Hitler was a visionary. Such an individual may be quite successful in his early life only to end up throwing it all away once an internal rebellion arises and he begins questioning, long before middle-age, "Is that all there is?" And the higher the rung and the more monnies involved, the less meaningful it all seems to become. The treadmill of youth that once ran so smoothly, now jerks along mindlessly. Their natural drive and curiosity are replaced by apathy. Disillusionment and dissatisfaction mount, until one day the hollowness inside them erupts, into a roaring crescendo of deafening, threatening, self-doubt. Without invitation or shove, they leap off the treadmill. Stepping on every sidewalk crack along the way, they head home, where in profound soberness, they take stock of their self and their life. What they learn decides whether they'll begin living as born and meant, or countinue much as before; by dictate of circumstance. A visionary is born with a burning need to do something significant with his life; something meaningful and people-bettering. Others can imagine what ringing in the ears is like, but only a visionary knows what an internal clock sounds and feels like. For him, time is always running; always winding down. Why they, alone, have and hear this tick-tock is unknown. Characteristically, and in one form or another, their earliest and most frequently asked questions is, "What purpose, this human?" They intrinsically feel a need to do something significant, "but what?" niggles and bothers endlessly. However long it takes, however many libraries of opinion they swallow, or trails they traipse, pursuit of purpose can have a visionary chewing up life in a virtual feeding frenzy, searching for reasons to justify their being. They go through careers, through friends and experiences, like an August prairie grassfire -- and all to the accompainiment of an internal tick-tock marking time's passage. Visionaries focus on the whole, with two assumptions. Assumption 1: If they can envision, then doing MUST be possible. Assumption 2: Essential parts and pieces will assemble, and arrange appropriately within the larger context, when wanted and as needed. These individuals won't give up. To them, obstacles mean that alternatives have yet to be found and tried. Their 360-degree perspective glasses are the secret behind a visionary's creativity, but it's their unwavering confidence in outcomes, based on 2 firm assumptions, that proves their power and leads to uncommon success. These individuals tend to be the most boldly risk-taking of all. When visionary stops rationalizing, stops trying to fit into logic-built molds and starts trusting intuition instead, they tap into unfathomable good luck. Timing...in, trying...in, doing...in, life, is the second secret of his success. Their now is one tick-tock faster than others'. Intellect and ego become a formidable combination, when the intuitive bee settles in a visionary bonnet. Changing is to was, by replacement with next, is their name's fame and claim. Their birth responsibility is betterment, of others and world. Their tend is to do both frequently.Charisma is their default birth setting, and it proves one thing -- the Creator's favorite form of humor is irony. A visionary has a "presence thing" that others initially sense as intimidating. It's an energy born of confidence, that pulses and vibrates, yet belies the often shy individual. This irony is no secret to them. Rather than rail at the unfairness, they overcome their presence anomaly, by moving beyond shyness and approaching others first. Otherwise, they may spend much time alone. Such an individual relates readily and easily with almost any other. However, when wanted or when advantageous, they can and will lean on their default intimidation, to control others and situations, personally and/or professionally. Visionaries both feel and think as they speak, and often think clearest when challenged or pressured. Leather breath -- putting their foot in their mouth -- is not a trait of them, though razor-barbed rebuttal is. As others speak, they intuitively follow along, conjuring pictoral images of the conversation. They can be totally unabashed about asking questions, regardless of how simple or inane their query doth seem to others. Some want to know, some like to know, some prefer not knowing; but visionary must. If cats, they would have long been extinct, due to curiosity.
Quote from: H2OFun on May 29, 2006, 09:53:17 PMThe belief that violence is a reasonable and often necessary route to achieving our aims goes unquestioned in most societies. Violence is thought to be the nature of things. It's what works. It seems inevitable -- the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts. This Myth of Redemptive Violence is the real myth of the modern world. It, and not Judaism or Christianity or Islam, is the dominant religion in our society today. Walter Wink, a professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in N.Y.C., in an article first published by Bible Society's Spring 1999 issue of The Bible in TransMission, further expalains that our very origin is violence. Killing is in our genes. Humanity is not the originator of evil, but merely finds evil already present and perpetuates it. Human beings are thus naturally incapable of peaceful coexistence. Order must continually be imposed upon us from on high: men over women, masters over slaves, priests over laity, aristocrats over peasants, rulers over people. Unquestioning obedience is the highest virtue, and order the highest religious value. In short, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the ideology of conquest. Ours is neither a perfect nor perfectible world, but a theater of perpetual conflict in which the prize goes to the strong. Peace through war, security through strength: these are the core convictions that arise from this ancient historical religion. The Babylonian myth is as universally present today as at any time in its long and bloody history. It is the dominant myth in contemporary America. In the aftermath of World War I, which some optimists were calling the war to end all wars, the philosopher George Santayana demurred, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." This sort of fatalism is still widespread today, and it cuts across political affiliations. Whether they are hawks or doves, on the left or on the right, many people have come to accept war as inevitable, even "in our genes." The obvious problem with such fatalism is that it can become self-fulfilling. Our first step toward ending war must be to believe that we can do it. We also need to come to grips with the scale of the problem. As far back as anthropologists have peered into human history and pre-history, they have found evidence of group bloodshed. In "War Before Civilization" Lawrence Keeley estimates that as many as 95% of primitive societies engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly. Tribal combat usually involved skirmishes and ambushes rather than pitched battles. But over time the chronic fighting could produce mortality rates as high as 50%.This violence, some scholars argue, is an inevitable consequence of innate male ambition and agression. "Males have evolved to possess strong appetites for power," the anthropologist Richard Wrangham contends in "Demonic Males," "because with extraodrinary power comes extraordinary reproductive success." As evidence for this hypothesis, Wrangham cites studies of societies such as the Yanomamo, an Amazonian tribe. Yanomamo men from different villages often engage in lethal raids and counter-raids. Like most tribal societies, the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who has observed the Yanomamo for decades, found that killers on average have twice as many wives and three times as many children as non-killers.But Chagnon, significantly, has rejected the notion that Yanomamo warriors are compelled to fight by their aggressive instincts. Truly compulsive, out-of-control killers, Chagnon explains, quickly get killed themselves rather than living long enough to have many wives and children. Successful warriors are usually quite contolled and calculating; they fight because that is how a male advances in their society. Moreover, many Yanomamo men have confessed to Chagnon that they loathe war and wish it could be abolished from their culture -- and in fact rates of violence have recently dropped dramatically as Yanomamo villages have accepted the laws and mores of the outside world. In his classic book "On Agression," the biologist Konrad Lorenz acknowledged that it might be possible to "breed out the aggressive drive by eugenic planning." But that would be a huge mistake, Lorenz argued, because aggression is a vital part of our humanity. It plays a role in almost all human endeavors, including science, the arts, business, politics, and sports. Aggression can serve the cause of peace. There are, for example, some extremely aggressive peace activists. Even if warfare is at least in part biologically based -- and what human behavior isn't? -- we cannot end it by altering our biology. Modern war is primarily a social and political phenomenon, and we need social and political solutions to end it. Many such solutions have been proposed, but all are problematic. One perennial plan is for all nations to yield power to a global institution that can enforce peace. This was the vision that inspired the League of Nations and the UN. But neither the US nor any other major power is likely to entrust its national security to an international entity any time soon. And even if we did, how would we ensure that a global military force does not become repressive?One encouraging finding to emerge from political science is that democracies rarely, if ever, fight each other. But does that mean democracies such as the US should use military means to force countries with no democratic tradition to accept this form of governance? If history teaches us something, it is that war often begets more war. Religion has been prescribed as a solution to war and aggression. After all, most religions preach love and forgiveness, and they prohibit killing, at least in principle. But in practice, of course, religion has often inspired rather than inhibited bloodshed. We will abolish war someday. The only questions are how, and how soon.
The belief that violence is a reasonable and often necessary route to achieving our aims goes unquestioned in most societies. Violence is thought to be the nature of things. It's what works. It seems inevitable -- the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts. This Myth of Redemptive Violence is the real myth of the modern world. It, and not Judaism or Christianity or Islam, is the dominant religion in our society today. Walter Wink, a professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in N.Y.C., in an article first published by Bible Society's Spring 1999 issue of The Bible in TransMission, further expalains that our very origin is violence. Killing is in our genes. Humanity is not the originator of evil, but merely finds evil already present and perpetuates it. Human beings are thus naturally incapable of peaceful coexistence. Order must continually be imposed upon us from on high: men over women, masters over slaves, priests over laity, aristocrats over peasants, rulers over people. Unquestioning obedience is the highest virtue, and order the highest religious value. In short, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the ideology of conquest. Ours is neither a perfect nor perfectible world, but a theater of perpetual conflict in which the prize goes to the strong. Peace through war, security through strength: these are the core convictions that arise from this ancient historical religion. The Babylonian myth is as universally present today as at any time in its long and bloody history. It is the dominant myth in contemporary America.
[...] situations where a person receives different or contradictory messages. [...]
Quote from: u s ehe r n a m e on September 06, 2008, 04:42:07 PM[...] situations where a person receives different or contradictory messages. [...] Right on the money! Consider, for instance, this scenario: you buy a dog and name him Stay. It's kinda fun, after all, to call him ... "Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!" He will go insane. Over time, he'll probably just ignore you and keep typing.
[...] This advice on how to achieve a normal score on a Rorschach test is given by the Fathers' Rights To Custody (FRTC) organization, which assists fathers involved in court custody battles. "The FRTC's position on the use of the Rorschach test is that it is an inappropriate and unreliable test for use in the context of a child custody evaluation," the organization says on its Web site. The value of the Rorschach inkblot test, a projective personality test that has been widely used for more than 8 decades, is being questioned by more than just disenfranchised fathers. In recent years, academics also have attacked the Rorschach, saying that it lacks scientific validity.[...]
Quote from: we re watching you on July 02, 2008, 02:25:00 PMCould Tom Cruise Sue "South Park" For Suggesting He is Gay? And Even If He Could, Should He? Here it is the entire thingCould Tom Cruise Sue "South Park" For Suggesting He is Gay? And Even If He Could, Should He?By JULIE HILDEN email@example.comTuesday, Dec. 06, 2005A recent episode of the television animated comedy "South Park" mocked Tom Cruise -- suggesting that he is homosexual, and lying to hide that fact. Could Cruise bring a defamation suit against the show? In the past, Cruise has sued those who have made the very same claim. Indeed, when Cruise was married to Nicole Kidman, the couple made a point of doing so: In 1997, Kidman told Ladies' Home Journal that when reports claimed their marriage was a sham, "[W]e are going to sue over it. It gets to a point where you have to protect your children." Now that Cruise is set to marry Katie Holmes, who's pregnant with his child, it seems unlikely that he will take a different view. Could Cruise successfully sue "South Park"? And more broadly, should he continue his campaign of directly combating the claim that he's homosexual, or rethink the ethics of bringing such lawsuits? The South Park Episode: Treading the Boundary of Parody and SatireThe relevant "South Park" episode -- entitled "Trapped in the Closet" -- self-consciously skirts the outermost edges of the First Amendment's protection for parody. A court would probably deem it constitutionally protected, but only barely. Defamation requires a "statement of fact" -- and for this reason, most parody, because of its fictional nature, falls outside defamation law by definition. But this is the rare parody that, fairly read, does make a statement of fact. In the episode, the animated version of Cruise literally goes into a closet, and won't come out. Other characters beg him to "come out of the closet," including the animated version of his ex-wife, Nicole Kidman. The Kidman character promises Cruise that if he comes out of the closet, neither she nor "Katie" will judge him. But the Cruise character claims he isn't "in the closet," even though he plainly is. No one could miss that the episode's creators are taking a stance and making a statement -- that the real Cruise is gay and hiding it. The use of the euphemism "in the closet" -- used to refer to someone who is homosexual but who has not admitted his or her homosexuality to friends, family, or the public -- is transparent. Interestingly, the episode itself indicates that its creators know well that they may be defaming Cruise, and they know of his litigious history. The joke disclaimer preceding the episode announces that "All characters and events on this show -- even those based on real persons -- are entirely fictional." At the end of the episode, the Cruise character threatens to bring a suit (not on the gay issue, but in defense of Scientology) "in England" -- which lacks a formal equivalent of the First Amendment. And all the credits at the end use the pseudonyms "John Smith" and "Jane Smith." Since the episode does indeed make a "statement of fact," the parody exception to defamation law won't save "South Park." Thus, the creators' only weapon against a possible suit by Cruise is a First Amendment defense. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court has interpreted the defense very broadly.The Broad First Amendment Protection for Parody and SatireIn Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc., Justice Souter, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, found that a 2 Live Crew song counted as parody. In so doing, Justice Souter quoted then-U.S. District Judge Pierre Leval as follows: "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed." On this logic, the First Amendment gives breathing room to creative works even when they fail in their goals. Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle. The point is that it was at least trying to make people laugh. And probably, the very silliness of the literalization -- the fact that it was the least creative thing the creators possibly could have done -- did indeed amuse some viewers. "South Park's" appeal, after all, isn't its subtlety. But does it make a different that Cruise's would be a defamation case? Judge Leval originally stated this principle in the trademark context. And when Justice Souter applied this principle in the Campbell case, he did so in the copyright context.
Could Tom Cruise Sue "South Park" For Suggesting He is Gay? And Even If He Could, Should He?