Post No. 986 - A Few Quick Thoughts

When I started work four decades ago, workplace conditions had evolved as a result of union activity [link], and there was a clear knowledge of rights and expectations. Now, as a result of neoliberalism, work is basically insecure, with much having degraded to a bestial “dog eat dog” competitiveness – not just between companies, but between individuals for access to jobs that effectively mean survival in the modern world.

Now, there can be an advantage in greater flexibility, and that was one of the problems of the old award system, but we have – as with privatisation – thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and created a situation where the cure is worse than the (perceived?) disease.

Nowadays, job insecurity - and lower employment - gives employers enormous power to do almost (there are still some checks and balances here in Australia) anything they want, but workers are cutting down on their spending as a result, and the markets that employers want to capitalise on with what they view as “flexibility” are disappearing – as a direct result of their actions.

I’ve been thinking of writing an article on this, along the lines of a working title of “Competition: a case of too much testosterone?”, arguing that our predominantly patriarchal society has biased us into a fallacious view that competition is “the only” way to ensure efficient delivery of goods and services, whereas a more matriarchal approach, allowing for some cooperation and flexibility, would actually be better for society – not only in terms of efficiency, but also in terms of the nature of society, the effects life had on personalities, and the richness of non-work life (which is much, much, much more than solely families).

As an example of that, the effort required to win bids for work in the water industry is truly extraordinary – every privatised water authority has their own sets of forms, companies refer to have well established relationships with key people in water authorities (which, to some extent, is possibly because decision makers are not making decisions on the basis of the forms they have create, but on personal knowledge of individuals), and there can be frequent contact to clarify questions during the tendering process (which I consider an indictment on the quality of specifications/briefs being prepared by water Authorities these days, possibly as a result of less real life [aka “practical” experience [the day I get out of engineering, I’ll start writing some articles on these sort of issues for LinkedIn … ]). These costs become part of the overhead which is passed on to consumers in the next successful bid.

I had hoped that the use of panels might be a way of getting out of the extreme competition trap, but it doesn’t seem to be, and I’ve now realised that the failure is because work still gets concentrated into a few companies who sell their capabilities better than others – not that they necessarily actually HAVE better capabilities, but they certainly sell what they have better.

That leaves us with the excess of competition, and no consideration whatsoever of a more cooperative / collaborative approach aimed at the betterment of society. (As an example of one – unworkable, sadly – idea: maybe have all the technical experts in a pool, which is then allocated to the successful companies, who retain their admin and project management teams. That way, we get the best technical solution combined with the best management solution. The point is that there are a lot more talented people around on this issue than me: if they were to put some time and energy into better options than endless and extreme competition, I’m sure we could come up with something that combined the best of competition and collaboration – maybe not initially e.g., panels], but down the track … )

I doubt I’ll have the time and energy to write that article properly, so the preceding few paragraphs is it :)

One of the other outcomes of this addiction to excessive competition is the slow erosion of workplace rights and conditions – not as a result of some malicious, one-off act, but because of – basically – people’s fears around survival, in the modern sense.

The reason people (a) have smartphones for work, and (b) leave their phones on after hours, is – in a nutshell – because they FEAR not being more responsive to managers’ / clients’ demands / expectations / whims. In other words, they are competing with an image that someone else may be more addicted to work, which could cost them their job / a client’s project …

An excess of competition, starting with an imbued bias …

This erosion crops up in many other areas as well. One example is companies taking and keeping photos of workers homes when the workers want permission to work at home. Now, the Privacy Act is quite specific on this sort of thing: companies can only (in Australia) access your information if they have a valid need for it, and to the extent that is necessary. Thus, for instance, companies can ONLY access your ID documents if they have a valid need for that, and they can ONLY scan that when sighting the documents will not suffice [link]. (This is one of my major objections to signing up to facebook: it has NO right to some of the personal details it asks for.) In the case of companies wanting to be sure that a workers home situation is a safe and appropriate place to work, photos could be sighted, but there is NO need for those photos to be kept on file – and there are considerable risks in allowing such photos to be stored (I’m thinking of situations where real estate agents have put photos showing furniture of tenants up on websites [illegal, in Queensland – quite rightly], which has led to some women being tracked down by abusive partners and seriously assaulted), not to mention the inherent gross invasion of privacy - particularly of others who live in the house.

What is the solution? Well, perhaps the pendulum needs to swing back a bit, towards respect for workers’ inherent dignity as human beings – i.e., for workers’ rights … and maybe towards managers who are more competent at human interactions and issues.

Perhaps people also need to acknowledge their fear, and actively work to reduce their lifestyle vulnerabilities …

One of the reasons I have been thinking of this is because I am reading “The Pope’s Last Crusade”, by Peter Eisner (pub. William Morrow, of HarperCollins, New York, 2013, ISBN 978-0-06-204915-5; bought on special at “The Book Grocer” in Traralgon during a lunch break on a recent work trip). This book is about the role that a US Jesuit, John LaFarge (Jr.), known then and later for his work against racism in the USA, had in the Catholic Church’s Pope Pius XI’s “Hidden/Lost Encyclical”, condemning antisemitism, racism and the persecution of Jews, which would have built on that Pope’s earlier statements against Nazism and Fascism (e.g., here) to provide a powerful voice against the barbarity and horror of the Holocaust – much as an earlier condemnation had led to a halt in the murder of disabled – and an inspiration to other nations to resist Germany. Instead, the Vatican was silent, and left open to – valid, in my view – criticism.

It’s a fascinating book, well written, and gives a good insight into what was happening inside key sections of the Catholic Church – including some concerning personality influences.

One of the other concerns that the book raises is the utter RUBBISH that the Catholic Church believes and propagates in relation to Paganism (which it, hypocritically, in my view, refers to as “Neo-Paganism”). Largely, this comes down to the denial of other Deities under a close-minded charge of idolatry – and, again, given the truly extraordinary extent of iconography in the neochristian tradition (beginning with crosses and the – offensive, to some – crucifixes), this is open to a charge of hypocrisy. I have come across this extraordinary hostility – all based on misperceptions and outright lies – in my involvement in the interfaith movement in Australia (less so, with the international interfaith movement), and it has left me wondering if it is worth trying to bash my head against the brick wall of neochristian bigotry.

What is NEEDED is for neochristians to extend the same respect and willingness to listen that they give other religions to Paganism, so that they can learn the TRUTH of what Paganism is about (see also here and here) - and some of that will continue to disturb the neochristians, as it inherently challenges anything that belittles the experience of living in the world, but some of it (particularly the social activism, and the environmental activism which is INHERENT to Paganism) would resonate with parts of the Christian world.

Finally, while I am on a cranky run, as a trans woman I object to some of the things the trans community appears to be supporting – things like unisex toilets, which I refuse to use on safety grounds, and the appalling trend towards gender neutrality, which is an active denial of the affirmation of myself as a woman that is so crucial to my wellbeing.

It is also a continuation of the stupid avoid pronouns and titles approach of the early (2^nd wave – in the 60s and 70s) equal gender rights movement, which I personally consider has allowed sexism to simply hide, and stay present and very, very, very active over half a century later.

I apologise for publishing these posts twice, but Blogger keeps changing my formatting. I can either publish it and then correct it, or save and close the post and correct it when I reopen it, but that leaves an extra copy in my "drafts" folder ...

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr, Pagan Energy Worker, Wéofodthegn

I am revamping my former website, and getting at least one other underway (pronounced "new-MYTH-ear"; ... aka Bellatrix Lux … aka Morinehtar … would-be drýicgan or maga ... )

My "blogiography" (list of all posts and guide as to how to best use this site) is here, and my glossary/index is here. The reasons for my caution when using Wikipedia are here.

I started this blog to cover karmic regression-rescue (see here and here), and it grew ... See here for my group mind project, here and here for my "Pagans for Peace" project (and join me for a few minutes at some time between 8 and 11 PM on Sunday, wherever you are, to meditate-clear for peace), and here for my bindrune kit-bag. I also strongly recommend learning how to flame, ground and shield, do alternate nostril breathing, work with colour, and see also here and be flexible. 

May the best in me, my Higher Self,
and those of the Clear Light who assist me,
help me to keep myself grounded, centred and shielded,
to be Balanced and a Fulcrum of Balance,
a centre of Balanced Positivity and Spiritual Maturity,
with my aura continuously cleansed, cleared and closed,
repelling all negative or unwanted energies,
whilst allowing positive, balancing and healing energies in and through.

The real dividing line is not between Christianity and Islam, Sunni and Shia, East and West. It is between people who believe in coexistence, and those who don’t.

Tom Fletcher, Former UK Ambassador to Lebanon

• All of the above - and this blog - could be wrong, or subject to context, perspective, or state of spiritual evolution ...

Tags: competitiveness, economy, history, human rights, racism, society, sexism, work,  

First published: Thorsdagr, 9^th February, 2017

Last edited (excluding fixing typo's, Blogger's change of my formatting and other minor matters): Thursday, 9^th February, 2017

Post No. 318 - Competitiveness vs cooperation

I've posted on this topic previously, but it has come up in my life again (basically because I have been through a major personal crisis [1]) so I thought I'd post a few further thought about this.

As a starting point, if we look at the aircraft construction industry, there are a number of major suppliers, and a few smaller suppliers, who design, build and supply aircraft. Two of those that I can think of are Boeing and Airbus. These two companies probably both have good engineers, but if they don't win work to pay for salaries and costs, they will lose those people - whether through not being able to pay as good salaries and provide as good benefits as their competition, or simply through having to sack people because they don't have enough income.

The assumption made by economists tends to be that good people will be picked up by the competition, but that isn't necessarily so: there is, in fact, a chance that these people could possibly be lost from the profession.

In my industry, which was reformed by the Victorian Governments of the 1980s and 1990s, this is exactly what happened - despite some belated attempts to keep key people by designating them as being crucial, and excluding them from voluntary redundancy offers. The changes to the industry were enough for some of those people to leave - and the pressure I've been under recently at work has been enough for me to consider leaving the profession I work in (which is not aeronautical engineering, in case anyone is inclined to think so in response to me using Boeing and Airbus as an opening example :) ).

It's not only that change can be a difficult thing to manage - people can get tired or worn out (burned out) by constant pressure, the constant to compete and win work on a cut-throat basis, and just want a quieter, less stressful lifestyle. That is probably known about in terms of people making a "sea change" or "tree change", but not everyone is able to make that sort of change - many don't have the money (I was going to type "resources", but let's not beat around the bush here: it basically comes down to money).

What happens to them? Well, break downs, mental health problems, and lifestyles of desperation, in a nutshell.

And why are people driven to these circumstances? Because, in my opinion, we have ingrained the mantra of "growth and competition" into our social fabric.

The accepted view is that we have to have competition to prevent overpricing because of a monopoly - and woe to anyone who tries to suggest otherwise! Well, I'm about to suggest otherwise ...

As one such alternative, how about the "Star Trek" approach of "no corporations": people do their bit, and money is not used. Or ... how about Sue-Ann Post's suggestion of paying EVERYONE a wage of $500/week - in order to sell goods, prices might actually come down. Of course, the formerly rich would no longer be able to indulge themselves in ostentatious displays of Porches and the like, but I don't see them living the same sort of lifestyle as the rest of humanity as necessarily being a problem :)

I've read in a number of channelled books suggestions that the economy work on the basis of 10% profit at each stage, with the vagaries of supply and demand pricing consigned to history.

It's a suggestion. It has its advantages and disadvantages like all of the approaches I've mentioned. For instance, do you know that business typically allow 2 - 5% of their annual costs for the costs of competing to win work? Doesn't that count as a disadvantage - true, maybe not as significant as the overpricing of a monopoly, but it still exists as a disadvantage - especially if everyone in the monopoly was actually behaving as ethical, spiritual people ...

So too does the human and environmental price of our growth and competition based economy - in fact, those are the main costs of our addiction to competition.

Sadly, I suspect the people who make decisions think the people who drop off the system aren't worthy of being counted, but, apart from the wrongness of such a discounting of human life, I also know from my personal experience just how much valuable experience, knowledge and skills are being lost as a result. One of my former team members once said that I should be available as a skill for all in my industry to use - sadly, knowledge has become a locked up commercial resource, rather than for greatest benefit of greatest number of people.

I also consider Adam Smith's advocacy of growth (if it was him - I need to check that) to be environmentally unsustainable - it is like a pyramid scheme, and there will come a crunch when no resources are left on our finite planet to sustain the extra growth.

Well, it's all just something to think about - and nothing is forever. As an example, in the ancient Celtic system days used to start at sunset, not midnight ... and during the Middle Ages east could be at the top of the map rather than north ... and once upon a time forks had three tines, not four. It all can change :)

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")

Notes:

1. To be a little flippant, I could say my personal breaking poiint is measured by 5 decades of gender identity issues (after transition the endemic discrimination is an issue) + 3.5 decades of comeptititive private industry consulting engineering (hence this post) + 1 decade of increasing health problems + being ashore for 1 decade + some personal stuff i won't go into here + GFC induced job insecurity + pressure for a work trip to a location where there was a good chance of me not returning ... fortunately the last of these, the trip, was cancelled, and I am starting to get back into doing the things I know I need to do - apologies for the quiet while I've been dealing with all this -although, mind, it is now my turn to - GLADLY - repay the support I received during that crisis to someone near and dear to me.

Tags: economy, attitudes, society, social engineering, competitiveness, about me,

First published: Frysdagr, 23rd September, 2011

Last edited:Friday, 23rd September, 2011

Post No. 265 - Necessity is the mother of invention: water and cooperation in the south-west USA

My day job is being an engineer in the water industry. At the moment, I - and my aching back - am at a water industry conference in South Australia. This morning, one of the "key note speakers" was a woman who heads an organisation managing the water supply to five states in the USA (California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and one other). This organisation has its roots in the crisis resulting from a prolonged drought. Suddenly, these five states realised that they were about to run out of water, which would be absolutely catastrophic for around 30 million people and 25% of the US economy. As a result, they gave up their ingrained, competitive independence, and decided to work together, to - dare I say it - COOPERATE for the greater good of the community ....

Hmmm ... collectivist cooperation for the community? Sounds ... radical (for the USA!)

This speech left me with a few conflicting reactions. On the one hand, if somewhere as individualist as the USA can - albeit under extreme duress - learn to act cooperatively, maybe there is hope for the work. But on the other hand, it is a shame that it took so dire a situation for this to happen.

On a less happy note, I noticed some - not all! - of the young females were either trying to play on looking cute or were speaking to the audience as they would to their friends. Not professional :(

On a better note, one speaker proposed viewing pipe systems the same way as our gut: make them healthy, happy little probiotic ecosystems, rather than trying to keep them all sterile. Great idea - we function better when the bacteria in our digestive system are a balanced, healthy mixture, and that balanced, healthy mixture is well and truly capable of dealing with the odd pathogen here and there. Great idea - but it will take some time for the technical know-how to show us how to reliably and safely do this in a way that keeps EVERYONE, including those with compromised and/or imperfect immune systems such as the young, elderly or ill, assuredly safe.

It reminds me of something I read decades ago, which said the Anglo approach to health was to kill the germ, whereas the French way was to build the system with tonics etc so it could deal with germs (much as immune systems are stimulated by contact with pathogens, which is why kids need to ocassionally get literally dirty when they play outside). They're probably both right, and it is just a case of which one is appropriate for a given time, place and circumstance - a bit like you need both psychic protection and psychic strength, one perhaps more so at one time than the other.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")

Tags:attitudes, competitiveness, individualism, responsibility, society, protection,

First published: Tysdagr, 10th May, 2011

Last edited: Tuesday, 10th May, 2011

Post No. 168 - A miscellany on leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, acne and security theatre ...

I'm being lazy in this post, and combining a few things together in the one post :)

What I am going to cover is:

• a few thoughts on leadership, from watching the film "The Core";
• a few thoughts on the implications of different spiritual growth orientations;
• my response to being an audience member at a Charmaine Wilson proof-of-survival event;
• an interesting post I heard recently on the ABC; and
• a forwarded post about "security theatre".

I recently re-watched the film "The Core", which I watched once before when I wasn’t in the right mood to suspend disbelief. This time, I actually enjoyed the story-telling - and I particularly noted one theme, on leadership. Bruce Greenwood's character tells Hilary Swank's character (I obviously paid a lot of attention and memorised the character's names ... not) that she hasn't been given leadership because she has breezed through everything. She is told she needs to know failure - and she does so later in the film. This is a bit like the saying to the effect "those who have never made a mistake have never tried anything". I will think about this - I might even add in to the Rangers training materials when I get back to that ...

Clearly, being in charge is important to Hilary Swank's character, and she learns the difference between "being in charge" and leadership. That leads me to my next point: what is important to you?

If you are, perhaps, predominantly of a Bhakti Yogic path of spiritual growth orientation (see here for my previous post where I commented on the various forms of growth orientation), what is likely to be important to you is people, relationships, interactions, love. On the other hand, if your spiritual growth orientation is along the lines of the Jnani Yogic path, then perhaps truth is what you consider above all else. On the Raja path: perhaps being all that you can be is most important, and if you are on the Karma path commitment, honour and work would be what you consider most important.

EACH of these preferences is valid - as valid as any other. I find debates on topics such as "what is better: X or Y?" extremely annoying, as the truth is each is equally valid, and which is better depends of the people involved and the circumstances. Of course, that probably doesn’t make for what people consider "good entertainment" ...

Now, being focused on one spiritual growth path does not mean that you are necessarily incompetent in another, as you may have already travelled that path and decided to be a more rounded soul by travelling one or more other paths.

Of course, you may actually also be incompetent on other paths, as you may not yet have travelled them :)

Interacting with people on other spiritual growth paths can be source of disharmony - for instance, a person on the spiritual growth orientation path of Karma - actually, I'll simplify that, for the rest of this post, to "karma path person". So, a karma path person may see respect for privacy as more important than establishing emotional closeness, whereas Bhakti path person may see establishing closeness as a need that overrides all other considerations such as respecting other people's space. Neither is right or wrong: have to work out way to let each do their own thing. Of course, someone who thinks they are the Bahkti path and interprets that as meaning they are seeking to be loved (i.e., only receive, instead of also - equally - give) will annoy everyone on all paths. [1]

Recently I heard a stereotypical situation mentioned (as an example of a stereotype, more or less):a woman's car breaks down; the stereotype-woman wants to vent emotions about it to her (stereotype-male) partner (they’re stereotypically heterosexual, also), while stereotype-man wants to go fix the car.

(As a digression, I was recently involved in a conversation about the conflict between head and heart, and the comment was made that, although it is often best to follow one's heart [provided one has a modicum of spiritual maturity], the conflict between head and heart can be useful, as it shows the areas you may have past hurts to be tended to, or areas where you can learn or grow.)
From the point of view of stereotype-woman, once she has vented, the rest of it is just details to be sorted out; but from the point of view of stereotype-man, the venting is just details and the work of fixing the car still needs to be done. Both are right, and both are wrong: the stereotype-woman is wrong to consider fixing the car a simply details (it can be demanding, hard work - and expensive), and stereotype-man is clearly (well, clearly to me :) ) wrong to consider the emotions caused by the situation as trivial details. (By the way, I've had unreliable cars - and died in my previous incarnation as a result of a plane engine failing: lack of mechanical reliability has been, to me, almost terrifying, before I dealt with some of my past life issues - and it is bad enough just having to think "if I go to do the shopping, will I get stuck and lose all my cold goods?" let alone, as was the case for me when I was working in inland Queensland, "what will happens in the hours before another car could come along?" [I always carried water, blankets, etc for such an eventuality]).

This stereotype situation can be looked at from other points of view as well.

From an energy point of view, both right: after venting, they still have the issue of the car failure and what could have contributed to it to deal with (this is the same problem as getting drunk to forget something, usually pain: when the drunk sobers up, the problem is still there, and they have been weakened by getting drunk, and maybe had the problem exacerbated if they have picked up a lot of negative energy while their aura was blown wide open), but on the other hand, the emotional energy may have led to the problem.

If I may jump ahead to where I have the temerity to offer advice, I would suggest BOTH need equally to look at situation objectively.

From point of view of paths, karma-path-person wants to fix the whole situation, Jnana-path-person wants to know what happened and why (whether this is from a physical or psychic focus depends on the person's worldliness vs. spiritual focus), and so on. Each may not understand why the other is focused on what seems to be not important.

Doing a little more hypothesising on this theme, someone who is focused on solely one growth path may find someone who is focused on a few paths at the same time confusing. The former may be inclined to say to the latter "Whoa! Hold on! Just choose one thing, and look at that." On the other hand, the latter person may "know" that any situation has multiple aspects to it, just as a jewel may have multiple facets, and they all need to be looked at to understand the situation properly (which, it will no doubt surprise you, is my position :) ).

Now a few random thoughts which could possibly be related to my life experience of being on one particular mix of spiritual growth paths, and interacting with others who have a different mix:

• I tend to not need a lot of people contact - just my partner and my friends (including those family members [I count myself as part of four families: adoptive, birth and two through relationships] who are friends, which excludes the few who are red-necks). In fact, I find people who fear being alone a bit ... sad. On the other hand, I NEED solitude and time in the bush (wild bush, not the manicured parks and gardens near where I live) and on water, or I feel that I am psychologically dying. I feel a great sympathy for stereotype-tribal person who withers and fades away when locked away from their land in a prison (for an example of this, see the quirky film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" [2]). I haven't had any worthwhile bush time for long time now ... but I am hoping to do so this weekend :) (On this, I also find people I am trying to teach who easily get bored frustrating: they are less likely to do the simple, repetitive practice that is necessary to develop skills - the sort of thing that people who make things look easy have already done ...)
  
  This, too, could simply be that my need for people contact has been more than adequately met, at the moment, but my need for bush-time has not, and hence that need predominates - so it is a case of having multiple needs, but one tends to be most predominant at one time or another. As an example of that, consider food and drink: we need both, but if we are hungry and thirst, and then drink (or eat), the need that will be most apparent will be our hunger (or thirst). Maybe the same sort of effect applies to those who are working on multiple growth orientation paths: when the more urgent needs of one path have been tended to, another path's needs become more pressing - and so we cycle on, over a period of hours, days, months, years, decades or even lifetimes ...
  
  A similar effect can be observed with karma: many people tend to bounce about between extremes (e.g. primly "good" in one life to compensate for a prior life of "badness") before they - eventually - find a way to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between their various competing needs/behaviours/etc.
• Next, I don't have to justify myself or my views to anyone. I am owed respect inherently - which includes the right to have my privacy respected, and I have the right to be as irrational as I choose to be - provided no-one is being harmed. Of course, I need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that. For instance, if a partner asked me why I am doing or not doing something, and I chose not to answer, I have to be prepared to accept the possibility that such may destroy the trust/closeness that is a basis for that relationship, and hence end the relationship. I am, in this case, more thinking of other situations. For instance, when I left my first job as an engineer, after 7 years (which ,incidentally, was they day they (a) said they thought I was a good engineer, and (b) was the day they told me if I had stayed another two weeks I would have been paid pro-rata long service leave), I was fed up with engineering. At the send off, one of the directors said he hoped I stayed in engineering after I moved interstate, and I did not respond to that. As far as I was concerned, that was my business, and FORMER work colleagues had ZERO right to know anything of my future plans.
  
  Related to this, I have come across people regretting the loss of interaction between neighbours. I've lived in a small community where such interactions were good, but that was in the boating world, when I was living on a boat. If I was living on the banks of a river, interactions might be similar. In the 'burbs, however, I am cursed with having to cope with other people's bigotry: I don't want interactions that comprise other people telling me I should not exist ... This was probably worst in Menzies' Australia in the 50s and 60s, during which time Menzies made a comment about not needing to take some sort of repressive action (I have forgotten the details - sorry, and don't have time to look this up) as nothing could match the controlling behaviour in people's living rooms.

Now, moving away from spiritual paths from the point of view of yogic pathways, I spent some time (along with a few dozen others in the audience - there is NO special or particular connection between myself and this person) with someone recently who was on a related, but slightly different spiritual pathway to me: Charmaine Wilson.

Charmaine is a fantastic medium - and I consider some particularly good points of her session to be:

• the beginning and end talks about depression, how there is no shame is being depressed and the importance of dealing with it;
• that mediumship is not a perfect, exact science (as Charmaine said, she gets an image and may tend to interpret it in a particular way, whereas the significance of the image is something else; the example given was of getting an image of a bridge, which turned out to be because the spirit had been president of the (card-game) bridge club ...), and Charmaine did acknowledge when some connections were not very strong and left some attempted readings pass;
• that it is possible and good to be connected to your own spirit;
• some cautions about ways some people rip others off (e.g. by claiming that the "client" [rip-off victim!] has a ghost haunting them, and that the "client" [rip-off victim] needs to pay the pseudo-psychic [i.e. rip-off merchant] more money).

I have come across such rip-off merchants and "tricks", so it is good that a warning about such was given last night. It is also good that she attempted to defuse the fear of spirit matters, and mentioned that people pass over to the Light easily. I do, however, disagree with her on this somewhat: there are some people who don't pass over, and do need rescue. That is not Charmaine's area of speciality, whereas it is mine, and I consider my experience more relevant in this case (whereas is someone I wants a good "proof-of-survival" reading, I would recommend [strongly!] they go to her, not me :) ). Charmaine is dealing with spirits who have passed over, and are coming back to pass on messages; I deal with the ones who have got stuck - who, I should be clear, are NOT always or even often malevolent. My teacher gave an example of one "haunting" he was asked to work on, where the client said the spirit was doing evil; when asked to give examples of the "evil", she mentioned things like chairs being pulled out when people went to sit in them. What was the source of this "evil"? A young child who had found he was invisible ...

Have a look at some of my past posts on this: http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/06/saturday-morning-rescues-blog.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/01/film-review-lovely-bones.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/12/shades-of-exorcism.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/10/service-to-guide-souls-of-dead.html, and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2008/05/mediumship-part-three-last-part.html.

Also, Charmaine stated that it is not possible to be "possessed by malevolent spirits", and that events of the type shown in the film "The Exorcist" don't happen. Well, I agree that things like spinning heads don't happen, but there are "malevolent" spirits. More commonly (and perhaps less threatening or disturbing to some), there are energies and people which we are not in harmony with. In much the same way as two colours may clash, the auras of two people (possibly both incarnate, or one discarnate and one incarnate, or both discarnate) may clash. It is possible, and desirable, that one protect oneself against such disharmony - a statement made in exactly the same spirit (pun not intended by me, but I won't speak for the guides helping me with this!) as Charmaine's comments that being depressed is not wrong or terrible, but it is important to treat the depression.

Next, I was listening to ABC Radio National's Science Show programme, and heard a segment on acne. This programme hypothesised that the (evolutionary) purpose of acne is to ensure some partners survive the violence of sexual competition. That comment was based on "primitive" tribal lifestyles, where death rates are substantially higher than in "civilised" society (have a look at my post on Neanderthal Predation theory (at here). I have to say, in a milder way that pretty much matches my recollection of being teenager as being a decidedly unpleasant experience. Apart from my personal angst, there were all the "Queen Bees" and "Wannabees" (who I would term alpha females), alpha males and other bullies and bitches to put up with ... I'm glad I am personally finished (a long time ago, now) with that time of life.

Now my final point. I am including the link to this blog post as a matter of public interest. The author has requested that it be spread far and wide, and I will do so. There are major problems with the responses in Western nations to security threats: for some good comments on what is described as "security theatre" (as opposed to real, effective security) in this and other areas, I suggest you consider also checking out Bruce Schneier's website .

So ... the blog post is at: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

A few other links relating to Bruce Schneier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneier%27s_Law; and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failing_badly.

Update:
There has been another blog post about this: see here.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. Now, with the qualification that I am NOT considering people who have been seriously injured in some way (e.g. been the victim of childhod abuse), and hence genuinely NEED healing, when I make this comment I am thinking here of people who are immature, or insecure, or otherwise needy, and seek an external cure, rather than seeking to cure the flaw within. Subject to my qualification, having a sense of being loved cannot be created from without: you have to at least be open to the possibility that you are loveable.
   
   I am also thinking of one woman who I heard as describing a new lover as "not selfish" because he stayed up all night rather than getting some sleep so he could do his work as he was paid to do the next day. (She hadn't thought about the work issue, by the way, only her personal pleasure.)
2. I was staggered to read, at this link, that there had been four follow up films! The second one wasn't as good as the first, in my opinion, and there were others after that ... Please note the views about the faults of the film: the Wikipedia listing includes, for instance, the following comment: "Richard Lee, an anthropologist who studied the Ju/ʼhoansi, argues that the film's representation of the group was a "cruel caricature of reality" given the decades of highly problematic social changes".

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, rescue, mediumship, proof-of-survival, sexuality, competitiveness, violence, survival, security theatre, selfishness,

First published: Tuesday 16th November, 2010

Last edited: Friday 19th November, 2010