More on The subject of Spirituality...

[Guest guest]

At 05:11 PM 4/5/2005, Dr. John wrote:

 

>Notice that spirituality is NOT a judgement call, like most people who

>use that word, make it?

>

>What else is there to know about that subject?

 

Dr. John,

 

Here is a little more on the subject and possible definition (at least from

a process POV) and it has a few comments about where the judgement

call(ing) comes

from. http://achieve-your-potential.com/what-is-spirituality.html

 

Utilize Everything,

Dr. Houston (Doc Results) Vetter

http://www.achieve-your-potential.com

[Guest guest]

, docresults

<docresults@h...> wrote:

> >Notice that spirituality is NOT a judgement call, like most

people who> >use that word, make it?

 

> >What else is there to know about that subject?

> >Dr. John,

 

> Here is a little more on the subject and possible definition (at

least from

> a process POV) and it has a few comments about where the judgement

> call(ing) comes

> from. http://achieve-your-potential.com/what-is-spirituality.html

 

Hi Houston,

I checked it out.

 

It also had no details and was only nominalizations.

 

Anybody else?

 

How about the Soul?

 

How about Spiritual Works?

 

How about the Spiritual Dimension?

 

blab, blab, blab?

 

 

[Guest guest]

" When I use a word it means precicely what I intend it to mean. "

~ Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

 

Instead you doc(s) might prefer to bookmark:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

Where it gives this:

spir·i·tu·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l-t)

n. pl. spir·i·tu·al·i·ties

The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

The clergy.

Something, such as property or revenue, that belongs to the church or to a

cleric. Often used in the plural.

 

 

spirituality

n 1: property or income owned by a church [syn: spiritualty, church

property]

2: concern with things of the spirit [syn: spiritualism,

otherworldliness]spir·i·tu·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l-t)

n. pl. spir·i·tu·al·i·ties

The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

The clergy.

Something, such as property or revenue, that belongs to the church or to a

cleric. Often used in the plural.

 

rusty

 

-

docresults

 

Tuesday, April 05, 2005 8:09 PM

Re: More on The subject of

Spirituality...

 

 

 

At 05:11 PM 4/5/2005, Dr. John wrote:

 

>Notice that spirituality is NOT a judgement call, like most people who

>use that word, make it?

>

>What else is there to know about that subject?

 

Dr. John,

 

Here is a little more on the subject and possible definition (at least from

a process POV) and it has a few comments about where the judgement

call(ing) comes

from. http://achieve-your-potential.com/what-is-spirituality.html

 

Utilize Everything,

Dr. Houston (Doc Results) Vetter

[Guest guest]

On Apr 6, 2005 5:51 AM, docspeed2001 <docspeed2001 wrote:

>

> Anybody else?

>

> How about the Soul?

>

> How about Spiritual Works?

>

> How about the Spiritual Dimension?

>

> blab, blab, blab?

>

>

>

 

I look at it from the bottom up... Dilts has a model like this in

" Modeling with NLP " ...

 

I have particular behaviors.

 

I act the way I do because of my beliefs.

 

I believe what I do because of my values.

 

And my values are the way they are, because of my identity.

 

For most people, that's more than enough. Most people don't even have

techniques to change their beliefs. Most people don't know how many

techniques there are out there to understand your own values and your

own identity, let alone how to change parts of those that are harmful

to you.

 

So, for most people, asking a question like, " so why is your identity

the way it is? " is really overkill.

 

(Except that it's really important! Religions use this all the time

to shape and mold the identities of their followers...)

 

The soul is the next level up the hierarchy - my soul is a strong

determining factor in my identity...

 

.... because the answers to " why am I alive? " tell me a lot about how

to answer " who am I? "

 

That's what I've got so far. Anybody else?

 

 

--David Brandt

[Guest guest]

At 10:46 AM 4/6/2005, David wrote:

>So, for most people, asking a question like, " so why is your identity

>the way it is? " is really overkill.

>(Except that it's really important! Religions use this all the time

>to shape and mold the identities of their followers...)

>The soul is the next level up the hierarchy - my soul is a strong

>determining factor in my identity...

>... because the answers to " why am I alive? " tell me a lot about how

>to answer " who am I? "

>That's what I've got so far. Anybody else?

 

David,

 

Here are a few things to ponder.

 

Since we have the technology to use identity (i.e. determine what outcome

we want then determine the identity, which will have all the values,

beliefs, behaviors in it, install identity get outcome), Can we be sure the

soul is a strong determining factor or just an observer? As far as I can

tell the soul wants you to have as many identities as you possible need or

want to have the experiences you want to experience.

 

Or as one teacher said God said (replace God with soul), " My will for you

is your will for you. "

 

What if the reason we are alive is to experience who we really are? Or

maybe to experience the highest or grandest vision we have ever had of

ourselves.

 

Or as another teacher (RBandler) once said, " Who am I is not the best

question. Instead Who can I be will get you the answer you are looking for. "

 

Again I suspect we are dealing with layers or levels.

 

The closer the layer-level to human consciousness (thinking) the more

separation, distinction and judgment (ie good/bad, right/wrong). The

further out the layer/level of spirit-soul-etc the less separation the more

observation of distinctions/aspects of the whole with judgment replaced

with calibration based on desired outcome.

 

As God told NDW, " There are not " many " souls, just one soul, you are the

one who makes the distinctions and divisions. " It is kind of like air. It

is all the same air. Where does the air in the living room end and the air

in the kitchen begin and where does the inside air end and the outside air

begin? Where does good smelling air end and bad smelling air begin? It is

all the same air-it is one air, we put parameters and labels (limits) so

that we can attempt to control or manage it.

 

Words that may be interchangeable God-life-love-soul-spirit-energy-you.

(The you I'm speaking of here is not what you identify as you, but it is

still you.)

 

Utilize Everything,

Dr. Houston (Doc Results) Vetter

http://www.achieve-your-potential.com/spirituality.html

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, the person who writes / edits the dictionary

gets to decide what some word means even if they themselves

are far from expert on that topic and have no way of knowing

what they are talking about. So they either take a popular

definition OR they decide what the popular definition will

be (with the intent to FORCE that definition on everyone

else).

 

And in some / many cases when it comes to topics of

energetics, clairvoyance, etc, the dictionaries have done a

DISSERVICE in that they have contributed to the dumbing down

of the general population.

 

For in depth research regarding how definitions regarding

human energetics have been dumbed down over time, check out

Ingo Swann's excellent book Psychic Sexuality.

 

Have fun,

Jim

 

 

 

>

> L.Win [lwinmorgan]

> Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:50 AM

>

> Re:

> More on The subject of

> Spirituality...

>

>

>

>

> " When I use a word it means precicely what I

> intend it to mean. "

> ~ Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

>

> Instead you doc(s) might prefer to bookmark:

>

> http://dictionary.reference.com/

>

> Where it gives this:

> spir·i·tu·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key

> (spr-ch-l-t)

> n. pl. spir·i·tu·al·i·ties

> The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

> The clergy.

> Something, such as property or revenue, that

> belongs to the church or to a

> cleric. Often used in the plural.

>

>

> spirituality

> n 1: property or income owned by a church [syn:

> spiritualty, church

> property]

> 2: concern with things of the spirit [syn: spiritualism,

> otherworldliness]spir·i·tu·al·i·ty ( P )

> Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l-t)

> n. pl. spir·i·tu·al·i·ties

> The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

> The clergy.

> Something, such as property or revenue, that

> belongs to the church or to a

> cleric. Often used in the plural.

>

> rusty

>

> -

> docresults

>

> Tuesday, April 05, 2005 8:09 PM

> Re:

> More on The subject of

> Spirituality...

>

>

>

> At 05:11 PM 4/5/2005, Dr. John wrote:

>

> >Notice that spirituality is NOT a judgement

> call, like most people who

> >use that word, make it?

> >

> >What else is there to know about that subject?

>

> Dr. John,

>

> Here is a little more on the subject and possible

> definition (at least from

> a process POV) and it has a few comments about

> where the judgement

> call(ing) comes

> from.

http://achieve-your-potential.com/what-is-spirituality.html

 

Utilize Everything,

Dr. Houston (Doc Results) Vetter

[Guest guest]

On Apr 6, 2005 12:37 PM, docresults <docresults wrote:

>

> Since we have the technology to use identity (i.e. determine what outcome

> we want then determine the identity, which will have all the values,

> beliefs, behaviors in it, install identity get outcome), Can we be sure the

> soul is a strong determining factor or just an observer?

>

 

Can " we " be sure of anything? I have no idea.

 

Can " I " be sure? Damn betcha! And I am _quite_ sure about this.

 

From my perspective, your proposal is seriously flawed. Given a

desire so strong that it overwhelms identity, then, yes, identity is

not a big factor. But, pray tell, where does the intensity of that

desire come from, in Dilts' hierarchy? And what role does identity

play in that intensity?

 

Houston, if you cut back on the nominalizations, and talked more about

what you think, and less about what you think I should think, then I

might actually read past the first paragraph of your posts.

 

My two cents.

 

 

--David Brandt

[Guest guest]

And in some / many cases when it comes to topics of

energetics, clairvoyance, etc, the dictionaries have done a

DISSERVICE in that they have contributed to the dumbing down

of the general population.

-

So Humpty knows better?

rusty

 

-

James R. Knippenberg

 

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:50 PM

RE: More on The subject of

Spirituality...

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the person who writes / edits the dictionary

gets to decide what some word means even if they themselves

are far from expert on that topic and have no way of knowing

what they are talking about. So they either take a popular

definition OR they decide what the popular definition will

be (with the intent to FORCE that definition on everyone

else).

 

And in some / many cases when it comes to topics of

energetics, clairvoyance, etc, the dictionaries have done a

DISSERVICE in that they have contributed to the dumbing down

of the general population.

 

For in depth research regarding how definitions regarding

human energetics have been dumbed down over time, check out

Ingo Swann's excellent book Psychic Sexuality.

 

Have fun,

Jim

 

 

 

>

> L.Win [lwinmorgan]

> Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:50 AM

>

> Re:

> More on The subject of

> Spirituality...

>

>

>

>

> " When I use a word it means precicely what I

> intend it to mean. "

> ~ Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

>

> Instead you doc(s) might prefer to bookmark:

>

> http://dictionary.reference.com/

>

> Where it gives this:

> spir·i·tu·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key

> (spr-ch-l-t)

> n. pl. spir·i·tu·al·i·ties

> The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

> The clergy.

> Something, such as property or revenue, that

> belongs to the church or to a

> cleric. Often used in the plural.

: 4/5/05

[Guest guest]

> So Humpty knows better?

 

 

NO! He who defines his terms before hand knows better.

 

Max Edwards

[Guest guest]

>> So Humpty knows better?

 

 

>NO! He who defines his terms before hand knows better.

 

>Max Edwards

 

-

Thanks Max:

Spot on!

The argument that started this thread was from two different reference

points regarding the definition.

rusty

 

-

maximillianhall

 

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:09 PM

Re: More on The subject of

Spirituality...

 

 

 

 

> So Humpty knows better?

 

 

NO! He who defines his terms before hand knows better.

 

Max Edwards

[Guest guest]

David,

 

Sorry you took offense to a teaching technique, and by the way, most every

word in these post (yours, mine, John's, Jim's, Rusty's, etc...) about

spirituality are nominalizations by the very nature they are concepts that

are not concrete, they can not be touched with physical hands.

 

Even as I write what I think it is still nominalizations. John was talking

about my website not my post (two different outcomes for two different

audiences).

 

It also amazes me that when I wrote about what you " COULD " (read the

language) consider - your map/filter/patterns took it as something you

" should " think (necessity filters usually have judgment, good/bad,

better/worse attached to them) and jumped on a bandwagon that wasn't there.

John was talking about a page on my website not my post.

 

Also, what I think can change in an instant because " think " IS a

nominalization.

 

Here is what I think. It may be flawed in your model but it is the essence

of DHE, HPE, etc. and according to your model that would make a lot of

people flawed.

1) Determine what you want (outcome)

2) Determine what identity (which already has values, beliefs, behaviors)

gets your outcome.

3) Install the damn identity.

4) Get outcome

 

I think identity is like any other tool, it is not me. I either use the

tool or it uses me.

 

I think Dilts' hierarchy is simply a list of nominalizations, they are

useful up to the point where you think they are real or they have control

over you, then they become limitations (limiting) instead of tools to use.

 

As far as I know no where in Dilts' material does he state that identity is

set or hard to change, superior, developed-controlled by the soul. I

suspect (I think) you have put your maps on top of Dilts' material. I could

be wrong and yet this is my perspective.

 

As far as your intensity I'll speculate it comes from feeling you have to

defend a particular position (ie identify, the intensity comes from

defending a nominalization) . Identity is simple meta-patterns and mask

that you have identified as yourself. It ain't true. They are just your

illusion. This is basic NLP 101 training.

 

Again, intensity is a tool just as identity is. They are both made up and

produced by you. Even if your awareness isn't aware of it and you blame or

attribute it to soul-God-Universe-Energy-pick a nominalization-etc.

 

I think the soul is another name for God or another name for the essence of

you.

 

I also think most people use the term soul-God-spirit-life-energy-etc. as

something that is quasi-attached to them and that it is not really them. In

other words separate or a separate part of themselves.

 

I am thinking that it is all connected. I am thinking that in this realm

(physical realm) both polarities are there at the same time (because they

can not, not be- you can't have yin without yang, it is yin/yang not yin

and yang) and I think it is possible to expand awareness to see both and

use them to get my outcome.

 

And when I am damn sure that's when I realize I lost my curiosity. And

life-existence (another nominalization) moves way to fast to be sure of

anything. When I am sure I can be sure it is illusion. (More

nominalizations.)

 

You're welcome to be damn sure until you say what a fish says when it hit's

a wall. Dam!

 

Utilize Everything,

Dr. Houston (Doc Results) Vetter

http://www.achieve-your-potential.com

 

At 04:10 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote:

 

>On Apr 6, 2005 12:37 PM, docresults <docresults wrote:

> >

> > Since we have the technology to use identity (i.e. determine what outcome

> > we want then determine the identity, which will have all the values,

> > beliefs, behaviors in it, install identity get outcome), Can we be sure

> the

> > soul is a strong determining factor or just an observer?

> >

>

>Can " we " be sure of anything? I have no idea.

>

>Can " I " be sure? Damn betcha! And I am _quite_ sure about this.

>

> From my perspective, your proposal is seriously flawed. Given a

>desire so strong that it overwhelms identity, then, yes, identity is

>not a big factor. But, pray tell, where does the intensity of that

>desire come from, in Dilts' hierarchy? And what role does identity

>play in that intensity?

>

>Houston, if you cut back on the nominalizations, and talked more about

>what you think, and less about what you think I should think, then I

>might actually read past the first paragraph of your posts.

[Guest guest]

healingenergies-

essentialskills , " maximillianhall "

<maximillianhall@h...> wrote:

>

>

> > So Humpty knows better?

>

>

> NO! He who defines his terms before hand knows better.

>

> Max Edwards

 

Also, try the following, just for the hell of it:

read the works of Kroputkin (if I remember the name right)

then look up Anarchy in the dictionary

read the works of Anton LaVey

then look up Satanism in the dictionary

 

just two things that I've been involved in, I guess there are

thousands of other examples where the dictionary/popular definition

is totally off when you actually go to the people who call

themselves eg. satanist or anarchist.

 

Have a nice day,

Tim

[Guest guest]

> Also, try the following, just for the hell of it:

> read the works of Kroputkin (if I remember the name right)

> then look up Anarchy in the dictionary

> read the works of Anton LaVey

> then look up Satanism in the dictionary

>

> just two things that I've been involved in, I guess there are

> thousands of other examples where the dictionary/popular definition

> is totally off when you actually go to the people who call

> themselves eg. satanist or anarchist.

>

> Have a nice day,

> Tim

 

 

I can remember back in the eighties LaVey was interviewed on a TV

station to make comments about the supposed increase of Satanic cults

and ritual murders in the US. LaVey explained that his church is

realy a worship of the things that make us human, so it is a form of

huministic church. Every ounce in a while you will see that old

interview on discovery channel in a show about Satan.

 

By the way those fears of wide spread Satanic ritual murders were

unfounded. That was in the days of " repressed memory recovery " which

was really just hypnosis done with copious amounts of leading

questions while the person is in a state of extream suggestability.

 

Max Edwards

[Guest guest]

Like they say in french: touché!

Not quite the evil, devil-worshipping bastards the dictionary or

newspapers would consider them to be...

As an aside, something I've been wondering about that the members of

this list might be able to help me out on:

Some three years ago I performed a ritual out of the " Satanic Rituals "

to get myself a girlfriend, which worked very good. We had a

passionate relationship from day 1. Unfortunately, this girl became

suicidal after two months and we still were together for almost two

years, but she was frigid ever since her suicide attempt(don't start

on the " frigidity doesn't exist " debate please! it does, even though I

made some mistakes, she still suffers from that problem now)

Anyhow, my question is: for a long time I thought that this was some

sort of sick joke that got played on me by the forces I summoned in

that ritual. Does anybody have an idea on the reliability or dangers

of the rituals published by Anton LaVey? They seemed to work very

good, but after these problems I kinda got put off...

Sorry if this is off topîc, but it just came to mind.

Have a nice day,

 

Tim

 

healingenergies-

essentialskills , " maximillianhall "

<maximillianhall@h...> wrote:

> I can remember back in the eighties LaVey was interviewed on a TV

> station to make comments about the supposed increase of Satanic cults

> and ritual murders in the US. LaVey explained that his church is

> realy a worship of the things that make us human, so it is a form of

> huministic church. Every ounce in a while you will see that old

> interview on discovery channel in a show about Satan.

>

> By the way those fears of wide spread Satanic ritual murders were

> unfounded. That was in the days of " repressed memory recovery " which

> was really just hypnosis done with copious amounts of leading

> questions while the person is in a state of extream suggestability.

>

> Max Edwards

[Guest guest]

On Apr 6, 2005 7:47 PM, docresults <docresults wrote:

>

> Sorry you took offense to a teaching technique, and by the way, most every

> word in these post (yours, mine, John's, Jim's, Rusty's, etc...) about

> spirituality are nominalizations by the very nature they are concepts that

> are not concrete, they can not be touched with physical hands.

>

 

You're right, Houston, 'nominalization' is a crap word for me. I

don't have a good grasp of what it means, and I used it vaguely. I

apologize for that. I'll avoid using it for now.

 

Instead, I'll use 'hand-waving'. I use that when I see someone using

a lot of words when a few would do. I think that applies here.

 

I don't understand why you see yourself as my teacher. If there's

something that you think would benefit me (like when you pointed me

toward PEAT, I still use that), then spell it out simply, so that I

can understand it and evaluate it for myself.

 

Does that sound fair to you?

 

--David Brandt