Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 28 Timing)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 28 Timing)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 28 Timing)

Well, it’s going to be matter of semantics as Anthony wants to deal with vocabulary matters and this time I tend to totally agree. Besides I already addressed that several times.

Avoid verbs “to want” and “to need”

There are two types of words in a vocabulary that are essential to differentiate: verbs and nouns. Their use is VERY different. The VERBS, as indicated by the name of the Divine Verb Who makes everything, represent actions. Is He not the One Who has DONE ALL? In contrast, a name is an identifier which symbolizes something, and not necessarily an object, usually just a possible matter of consideration.

How can the consideration “I want to be rich” be interpreted as an order if the Verb is to manifest it. “Wanting” involves only a mental disposition, and once you have expressed this consideration the Verb has nothing left to do, unless keeping you poor to guarantee that you can want to be rich…! We would not want to have anything if we did not lack it! I do not guarantee Anthony sees it that way, but remember that my field is the logic! And it also works with negations… even if that may sound curious!

In other words do not believe that not wanting to be poor is an alternative to wanting to be rich. Because for the Verb to realize your desire “not to be poor” you will have to be poor as otherwise you would not want to not be it! I know it’s a little hard to grasp the first time, but you’ll get used to it!!!

Rather than “wanting to be”: I recognize that I’m famous!

It would have surprised me that I could agree so long with our Anthony. What is his verb in his suggestion? “To recognize”! Which seems to be again a consideration that does only commit an opinion of yours. It seems a formula that can guarantee that you will be a “famous unknown” since all that interests you is that YOU recognize your own fame. But it seemed to me that fame had to do with the opinions of others…

Therefore prefer the more direct formula: “I’m famous!” You risk nothing. If the Verb does not make you famous, search for anything that you have considered in the past that could be contradictory to your new consideration… But there are other ways that we will eventually look at!

Replace the “wanting” by the “desire” to have it already

New disagreement with the doctor! Did another meaning of desire in English escape me? May I confess I do not see much of a difference, apart from the fact that desire seems to be once again something that concerns a consideration about your psychological or spiritual state.

Not having understood the logic of thought, Anthony is a little lost in the language and its subtleties. In other words, instead of looking after the gross semantic, he just gets tangled in ways of speaking.

So let us hear him getting lost with his new remark:

Wanting = State of not having !!!

This conclusion he arrives at is exactly what we indicated as a simple logical consequence of the meaning of the verb in question, while he is obliged to resort to reasoning to get it, which is one of the most common pitfalls leading to reaching nonsense. I remind that reasoning is generally used to infer causes from effects whereas the logical procedure is exactly the opposite and much less risky. In fact, starting from the effects can lead us to imagine the causes and believe they are such, as there is no logical way to achieve this. And that’s what all modern science is about, a fantastic work of imagination, to which I much prefer the talent of writers of series like Scandal or Forever, much more distracting and ultimately quite revealing of certain practices and common turnings of mind. The fabulous scientific hypotheses or principles inferred from their observations are only the product of their imagination and only engage them and their victims who believe them.

Come on, one last little gem before we send you to N° 29:

Having certainty avoids having the need of

There, Anthony introduces us (parachutes) two new concepts at once: the certainty and the need.

Except that the two concepts are introduced by the verb to HAVE!

And the level of certainty is rather awkward. I propose instead to speak of “to be certain”. Because it involves the verb to BE, a much more discrete “action” that having. There is nothing to “do” to “be” something, just consider that you are it. While having means finding what you want to have and managing to get it. This nuance between a noun and an attribute had already been noticed by Korzybski when he explained that we do not HAVE a disease, but we ARE sick… This implies that we do not need to seek something such as a disease to get rid of with medication or surgery, but to change what happened when we were sick into being healthy. As we shall see in a moment: this significantly changes the attitude of the therapists and opens the door to some really quantum practices…

In contrast parallelizing “want” and “need” makes a new mask tumble. Wanting only involves your consideration, while having a need suggests that there is something outside of you that you miss which makes the proposal sound more objective. The verb “to have to” is a synonym of needing!

Come on, try to see the difference between: “I want to be rich” and “I need money”! You may have noticed that using the verb “to have” focused too on having what you want! We can be rich without money: one can have castles, companies, master paintings, money will perhaps only be a by-product, but to have money without intermediate products, there is little out of being a banker or an insurer…

Anthony’s omissions and inaccuracies!

Still he is far from having been around the issue, if it were possible. Let us look at the consequences of “must”! Good! Do you begin to understand that it implies that THIS MUST will never happen because it always has to lack to be a MUST…

Which brings us to the consideration of the time that passes by.

The Verb is at your service, not “forever”, but “eternally”, i.e. “out of time”, not “for all time”. This adverb means He will be eternally faithful to you, which you’ll see within passing time, as being “forever” faithful to you! So the least you can do is to return Him this endless loyalty. Another way of talking about the fact of “having faith” that I have never heard a priest evoke… His two accomplices are also eternally faithful to you as well. But the faithfulness of the Verb has consequences. From below our incarnation, we are trapped in the passing of time where the future becomes the past after having been the present. As far as the Verb is concerned, He only knows the “eternal present”. Which is a way of speaking because He knows perfectly our unfolding time and you can ask Him to do anything at any given date. In fact it is perfectly ok to consider that “weather is fine at 6:00 tonight”. And the Verb will immediately manifest this beautiful weather that we will only see, us, tonight at 6:00. For the Verb and his accomplices, time does not go by, but it is always “accessible” from one end to the other, it is called the “eternal present” in opposition to our present stuck but sliding between the future and the past.

The needs of our languages for creatures whose bodies are manifested make conjugations exist precisely with this “future” and “past”. But they also have a trap: the “conditional” tense that no longer relates to a particular time but to the fact of “not knowing”. Which contradicts the certainty of our considerations to be manifested.

And do not worry if you do not know something, the Verb knows perfectly how to manifest that!

So saying “weather should be fine tomorrow” is a double stupidity that makes use of “should” unlikely to cripple you as it is in the conditional.

Moreover, since the Verb works in His now, pay attention to use this present time in your considerations associated with an intention of realization (intention = the second consideration necessary for the Verb to take the first one into account for manifestation).

So rather than “It will be nice tomorrow”, consider: “It’s nice tomorrow”, since in any case it is now that the Verb will manifest it’s “nice tomorrow”! but that’s foggy again as tomorrow also is a sliding date. So prefer: “It’s nice (date of tomorrow)”. Not very easy to understand: we have so many bad habits.

One last word before you get angry… make the difference between thoughts and expressions. You do not have to think what you express neither to express what you think, and what I mean here (I do not know about Anthony), is to just “think” not to “express”. Obviously, since I speak (or write) I am obliged to express it, but you must restrict my advice to thinking what I say, repeating it in your turn will not profit you much.

We constantly make considerations that cause actions without taking the time to express them: do you say to yourself “I will raise my arm” whenever you do it? No of course! Most of the time, we are not even conscious of thinking about all this. But that does not stop these considerations to exist and in some cases to trick us for an indeterminate time if they are not restricted to our immediate present. That’s how addictions are produced.

Want a spectacular example?

Consider that: “All Texans are morons,” and do not be surprised if when you cross Texas you meet only fools: your consideration is not dependent on any condition of time (located on a date) or circumstance, so it works constantly since you made it. And now you can add the consideration that “all Texans are great” it’s too late: they will stay stupid when they meet you through (or because) your first consideration. The way out is to realize that you have taken that first consideration and you will know that you are released from that when, at once, you will start to encounter Texans as “normal” as any French President of the French Republic… (Hollande claims to be such!)

Good! Meanwhile, consider that it is not over: N° 29 is pending!


Les commentaires sont clos.