To be ready for something requires understanding it. Knowing a few details is not enough. For us to know that we are ready, we have to “know ourselves” and also know what is present. By discovering what is present, we can quickly identify what is relevant.
What is relevant?To be ready means to know what skills and resources would be relevant and then also to know that those resources and skills are present. First, we must precisely perceive what is emerging and then what is relevant. What risks and opportunities are present? What outcome or interest is our priority?
The more precisely that we know what is relevant, the better we can plan. To know if we are able to produce an outcome, we must know the target outcome and then know what is relevant to produce it.
Are you willing?
How do we develop the ability to produce a favored outcome? We experience will (as in motivation or focus or desire).
When we experience a particular outcome or issue as a priority, then we are willing to focus on it (and unwilling to focus on other distractions). We experience the priority as uniquely relevant, so then other things seem relevant only when identified as contributing to fulfilling that priority. Anything else is currently irrelevant… unless a “higher priority” emerges.
How do we get to be willing?
Either we are willing to fulfill a certain priority or not. If we are willing, then being unable is a temporary condition.
When an outcome is motivating, then we are willing to increase whatever ability we consider relevant. If we are willing, we can develop new abilities that are relevant (or ally with others who are able). If we are not willing, then any diversion or excuse can be used to distract away from an outcome that we consider irrelevant. However, being willing does not instantly make us able or ready.
So, how do we get to be willing? Perceptiveness is the source of willingness.
People can be socially intimidated in to certain actions, but that is an external discipline, not self-discipline. The most powerful motivation is a direct perception of an opportunity or risk. When a motivation is internal, then it can be shared. In other words, when will is direct, then we do not need external discipline to produce a cultivating of ability.
In the absence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will be explored. In fact, in the presence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will still be explored, right?
Are you ready for perceptiveness?This may seem like an easy question. It is a simple question, but is it easy?
Consider that perceptiveness is so important that institutions have been formed for the purpose of carefully directing attention to notice only certain things, then directing interpretation of what is noticed, and then directing the behavioral response to the programmed interpretations. In other words, the governing of perceptiveness is attractive to some special interest groups.
Do certain groups want to reduce perceptiveness about certain issues? Are there programs of curriculum to reward people for focusing only on certain issues, then memorizing certain details and repeating them back (without reflecting on them)?
Then, someone else tells them that there is no need to be anxious about Santa. They are told that the people in whom they have the most dependence and the most trust (their parents) have been intentionally deceiving them.
How should we expect them to relate to that assertion? Will they say “perceptiveness is very valuable, so please tell me more?!?!”
Or, will they panic in outrage and then argue hysterically in defense of their familiar presumption? Will they ridicule and condemn those who display skepticism about their familiar presumption?
One of the big issues with developing perceptiveness is that the perceiving of risk may have been ritually shamed. People may be ridiculed as paranoid or hysterical.
Is perceptiveness valued? Or is it ritually interrupted? Is perceptiveness specifically targeted and attacked?
Imagine that someone lives in a country in which they are told that cancer is a living demon that can possess them and then eat them away from the inside (and kill them). Then, they are told that there is an injection that will give them a small dose of cancer so that they will build an immunity to it that will last for around 5 years.
Consider that some people hearing all of this will have a sense of complete dependence on that government. They may want desperately to maintain a particular perception (without regard for the accuracy of the perception). They may want to believe that the government cares about them personally and would never deceive them. They may want to avoid the emotions that would correspond to recognizing the reality of the massive concentration of power in that government.
In other words, they may want to confirm their pre-existing bias. They have been programmed with certain ideas about science and they refer to those ideas as “scientific.” However, their experience involves strong emotions like paranoia and hysteria.
If a government threatens severe punishment against those who do not receive mandatory vaccinations, how would that effect most people’s interest in the safety of those vaccines? Would the people rather avoid the topic of anything that causes them distress? Are they paranoid about distress? Or, do they value a clear perception of risks? (How high of a priority for them is their health?)
Some people question the effectiveness of vaccines. For simplicity here, we can focus on the opposite question of the safety of vaccines.
What does the U.S. government say about the safety of vaccines? In the 1980s, the government started a program “that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”
That quotation is from this website: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
Imagine if the auto industry was able to lobby for a government program so that when there was a defect in the building of a car, then the taxpayers would pay for injuries to purchasers of the defective car. What effect might that have on the attention to safety of those car makers?
Or imagine that the makers of wheelchairs were protected from liability for injuries caused to people because of defective wheelchairs. What about people who build stairways? What if taxpayers paid for all injuries caused by negligent construction of stairways?
However, what we have in the case of vaccines and drug companies is not just about occasional defects. No one questions the fact that stairways are useful because it can easily be observed.
What happens though if someone questions the central teachings of a particular religion? What if a religion teaches that, in every organism on the planet, there is an organ that makes a substance in order to poison and kill the organism?
Is cholesterol a poison made by the liver to cause paranoia and hysteria in the general public? If scientists measure that a placebo (an intervention that has no biochemical relevance) promotes health better than a certain drug designed to attack the liver, would that be surprising? Why would attacking the liver promote health?
Lots of studies document the variety of injuries produced by drugs designed to injure the liver (such as causing the effects called diabetes). Should the government use taxpayer money to protect the drug companies (and physicians) from legal penalties relating to injuries sustained from the use of a substance specifically designed to injure an essential organ?
Do we think that a particular program should or should not exist? Do we argue that a particular government exists for the sole purpose of promoting our individual well-being (without regard to the special interests of the most wealthy dealers)?
We actually do not need to concern ourselves with those questions. We could consider them irrelevant.
Instead, we can notice that when someone sincerely believes in Santa Claus, some people may be more or less willing to develop perceptiveness regarding unfamiliar observations. Maybe those that we depend on and trust have intentionally deceived us through carefully-constructed programming curriculums. Or maybe they sincerely believe in Santa, yet display hysteria and paranoia in regard to anyone who questions the accuracy of their sincere presumption.
Few are open to perceptiveness. Few are open to the powerful emotions and motivations that perceptiveness will produce. Few are open to developing the relevant abilities and alliances. Few are open to getting ready for victory.
Their “defeatism” has been carefully programmed. Their hysteria and paranoia benefit the few.
We can be among those who benefit from what is emerging. Or, we can be among the sources of those benefits.
TO ACCESS PART THREE, LEAVE A COMMENT OR SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE.