Personal Power Part 1

Toddlers do not have to be taught to be selfish but they have to be taught to share. They do not have to be taught to react only to their own feelings but they have to be taught to think about others. Our base nature does not pursue personal power through the care of others. It is our highest nature, the nature that we achieve and direct and manage, that works for the benefit of as many people as possible.

              Too often we confuse goodness with weak softness. It is too easy for good people to temporarily abandon what they believe is good when they need power. Our ethics are our guide for the direction we believe and act, but power is available to all of us without having to change our belief systems or ethics. The belief that goodness is dullness and weakness comes from how it works when we switch from selfish, manipulative, and dangerous to “good”. Whenever we have been practiced at one side of the spectrum and then switch directions we will first go through a place where the personal power we have had fades and new personal power has not yet been achieved on the other side of that spectrum yet. Since our world system thrives on physical gain as the primarily recognized personal power it is a system that allows selfishness, manipulation, and danger. In this breeding ground personal power too often is learned on that side instead of the other. More people then have seen the dullness as their personal power lessens when they become less jealous or more kind, etc.than have seen the strength that waits on the other side.

Wading into the shallows of less power scares people because there is no sign that if they keep moving power will ever be achieved again. This fear of vulnerability is strong enough to push us back the way we came. It is easier to keep what power we have worked at for ourselves than to look for power in a new place. This leaves the morally corrupt free to show off their power because most of us are too good to achieve power on that side of the spectrum and too afraid of the shallows to push to the other side. Most of the good people we see are shallows people. It is not that they could not be powerful but it is that they have only seen the power work on the darker side. They do not know how to live in their best self and be full of power.  It is rare to see those people who have pushed the boundaries of goodness into personal power that manages and nurtures others and makes a powerful impact on the world. They are so rare we call them saints. If we believe they are special we are just excusing ourselves from becoming like them. Upon closer examination of their lives and ideas we see that it is their internal efforts and external efforts that make them great. It is just work anyone can do it.

The first place we will explore is in our will, the part where we choose and determine who we are. Our will is our thought patterns, our belief systems, and our behavior. We are going to look at our belief systems first. These systems are the foundation we have chosen for who we are determined to be or who we have drifted into being until we know how to manage them. Our beliefs are our working beliefs and our core beliefs and our ideals. Our ideals are the highest personality goals we treasure. Our ideals are our hopes, our sense of romance (the basis of pleasure in relationships- nostalgia, beauty, and sense of humor), and our virtues. Virtues are the restrictions and limitations we put on ourselves to increase the influence and power we have with others. This is the first place we will look at for personal power.

Virtues are about power not morality. They can be used to advance us up to greater levels of power on either side of the spectrum. In each place there is one side of virtue and the other.  They are opposite of each other but either one will be used on the good or bad side of the personal power spectrum. On one side more of the positive side will be used and on the other more of the negative will be used. For sorting purposes we will call the positive side virtues and the negative side vices. But we have to remember that even the vices are good when used for good and only when necessary. In the same way dangerous and manipulative power will use virtues for its own gain as well.

The first section of virtues and vices are the stretching kind. As virtues they require our mind, will, and emotions to stretch to increase our influence and as vices they attempt to stretch how others perceive so we can influence how they perceive.

§  Honesty vs. delusion: Honesty is a virtue of transparency. Honesty is the disclosing of what is true to us. We can be honest and have no true facts in what we say and show. Honesty is not just in our words but in how we present ourselves and in our choices and actions. Honesty is powerful in keeping accusers from ambushing us with disclosure of our choices and actions. Delusion is a personal power when it is used to keep people looking away from where we are really working and achieving. It is the effort to control what others see. We can delude others as a camouflage and delude ourselves as well. A self-deluded person is very well insulated against the need for change.

§  Opened mindedness vs. arrogance: Open-mindedness is the strength to see and listen. We think of open-mindedness is the shallows as soft goodness like sunshine and daisies but the world changing power of open-mindedness is when it is strong enough to see the dark, the abuse, the horror and not be changed while still learning more. We cannot have the power to change or affect anything we refuse to see and analyze. Arrogance is never opening our thoughts to change. An arrogant person is so convinced that they are right they will not even consider alternative views or information. Arrogance is a personal power that builds a fortress around thoughts and feelings. New thoughts and feelings will never get in and the ones we already have are protected from being shaken. Because arrogance is absolutely without compromise it can bulldoze the will of others. Arrogance makes a battering ram of confidence that no amount of evidence will make waiver.

§  Humility vs. pride and lowliness: The strongest humility is seeing ourselves for what we really are at the time. Right now we may be the best for the task at hand. That is a humble stance if it is true. Humility is not strong when it only keeps us low. Humilities strength is in keeping our evaluation of ourselves fluid. Humility will give us the strength to move over when minutes later a better person comes along or to accept when we are needed. Pride as an attitude toward our behavior is not a vice. When we chose, act, and communicate well we can be proud of that. Here we are idealizing pride as a personal power. Pride gives strength when we use it to refuse to acknowledge what we don’t want to. The acceptance only of what we are proud of and the attempt to ignore or erase anything that will not be up to our standards of pride can be a very attractive force to those who want to be guided. We can see the rest of the world as lesser and there are a lot of people who will be channeled by that force alone. Some people like to put others above themselves to reaffirm that they are lowly. Lowliness has personal power because it pulls at other people. Lowliness looks for every opening to be dragged along with others’ successes and efforts. When we idealize lowliness we can be the permanent baby whom others nurture and are so very careful with for all of our lives. We can tell if we are really weak or being lowly when we are pushed to be stronger. The weak will try but the lowly will get angry and even aggressive.

§  Meekness vs. jealousy: Meekness is thought of as being little and mild, but as a personal power its strength is in being able to change roles quickly. A meek person will lead and follow, teach and be the student, help and be helped, be rewarded and punished, etc. If we are meek and not happy with our role we will learn how to be better at the role we wish we had, if it is a leading role. We will find someone to take our place as leader if we want a lesser role. Jealous feelings come from the emotions and we all feel jealous at times, but here we are looking at using jealousy as a personal power. Jealousy as a tool will tear at the reputation of whoever has the role or position or prestige we want. Jealousy will sabotage and will even destroy the prestige rather than let it go to someone else. Those of us who use jealousy as a weapon will steal the spotlight at every opportunity and try to make others seem unworthy or flawed whenever the spotlight is on them.

§  Discretion vs. obnoxiousness or impulsiveness: Virtues (and vices) have the most effect as a personal power when they are practiced fully and without restraint. Discretion is measuring every thought and action before it is said or done. When we practice discretion the extent of our power is measured out and used when and where it is most affective. Discretion very strong virtue when it is coupled with other virtues as a  balance to that other  virtue. Discretion allows everything we say to be fully honest and everything we do to be completely meek without saying too much or being treated like we are too low. Obnoxiousness is the balancer of vices. When arrogance, for example is practiced lightly it is not very overwhelming to others. But when it is practiced to the point of being a driving force it makes others have to deal with the arrogant person and usually on that person’s  terms. Obnoxiousness pushes for the greatest impact with no regard for whether or not it will get us closer to any goals. That lack of goals makes it very annoying on its own and easily partnered with other vices. Obnoxiousness can be such a strong social bomb because it makes other people spend more time dealing with their anger and annoyance and less time working at pursuing their own goals. Impulsiveness is not as constant as obnoxiousness. Its power is making vices unpredictable as to when and how they will be used. Impulsive pride and arrogance makes them able to push through others defenses because it is hard to defend against the unpredictable.

Personal power is only going to prove itself to be power if we are determined to have it. If we are only going to allow ourselves to be lightly stretched we will have little power for good. If we are only willing to lightly stretch how others feel and perceive we will only be lightly bad. If we are selfish like a child we will be only as bad as a child. If we are self-managed like a child then we will only be as good as a child. Power is for adults. Adults are responsible for the world and the power in it. Adults are responsible for whether that power is for the good of most or for the good of self only.

The next two sets of virtues will be discussed in Part 2.

Questions:

·       If vices can be used by virtuous people for the good of others then in what circumstances can the powers of jealousy, obnoxiousness, delusion, etc. be good?

·       Vices are for the maneuvering of others. Can virtues be practiced without impacting and managing the relationship we have with others?

·       Can shunning power be a responsible choice for a good person to make?

 

(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)

The road is paved with our beliefs. Part 5

              Some of our beliefs are common and some of them are unique to us. More than that we also have deep beliefs that are not always expressed or shown when we are interacting regularly with others. This brings us to the first two parts of our belief system: our working beliefs and our core beliefs. Working beliefs are what we believe when we encounter new information or have to compromise with others. As we work through our daily personal and public lives these beliefs keep us flexible and loyal to most of our core beliefs. It is in this area that we can believe our morals stay the same whether we are with our closest friends or with our boss at work. Our behavior may be very different in both situations but we have a sliding decision making process to juggle what we believe with the expectations put on our behavior. Our working beliefs are also where we work at believing new things to put into our core beliefs; our beliefs we believe deep within us. Our core beliefs are the beliefs we have collected throughout our life and the beliefs we choose to be our deeply held truth.

               Both of our working and core beliefs have the same three things that inspire us to choose our beliefs: our desires, our intentions, and our philosophy of existence. In our working beliefs all three elements are more dependent on the current circumstances and in our core beliefs they are dependent on our private desires, intentions and how we believe life and existence really is. Our working desires shift around and are very unique in each of us. When we have fun and when we are busy and when we are with strangers and when we are at home what we want will change. Our core desires have three categories: our personal desires, our desires in our relationships, and our desires for collecting elements of our lives together. Our intentions are very dependent on our desires we mean to satisfy at the time. Our working belief intentions and our core belief intentions often betray each other. In childhood we start feeling the conflict between the way we intend to be all of the time and how our intentions in the moment can be so different from our usual intentions. It is usually to protect our core intentions. When we decide to grasp at a risky opportunity even though our usual intention is more careful it is because we believe this opportunity may help us meet a deeper desire. When we lie to protect our reputation we may have a core belief that lying is necessary to gaining our desires or we may intend to lie now to protect the trust we want others to keep in us.

               Our intentions are also going to reflect our philosophy of existence. We may have different beliefs for why the world is the way it is. A lot of reality we don’t choose to believe we just see it and accept it but there is a lot more that is chosen and believed in what we think is reality than we may first realize. It becomes more obvious as we debate the direction our shared existence should take. It becomes very frustrating when others see “reality” in a way we do not or when they don’t see what we see. There are many ways our philosophies differ but all of our beliefs about how life works share a common pattern. We choose philosophies that are based on success, truth, and life. We may differ in how we interpret those elements but none of chooses to believe failure, lies, and death. Consider a person who believes that everything in his life is doomed to fail. He will add to his philosophy all the evidence he can to make his philosophy successful. If someone believes lies are essential to the way the world works then that is his truth. Someone who kills a lot will have a philosophy of life that is full of death. Suicidal thoughts will create reasoning for why their life is destined for death.

                In the 2009 British independent film Exam* eight applicants are placed in a room for an exam in order to be selected for a very rare position in a successful company. So little information is given and so much pressure is placed on them that through the course of the film the candidates' desires, intentions, and philosphy of existence slowly, but intently, unfold for us to witness. By the time the nature of the exam is fully understood it is so clear that the chaos that was born of the suspense and pressure was just a reflection of themselves. It is a good movie to watch for examples of this area in all of us.

               Our intentions as we decide what we believe will be strongly influenced by our philosophies and desires. Our intentions themselves are bound by three things: our abilities, our potential, and our level of cooperation and participation. We can’t seriously intend to be bullet proof or walk on walls like a superhero might if we do not have those abilities. As we go through life pressures will push us into abilities we did not know we have and human frailty will erase abilities we once had. All of this is a boundary to our serious core intentions. Or, maybe our core intentions can be unrealistic if we just keep our working intentions realistic. We can believe we can still run a 4 min. mile if we never try it anymore.

               Physical abilities are a good place to look at how our potential is a boundary for what we intend. As far as our ability to run is concerned we may not currently have the ability to run like we intend to but it is possible to use our potential to change that ability. The only way to increase our abilities is to define and utilize our potential. The way to increase our potential is to make the most of it and push our abilities. If we maximize our abilities we will find our limits but also may find new or more potential.

               The last part of our intentions is our level of cooperation and participation. If we were talking about our behavior then we would have to take a cautious and balanced approach for the level we should maintain when we cooperate and participate. Since we are discussing our belief system we can have a high level of cooperation and not be like vulnerable little lambs. Our intents are chosen. Choosing is a behavior. Intending is not a behavior. Participating in the consideration of beliefs is a boundary that shapes our intentions. This boundary is most effective when our level of cooperation is as high as we can maintain it. This participation in our beliefs is the participation level we have in our own lives. The lower it is the more ghost-like you are and the higher it is the more vulnerable and effective you will be. This place in us is not one dimensional. We have a collection of scales measuring our level in many different areas of our life. Places of confidence in our lives will make us feel comfortable with a high level. When we encounter a belief system that is very foreign to ours we naturally start with a low level of cooperation until we understand it more. Actually too many of us will not mentally participate at all with any belief system that is different than ours even just at a low level to evaluate any usefulness to our beliefs. Too many of us will not even participate enough with the evaluation of our own beliefs to see if they benefit or harm our lives. When our level of cooperation and participation is at the lowest non-participating point we cannot be reasoned with because no amount of evidence and reasons will affect our intentions. When we will not participate with risks, even at small levels, we sink into a stagnant swamp of our own fears and doubts. When we will not cooperate with the feelings or rights of others we easily become cruel. When we justify non-participation in the greater society or in the population of the world then we can believe others are lesser or are nothing. Participating and cooperating makes answers more difficult because more people and more variables will have to be accounted included. That messiness will prevent many people from having so much surety about what the answers for others have to be and so will have a softening effect on our egos. Having a high level makes life complex but the higher level we have the more equipped our beliefs can be for whatever surprises we might encounter. A high level will make it easier to see consistencies in belief systems and ideas and cultures that could only help point to that rumored Holy Grail we call the “Truth”. Having a high level could make us into a fertile ground for ideas and potential. Given all of this an argument could be made for a zero level of cooperation and participation being the root of evil humans do in this world and to each other. We don’t kill and torture each other with relish unless we refuse to participate with their humanity. Those of us who do participate in the humanity of others kill and are haunted and question our beliefs and wrestle against any one person or ideology having all of their answers. A high level makes us participate with pain and doubts as well as life and joy. There is a very strong argument for a zero level being what creates the evil in us.

               The greatest evil most of us will do is not have a high enough level of cooperation and participation with our beliefs in our selves. In the 2010 Disney and Tim Burton film Alice in Wonderland* Alice returns to Wonderland and is immediately told her destiny to be the heroic savior. She cannot believe it and does not want to believe any of the things she sees are anything other than a dream. This then throws into doubt whether or not she is the legitimate Alice after all. As the adventure continues Hatter tells her she has lost her "muchness". This is evident to us in the way she has been channeled into her arranged proposal at the beginning of the film in the real world. The muchness Hatter speaks of is her level of cooperation and participation of her intentions. She behaviorally cooperates as real life people and then Wonderland characters give her little choice but she does not participate with her beliefs, especially about her own strengths and worth. While this is a fantasy movie too many of us feel just like Alice and feel that we are only a shadow of the direction of our life and not the captain of it. By the time fate has arrived and Alice has to face terror willingly and forge a new direction for Wonderland she has chosen to believe. As her armor for her believing intentions she repeats to herself the six impossible things she believes. This is an act of participating fully with her own chosen beliefs. It is a fun fantasy as far as characters and setting but it is a very real story about a very real issue that has to be dealt with in all of us. This is where we get our "muchness" back.
*Both movies are available for streaming on Netflix

(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)

What a character. Part 4

               The reason we have been looking in our subconscious mind is because our perception, our foundational motivations, and our character are here. These pieces make the subconscious mind seem like a good place to begin our search for the real morality we operate by; the morals we hold to no matter who is around and no matter what the situation is. We could not find our moral standard in our subconscious perceptions and motivations because those places in us are too easily affected by what we are in the mood to see in others and in ourselves. We are going to look for a part of us that holds onto what we think is right and takes into account our state of being (being just us), how we relate to others, and how we react.

               Our perceptions don’t change with our interactions or our reactions. We can add other perceptions to our own but our primary perception stays the same no matter what. Our motivations give us a basic feeling that we add something beneficial to this life. That doesn’t shift styles in different circumstances either. We are going to look at our character. Our subconscious character is the style of our intentions. Our intentions live in a different part of our soul but the style of our intentions is in our character. Character traits will be positive or negative. Some of us may think negative traits are more powerful and desirable. That will be based on our moral standard so this will be the first piece we have found of our individual morality.

               Our state of being character traits are either: nurturing or apathetic, joyful or hopeless, peaceful or full of strife. Nurturing character means showing a type of love that does not necessarily mean an emotional closeness or attachment.

A nurturing state of being is when we are the kind of people who help when we can and enhance success, truth, and life in ourselves and in others. Apathetic character does nothing to enhance others or themselves and isn’t bothered or upset when there is no improvement in negative or difficult situations.

A joyful character does not mean that we will always be happy or even be happy most of the time. This style of character looks for joy, is open to be pleased, and appreciates all opportunities to be happy.  Hopeless character is focused on what is unpleasant and will miss opportunities for happiness or even reject them.

Peaceful character will does not necessarily mean that we will be shaken in strife and conflict or that we will not war. It does mean that our mind and emotions thrive and flourish in peace. When we have this character trait we will work at fostering peace within ourselves even if we can’t find it around us. Character that is full of strife comes to life when others are upset, is bored and frustrated when everything is restful, and confuses peace with others attempting to confuse and trap them.

               Our interactive character style has these positive or negative traits: patience or laziness, kindness or assault, and excellence or manipulation.

When we are patient we are willing to do what it takes to see things through to the finish. Naturally the opposite of a patient person is an impatient one. Everyone gets impatient sometimes but a person whose subconscious trait is to be an impatient person is someone who is lazy. It takes a lot of effort to finish working toward a goal whether it is in an argument or a job. Laziness in subconscious style will resent anything that requires patience.

A person with kind character will act and choose with the intent to not cause harm and to encourage and enhance the benefit of others. An assaulting character is the intent to attack and irritate and inhibit others. Kindness and assault are based on our intentions. Niceness and meanness are how others perceive our actions. We can do a kind act, like an intervention, and be perceived as mean. We can do an assaulting act like controlling others with their addictions and be perceived as nice. It is the results we intend to achieve that show if we are kind or assaulting.

Excellence is the intent to do your best. An excellent character makes a person willing to be corrected and taught. The intended result is actually doing well not just being perceived as doing well. A manipulative character will put effort into the perception of their efforts not in the actual process or results. Manipulative character spends their efforts polishing garbage. An excellent character does their best and learns from the failures.

               The last section of character traits are the style of our reactions: gentleness or fury, faithfulness or betrayal, and self-government or chaos and disorder.

Gentleness is not weakness. It is power that is held and measured and not used any more than is necessary for the situation. Restriction of energy creates more energy. It is the basis of electricity. Fury is allowing our personal power to spill and pour out at whatever we are trying to influence or control. Fury is not a guarantee of strength and gentleness may not be soft. Intent is the key. A gentle character can cause harm when needed but will not do it by pouring out a flood of influence all at once. A gentle person can be a good protector and defender and is less likely to hurt those they are protecting when they react. Fury is a quick answer but is difficult to keep pointed in the right direction. 

Faithfulness as a trait will not mean we don’t leave relationships if they stop working, but it does mean that we will not betray the trust of the other person as we are leaving. Faithfulness is an easy reaction when all is feeling good. But when our connections to people and situations are tested we can see what our character is. Faithfulness will make us deal with problems and conflict directly. Betrayal as a character trait styles our intentions to make our own feelings a priority. Loyalty to our feelings of pleasure and satisfaction are the traits of a betraying character. Faithfulness looks to its own interests now and in the long term. Betrayal acts in the moment for personal satisfaction and justification.

Self-government is a trait that wants to keep as much self-control over as possible. Chaotic and disordered character does not control the reactive direction of their life. When trouble happens the chaotic character is blown in different directions and is victimized by chance. Self-governed people do not control chance but intend to control their reactions to it and to not be taken completely by surprise when it can be helped. Self-government monitors three areas: health, communion, and growth. Chaos monitors its victimization, its dysfunction, and its retardation. To monitor our health we have to watch our physical health and our mental clarity and correctness. Communion is our intimate bonds of different types. We commune in our closest relationships and in some friendships. Self-governed people maintain nurturing self-acceptance and the work involved in intimate relationships. Monitoring growth means stretching and challenging personal boundaries and maintaining spirituality.

               Anyone who has a mind, will, and emotions has a philosophy that guides their personal direction in life and a philosophy that explains for them how life or the world works. Maturity and experience will adjust or challenge these philosophies. No matter what beliefs a person has the self-governed person will have successful spirituality when they explore how their personal philosophy and their philosophy of existence (how life works) blend together productively. Beliefs do no good if the keeping of them just as they are create a gap between how you see yourself working and how you see existence working. Managing doubts and wrestling with ideas are essential to a self-governed character.

Questions:

1.      Can we choose to change our character traits?

2.      How long would we have to focus on changing a trait before it became a subconscious trait?

3.      If this is the first part of our morality does that mean we can use this insight to begin to see if others are wrong?

4.      Can we accept the differences in people who share our character and know that we are alike where it really matters?

5.      Is this an accurate line in the sand to begin to sort out those who are really like us and those who are not? Can we accept the differences in people who share our character and know that we are alike where it really matters?

(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)

I am a good person. Part 3

                One thing that stays true about our opinions is that no matter how good or bad society, politics, and the intentions of others are in our view, we consistently have a good opinion of ourselves. It is not that we don’t see our weaknesses, mistakes, and failures, but it is easier for us to color those flaws in the light of our inner sense of ourselves being good and useful. This belief in our basic goodness comes from our subconscious mind where we have foundational motivations. Thought patterns are unique, our actions and choices are unique, the circumstances that influence those choices are unique, and most of our conscious motivations exist in the moment we make those choices. But, the subconscious motivations we all share are subtle. They sort of color the direction of our identity. They are a little bit of productivity wired into all of our thoughts.

               There are seven motivations and we can have them all from the strongest one (in us) to the one that has the weakest influence (in us). This strongest to weakest order is different in each of us. They are all productive and rarely cause noticeable conflict between people. We do get a little baffled when we encounter people whose strongest motivation is our weakest. We may not understand why they prioritize the choices they do and sometimes we may feel that it is a waste of time. The real benefit in understanding these motivations is that it will help us understand the underlying direction of our efforts and can increase productivity. When we understand the strongest underlying motivation of others we can maintain attitudes that enhance their willingness to contribute.

The seven motivations are empathy, encouragement, giving, organization, prediction, serving, and teaching.

•       When empathy is our strongest motivation we are pulled to understand and even “feel” what others are feeling.

•       Encouragement is the motivation to build up and cheer on the efforts of others.

•        Givers are motivated to remember the likes and dislikes of others to satisfy them at    unexpected times.

•       Organization motivated people aren’t necessarily motivated to be neat and tidy but to see how the environment needs to be adjusted to fit the needs of the people using it.

•       Prediction is the motivation to look ahead and piece together cause and affect results of ourselves but these people are motivated to share their conclusions with others.

•       Service motivated people want to be of use to others and feel they can and should enhance the efforts of others. People with this motivation want to be asked to help.

•       People who have the subconscious teaching motivation will not necessarily teach as a job but feel motivated to share their knowledge with anyone who needs it.            

               The one thing motivations of the subconscious all have in common is that they are focused on the needs of others. This little seed of altruism that is in every psyche is our basis for our fundamental belief that we have good reasons for what we do.  The trick is that everyone has that same little seed of producing good for others, so it is not a basis for really judging ourselves or others as immoral or moral.

               We looked at our perceptions to examine where our moral standard exists so we can really know if we are as good as we think we are in all of our shifting circumstances. It cannot be in our perceptions because they may be the basis for thinking that others are bad, but they are just energy styles and cannot be good or bad in and of themselves. Our motivations cannot be the place we use as the measurement of our morals because they can make us think well of ourselves even if are choices and actions tell another story. We can empathize with others’ feelings and still hurt them on purpose, we can teach to manipulate, we can serve corruption, etc. We can satisfy these subtle little motivations and still be very immoral if we choose.

Questions:

1.      What is the strongest of these motivations in you and in those closest to you?

2.      What is your weakest motivation?

3.      When have you excused your poor behavior and rudeness based on your strongest motivation?

(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)

If I can see it then why can't you? Part 2

We are still looking inside of ourselves to find where our moral measure comes from.

As we looked at the four perception styles in the last blog it was easy to see that all of them are unpleasant and can be offensive by themselves. All of us are born with two perceptions we can look through to balance the offensiveness of only seeing things from one style. But if we don't blend our two perceptions then we become unpleasant and obnoxious. If we look at how the perception windows relate to each other then those of us who aren't blended may figure out how to blend. The rest of us may learn how to add one or both of the other styles to our own.

Blended Smoothly

Melancholy and choleric perceptions are solid and straight and unwavering. Phlegmatic and sanguine perceptions are scattered, flowing, and repetitive. Melancholy and choleric styles blend very naturally with each other and so do the sanguine and phlegmatic ones. Other easy blenders are melancholy and phlegmatic. Quiet and still melancholy will not be annoyed to give the phlegmatic style the time it needs to come to a decision. And the analyzing methodical way a melancholy progresses makes it a natural partner to help phlegmatic energy not get lost. With melancholy style of solid landmarks a phlegmatic mind will venture further out of it's comfort zone. The choleric perception is not annoyed by the sudden changes common in sanguine style. Choleric is very confident in its judgements and evaluations of any unexpected paths and so it is not timid in the face of the unexpected. The awareness and straight forward control of the choleric style can channel and corral the sanguine flightiness without offending its sense of enthusiasm. This stems from the choleric style's over arching view of doing what is best even for silliness. This view prevents choleric from desiring to quench the silly hyper sanguine way and instead wants to redirect it.

Opposites Attack

Opposite perceptions are so different in their styles of perceiving that they conflict. If we first compare more of the qualities these styles have then seeing how the opposites conflict is easy.

Choleric and melancholy energies are dominant. Sanguine and phlegmatic are responsive energies. The dominant energies direct, not control, the way people view things. The responsive energies become active in response to how people view things.

Melancholy and phlegmatic styles are introverted. They focus on inner personal priorities first. Choleric and sanguine styles are extroverted. They focus on outer more public priorities first.

The opposite of the dominant introverted melancholy mind is the responsive extroverted sanguine mind. The opposite of the responsive introverted phlegmatic mind is the dominant extroverted choleric one. The silence and stillness of melancholy offends the sanguine perception. Wasting time being still and silent is something that begs for the help of a sanguine mind. Melancholy's natural reaction to the absurd is silent irritation. This draws sanguine energy like a moth to a flame to the extreme annoyance of the melancholy.

Similarly, the phlegmatic perception cannot let the controlling and impatient agenda of choleric style go unchallenged. Since cholerics love a challenge these opposites should enjoy their conflict. But they don't. The phlegmatic perception confronts the choleric dominance with what it has the hardest time prioritizing in its agenda; feelings and fairness. While feelings and fairness are essential to what is best they do slow down progress so they get put off until later on the agenda. Phlegmatic confrontation (usually of their own upset feelings) reminds the choleric of the importance of this neglected part of the agenda. This interruption of the flow of productivity annoys choleric minds a lot which usually results in fiery anger which hurts more feelings and is usually unfair. The compounding of the problem makes phlegmatic minds more determined to draw attention to the fairness issue.

Opposite perceptions create tension and can even create division among people or within the same subconscious mind. Since we all have two perceptions most of us do not encounter serious division with opposite perceiving people. Our secondary perceptions often show us ways to navigate the differences. When we are ignorant of these perception styles and how they can be understood and managed we settle into a semi-successful relationship with our opposites.  We just "know" that we really can't stand people like "that" and can't understand why others can't see what is wrong with them. Because the perception energy is true and internal it feels like our truth is the "real" truth and when someone else's "real" truth does not blend with ours we take it very personally. We mentally lie in wait for the opportunity to expose their flaws to the world proving that their view is wrong. This is still considered semi-successful because this relating takes place outside of ourselves and other perceptions can mediate our conflicts. When the relating of opposites is in the primary and secondary perceptions of the same subconscious mind there is no success without peace. We could look at the problems caused by having opposite perceptions in the same mind but that would only apply to a few of us. Instead we will look at how to have peace between them because we could all benefit from that.

Like it or not there is one guideline that rules any method for peace between perceptions. The dominant one has more influence and that gives it more authority over the situation so the dominant perception is the one that has to yield. The responsive energies change all of the time and there is no peace from that. Only change in the dominant will be effective.  We also have to remember we are discussing how people perceive and not how they choose or act, so we are not discussing conflict over what is right or wrong. We are just balancing opposing energy so it shouldn't be difficult to yield to what works and doesn't waste energy.

sanguine's interests and direct it elsewhere. This happens by coming up with entertaining challenges for the sanguine mind to do. And we all know that sanguine energy cannot resist an entertainment or a challenge. It shows the sanguine that this melancholy mind is a source of fun and does not need help to "come out of it's shell". This changes the dynamic and the sanguine will no longer feel pulled to help the melancholy be less boring. It may difficult for a melancholy styled mind to come up with entertaining challenges but the worst that could happen is the sanguine appreciates the effort and moves on to something that actually is entertaining leaving the melancholy to it's beloved silence. The success of this method proves that the sanguine feeling that melancholies can be motivated to be more fun is absolutely right. To the frustration of all melancholy minds, sanguine energy will improve them.

The method for choleric energy yielding to phlegmatic perception will only work if  it proves to be efficient for the choleric agenda and satisfies the fairness sought by phlegmatic feelings. The best way to do this is for the choleric to recognize the feelings problem as soon as possible and completely, but temporarily, suspend their agenda to make acknowledging and listening to phlegmatic feelings  their only agenda. The speed and integrity with which the choleric perception does this will determine how quickly the phlegmatic feels better. As soon as the feelings are happier then the choleric can return to their agenda. If  the choleric mind is just pretending to prioritize feelings and fairness during the  temporary break then the phlegmatic will take what feels like forever to feel better and will push the choleric to being unfair and hurtful. The only way to avoid this is to sincerely prioritize feelings and fairness during the halt in the main agenda. And if the returning agenda is still hurtful and unfair then the interruptions will happen again. The success of this method to reduce time wasted on conflict and resolve of conflict proves that phlegmatic minds were right and cholerics need to put fairness and kindness as a priority in their plans.


While there are some other personality traits happening in the Warner Bros. Pictures 2010 movie Due Date, it is an excellent place to see the opposite perceptions at work. Robert Downey Jr. plays a choleric and melancholy perceiving man and Zack Galifianakis plays his phlegmatic and sanguine opposite. Interesting is when Zack's character is truly upset and literally running in circles in the kitchen the very sharp and angry character that Robert plays gets very still and slow and quiet to direct him. Most of the movie is shows the choleric character attempting to channel the sanguine silliness and lack of direction of the whole trip. It might seem like a jump for the angry choleric perception to suddenly get so quiet and stable in some of the irritating situations it happens in. But we understand how the energies relate so we wouldn't expect anything else. I bet we can guess which character does the most changing, right?


Questions:
1) Can you think of a time when two people were so conflicted over something that seemed insignificant to you and others? Do you look back now and think it was an opposite perception problem?

2)What ideas do you now have in strengthening your relationships through perception management?


(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)

I can see that I am good, but when I look at you... Part 1

Where is our moral compass inside of us? We change what is "right" with different situations. We see others do it, too. How should we judge our own moral standard? If we saw ourselves easier would we see others better, too?

If we were being really honest with ourselves we would see that a lot of times our moral standards shift around depending on the situation and the people we are around. Most of it is no big deal. It is wrong to scream and shout in the movie theater but expected at sporting events. But we shift actions when the boss is around, when we are around people we love or hate, and when strangers are looking at us. So honesty demands that maybe we need to look deeper in ourselves to see what assures us of our morality in these situations. When we find our standard of measurement it may be easier to see others and why they do what they do. We may learn to be a little more fair.

The first place we are going to look is in our subconscious mind. We are not scientists remember, we are looking in the part of our thoughts that feels like the subconscious.  In this part we have our perceptions, our motivations, and our character. This seems like a good place to search for our moral compass. We will start with our perceptions. Our perspective is made from everything we perceive. It is the veiws we collect, everything we have seen, understood, misunderstood, done, experienced, or been exposed to. Money (having or not) shapes our perspective. Religious experience, family life, our jobs, etc. all create our perspective. But in the subconscious mind we are looking at our subconscious perception style. Our perspective may be like others but will always be unique. but our perception, or style of perceiving, will be limited to four options.

There are four basic ways we filter what we perceive. We all have one ot these styles as our primary style and a second one to a smaller degree for balance or support of our primary style. In some of us they work together very well and it may be hard to see which is the primary. In others they are so different that we may only see the primary one most of the time. The best we can do for ourselves is to get familiar with all four styles and learn to use them all so some degree. This will only strengthen the types of veiws we are able to understand and can only make us wiser and better accepted by people whose style is different from our primary one.

We will call them by the names the Ancient Greeks used for them; choleric, melancholy, sanguine, and phlegmatic. The Greeks called them the four "humors" of the body and thought that most of the personality, psychology, and phyicial traits were due to these styles. Today we know that our personality and psychology is much more complex than four elements. It is obvious to us that our physical selves are too complex to fit this pattern too. But, in the subconscious mind our mental window that views the world is somewhat firey, earthy, airy, or watery. Let's look at the four stlyes and we will understand better.

Choleric people are the ones who look out an executive window. They see the world and everthing in it as something that needs to, and must be, managed. They help and contribute by fixing and improving everything from our problems to our personal style. They patrol the world seeking the highest standard to not just practice it but to share their knowledge of the standard with the rest of us. Choleric style is very firey and easily angered because they are results oriented and easily pushed to impatience. They have little patience with others who do not immediately, if ever, see their view of what is best. This style is very sharp. They are quick to judge style and taste because they want the world to be a beautiful place. They see that sometimes we are our own worst enemy and will sometimes take measures to try to save us from ourselves. They are not the kind to talk behind your back when telling you something face to face is possible. They see the value they have strived for and are not afraid of charging into disagreement and having their worth criticized.

The earthy perception is the melancholy one. It is solid and stable and will not shift easily or quickly. Melancholy people look out of a stabilizing window. They see the need to no get swept away with extremes. They do not see that others are that easily influenced anyway so they often avoid working at changing any one's opinions. They are a grounded standard of reason in their own view and caution others in their recklessness. They can be an anchor in a storm  to those close to them or can anchor them to a steady, little changing, existence. They are comfortable managing duties and items more than playing and silliness. To themselves their sincere views are obvious, but they can deceive others by their silence. Or, really, it is the group that deceives itself. Their silence often is interpreted as agreement and like-mindedness which may not be the case at all. When the melancholy perception is presented with the opportunity (forced) to be in the spotlight they will seem slow to animate themselves to respond. Often they can shock the group by having an opinion or view that is different from what everyone else thought. This is because of their view that opinions of others cannot be easily changed and may be a waste of energy. Melancholy people hate wasting mental energy on others and use as few words as possible when communicating. Melancholy style is actually seeing and evaluating many, many details and options in their silence and when they do speak they are usually concise and making exactly the point they mean to. All of this internal, very internal, analysis uses a lot of mental energy resulting in their annoyance and offense when others demand this style to spend more mental energy on something they see as unnecessary.

Airy sanguine people are unrestricted, fun-loving, and enthusiastic. This style perceives what is funny, silly, and unconventional as most important. Sanguine people see that the world needs to avoid being stuck, still, and stagnant. They see the need for entertainment and challenges to contribute to the very necessary stirring of the too comfortable and too complacent. Their view that enthusiasm is a requirement makes them fiercely loyal to what entertains them and makes it difficult for this perception's style to resist challenges and dares; even if the dare or challenge is out of that person's capabilities. This can make them seem like fools to others. This perception sees "normal" as merely status quo and so being seen as normal is something to avoid and something that cannot go unchallenged. Boredom and uncooperativeness can be hallmarks of sanguine people. Being bored seems to be the same as being caged to these airy people. And cooperating with interests that are not their own (which they are fiercely loyal to) can seem like being put on a leash. This makes it hard for this perception to focus on any task that is outside their realm of interest.

Watery phlegmatic people perceive all sides of an issue to some extent. They naturally look to all points of view that they can conceive of. This makes having an opinion of their own very challenging to these people. This makes them easy to get along with, very diplomatic, and sometimes easy to ignore. They are very cooperative with others because they assume other people see what they see and have made their choices based on the view of the whole. It is natural for phlegmatic people to get caught up in all the views. This makes them assume that others perform better than they do. They would seem like ready followers but they are not. They are loyal followers only to those they trust. They often do prefer to follow because decision making is such a long and agonizing process for them that by the time they have weighed all of their options no one else is that interested anymore, including themselves. This makes them bland in their style and choices. They become loyal to the choices that are easy to make and never require change. The main style choice in their life is comfort. No matter what, "is it comfortable or not?" remains a relatively easy choice to make. Since they are rarely still and settled they get very upset by people who deliberately stir up emotions. When confronted with unwanted changes they often are emotionally crushed. But, when confronted by perceived threats to their comfort zone of easy choices these go-with-the-flow styled people become uncharacteristically stubborn. It is rare and often over something that seems small to others, but a phlegmatic person's stubbornness is not so much about defending the issue at hand as much as a backlash of energy in a type of view that always takes the backseat to others. When phlegmatics are stubborn the people closest to them often get angry at the sudden personality change.

Questions:
1. What perception style do you and the people closest to you have?
2. What negatives can you see in each perception style?
3. Can you think of any times a disagreement or even a fight was only based on different perceptions?

(This is a place for ideas. We will not be critics of spelling or grammar. Anyone leaving a comment has the responsibility of being as clear as they can be. Anyone reading a comment has the responsibility of understanding the message. The thought can be discussed but not typos or grammar. That's not a valid argument against thoughts anyway.)