Once we have encountered someone they are permanently recorded in our memory and not forgotten unless we suffer some sort of catastrophic, irreversible memory loss. The factual details are recorded in our Parent and our emotional responses concerning the person are recorded in our Child – see my previous article on Perspective for a description of the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris.

Consequently under normal circumstances once we get to ‘know’ someone it is not possible to get to ‘not know’ them or, to use a more common term, ‘forget them’. I think that whenever we encounter someone, however briefly, we establish a relationship that we never really ‘lose’. My view is that it continues to exist in one of the four states depicted below – Harmony, Triggers, Conflict or Resolution.

Even if we never see a person again after a brief encounter, e.g. check-in staff at the airport, one night stand etc, if our parting was on good terms the relationship remains forever in Harmony with no chance of ever entering Conflict because we will never see that person again and we will have warm, pleasant memories of the encounter. If, however, triggers occurred, e.g. the service, sex etc was terrible, this may have led to conflict and the relationship then remains forever in Conflict with no chance of resolution as we never get to see that person again in order to attempt to reach Resolution and restore Harmony.

The more time we spend with a person and the better we get to know them the more chance there is of entering the Conflict state. In his excellent book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ Richard Carlson says:

“THE THOUGHT SYSTEMS OF OTHERS

We have learned that thoughts with recurring patterns become part of our individualized thought systems. Because our thought systems are self-validating systems (in psychological terminology, closed systems), we are unable to question them, and it will always seem to us that we are seeing life accurately and realistically. Because of this, we tend to question the ways in which others live their lives and the ways they do things, because self-validating systems are very protective of themselves. Information that doesn’t match our existing beliefs will be filtered through our belief system and judged as “inconsistent with the truth,” “a strange way of doings,” “weird,” “unusual,” “different,” and most often, “wrong.”

As we get to know another person better this tendency to question their thought system will increase, not decrease. The more opportunity we have to interact and spend time with other thought systems, the greater is the chance of conflict. This is why the most difficult relationship, for so many people, is marriage. For unmarried people, the most difficult relationship is commonly the person they are closest or most intimate with. In some ways, it seems ironic that we should be most bothered by those to whom we wish to be closest. But it can’t be any other way, unless and until we understand the psychological functioning of ourselves and our partners. Once we do, the opposite will happen. With understanding, we will gain new love and respect for those we choose to spend the most time with. We will retain our positive feelings for them as special and unique people. The issue of our differences will cease to bother us – perhaps it will even become amusing! We will begin to see people as characters, rather than adversaries.”

I agree with Richard…the closer we are to someone the more likely it is that conflict will arise. When we talk about ‘working at a relationship’ I believe what we are saying is that we need to work through resolving conflict whenever it arises and that it is particularly hard work in our closest, most intimate relationships. As time goes on and the relationship evolves the frequency of entering the Conflict state diminishes; in some cases to a point where conflict no longer happens between the parties.

As the diagram shows I believe that the route to conflict is via triggers. These are pre-existing psychological states many of which have not yet been resolved. For example some peoples’ rage is triggered when they are pointed at moving them to the Conflict state while others just shrug and think “hmmm… pointing isn’t polite” and their rage is not triggered hence they remain in the Harmony state avoiding getting anywhere near the Conflict state.

A relationship that has become stuck in the Conflict state is sometimes described as lost. However I believe that there is no situation that cannot be resolved. Whether or not it does get resolved depends on the desire of all parties concerned to reach resolution and return to a state of Harmony. Communication and negotiation play a very important part in resolving conflict – see my previous articles on Communication and Negotiation.

Here are some of the things that I think are common causes of conflict:

Lack of Expectation Management – This is one of the major causes of the build up of anger leading to resentment and rage. This, in turn, results in very serious conflict – see my previous article on Expectations

Mismatching – Mismatching is also a significant cause of conflict. One of our major issues is hoping to match ourselves with others before we get to know ourselves. How can we hope to enter in to an effective match with someone else when we barely know who we are ourselves? This is why I think that introspection is so important – see my previous article on Introspection.

Attachment to Things and Acts – For a variety of reasons we find ourselves drawn to material things and acts of others toward us. Here are a couple of questions we should be asking ourselves:

• Are we falling in love/in love with ‘Our’ things (Our Tune, Our Joke, Our Place, Our Gifts etc) or with the person?
• Are we falling in love/in love with the person or the way we’re being treated?

Where we are in love with things or acts, once others are unable to give these to us anymore a major conflict occurs. The reason being that we no longer have any reason to stay with the person(s) who is (are) no longer a source of the things or acts that we have fallen in love with. So we move on to others who can restore to us what our former partner/friends etc are no longer able to give and leave them devastated. If we are in love with the person(s) and/or simply appreciate them for who they are we stick with them.

Possession or Person – The treatment of a person as a possession always leads to conflict. Whether slavery (actual or metaphoric), excessive jealousy or perceived ownership, the person(s) who is (are) the focus of the possessiveness will eventually rebel either quietly or very loudly.

Contact – Some of us are contact junkies; others of us are quite happy to wait, sometimes extended periods of time, between contacts. This can be a very significant source of conflict. Contact junkies will terminate relationships (or, more accurately in my view, put them in an indefinite state of Conflict) because they are aggrieved that they are not being contacted often enough.

Dominant Parent and/or Child – Where one, both or all parties in a relationship have a dominant Parent and/or Child conflict is inevitable. This is because the weakened or absent Adult is unable to assert the necessary rationality that fosters effective communication and negotiation. If the Adult is dominant and strong in at least one party the conflict can be resolved quickly.

Mental Illness – This in my view is the most disappointing cause of conflict. In my experience most people have taken the view that they did not get involved in a relationship to deal with someone’s psycho behaviour. It is disappointing because all it requires on the part of the person(s) who are mentally healthy is a resolve to assist the mentally ill person recover be it depression, neurosis or whatever.

Negativity – Excessive jealousy, extreme anger (rage), resentment, blaming and fault finding are just a few of the excellent ways to move very quickly to a state of Conflict. My advice is to avoid expressing negativity inappropriately at all costs.

In summary I think that the trick is to stay in the Harmony state. Where this is not possible then the triggers should be removed and/or the conflict resolved as quickly as is practicable.

Stay strong and serene.

Because we all have a unique perspective on life negotiation and, by extension, compromise are crucial parts of all of our relationships with other people; see my previous article on Perspective which also describes the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris which is referenced in this article. In my view, the key to successful negotiation is a clear, Adult (reality based) perception of the circumstances and of each person’s drivers, motivations and/or needs. This is as opposed to perceptions dominated by our Parent and/or Child (distorted reality or pure fantasy).

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore our Parent and/or Child; far from it. Our Adult cannot function effectively without input from both. In his book ‘Six Thinking Hats’ Edward de Bono (http://www.edwarddebono.com) describes a method of discussion that allows expression of all of the components of the PAC model…the Parent (Black Hat), the Adult (White, Yellow, Green and Blue Hats) and the Child (Red Hat). Read more about the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward espouses letting go of the need to be right; something I agree with wholeheartedly. He says:

“THE NEED TO BE RIGHT

This is very much tied up with the ego. An argument is a battle between egos. When you agree you seem to be submitting to the other point of view – so you lose. When you disagree you are asserting your ego and indicating that you may be superior. All this is reinforced by the emphasis on argument and debate in school and also in society, whether in government, the law courts or the media. In government, for instance, an opposition party will often seek to disagree with those in power, whatever the circumstances. Most people are now coming to see this as extremely silly.

If you insist on always winning an argument you end up with nothing more than you started with – except showing off your arguing ability. When you lose an argument you may well have gained a new point of view. Being right all the time is not the most important thing in the world and it is certainly not very beautiful.

A discussion should be a genuine attempt to explore a subject rather than a battle between competing egos.”

In my experience, the outcome of negotiation can be:

1. I/We Win – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
2. I/We Lose – You Win (Parent)
3. I/We Lose – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
4. I/We Win – You Win (Adult with Parent and/or Child input)

My view on these outcomes is as follows:

1. Driven either by our Child or our Parent. When this outcome is driven by the Child it is evidenced by a desire to control through domination. This has resulted in phrases such as ‘big swinging dicks’, ‘slaughtering the other side’, ‘chewing them up and spitting them out’ etc. When driven by the Parent it is evidenced by a desire for external approval and influenced by such sage advice as “second is nowhere”, “the winner takes it all”, “winning is everything” etc.
2. Driven by the Parent and evidenced by a desire to please. It is influenced by such sage advice as “the meek shall inherit the earth”, “always give of yourself”’, “turn the other cheek, “sacrifice is next to godliness” etc.
3. Driven by either the Child or the Parent. When driven by the Child it is evidenced by a “if I’m/We’re suffering then you’re going to suffer with me/us” approach when losing and the consequent efforts to sabotage negotiations even at the risk of further detriment or harm to themself/selves – the classic ‘cutting off of the nose to spite the face’. When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “if you’re going down, take as many of them down with you as you can” as opposed to surrendering or otherwise gracefully accepting defeat…in many cases to fight another day.
4. This is the outcome I believe all negotiations should aspire to. It is driven by the Adult or Parent. When driven by the Adult it is based on a rational consideration of the, often irrational, input from our Parent and/or Child plus the prevailing external circumstances and a balanced consideration of what may happen in the future. Some of our greatest modern thinkers, such as Edward, have proposed extremely effective ways of negotiating that are very different from the traditional ‘You’re Wrong – I’m/We’re right’ approach. They favour a more objective, analytical approach such as the ‘parallel thinking’ method designed by Edward in 1985. As per the quote from Edward above, letting go of the need to be right is crucial in achieving Win-Win in negotiation. With reference to the book ‘I’m OK – You’re OK’ by Thomas (more information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I’m_OK,_You’re_OK) I believe that this need to be right is a consequence of not being in the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state. This means we remain in the “I’m Not OK – You’re OK” state that we are in at birth and during the first few years of our lives or move to either one of “I’m Not OK – You’re Not OK” or “I’m OK – You’re Not OK” states. Ideally we should all move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state at some point during our lives and, consequently, be able to let go of the need to be right. Unfortunately not all of us complete the move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state – witness crusty old folk having a good old moan about how things are a lot worse than the old days! When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “always play fair”; on the face of it this would appear to be the same as when driven by the Adult. However if driven only by the Parent fair play will be observed even when others are playing unfairly potentially leading to an underserved loss. The Adult will take the unfair play in to account and consequently engineer a fair Win-Win outcome.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward gives an example of ‘parallel thinking’ saying:

“CO-OPERATIVE EXPLORATION

Imagine there are four people standing around a square building. Each person is facing a different side. Each person insists that what he or she sees is the proper view of the building. They argue via walkie-talkies.

In parallel thinking each person would walk round to one side of the building. They would now each describe what they saw. Then they would all walk around to another side of the building and again describe what they saw. The same procedure for the third side, and then the fourth side.

So, all parties look at the matter from the same point of view and describe what they see. In the end there has been a full exploration of the building (the matter being discussed).

For the method of work (Note from Yernasia: I think that this was meant to read “For the method to work”), it is essential that at any moment everyone is looking ‘in parallel’ in the same direction.”

In yet another of his books, ‘Textbook of Wisdom’, he says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking, where each statement has to be judged before being accepted. In adversarial thinking, the ‘contradiction’ is a very important and powerful tool. Both sides of a contradiction cannot be right. One or other must go. Parallel thinking allows both sides of the contradiction to be laid down in parallel without interfering with each other. Later on, in the design phase, things can be sorted out.

Parallel thinking removes at once the urge to instant judgement. You do not have to accept something as ‘right’ because you have not rejected it as ‘wrong’. You simply accept it ‘in parallel’. Sometimes you can accept it as ‘possibly’ but even when you cannot accept something as ‘possible’ you still accept it in parallel.

Husbands usually complain that wives take far too many clothes on holiday. Husbands say that wives should decide in advance exactly what is going to be needed and to reject what is not going to be needed. Husbands complain that wives take six outfits with them so they can have the ‘luxury’ of choice at the holiday destination. Parallel thinking is what the wives are doing. They take everything along and then make the choice only when it has to be made. The husbands’ thinking is more like the traditional Gang of Three (Note from Yernasia: see below for an Explanation of the Gang of Three from Edward’s website) thinking: accept or reject at this point before packing it.”

Explanation of the Gang of Three

Sourced from http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php

“Argument and Critical Thinking

To this day, Western culture depends on this type of thinking. In family arguments, in business discussions, in the law courts, and in governing assemblies, we use the thinking system of the Greeks, based on argument and critical thinking.

I sometimes refer to prominent philosophers of this day as the “gang of three.” Who were the famous Greek gang of three, and how did they form the thinking habits of Western culture?

The Gang of Three Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
Socrates was trained as a “sophist.” Sophists were people who played with words and showed how careful choice of words could lead you to almost any conclusion you wanted. Socrates was interested in challenging people’s thinking and, indeed, getting them to think at all instead of just taking things for granted. He wanted people to examine what they meant when they said something. He was not concerned with building things up or making things happen.

From Socrates we get the great emphasis on argument and critical thinking. Socrates chose to make argument the main thinking tool. Within argument, there was to be critical thinking: Why do you say that? What do you mean by that?

Plato (c. 427-348 B.C.)
Plato is generally held to be the father of Western philosophy. He is best-known for his famous analogy of the cave. Suppose someone is bound up so that the person cannot turn around but can only look at the back wall of the cave. There is a fire at the mouth of the cave. If someone comes into the cave, then the bound person cannot see the newcomer directly but can only see the shadow cast by the fire on the back wall of the cave. So as we go through life, we cannot see truth and reality but only “shadows” of these. If we try hard enough and listen to philosophers, then perhaps we can get a glimpse of the truth. From Plato we get the notion that there is the “truth” somewhere but that we have to search for it to find it. The way to search for the truth is to use critical thinking to attack what is untrue.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was a very practical person. He developed the notion of “categories,” which are really definitions. So you might have a definition of a “chair” or a “table.” When you come across a piece of furniture, you have to judge whether that piece of furniture fits the definition of a chair. If it does fit, you say it is a chair. The object cannot both be a chair and not be a chair at the same time. That would be a “contradiction.” On the basis of his categories and the avoidance of contradiction, Aristotle developed the sort of logic we still use today (based largely on “is” and “is not”). From Aristotle we get a type of logic based on identity and non-identity, on inclusion and exclusion.”

…and in summary Edward says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking. Instead of judgement, both sides are laid down in parallel and then a way forward is designed.”

Put simply, I think he is saying that we should listen to and understand others points of view and be prepared to explain clearly and quietly our points of view. This, I believe, is the basis of effective negotiation.

Stay strong and serene.

A key aspect of having effective relationships is the recognition of the multiple personalities within us and within others. Based on the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model conceived by Thomas A Harris I think that our multiple personalities have their foundations in one or more of our Parent, Adult and/or Child. See my article on Perspective for more information on the PAC model.

In extreme cases these multiple personalities manifest in the form of severe mental illness such as multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia; read more about:

• Mental Illness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness

• Multiple Personality Disorder at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

• Schizophrenia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Fortunately for most of us, experiences of these psychological extremes are rare occurrences. Anybody who has been through severe emotional distress such as denial, anger, grief etc will have experienced these extremes even if just for the briefest of moments. These temporary extremes can be described as altered states which can also be caused by stimulants, relaxants, and depressants (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc). I think that stimulants, relaxants and depressants primarily affect our Child while weakening the function of the Parent and Adult. My rationale being that the effects are intense, uncontrolled and temporary. Natural stimulation and relaxation methods such as good eating, exercise, play, appreciation of the outdoors and meditation also primarily affect our Child but under ‘supervision’ of the Adult with input from the Parent and are therefore of a lasting nature. See this article for more on altered states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

In my view, the most common form of altered state is rage, anger at its most intense. When a person is in this state they are manifesting a very different personality from the one that they usually do. The Rage Personality has its foundations in our Child. Rage can be hot and loud such as road-rage or cold and silent such as resentment. Regardless of whether it is hot or cold, when rage takes over we are not our normal selves and may end up saying or doing things that we regret. Guilt invariably follows a Rage Personality episode and often creates a vicious cycle of rage-guilt-rage-guilt-rage-guilt as we attempt to justify our destructive expression of our rage instead of apologising; a state of affairs which almost inevitably leads to conflict.

So we need to develop means of detecting the build up of rage and managing its expression. Put simply we should avoid interacting with others when we are angry. We should count to 10, go for a walk, meditate; anything but expressing the rage at others. When we have calmed down and our Adult has reasserted itself with input from the Parent we can resume our interactions with others and work towards resolving the causes of the rage.

Here are a few examples of personality types that may exist within us:

Fantasist

I think that the Fantasist Personality operates primarily through the Child and has higly idealistic expectations. When these expectations are not met tantrums and sulking are among the inevitable consequences. In my experience the Fantasist Personality is responsible for those who, inappropriately, have multiple relationships dropping and replacing those that fail to meet their expectations. Typically they will ‘exhaust’ an area then move elsewhere to repeat the pattern.

Perfectionist

I think that the Perfectionist Personality operates through the Parent with expectations that everything should be “perfect”. In extreme cases this may manifest as Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). Read more about OCPD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_personality_disorder. My view is that the Perfectionist Personality is responsible for those who move on from relationships when things become “imperfect”.

Victim

This one is interesting because I think the Victim Personality operates primarily through the Parent and is also heavily influenced by the Child. The Victim Personality recalls and replays memories of put downs and admonitions etc stored in the Parent and the associated feelings stored in the Child. The Victim Personality only seems comfortable in the “poor me” mode, feeling undeserving of respect or praise. I think that it is responsible for those who move on from relationships where they are being treated with respect, kindness and consideration.

Controller

I think that the Controller Personality operates primarily through the Child with a drive to control everything in order to avoid replays of past upsets. It is responsible, in my view, for those who move on when they perceive that they are no longer in control.

Stay strong and serene.

will you fix that for me
will you fill my water glass
will you put a record on
will you think of me when i’m gone
will you find me when i stay
will you bring me to my house
will you choose the ripe peach
can you imagine a summer day?

she cries when the songs come
out from the layer of the ground
she was a secret lover in her time
new page, new start, empty day, full night
it’s having access to the moments of her life

Ya tenemos a las tres parejas finalistas de “Pekín Express” y Meritxell y Alazne no están, tristemente, entre ellas. Y dgo tirstemente porque aunque a Alazne no hay quien la aguante si se pone como se pone, han sido la pareja que más salsa le ha puesto al programa, aunque bueno, si su expulsión sirve para que veamos a los juanes un poco desquiciados y echando atcos bienvenida sea, que ya es hora de que muestren algo de sangre.

La última etapa de la madre y la hija sirvió para volver a comprobar que Fran y Merino son a los que casi nadie puede en las pruebas de inmunidad, que Antonio si se pone tiene un mal genio que para qué, que los juanes son ñoños a más no poder y que Meritxell ha aguantado carros y carretascon la niña de los peines. Y, también que la organización del programa tiene mala leche porque eso de rodearles de serpientes y pegar una llave a la cabeza de una cobra…

Hay rumores de que Fran y Merino van a ganar, bueno ganaron, el programa y me lo creo aunque sigo apostando por Antonio y Carmela. Veremos que pasa en lo que queda, que ya es muy poquito.

Alazne y Meritxell llegaron últimas pero…

Interesante etapa de “Pekín Express” que pudimos ver ayer en Cuatro. Parece que a ningún participante le gusta La India, a Juan Jr. sí porque a ese le gusta todo, y que las van a pasar canutas por las costumbres de los ciudadanos de ese país.

Esta vez, en vez de verle el culo a Merino, se lo vimos a Fran (el guapo del programa ¿que no?).También vimos como Juan y Juan Jr. volvieron una vez más a jugar el juego de inmunidad aunque la pericia de Merino hizo que padre e hijo no ganasen entre quejas porque el poli de Coslada empezó a colgar uno de los pañuelos y después se lo pensó mejor colando el otro primero. Ya lo dijo Juan hijo, “podíamos haber quitado otro pañuelo” Sí juanito, sí, pero no lo hicísteis.

Con la inmunidad, Fran y Merino no se durmieron y también llegaron los primeros a la meta, seguidos de , como no, de los Juanes (que los echen ya), CArmela y Antonio, Carles y Silvia y Meritxell y Alazne. Antes de llegar a meta, el día anterior, madre e hija tuvieron una fuerte discusión y es que, insisto, a esta pobre mujer le deberían poner un mnumento por lo que tiene que aguantar. encimala otra dice “es que se me olvida que es mi madre y la trato mal”. Así vas muy, pero que muy mal por la vida, Alazne.

Total, que después discutieron y mandaron a la mierda a un tio que le pidió rollo a Meritxell, la mujer no está muy considerada por lo que contaron, pero para el rollete de una noche el tio ese no sé cortó ni un pelo.

Así, volvemos a la meta. Alazne lloraba desconsoladamente antes de llegar poerqu se veía fuera, aunque luego puso esa cara de soberbia de “ya lo sabía”, pero madre e hija se libraron de que les dieran pasaporte, nunca mejor dicho, porque Carlas y Silvia decidieron retirarse por la lesión en la espalda que él llevaba sufriendo desde hacía días. Hoy alguien me ha dicho que seguro que se retiraro porque pensaban que madre e hija ya no estaban en el concurso, pero yo creo que se podrían haber imaginado que el programa debía continuar con cuatro parejas, que si no se descuadran los tiempos.

En fin, que madre e hija se salvaron dejando más perplejos al resto de parejas que cuando Carles y Silvia les comunicaron que abandonaban y con Juan Jr. como falso oficial. Con Alazne y Meritxell el entretenimiento está servido, sólo por eso me alegro de que se queden una semana más.

A todos les ha pillado un poco de sorpresa el tema de Jorge Javier, pero a los teleginios se nos ha quedado el cuerpo un poco igual. ¿Qué otro presentador carismático tenemos ahora en antena? ¿Punset? Dentro de poco, os comentamos la jugada.

Como esta semana no estaba Marina, el nivel intelectual descendió varios enteros, pero el resto de los titulares hicimos todo lo posible por suplir su ausencia. Podéis escuchar la tertulia, pinchando aquí o haciendo clic en la imagen.

Tax cuts for the rich, global warming (now known as climate change), fossil fuels, billions of years, Middle East peace, we evolved from apes and my new favorite — jobs saved or created.

What do each one of these have in common—they are all Illusions. I could go on and on with many other Illusions, but this is enough to cover.

I am not going to get into all the numbers or deep thoughts on each one. I just want to make a simple point. So, here I go….

In order to get a tax cut, you must have to pay taxes in the first place. It is next to impossible to cut taxes for the majority of people in this country anymore. Close to fifty percent of our fellow citizens (including many of you) are net gainers from benefits received from the government. The government receives most of their revenue from the rich (when they’re not using/spending the money borrowed or printed), so when there is a tax cut, naturally the rich benefit in terms of total amount saved in taxes, while the poor receive enough money from the rich to keep them poor.

Global Warming—-had to change the wording because everyone with a brain knows that it is B_LL SH_T. Ahh, but who can deny that the climate changes? Even I agree the climate changes on a day to day basis. Some days it is sunny and some days it rains. Heck, we even have a change of seasons four times a year. Who can argue with Climate Change?

Fossil fuels—based on the term and how we are taught, oil came to be from the fossils left behind from dinosaurs which walked the earth millions and billions of years ago. Everyone accepts this as fact, yet it does not make sense. How much oil has been used so far and how much has not been tapped yet? Trillions of barrels (42 US gallons equals a barrel), that’s how much. How many dinosaurs did it take to make just one barrel anyway? Based on where the oil has been found, these dinosaurs must have been stacked five miles high in order to create that amount of oil. And another point—they must have been great swimmers and died in huge groups in the oceans at the same time to produce the oil reserves found there. By the way, how did the fossils get so deep into our earth? I could go on and on with more very interesting questions, but that is enough to make my point.

Since I brought up billions of years—come on. We can’t relate to 20 years ago, much less and agree what life was like back then. There is disagreement among scholars from the time of Jesus and that we know was only 2000 years ago. There is no possible way to say what life was like B.C. or A.D., we only have theories, yet we know for a fact that based on “science” the earth is billions of years old? This is the same “science” that claims oil came from swimming dinosaurs.

Middle East peace—-only when the Muslims destroy the Jews or the Jews destroy the Muslims will there be peace in the Middle East. By the time that happens you will be able to say Rapture. Funny thing…the holy land must have been stacked to the heavens with dinosaurs to create the oil reserves located there.

We evolved from apes—yup…white apes, black apes, Chinese apes, Mexican apes, Japanese apes and my favorite—Irish apes, just to name a few species. The Irish apes are the apes that created Guinness, whiskey and the dance of the Irish. Through “science” we were able to prove that the Irish apes had the most fun of all and because of this they were the last to completely evolve into what is known today as homosapiens or us, regular humans. The good news for the Darwinists’ is they did definitively find the missing link to prove evolution and finally shut up the doubters. They found the well preserved remains of what is now known as “Harry O’Apen” under a bar in Dublin. Harry was holding a cup made from dinosaur bone with Guinness engraved on the side while wearing a really pretty dress with many colors, but they were unfortunately very faded.

Which brings me to my favorite Illusion today—jobs saved or created. Only Barak Obama could get away with creating such an Illusion today. I bet Chris Angel is jealous that he didn’t think of this one first. This is way better than any of his Illusions that are quite honestly, amazing. How do you measure jobs saved? It is impossible to do this, yet the number our King throws out to his bowing masses is believed to be true. For only the mighty Barak has the ability to save jobs as no President before him could do, they were only able to take credit for creating or losing jobs. How does Barak do this, I know you will ask? Well he seems to be the only one who can create jobs as the private sector is still shredding their payrolls. The government seems to be the only ones hiring in mass today. Since Barak controls our federal government he can be the only one to create jobs, thus he can make any claim he would like for the amount of jobs he has saved. These are jobs that could have been put on the sidelines like those in the private sector from his BAD policies. But, who needs private sector jobs when Uncle Sam is hiring?

So, when Barak claims that he has saved jobs, his lap dogs (the press) report the number he pulled from his behind and reports the Illusion as a fact, just like the other Illusions I covered. They want you, the people, to believe their lies.  They keep talking as if it is fact and soon enough it is…even when it is false.

All hail Barak!

YIP YIP HURRAY!

What a joke!

see more at:  http://illusionsandrealities.com

Los juanes están que arrasan porque en la etapa de “Pekín Express” que Cuatro emitió ayer, volvieron a ganar, y eso que Juan padre y Juan Antonio se pasaron de parada en el bus cuando tenían que volevr con su pareja.

Sí, en vista de la bronca de la semana pasada entre Alazne y Silvia, la organización parace que decidió que para casi la mitad de la última etapa en Nepal los aventureros cambiasen de pareja. Alazne y Silvia, Meritxell y Merino, Fran y Carmela, Antonio y Juan hijo, Xavi y Carles y Juan padre y Juan Antonio fueron las parejas momentáneas. Me hubiese gustado que se nos hubiera mostrado más de ese cambio, pero la verdad es que emitieron muy poco, casi se centraron en la relación Meritxell-Merino y Alazne-Silvia. De los primeros, bueno, Meritxell le pidió explicaciones a Merino de por qué le caían su hija y ella tan mal, y él no se las dio. Lo que si le dio fue una visión de su cuerpo en calzoncillos cuando ambos se fueron a dormir… en la misma cama. Ahora, bien es cierto que Merino cargó con la mochila de Meritxell alguna vez y que no le dijo anda malo.

De las segundas hay que decir que Alazne acabó llorando, no delante de Silvia, diciendo que había tenido que hacer de tripza

Por lo demás, unas vistas impresionantes de los montes de Nepal, un hándicap con muy mala leche para Xavi y Juan por haber sido salvados por la tarjeta verde la semana pasada, diez litros de leche en dos cubos que si se derramaban tenían que parar y llena, otra discusión de la pareja gay y… su eliminación porque si llega a salir otra tarjeta verde hubiera pensado que hay tongo.

¡Menudo jaleo que hubo anoche en “Pekín Express”! (se entiende lo de anoche, porque grabado de hace semanas está). Lo que muchos esperábamos sucedió, Silvia le pegó un bofetón a Alazne qué se quedó con cara de “hala tia, que me has metido un guantazo”, mientras carles la intentó empapar con una botella de agua y Meritxell les dio un par de patadas para que dejaran en paz a su insufrible hija. Menos mal que Fran se metió en medio que si no, a saber lo que pasa.

Sí, Alazne es una insufrible, histérica, inmadura y algo chula chica de veintiun años que puede poner de los nervios a cualquiera pero de ahí a que la pija (si, yo la llamo así) le arree un guantazo… Entiendo que le pudiera sacar de quicio y más teniendo en cuenta lo de la última etapa en Hong Kong, pero la violencia no sirve para nada. A Silvia el guantazo le sirvió para arrepentirse de lo que había hecho, que no para pedir perdón porque según ella a la madre y a la hija no tiene que decirles nada, y a Alazne le sirvió para pillarse otra llorera (¿lágrimas de cocodrilo, o es que de verdad se puede llorar tanto?), hacerle llorar a su madre y ponerse más chula y mentirosa que nunca cuando Raquel Sánchez-Silva les pidió explicaciones.

No fue la única bronca, que aquí parece que los únicos que no discuten son los Juanes, unos tios muy suertudos que a este paso seguro que llegan a la final, y es que Juan Antonio y Xavi volvieron a discutir ¡cómo no! Ahora, eso sí, parece que Xavi ya no se quiere ir. Lo mejor, Alazne intentando calmar a Xavi y Meritxell haciendo lo propio con Juan, llegando a decir que no se calentase que Xavi y Alazne tenían muy mal despertar y preguntándole a ver si creía que “la niña de los cojon*s” no la sacaba de quicio a ella también. Meritxell, insisto, merece un monumento.

Merino se mosqueó con Fran porque uno quería hacer una cosa y el otro otra, y Antonio y Carmela tuvieron un pequeño roce porque él no podía andar al paso de ella. Igual que Carles y Silvia, que volvió a llamar a su novio gilipollas un par de veces. Otro par de mentirosos afirmando cuando Alazne y meritxell dijeon que parecía que había un complot contra ellas, que no había nada de eso cuando les dijeron a los Juanes que les dejaban cenar en el mismo resturante, restaurante al que padre e hijo habían llegado primero, si se unían al complot contra madre e hija. Al final, los gays salvados por la tarjeta verde.

Total, que las etapas de Nepal no van a crear más que malos rollos y es que la próxima semana… hay cambio de parejas y a Meritxel la ponen con Merino y a Silvia con Alazne. Algo muy claro hay, que hay muchos de estos concursantes que no hacen más que faltar al respeto a los demás, pero eso no viene de ahora, sino desde el segundo programa prácticamente, y como dijo Raquel Sánchez-Silva, los modales no se aprenden en “Pekín Express”. Veremos, que la etapa del domingo promete.

While this post is coming alive, I am on my way to Frankfurt to meet with representatives of the AIDS action alliance to discuss possible involvement at the 2nd ecumenical church day in Munich in May 2010 and the World AIDS Conference in Vienna. Mid November we have our annual planing meeting with HOPE Cape Town and then most travel arrangements must be decided on. Monday Frankfurt, Tuesday/Wednesday Bitburg and Wednesday eve Aachen are the next stations of my travel – Bitburg with a talk @ the Lion’s Club and various encounters and talks with the students and teachers of the St. Willibrord Gymnasium regarding the work of HOPE Cape Town and obviously touches the general situation in South Africa.  In Aachen I will talk about “HIV and AIDS as sign of the times” and discuss a possible theology of HIV and AIDS for our days.  All encounters create the opportunity to function as a bridge between South Africa and Europe. This becomes more and more important. In my talks in Berlin I once again realised how necessary it is that information is floating freely and honestly between South Africa and Germany to foster the development of relationships between the two countries which are helpful to the people and not only to the ruling class. Sometimes the European or German partners are very quick with solutions to our problems between Cape Town and Johannesburg – forgetting the different way, people in the South experience their realities. South Africa has a lot still to learn and to develop, be it that politicians are team player and not lone warriors trying to gain as much as possible as long as they are in office. But also the cooperation between NGO’s and government needs improvement and also here, the working mechanism developed in Germany between those parties, could have an assisting factor for us at the bottom of Africa.

Mutual existence can only prevail through mutual acceptance which includes acceptance of each other as realities , acceptance of commonalities and acceptance of disputes which need to be resolved on the principles of justice and equality.

Anoche, después de ver un nuvo capítulo de la novena temporada de “CSI” en AXN, apagué la tele por cable y en mi televisor apareció ese programa que Antena 3 estrenó hace tan sólo unas semanas llamado “Curso del 63″.

Lo pillé justo en el momento en el que los alumnos del Colegio San Severo (y tan severo) tenían que comerse unas ancas de rana para catar el segundo plato, que era arroz con huevo. Una de las chicas se puso histérica porque le daba mucho asco tener un anca de rana en su plato, tanto que sus compañeros tuvieron que esperar a que se decidiera porque si no, no comían.Al final la compalera que estaba al lado le cortó la carne del anca y se la dio con el tenedor porque ella se negaba en redondo. Ahora, muy surrealista eso de ponerles ancas de rana, porque si hoy no es una comida muy típica, y eso que están muy buenas (los que las hemos probado sabemos que saben a pollo) en el año 1963 no debían ni verse por las tiendas así que muchos menos en los colegios.

La pataleta de ésta fue comparable a la que se cogió otra alumna cuando la profesora descubrió su tanga y como se puso rebelde se lo cortó. Mal hecho, sí, pero los insultos no llevan a ninguna parte y las normas son las normas ¿no? Digo yo que estarán allí por propia voluntad… valientes masocas. Total que ese tanga (Dolce y Gabana, además) no fue el único que acabó cortado porque para que no las expulsasen el resto de compañeras fueron entregando los suyos. Al final, el director le perdonó la expulsión a la chica del primer tanga porque la profesora no se lo debería haber cortado.

“Curso del 63″ tuvo anoche tres millones ochocientos mil espectadores. ¿Dará morbo ver cómo estos alumnos las pasan canutas en un colegio interno en el que los profesores son muy estrictos? Lo poco que ví hizo que no me quedara ni pizca de curiosidad.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Sí, no puedo empezar este post de otra manera ya que anoche mi pareja favorita quedó eliminada en un mano a mano por dos pasaportes para Nepal.

Pongámonos en situación. Hong Kong, dos parejas, Carmela y Antonio y los juanes, tienen ya sus pasaportes para Nepal y son enviados al hotel más lujoso de toda la ciudad, mientras el resto de parejas tiene que competir durante veinticuatro horas en una gimkana para ver quiénes son el resto de participantes en viajar hasta Nepal.

El primer juego consiste en que reunan a una serie de personas chinas para formar una familia y que ante una cámara de video digan una palabra. Fran y Merino, los polis de Coslada, son los primeros en conseguirlo y se llevan sus pasaportes. El día acaba con discusión de Xavi y Juan, para variar, ya que Xavi acusa a su novio de que había cogido la palabra más difícil, cuando parece que fue al revés. Alazne y Meritxell, esta especialmente, intentaron tranquilizar a Xavi y así los cuatro se fueron a cenar. Hay que decir que la pareja ay del programa tenía un handicap para esta etapa, ya que no podían quitarse sus mochilas para nada tras haber sido salvados la semana pasada por la tarjeta verde.

El siguiente juego fue comerse unas “delicias” como escorpiones, caballitos de mar, lagartos fritos… para desayunar. Xavi demostró no tener ningún tipo de escrúpulo y gracias a él, Juan y él ganaron sus pasaportes en un juego en el que Miriam y Carla no participaron por llegar las últimas y en el que Alazne y Silvia discutieron

La siguiente prueba fue muy dura, ya que las parejas tenían que ir recogiendo unas piezas para montar una figura y llegar hasta un rascacielos donde la presentadora, Raquel Sánchez-Silva, los estaba esperando. carles y Silvia fueron los primeros en llegar y montar la figura e, increiblemnte sólo por siete minutos llegaron primeros, seguidos de Carla y Miriam que adelantaron a Meritxell y Alazne.

La prueba final, el mano a mano del que hablaba, fue entre las desconocidas y la amdre y la hija. La mala suerte quiso que Carla y Miriam saliesen primero de la torre pero que ningún taxi las llevara. La buena serte quiso que el primer taxi al que Alazne fue, la recogiese junto a su madre. Ahi fue cuando Carla se derrumbó y empezase a llorar mientras Miriam ponía cara de circunstancias. Aún así consiguieron un coche y la mala suerte, de nuevo, hizo que otros siete minutos las privasen de sus pasaportes, quedando eliminadas y desconsoladas.

Todas las paejas a excepción demadre e hija se acercaron a mimar a las eliminadas qe no podían parar de llorar. Una pena porque son de las que mejor han concursado, sin pisar a nadie, sin quejarse, sin broncas y también sin suerte en las dos últimas etapas. Un juego es un juego y ganaron quienes ganaron se lo mereciesen o no. De esta etapa ha quedado claro de nuevo que las más competitivas son Meritxell y Alazne, que la niña esta es una insufrible inmadura, chula y maleducada a cuya madre deberían poner un monumento por lo que tiene que aguantar y que hay mucho roce entre las parejas. No creo que se hagan dos grupos como dijeron, pero la cosa promete, sobre todo porque la semana que viene Silvia le arreará un guantazo a Alazne.

Gracias Miriam y Carla por los buenos ratos, sobre todo los de la segunda etapa con las risas contagiosas, y por demostrar que para competir también se puede ser buen compañero.

Qué ganas me están dando de coger la maleta y plantarme en China. ¡Qué paisajes! Claro que está muy lejos, es caro ir y encima no me entienden… Me conformaré con seguir descubriendo el país viendo “Pekín Express” aunque, dentro de nada los concursantes estarán en Nepal, pero eso será después del programa del domingo que será un especial en Hong Kong.

El último programa emitido volvió a recalcar los malos rollos que hay entre algunos concursantes que no aguantan a la madre y a la hija. No, Meritxell y Alazne ya han perdido adeptos entre sus compañeros, nada de extrañar después de que la grosería y bordería de la niña, echase a unos cuantos del autobús. Sí, a veces son insufribles (sobre todo la hija) pero también tienen sus momentos graciosos y hay que reconocer que se lo curran, que el otro día no llegaron primeras porque sí y ganaron el juego de inmunidad apurando hasta el último momento.

Sinceramente quería que echasen a los gays, no por nada sino porque también hay que aguantarlos con sus discusiones, especialmente a Xavi (qué mala leche te gastas, chico) pero al final me dieron hasta penita porque no merecían quedarse los últimos así. Me alegré cuando el sobre que salió fue verde, aunque para la próxima mejor que no se entretengan tanto en desayunar o les eliminarán.

Miriam y Carla sufrieron para llegar a la meta pero lo consiguieron, espero que la etapa de Hong Kong la hagan bien que quiero que ganen. Muy bien Antonio y Carmela, los de la sonrisa casi constante que a pesar de tener que aguantar el estiercol durante veinte minutos, llegaron sin problema y tienen su merecido pasaporte a Nepal. Como los juanes, habrá que aguantarles un poco más por desgracia pero programa tras programa queda patente la falsedad de Juan Jr.

Merino lo intentó pero el “regalito” que la madre y la hija dieron a los polis de Coslada no se movió más que un par de metros, pero Fran y Merino consiguieron llegar los terceros. ¿Me falta alguien? Ah sí, Carles y Silvia que no es que me caigan especialmente bien pero espero el enfrentamiento de ella con Alazne. Ahora, meuda jeta que tiene el chico que se llevó dos cd’s por la cara. El domingo más.

Have you ever though the very first basic of financial planning? Yes, the very basic thing of financial planning. Have you have or had friends who are earning at a comfortable pay and has never had enough? I have seen people like that. Even when they earn RM10k/month or just say RM5k/month ,they still have insufficient money for his expenses.
The very basic thing of financial planning is savings. Save your money . Put an allocation of every income you have. Set aside say 20% of your income even if you have various multiple of income streams. This is a disciplinary act on which most of thhe people are lacking and fail to do especially the youngsters. The spend more than they earn and not living by their means. Sad but true. This is another reality facing the younger generations. Too many wants and needs.
Case study: many working fresh graduates filed for bankruptcy in Malaysia. This is another example of realities facing the society. Fresh graduates, after they have started working, have an income , come the credit ‘magic’ card. Yea…the magic card that lets you swipe to buy anything you want but at the end you will need to repay back in time or so, the ‘Mr.Interest’ will hunt you down, bogging you down with extra amount from the ‘Mr. Interest’. But ‘Mr.interest is kind enough IF you pay full amount and on time.hehe. There’s been cases where the fresh graduates that just started working like a year or 2 filed for bankrptcy. Why? Because they simply feel they feel secured with their monthly income, takes out the ‘magic card’ and swipe it out to buy anything of their desire. And after awhile without realizing it, the amount goes up with the interest rate that is killing moreover if something happens in that particular month that you will need to use more money fo an event such as your car broke down or got into an accident. From here on , your monthly budget will slowly drifted and somehow these people lose tracks of their buget and stuck in moment with ‘magic card’ that is waiting for your return.You can even be bankcrupt if you’re in debt of rm20k.. As a matter of results, the government had setup AKPK – an counselling agency to educate people on proper financial planning. Also there are credit card refinance scheme as the amount of debtors that didn’t repay back is HUGE!!! Some interesting facts about the credit card in Malaysia :
*8.8million credit card holders in Malaysia
*Only 3.52million (40%) made the 5%payment
*Only 740,000or 8% card holders are able to commit to the payment
*total credit card debt is RM24.9 billion

First and foremost. Have a proper sound financial planning. Its okay even if you have a very basic plan that you have setup for yourself,like saving your money in the savings account or even in your petty cash at home;p . Then set to yourself an amount of money from your income that you will put aside to be put in a nest egg of savings/investment that will help your money grow for an uncertain times that you may need it.
As a fresh graduate, you are still fresh, just starting out in life. You have needs and wants, to have a nice good working car, or sports car someday, buy a house/aparment, get married, build a business, and the list goes on and on . But secondly, have you insured yourself with life insurance? WHAT IF , tomorrow, or someday you got sick and requires and operation and it cost you RM100k? What if that thing happen tomorrow, or 5-10 years down the road? Will you be willing to take out the hard earn cash from your saving account and leave it empty after it?(IF YOU HAVE rm100k in your account, fine) Or would you borrow from family members ( okay IF your family is RICH;P ) Or would you go for NGO’s seeking for help? What is wealth without health rite? How could you build a family without having a proper backup plan in case anything happen and that you’re still young, and long way to go to build weath and enjoy what life offers. So, secondly, go and buy a life insurance for yourself. If you still don’t have it now, give me a call or find a nearest agent near you ( but still ,opt and go for ING the best to offer!!!) .hehe.
Like in my previous posting most people made mistakes where they don’t secure a basic thing in financial thing which is savings, then comes life insurance, and when you have exta money from savings then only you made some investments such as unit trust, properties, gold, forex, common stocks, fixed deposit, and etcera, whatever that meets your goals at that moment.
Set yourself things that you really wanna have like that car you have always dream of, an electric guitar that you’ve been dreaming since you were in high school but could not afford it because it is expensive and that you were still not earning at that time. Set to which on things that you really really wanting to have, and not buying things just because other people have it and when you;ve bought it , it doesn’t feels as great as before owning it. Set goals on how much you should save each month in order to have that dream thing of yours, and a time frame on when you can have already afford it and just go and buy it.
Spend wisely. do your monthly budgeting on your rentals, installments , fuel, meals, entertainment, etc. Spend only after you have set aside on your savings , then your monthly installments, and only you are free to spend on things that you want. It may sound a simple thing for everyone but then to get to the things that you’re not used to could be very hard. A word-Discipline. Give it a deep thought on how you spend, about your financial planning, and also how you can make a different to your life in present and in future. This is only the basic thing of financial planning that sometimes people tends to forget. But it is your first step to thousand miles of journey in this life that you will encounter, there will be ups and downs and a good financial planning will definately can give an ease in the future.

So, to all especially the fresh graduates that just starting out in life some point to your basic financial planning :

1) Save aside say 20% from your income
2) Plan out your financial plan-short term and long term, from a year to 5-10/5-20years down the road
3) Buy a LIFE Insurance-get the most out of it protection and savings
4) Spend wisely-within your means and things that you really wanting to have
5) Stay away from debt even simply ‘magic card’
6) Set goals and be serious and discipline about it.- You can do it !!!
All the best!!!

Recently not long ago…I have this prospect of mine, of LIFE insurance. I asked him, “Bro, do you have a life insurance ?’ n he said ‘No, i don’t and I don’t believe in it’. And I said ‘why?’ He said that he just doesn’t believe in it. He said ‘if I die or get sick its okay. I don’t need those LIFE insurance product to cover my funeral expenses or when I get sick’ Well looks like some people have their own philosophy on life , how it should be or turn out to be but then, imagine IF tomorrow you got very critically ill and you need RM100k to undergo an operation for your sickness , and you only have RM100k cash in your bank , would you rather go and take out take solid cash from your bank account and leave it empty after that and need to work hard back to accumulate that cash or would you rather go for LIFE insurance coverage that you probably say, pay a premium of RM100/month and got everything cover under the LIFE insurance and you can still have that RM100k cash with you. Definitely a person of sound mind and rationale would go for the latter. Same goes to this prospect when I mentioned to him e same example and He suddenly shut quiet and didn’t give back any comment on his philosophy. Hehe. Well sometimes people just take things for granted, taking things lightly without giving a deep thought n things that might have a huge impact to a person’s life. From my point of view based on most of my prospecting most people are lacking to have a deep thought especially the youngsters such as the new fresh grads, ranging from age 23-35 . Most people from this age group are the age group that having this mindset problems. Or maybe they just doesn’t have sufficient financial to get one but hey, you can start as low as RM80/month to get your self covered moreover if you’re not sick the money can be withdraw as part of your investment.Good , right?

There was also another story of a prospect, a bumiputera. When I’d asked him ‘Do you have any insurance?’ He replied ‘yes, i have insurance but not life but insurance for the car and my motorcycle’. haha. What a good one. Then I continued asking him, ‘what about LIFE insurance? do you have any? Do you have any unit trust with you ? He replied ‘I don’t have any LIFE insurance but I do bought unit trust I put about RM 60k from my savings(not EPF). I was like ‘okay sir. Thats quite an amount. But you don’t have any LIFE insurance right.? ‘ I was like ..what the **** this guy cares more of making money and neglecting another important aspects which is LIFE insurance . There’s a saying wealth without health is pointless. This is another some typical mindset most of the people Ive been prospecting-theycare more profits than basic things in life. This is the realities from my observations and experiences.

But as for the middle age people , they know about it- the importance of it but of mostly the younger generations.

I don’d mind, even if you buy from other agents or companies but IF you already do have I feel great and relieve that you already have. Its my responsibility to get most people out there to be insured and better security for the future. I just feel great about it man!!

¡Ay que ver la de anuncios que da Cuatro! Y da igual que antes de cada corte publicitario en “Pekín Express” digan “¿Quieres ver qué participante ha hecho lo que sea?” porque lo que sacan y nada no hace queno den ganas de zappear.

Pero vamos al programa número 4 de la temporada que tuvo casi de todo. Hubo broncas pero esta vez no entre los gays sino entre la madre y la hija, lloriqueos (Alazne siempre acaba llorando), falsedades (Juan Jr es un experto) y expulsados. Esta vez Manolo y Enrique no se salvaron culpa en parte del jarrón de cincuenta kilos que tuvieron que transportar durante toda la etapa.

El juego de inmunidad fue muy chulo y demostro que nadie debería subestimar a Miriam y Carla, las que definitivamente quiero que ganen, y el gobierno Chino les puso trabas para que circulasen por donde tenían, modificando la carrera. Los policías de Coslada fueron los ganadores, según ellos dicen que no van a ganar pero yo los veo dos tios competitivos y seguro que llegan a la final sin problemas.

El avance de la semana que viene hace que tenga ganas de que llegue el domingo porque parece que se va a montar una buena entre los que no tragan a la madre y a la hija.

Introspection used to be a word that only referred to people. It is now used in software development to describe a capability of some object-oriented programming languages to determine the type of an object at runtime; this ability is called ‘type introspection’. As I am writing about people I have used ‘self-introspection’ to describe our examination of our own behaviour, drivers and motivations and ‘other-introspection’ to describe the same examination of other people which is more commonly known as a form of empathy.

Self-introspection is something we should all do regularly. Unfortunately only the emotionally, intellectually and morally courageous amongst us actually do. Most of us are intellectual, emotional and moral cowards. Having said that all of us are capable of developing intellectual, emotional and moral courage; it just takes a desire to do so and a willingness to bear the discomfort of bad feelings in order to acknowledge and accept them as opposed to ignoring and suppressing them.

We all like to be thought of as well behaved people. Consequently our distress at the prospect of discovering, through self-introspection, that we are not as well behaved a person as we thought is understandable. The important thing for us to get our heads around is that we have good moods and bad moods – described by Richard Carlson in his book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ as ‘high moods’ and ‘low moods’. It is in our bad or low moods that we behave badly and self-introspection is a first step towards decreasing the frequency of bad/low moods.

A note of caution; self-introspection during bad/low moods and/or taking self-introspection too far can lead to self-absorption and the creation of delusions (commonly known as distorted realities) such as self-aggrandisement, anxiousness etc. Self-introspection during good/high moods can help us get rid of these delusions. Although the word ‘delusion’ is used here it is with the understanding that these ‘delusions’ feel very real.

An extremely common delusion is loneliness – the ‘nobody likes me, wants to spend time with me or wants to be with me’ syndrome. From time to time I used to feel that I was lonely and I believed it. I now believe that nobody is ever truly lonely and that we are at the very least connected to every single other human being through our basic humanity; we are all part of the human family. The connection (or bond) to our families, partners and close friends is particularly strong and remains so regardless of geographical distance or the passage of time.

The conclusion that I have drawn from my experience and research is that loneliness is a distorted state of mind that can only be corrected from within; the understanding, assistance and support of others is crucial in achieving this. My view has become that we will never be truly free of loneliness until we are totally comfortable with, and indeed fully enjoy, our own company. Once this happens it is much easier to form and sustain relationships with other people that are not based on sating those delusional feelings of loneliness. We may occasionally find ourselves alone but we are never lonely.

Self-introspection can also help us to identify patterns of behaviour that cause problems in our relationships with other people and contribute to our bad moods. These patterns tend to be set in childhood and while difficult to change can be changed. Shirley Smith in her book ‘Set Yourself Free’ says:

“We have to come out of denial and look clearly at the reality of our histories. We have to give up our delusion and fantasy about our family pictures and images. And finally, we have to thaw out and have our feelings about our histories. In this way, we can set ourselves free to make the decisions in our adult lives that will give us the fulfilment we desire.

In recalling and resolving our childhood histories, it is imperative that we do not go through this process blaming our parents. Rather, we need to account for who offended us, what happened, how we felt about it then and how we feel about it now. Only by doing this can we begin to change the reactive behaviour patterns that adversely affect our adult lives.

As children we are dependent on our major caregivers for our safety and survival and were unavoidably victims of their abusive behaviour. We need to face that, have our feelings about it and allow ourselves to grieve the losses of childhood. As adults, we need to relinquish the victim mentality we developed in our formative years, take responsibility for our lives now and thereby move from victim to victory.”

Everybody’s perception of reality is different even if only subtlety so. Self-introspection helps us to understand what our perception of reality is and where it comes from. Other-introspection or empathy allows us to understand what other people’s perception of reality is and where that comes from. According to Richard Carlson and Shirley Smith our perception of reality is a combination of our experiences, beliefs and values. Where our perception of reality is distorted they subscribe to differing views on techniques to correct the distortion. Richard Carlson advocates a here-and-now approach and Shirley Smith a more regressive-contemplative-reflective approach.

Richard Carlson says:

“Our most natural state is one of contentment and joy. The barriers or obstructions that keep us from experiencing these positive feelings are learned negative processes that we have innocently come to accept as “necessary” or as ‘just the way life is”. When we uncover these inherent positive feelings, and remove the obstructions keeping us from them, the result is a more meaningful and beautiful experience of life. These positive feelings are not fleeting emotions that come and go with changing circumstances, but permeate our lives and become a part of us. Finding this state of mind allows us to be more lighthearted and easygoing, whether or not our circumstances seem to warrant this positive outlook.”

Shirley Smith says:

“Denial diminishes as we process our past repressed feelings, come out of the trance of our childhood roles and start making conscious choices. The sooner you go into the pain, link it to its original source and identify the pattern, the sooner you will become free to choose from your true self. There is a wise saying, ‘this too shall pass’. After years of working with people to resolve their past distorted realities, I have invented an evolved version of this saying, ‘this too shall pass if you are willing to pass through it’. This means that you fully participate with the healing process – not just ‘grin and bare it’.”

My view is that both the here-and-now and regressive-contemplative-reflective approaches have their relative merits. I believe that the best approach is a combination of the two.

Regardless of which approach we employ to change damaging patterns of behaviour, change them we must; so it is always worth remembering this:

“Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.”

Source – Attributed to Albert Einstein

Stay strong and serene.

A photograph is what it appears to be. Already far from ‘reality’ because of its silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle, it can create another reality, an emotion that did not exist in the ‘true’ situation. It’s the tension between these two realities that lends it strength.

Richard Kalvar

(1944 -     )

American Photographer

Hace un par de años en un viaje a París descubrí en la televisión francesa un programa en el que una serie de parejas tenían que buscarse la vida para llegar hasta otro punto de China. Sí, ese programa era “Pekín Express” cuya primera edición estrenó Cuatro en España el año pasado y cuya segunda, “Pekín Express. La Ruta del Himalaya”, empezó en el mismo canal hace tres domingos.

La primera edición no la seguí, sólo ví el último programa, pero de esta ya me he visto todos y la verdad es que es un reality muy entretenido. Creo que los concursantes de este programa son unos valientes por embarcarse en una aventura como esta en la quetienen que hacerse entender con los chinos, personas de una cultura totalmente diferente a la nuestra, y pasar duras pruebas.

Sobre las parejas, hay de todo: una madre y una hija; dos vejetes; una pareja de pijillos; las desconocidas, la pija y la que se rie de casi todo; la pareja de gays en crisis (¡menudas broncas!); los dos amigos rurales; los policías locales; los Juanes, padre e hijo. También las dos elimiandas hasta la fecha, los hermanos navarros y las chulas de Cataluña. Y digo chulas porque menuda chulería se gastaron cuando las eliminaron por quedar la últimas en una prueba en la que se negaron a participar porque no querían pincharse con las ramas y las piedras mientras buscaban una figurita enterrada en la tierra.

Con tanta variedad, hay quienes me caen mejor que otros. Creo que muy lejos llegarán la madre y la hija (que mucho quejarse un día de los compañeros para después intentarse escaparse en un autobús sin recoger a dos de sus compañeras, muy mal Alazne y Meritxell); los policías que el primer día no me caían bien y ahora son de mis favoritos; las desconocidas, que como que no quiere la cosa aunque las hayan pasado canutas ahí siguen llegando en buena posición; y los amigos rurales.

Por lo demás, “Pekín Express” nos muestra también cómo se vive en China y cómo nmos podemos hacer entender en un país en el que muchos no saben ni tan siquiera inglés pero donde muchos ambién demuestran que no entenderte cn una persona no quiere decir que no se pueda ayudar al prójimo y ser hospitalario. Ah, y muy bien Raquel Sánchez Silva como presentadora.