Gaia: Living in Language

Re: Unspeak

http://chaosexplorer.gaia.com — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:52:48 GMT

It is a great book, someone should make this a required reading for kids as they go through school

Interesting take on NLP and related matters in form of free Podca

http://chaosexplorer.gaia.com — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:51:51 GMT

Came across an interesting series of audio recordings on NLP. They seem to be free and surprisingly no advertising or marketing of any services, just pure content. Found some of the ideas to be rather intriguing, though do not agree with everything the speakers have to say, never the less its a great resourse esp. at the price.

look at it if you are interested www.radicalchangegroup.com

Chaos

Re: Labels

http://grayraven.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:14:29 GMT

Labels and their uses are what we humans do - we try to make sense of the world and classify it. The trouble is that life is a dynamic flux and not a static end product. Hence when we lable something we tend to create static end products that are understood by each person who encounters the label - individually. We all have our own semantic reaction to a label.

'Life, the Universe and everything' is the territory and as we explore it we make maps. We are map makers and map users. Labels are one example of a simple and short sign posts we place on our maps.

Re: Word game: What's the Q-Difference?

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:22:45 GMT

Hmmm a thought provoking one, this.

Is it a spontaneous action or experience that will profit my life?
NO=foolish YES=care-free

And, now, to "Q it forward:"

What's the Q-Difference between honour and valour?

(tres-fun brain game, this!)

Re: Word game: What's the Q-Difference?

http://grayraven.gaia.com — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:52:31 GMT

Hmmmm....
Goal and Intention.

Goal for me is the direction of travel.

Intention is the will to do something. A idea to start. the begining of a plan to act.

Re: Incursion, Invasion, Operation

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:15:59 GMT

Totally agree

I've done some NLP work with a local (DC area) practioner and with Charles Faulkner ... (like 15 years ago... in my business re-engineering days) most people are afraid of the power of NLP and to me it is just that reason that one should study it, learn it... and learn it well... so you can see when manipulation is coming at you...

There are so many life skills that could be taught... can you imagine what it would be like if High School graduates had ... some of these skills... but no... we are graduating obese, game playing spoiled self centered... stop me !!!

Well, at least immigration - of the cream from India etc... still fill our PhD programs with brainacs... if and when that ever stops... look out...

= = =

but of course we are all above average here... eh?

= = =

love and peace

donald, who flunked spelling among other things... (I was like, absent that day)

Re: Incursion, Invasion, Operation

http://katin.gaia.com — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:35:24 GMT

> They are actually manipulating our consciousness for the long term Ah, and like Jedi mind tricks, they only work on minds that don't have the tools, skills, or knowledge to recognize it and filter it. Here's where we have truely failed ourselves: our schools haven't taught meaningful critical thinking skills in decades. IMHO, THAT is what is harmful to a peaceful life here on earth. NLP is a fabulous clarifier for this sort of thing: it presents codified methods for taking and assessing perspectives. For example, by asking a few questions about any statement or story, you can readily disarm it of any manipulations. Who is speaking? What is their relationship to the subject? Why are they speaking? What is their purpose? What do they really know about it? (How are they qualified to speak?) Which statements are assessments, and which are assertions? (opinion vs. accepted fact?) If they are declaring something, what authority do they have to uphold the declaration? If we trained our children to ask these questions as a habit, not only would it become so second-nature as to happen in a splite-second (no overhead cost to speak of), but the journalists would change their writing radically because people would see their stories very differently. They'd be back to reporting facts rather than coloring drama and interpreting for us. Teach a child you know some great qualifying questions today!

Re: Word game: What's the Q-Difference?

http://katin.gaia.com — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:06:04 GMT

the Q-Difference between intention and goal... Will it leave me upon finishing a defined act? YES = goal, NO = intention. Okay, here's one: What's the Q-Difference between foolish and care-free?

Re: Word game: What's the Q-Difference?

http://DG.gaia.com — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:50:15 GMT

The difference between gratitude and appreciation? Could I have done what you just did for me, for myself? Yes = Appreciation, No = Gratitude. Here's a new one for the next poster: What's the Q-Difference between intention and goal?

Word game: What's the Q-Difference?

http://katin.gaia.com — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:41:12 GMT

Let's play this language game right here, right now! :) HOW TO PLAY ----------------------- Each post will have a "What's the difference?" question, which consists of two words tht represent similar concepts in our language (see below for example). To play, simply answer the question by telling what you perceive the difference to be, and then ask your own "What's the difference?" question for the next person to answer. THE Q FACTOR ------------------------ The twist is that your answer must be in the form of a question that illustrates the crux of the difference. EXAMPLE: ----------------- Someone posts: Yelling and screaming: what's the difference? You could answer: Am I mad? Yes = yelling, No = screaming Or maybe someone would answer: Am I scared? Yes=screaming, No=yelling. Remember to ask your own "What's the difference" question after your answer! ---------------------------- I'll start us off. Gratitude and Appreciation: What's the difference?

Re: Incursion, Invasion, Operation

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:11:15 GMT

The choice of words to use do manipulate the reader... "the suspect was nabbed"

Isreal put up a "fence" to keep "terrorists" from getting in...

= = =

The best at manipulating the news via the language wins...

They are actually manipulating our consciousness for the long term... long, long term... and that is very harmful for our peaceful life here on earth.

Incursion, Invasion, Operation

http://transmillennial.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:07:56 GMT

Not taking sides in the current warfare, but I have a question on the way it is being reported.

Israel's attacks on Lebanon are being described as an "incursion" and not an "invasion". I wonder why? Does"incursion" sound less "invasive", less permanent, less violent?

It is similar to the US invasion or Iraq, which was generally referred to as an "operation." AN operation sounds like a sterile surgical procedure to remove a disease.

Regardless of where it takes place or who is involved, if we called war "war", we might be less willing to agree to it.

Re: "I can tell if you are lying..."

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:37:33 GMT

If this is a hot social topic, I'm out of the loop. What comes to mind when I read it, though, is that the current environment in the states certainly would support such an interest and demand for this type of material. We live in a country, in my most humlble opinion : ), that breeds fear. We're taught that we shouldn't trust anyone outside of our own homes. We can't walk to our cars in a parking lot, let our kids cross the street to go to the homes of their friends, or feel safe on our computers. Your SUV may rollover and nobody knows if coffee is good for you or not, or if your microwave is killing you, or if your neighbor has bugged your house. The more I think about this the more bazillion examples bombard my brain. It boils down to the fact that I'm not surprised at all given the goal of modern media to shock and awe.

On another note, I certainly agree that there are ways to tell if a person is lying. I don't know if any of them are fool proof and would have a hard time believing so. I would guess knowing the subject would be of utmost importance.

Re: Labels

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:56:09 GMT

Thank you both for your comments. I'm so glad it captured an audience and hadn't been rehashed too many times without me. I honestly hadn't questioned my use of labels before, or seen how ineffective and even harmful they could be toward any forward movement, whatever the issue.

Katin I love those two self checks you give at the end of your post. I wish I could insert those questions into the minds of everyone right now, just once, and see how the world would change. I've certainly more to observe myself and within myself.

Re: Labels

http://katin.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:21:53 GMT

Hey Zoe - Great post, and thanks - this is indeed a great spot for it! Words ascribing attributes - such as those about Jefferson in your quote - can be useful, as their context is usually pretty universal, i.e., everyone 'knows' what adjectives like "brave", "honest", "genius", etc. mean. But when you try to use a single word - a label like liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, etc. - to represent a set of bundled qualities, beliefs, or opinions of a person - or worse yet, the entire character and intent of a person - then you've got *massive* deletion of information going on. Line up 50 "democrats" and I think you'll find none of them agree with the entire democratic platform, in fact, I'll bet you'll find they agree with each other on fewer than 50% of the issues. Same for any 'label' group. 50 people labeled as 'democrats' are going to be as diverse and different in their values, pursuits, experience, and thoughts as 50 people labeled 'Doger fans'. We're a diverse set of humans, each with a unique crucible of experience and knowledge. The challenges and systems we are dealing with are complex and very large. Our personal needs and goals are different. Our diversity and different perspectives are an asset and strength, when properly applied and coordinated. Broad labels that attempt such large representation of a person or group of people are so massively simplified and so extremely inaccurate that they are actually useless, linguistically. Emotionally, however, as you've experienced, they are quite useful and affecting. They "rally teams" and instantly create a conflict model of "us vs. them". And each person is rallied to the core, since each person is interpreting the word as it means the most to them. Hmmm. Clarity, accuracy and actual communication between folks seem to be lacking here. Reality check, anyone? Check two things: (1) study up on nominalizations and extreme generalizations (stereotypes in some lingos), and see how they function linguistically and in the human brain interpreting them (i.e., notice that each human brain simply assigns its own meaning to the word, and there is no guidepost definition to help the brain choose otherwise), and (2) simply observe the effects that using these kinds of words have on people, groups, and outcomes. What do they produce in the end? Is that what you want to produce in your life, neighborhood, and your country? Thanks much for posting. This was a great topic to write about for me. :) Namaste, --Katin

"I can tell if you are lying..."

http://katin.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:57:19 GMT

Has anyone else noticed the recent dozen or so books released (or re-released) in the last year or so that are about learning to tell if someone is lying, and how to 'interrogate' them to confirm lies or truth? There's even a book on tape about it! Publishers seem to think this is a hot social topic right now... or is it that there are just (suddenly) a bunch of authors who are experts in the subject and decided to publish in 2005? Hmmm. Do you think this is a hot topic in America right now? Why do you suppose it has the public interest right now, as opposed to a few years ago or a decade ago? I've seen the meme (about 20 years old now) that says there are people who can tell by somatic body language if someone is lying. It has been mentioned in movies (such as "The Negotiator" and others), books, and TV. There are caveats to these methods, of course - for example, it helps accuracy a great deal if they know the person they are assessing. Could it be that just the idea that it is *possible* to tell if someone is lying through skill and knowledge that has brought about a popularity of this topic with the general public? What do you think?

Re: Unspeak

http://katin.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:49:52 GMT

Hey Kevin! Thanks for the book recommendation... that's the perfect kind of info for pod-posting, and perfect for this pod. I'm heading out to find that book and read up! Cheers, --Katin

Re: Labels

http://StuartPeterson.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:20:42 GMT

Zoe,

An interesting topic that is so relevant for our times. When ones labels something, it is an attempt to classify it, to identify our relationship to and with it, and many other things. So, why the effort spent on reducing and classifying things into concepts, knowing that at the most basic levels, all things are the same and integrally connected? To reduce the aliveness of any manifestation of creation into a concept is already a form of violence. And the term that you and others enjoy so much, more than just a saying, an aspiration to try and live by. and so...

~Namaste~

Love and Light

Labels

Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:06:53 GMT

I think this applies here. It's a crosspost from a blog I threw together this morning. I'm hoping I'll get a little more feedback than I usually would if I post it on a fitting pod or two. I plan to follow up in a slightly different direction, but still following the "labels" theme.

from my blog of this a.m.

I'm struggling with the use of labels. Particularly, since joining this site, I've become sensitive to advertising with which political party/candidates I've aligned (yet at the same time making it obvious). I run into similar problems when it comes to the many philosophies I've been studying, my religious/spiritual preference, etc. I jaunt around town with a canvas bag with a few buttons that read things like "proud Minnesota liberal," "Wellstone," etc. In doing so, I know that right off the bat there are going to be people who look at me and tisk and think I'm a fool, a lefty (and I am a lefty, but that's not the point), and I will have done nothing for these folks other than to irritate them. I'm wondering if perhaps I ought to stick to some of my other buttons (literally and figuratively). My "I read banned books," or "VOTE," or "Namaste," or "Go green" buttons. Those give you something to think about without throwing up walls of separation that come with the labels. Am I helping or harming the cause when I adhere another DFL bumper sticker to my car? Isn't it almost like picking a fight? "I'm right, you're an idiot, and I'm going to advertise that you're an idiot." That may be a little extreme, but I'm really questioning how I identify and align myself and why. We all like to belong and identify with a group. It's just human nature (Catholic, Republican, Buddhist, existentialist), and certainly it's not all bad...but how much of it is?

Ok, poorly written as that was, you get my point. So here's my conflict. I can't sit on my hands and represent nothing that has a name. Also, those Wellstone stickers get my blood pumping EVERY time. They always get a clenched fist, in celebration, and a "damn right!" from me as I cruise or bike down the road. When I read the buttons, stickers, and shirts I agree with, I'm inspired to DO MORE NOW. I tell people, "way to advertise, love the cap," etc. When I come accross (most) those statements with which I disagree, assuming dialogue is not involved, I at least feel good that these people have taken some action are at least in some way involved (save for the ribbons splashed accross the nation). I like ALL activists (um...okay again, except the ultra right wing religious zealots (Pat Robertson comes to mind) and those fellows who were protesting the funerals of GI's as they thought it was punishment from God for being homosexuals...good freeking grief).

I think I'm leaning toward removing the DFL button (except during election seasons) in favor of a button about our loss of civil liberties (this DOES NOT have to mean I'm DFL) or my Go Green/Simplilfy, etc., buttons. My fave button right now - Namaste. Never heard of the word until just recently. Now it pretty well sums things up for me.

-I know my writing has been sloppy, my apologies.

Below is an excerpt taken from the Unitarian Universalist website UUworld.org. It is the summing up of a sermon titled "Was Thomas Jefferson really one of us?" that I found to be a great read. It is in regard to this topic (labeling) and applies accross the board to labeling ourselves and others. If you have a minute, perhaps you will enjoy the read as well. Food for thought.

-So many labels can be pinned onto Jefferson: hero, statesman, genius; slaveowner, racist, sinner; enlightened, tradition-bound. To call him by any single one of these is to leave out crucial parts of the story. To call him a Unitarian or a Universalist doesn't really give us a true handle on what he believed-which goes for all of the other Founding Fathers and celebrities on the lists of Famous UUs, regardless of whether they were official UUs or UUs by association or "UUs-at-heart."

The words "Unitarian" and "Universalist" are no more adequate than "Asian" and "American" when it comes to describing you, me, each other, or our ancestors. At best, the words are hints; they are not definitions. To use them carelessly-to be content with superficial assumptions and summary categorizations-cheats us of both the heartening and heartrending complexities of our truths.

From a sermon delivered at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, Tennessee

Re: Unspeak

http://transmillennial.gaia.com — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:51:01 GMT

I'm almost done with Poole's book. It is awesome. If you like Orwell or Chomsky, you'll love Poole. Yet, Pool is not pushing any political agenda. He simply strips all powebrokers of whatever political stripe fo their attempts to hide behind language.