As I am continuing giving long and substantial “strategy sessions” to people, I am learning a lot.
I am seeing stuff that cannot be see through feeling. I am seeing stuff that won’t come through in the Starting Point Measurements, no matter how good a tool muscle testing is. Some things won’t even become clear in a short call…
I love the expression: “in the limited perspective of the human mind” and now I am inclined to add that even inside the human mind, you can look at things through different perception organs… and you’ll see more if you use more than just your favorite.
Most people’s “perception organ” is to turn to, habitually, to what they have already decided. The mind.
This gives you the least true-to-reality perception, obviously.
But my method for the Starting Point Measurements has been limping on one leg as well: Using feelings only.
The combo of feeling, hearing and time (unfolding) is a whole lot more accurate, true to reality.
But…
The more certain you are that you see the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the harder it is to look differently or to look elsewhere. This is why there are so many who are accused and condemned by others, in court… a total disaster. This is why so many people are treated for cancer who don’t have cancer. For example…
The challenge is this: when you want to add malleability to your convictions, first you need to consider that you were mistaken, maybe even wrong…
Then, you probably, have to tell about this to others, or your authenticity level will drop to very low.
Authenticity is “there is nothing in the unsaid”… This doesn’t mean you tell everyone everything… It means that you don’t withhold important things, to protect your image.
Today, both my strategy calls had me say: I was wrong.
It is mighty hard to trust that people I tell this to will trust me after that. Experience says that the more you are willing to tell the truth, the more they will trust you… but not everybody. this is not a rule, this is not a formula.
People will do whatever they will do… you have no control over it. You have only control over yourself.
More precisely: you have control ONLY over your speaking.
Many, most people I speak with want to find themselves. This supposes that there is a you already… but that you, if it exists, is only a potential.
I am leaning to agree with the “meme”, a George Bernard Shaw quote: that says: Life is not about finding yourself, life is about creating yourself.
If you look at that through the lens of the Anna Karenina principle, the principle of the strait and narrow, you’ll see that when you want to find yourself, everything seems to have the same relevancy score… you have a wide open field of good, and bad, and ugh ugly…
But if you look what happens when you choose characteristics of the person you are… as in committed to be, life becomes simple, and your brand spanking new self-image creates clarity.
Clarity and power… they always go hand in hand.
Being willing to hear stuff that flies in the face of all your certainties is a threat to the person who has not created themselves.
But the person who has… they are not afraid to investigate the new information. It does not threaten their self-image: in fact it will not touch their self-image.
Not everything means something about you: in fact very few if any do mean something about you, if you have already created yourself.
Here is the language of someone who already has done the work to create themselves:
I have been X… I am…
And the language of someone who hopes to find themselves, hopefully someone nice (lol) is to attempt to accurately describe themselves, using “I am” language.
They hope that if they could, ever!, accurately describe what they feel, what they think, they finally they would know…
The result is the opposite of what they hope for. Because in this accurate “I am” description everything and the opposite are featured with the same weight.
I’ll be crass for a second: If I wanted to take this “I am” approach to ad absurdum, I would say: I am a woman, my sh*t stinks, I drool at night… I make mistakes… etc. etc.
Now hear the difference in the “I have been” language: “I am a visionary. I have been known to make mistakes that expand where I can look. I haven’t been afraid to admit when I see something different… Every conversation, every experiment, every mistake recognized takes me closer to be able to help humanity to ascend to the next level of evolution: human being.”
Which, when I translate to ordinary descriptive language, the language most people speak, which says: I am not my mistakes. I make mistakes… I have been, and will… I actually want to make mistakes: you learn more from your mistakes, than from “smooth sailing”.
OK, I don’t know if this article is clear or not. If you find that it isn’t… please let me know.
All writing is re-writing. All thinking is re-thinking. This is the nature of life, this is the nature of reality.
The straight and narrow is the narrow path between a million of mistakes, errors, misconceptions, sins, not this and not that misconceptions.
The more you define the straight and narrow by what it isn’t, the happier you’ll be… Guaranteed.
Read the original article: What is the difference between “I am” and “I have been”? They both create yourself… but which is the right you?