight and does not play the common games, she is put down by a not matured society which refuses to grow up. Unhealthy little boys and girls - not even to become men and women - who are easily steerable are wanted and produced by an unhealthy social environment in an unmature state.


'Passive Aggressive Behavior Defined:
Passive Aggressive behavior is a form of covert abuse. When someone hits you or yells at you, you know that you've been abused. It is obvious and easily identified. Covert abuse is subtle and veiled or disguised by actions that appear to be normal, at times loving and caring. The passive aggressive person is a master at covert abuse.'
[Passive Aggressive Behavior: A Form of Covert Abuse,
By Cathy Meyer]


The actors do not run around in a Poison Ivy costume (unfortunately); they are the neat little girls at your work place, they are the mothers and daughters, they run around as sisters and assumed friends. If you are really unfortunate, they are your lovers or partners. They can look at you as innocent as anyone can be, with tears in their eyes when you confront them, they can fall and hurt themselves and they even develop the ability to fall sick in time, to make you act as they want you to, to bind you and strengthen the dependency [note that some dictionaries here offer as synonym also 'slavery']. In fact, they look very, very unblameable while keeping their toxine sources well hidden.

A real bad outcome for others who are not involved in these kind of games: not seldomly physicians trying out diagnoses on females (of what the rules up to today are mainly male-made) misinterpret real overload of an organism psychologically as a secondary gain from illness (attention, empathy and so on). Such, some benefit from self-induced illness to manipulate others, while some others may not get even retreat because their symptoms resemble the ones of  fakery - this is not invented by me but this happens in real. With the loss of time for a closer look at whom we deal with, society turns more and more into a system where perfectly simulating is rewarded the most. And as this fakery is not conscious but the organism itself has learnt how it works from early childhood stage on, it is so difficult to find out and then to address at all.

The behaviour may start somewhere in early youth and as soon as the upgrowing kids find out these tactics work, they respectively their organisms make them part of the strategy plan in their lifes. Bear in mind: children most often fill in gaps in families and become just symptom-carriers, trying to smoothen their parents and inter-relationships for the sake of stability and shelter which is certainly necessary at a certain stage in life. To achieve such, they can form out bonds which can sprawl into something like a kind of awkward stranglehold of a climbing plant.

Supporting such behaviours does not strengthen the children at all - it prevents them from using their own two feet to sturdily stand on the ground, and increases the forces of dependency for all involved parties as well as for future relations - no matter if personal, intimate or work relations.

Additionally, it amplifies the actors' confidence that the tactics work out fine and prevent them from growing themselves. To nurture from a host is just too convenient - is the wisdom of the basic individual economics program.


Most people, uncritical mothers and fathers often, but especially here also men who grew up with openly powerless but passive-aggressive females, will fall into that trap and pity their 'princesses' terribly. So the passive-aggressives will achieve their goals - usually empowered by men, who in this world still have the most power and therefore make good hosts for this kind of Daddy's girls.
(No worry, there are also 'Daddy's/Mummy's boys around though men are socialized differently and are much more allowed to openly address challenges and conflicts, even if I recently read that more men are considered as 'passive-aggressive' - well, then maybe by a society which does not allow healthy male initiation as well. This all together forms a vicious circle of unmatured, unhealthy adults, passing on their weaknesses to next generations. Fascinating then is that when females do go into conflicts to solve instead of avoiding them and manipulating around, this form is immediately called 'aggression' already at a stage where a male would be considered as just reasonable und firm.)

A weak mother will support such behaviour in young girls (breeding another generation of her-self - why should the kids become more healthy than she herself is and ever will be? Weaks would loose control if they empower others in their own environment, so it is logical they do not want the situation to change at all).

A helpless father will be totally defenseless - men usually anyway have problems understanding what is going on in females. The topic is most complex because the interconnections and causalities are so difficult to detect and to unveil - which is part of the game. It is a quite common, wrong assumption that children are generally 'innocent'. At first, they are. But they quickly learn to play the game.

The only way out would be confrontation with persons who do not allow being bound into such system, individuals who do not play that game and teach constructive, other, more healthy ways of dealing with (inner and outer) conflicts. But these might look behind the games that are played and such take away the power - remember: things should of course not change. And so these persons will be kicked out of the system. Underhandedly - that's the one thing you can be very sure of.


With just straight wishes, undiplomatically but prefferedly to the point.

Yours,
Lyn

27 July 2011

About ... Power and Control

The only power we have
is the power over ourselves.
The only control we may achieve
is the control over ourselves.


For all those who try it in other ways.
Think.

Lyn

24 July 2011

Maslow and Beyond the Beast

For long time I have been thinking about hinting here also at a basic understanding model which actually helps to put many things I write about here, into a clearer perspective. I am talking about 
'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs'.
As you can search yourself for websites and even literature referring to it, I will just link to a site that keeps the issue somewhat clear and unpretentious, just to give an idea about it:


(with thanks referring to www.businessballs.com/leadership/management » maslow's hierarchy of needs) 


It is worth for each of us to find out, each for him or herself, what we are and where we stand. 

Many of the topics I work out myself are in the end fittable into the Hierarchy of Needs, as it directly mirrors what older texts call 'the reptile/dragon'  (which came out of the water, and here they are so in compliance with what science understands today that it is each time amazing) and the 'beast/wild animal', a next step in evolution which reaches in its needs unto level 4 of the original 5 level pyramid as above. As I came in contact with this kind of models at quite an early stage in life, many of my further thoughts take such findings into account and always compare how and where new pieves of the information puzzle fit.


Another further development of the model (this here just exemplary not representatively found at Future Hi), indicates a

'1990's adapted Hierarchy of Needs including Transcendence needs'


1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.
2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc.

3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc.
4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.
5. Cognitive needs - knowledge, meaning, etc.
6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc.

7. Self-Actualisation needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.
 8. Transcendence needs - helping others to achieve self actualisation.

Maslow said that needs must be satisfied in the given order. Aims and drive always shift to next higher order needs.'

The breaks above now have been added by me - as it is the interesting part to see in daily real life, where people get stuck. Seems there are some bridges that are more hard for humans to take. The site cites, totally in accordance to what I also see - namely that at this stage the jump seems to be undoable for many:
'Levels 1 to 4 are deficiency motivators; level 5, and by implication 6 to 8, are growth motivators and relatively rarely found. The thwarting of needs is usually a cause of stress, and is particularly so at level 4.'
Though, I do NOT agree with the statement that those needs must be satisfied in the given order, maybe because of viewing beyond the borders of just common life as approached in our Western so-called civilizations. It is definitely more than possible that humans easily overcome levels 1-4 and go for 5.  Or that they just do it the other way around: Having level 5 in them, they transform the spirit of it on the basic needs.

We may become aware that especially in a society as we live in, we are continuously reminded and pressed into a scheme of functioning as happy comsumers on exactly levels 1-4. 


By playing with our fears and directing our reptilish greeds to certain kind of behaviour, some people enjoy taking over a role of power (level 4) and put themselves over others whom they can easily direct and steer with the scheme of human's reptile and animal evolutionary programs.


Additionally, I hope that you now see that what I referred to in my last post about 'love', is also reflected here:

'Love' is mostly clearly misinterpreted, either because people don't know better or by purpose, and what people call 'love' is in fact is a level 3 need (original scheme) - the group feeling. The group shelters the individual and keeps itself together though nothing of this must have to do with 'love' as a non-needy feeling.



Therefore, it is really up to us to open our own eyes and see ourselves what we follow and hold before ourselves as illusions. If we believe we have found love in the fulfillment of just animal needs, we will namely never find love because we do not look out for love, go into the world and find it. If we make ourselves believe we are happy because our animal needs are basically fulfilled, we do not give ourselves the chance to find out and become what we really are and make ourselves happy. The most unhappy people live in the finest clothes, with the most of material goods and do have worldly power.


And care: No one tells you to abandon our animal(s). It is only to know about them and see them as what they simply are. As also they want to be recognized and be acknowledged part of us. Then, they also do not need to go out for destruction and keep us from further de-velopment, from our inner e-volution. 

Just as what they are they are good and there is nothing wrong about that. As long as our selves have the power by knowing our selves.

The animals in us can be great helpers even, to understand much more about ourselves. We all have the animals in us - in our cells, in our information. Just how should we deny what we are and what we are connected to:

Happy without illusions.




Yours,
Lyn

14 July 2011

Today: Color Yourself the World

Just color yourself the world beautiful.

Yesterday, I fell once again over the highly interesting perception that people like to see things as they like to see them.
Illusionism in perfection.
If you try to wake up people because you see: the circumstances are not at all as they would like to color them, they start the big attack. It costs the world a lot to deal with the outcome of those illusionists.
Though it would be so easy to see what is there, to see what you have, to see what is lacking, and just do it. Better, of course.
Companies and organizations run risk assessments, business assessments, all kind of assessments ... and none of that would make any sense if people keep on dreaming and dwelling in as they want to see things which has got absolutely nothing to do with what and how things are in fact.


There is spread by some psychologists that being in love resembles the symptoms of a psychosis. In that state we see things from the most positive point of view and leave out seeing what we do not like to see. Now, and I must add this, being in love is certainly something different than loving. When loving, you as well see the little defects and mistakes of your dearests, and still love him or her. Because we all have our little mistakes in some sense even if we always are challenged to do it better. The question is only if these mistakes harm or hurt any one else - or harm or hurt even the person itself. 
The psychologists' 'psychosis thesis' is quite nice because if being in love is seen this way, I would always like to be in a psychosis. Especially in a joint psychosis with my dearest when we have switched from the being in love mode to the really loving mode and still enjoy this joint sensation.


What now with all those people who are only in love with themselves? 

Well, here we again face the problematic of differing between the 'self' and the 'ego' and using the proper terminology. And as stated before, there is no solution to this dilemma yet as the English language uses 'self' describing a re-flection on the original point. Conclusively, the question (in question) must be: what is the original point? Is it the 'self' - or is it the 'ego'? Then the question sounds already different:

What kind of collective psychosis do we face with all those people who are in love with their egos, and who lack all empathy with any one else?

As referred to before in my blogging experiment, the majority of relations, even close and seemingly 'loving' relations, have absolutely nothing to do with love. Love as a term is (mis)used for so many estates that today most people have no clue anymore about what love is at all. They think loving a girlfriend or boyfriend or partner is love, loving a child is love. Loving you dog or cat is love. Yes, it can.

It can be love but is not necessarily love.

The bonding with a child can be love, but also can be only the reptile's program to ensure the species' reproduction.

For example, believing to love a partner can be love but can as well be just be
  1. the reptile's program as described above, including breeding, upbringing of offspring and individual survival or 
  2. the stronghold within a group developed to ensure the human species' survival, the funny animal part in us.
The 'feelings' created in us by these two might resemble very much what we perceive as 'love'. They are strong, and anyone should have experienced such. Just to lay it aside at a point. And trade those for what love can be: unbonded ... and without boundaries. Because possibility 3 would be the love without restrictions by 'love 1' and/ or 'love 2'. 

Well now, color yourself the world. 

If you are caught in the believe that reptile love and/ or animal love is real love, you well never go for solution 3. At first, you must learn to see.

If you believe that your organization or company runs fine because
  • the stronghold within it is built on animal bond interrelations like personal networking advantages which even force you more and more to color circumstances and events and persons differently than they are, 
  • instead of being built on a joint goal and vision and useful purpose of what you all do and work for together, 
you will never assess its weaknesses properly to take the right measures in time. All that you have colored yourself beautiful will break at a point, and that could be a moment you have never expected it at all.
People who did not wish to look at things in time to be able to take appropriate measures in time, do right things in time and before everything turns brittle and attracts the lice (plant lice and sometimes pubics, too) only, never allow themselves the chance to learn about the powers of creation.

We can create our world
so that it shines
from inside and
itself.  
No ego-self but real self.
Track
what and who you are your self.
And then ...
we don't have to color it differently than it is
as as it is,
it is o.k.

12 July 2011

Worth a Look - Interns Anonymous

Found with one of my many job alert newletters:
Interns Anonymous
We want this website to be a forum for interns to share their experiences and discuss the ethics of unpaid employment. Most importantly, we want this site to be a place where YOU can tell us your story.

Just check it out and make up your own opinion at
http://internsanonymous.co.uk/

There would be a lot to contribute to the reality of current work ethics from different sides - and could easily be extended with a sister site like
'temps and contractors anonymous'.

As we cannot deny - some things need a change.
Certainly, and certainly very soon.
Not only in words and on paper.


And some things are certainly good as they are.
The job is to sort the ones from the others.


Have a great sunshiny day,
Lyn