tba Draft, but you can easily get the vital message!
CONTENTS
A vital perspective
But some of the programs aren't correct
You are... It is ...
The incredible misidentification
It's even wonderful at the lower levels
And the Process is...
What you'll learn
_____________________________________________________________
SUMMARY POINTS
We are given all we need to figure out how to navigate the world and maximize life.
A colossal brain capable of anything. A body performing miracles.
All we need is to acquire the programming that lays out the way to create what we want, and to eliminate or revise erroneous programming - quickly, not tolerating it for a moment. Don't mistake your programs for being you; they are just programs that either help you or hinder you
A VITAL PERSPECTIVE WITHOUT WHICH LIFE IS NOT AS GOOD
Perfect - suited for purpose, whole and complete is really what I mean
It is absolutely essential that you understand "what" your really are and how the physiological unit supporting you functions.
When people say "you're already perfect" or "God made you perfect" it could be reassuring, but, I think, it is more important to know why or how that is true.
I think this analogy is useful, while also being perfectly true.
When your biological unit was born it had certain capabilities that were already present. Those capabilities, if one is born without an extreme defect, allow one to function fully as a human being.
Although different in form (biological versus metallic), you are born as a computer. You have certain things wired in that are very, very useful. Many of them are of an animal nature in general, but some are far beyond that of an animal. Essentially, you are a computer, but one that is able to do things far beyond that of the normal animal computer.
We are born with computers that do all of the superbasics, but there is a bit of a variance in processing speed. Our biological units vary in appearance and slightly in functional capability, but they are 99% similar - so, essentially, we're all the same at the basic level.
The computer is so highly functional that it can add "meaning", quantums more than that of an animal. It is the "meaning" that primarily determines what we call our experience of the quality of life.
WHY WE ARE "PERFECT"
Our basic unit comes alive with electricity (produced by the biological unit from the conversion of biological matter) and is ready to do all the necessary functions.
The only difference is the programming and hardwiring exist physiologically, in a biological unit rather than a metal unit.
The unit comes with initial programming to have it be functional, called the basic programs, which are highly sophisticated on their own and fully enough to run a complex biological unit and to develop the ability to survive in the world - its initially not set up to do that on its own. The reason we're not set up to survive on our own is that we have evolved to survive in a manner than is unique but far superior to that of an animal. In order for us to develop all we need in order to survive at a superior level, our initial unit needed time to actually develop the more complex functions, as opposed to the animal which is born mostly ready for survival, with only a little bit to learn - so it is ready to go pretty much as it comes out of the box.
The human unit is "ready to go" when it is born but it is not yet ready to survive on its own, so what evolved is for other units to support it through the necessary development period. During that development period, we get the benefits of the wired in programming plus we acquire programming that helps us be able to survive, and flourish, on our own. The wired in programming is totally sufficient to have us function at the highest level of any type of being plus it is capable of "learning", which means writing its own software programs - which is pretty amazing.
We are, essentially, then, born "perfect".
BUT SOME OF THE PROGRAMS AREN'T CORRECT
So this incredible biological computer unit, with its superpowers of learning and reasoning, adds programs through learning and reasoning. The difficulty is that the programs that write the programs are not fully developed and are themselves learning. Part of the learning is that it takes on all the inputs from the other human units, so that it gets a giant leap forward, much faster than trying to figure it all out on its own.
So, this little incredibly powerful unit at first does not have the necessary learning to program itself to do great programs. It doesn't have full reasoning and logic (logic starts to become a major factor after the unit reaches 7 years old). So the not yet well developed software called "reasoning/logic" learns by taking data from other units without fully being able to process that data for accuracy, but it does develop rapidly from all that data and the programs it makes up. Part of what goes on is that the programs to see and understand things fully are developing as we go, so they often do now see and understand accurately.
One of our greatest blessing is that we have mirror neurons capably of copying behavior we see out there, though we have to develop the ability to discriminate. Until we develop that ability we will be a "monkey see, monkey do" machine that copies some pretty bizarre and nonsensible stuff along with copying some highly useful stuff.
Be clear, please, that a program is only as good as the data and the logic it is based on. Even if good data is available, it often is not recognized or it is misconstrued (if at all complex) - which adds additional flaws into any programming even if logic is used. That is why it is important that an intelligent person know that his/her "perception is not reality". At least, knowing that particular truth of life enables one to be open to new information - and correcting programs very quickly.
Know that each "program" is a complete package, with complete instructions on how the computer is supposed to produce actions and chemicals (emotions) to get those actions, along with correct or incorrect beliefs. They are literal and automatic. Unless you intervene and/or reprogram, you'll be operating off of those, as you are a mechanical being (despite the meaning we can add to all that).
YOU ARE..., IT IS ....
Be clear, please, that you are just the biological unit and that that unit is the greatest miracle in the world, with the highest functioning computer in the universe - and that its programming may not be so good. You are perfect. The programming is not. The programming cannot be close to perfect without your correcting it by going through the necessary processes. It just won't happen without your going through those processes.
And those processes are beyond the rather limited thinking involved in "well, you'll just learn life through living it". That is a partially true statement, that you do learn a bit from just living life, correcting some programming as you go. But much of what is learned is processed through programs that are incorrect - and much of the data is not present in normal everyday life at a level that is in sufficient detail to create a good program. Therefore, what is needed, and what will be the bulk of being able to live a happier life, will be created by you intentionally, not just through learning life as you go, using the same not-so-good programming. The bottomline is that all significant programs need to be re-examined for logic and correctness when we become mature enough to be able to apply logic and to look at what is occurring. There will be many, many programs that don't function at the top level, so that life does not go as well as it could. People who have gone through the process are living at 100+ times better of a quality of life than those who haven't, but those who haven't can't see that - and somehow we have to convince those people that the purpose of the learning is to be able to live a greater life and that this is the way to create a much greater life, through intentional learning and re-programming. Old programs taken on by a not yet able to reason biological unit, logically, would not necessarily be logical and well-conceived. (Duh!) This seems to me to be so obvious and, if one thinks about it, it is so utterly obvious - but until one thinks about it, it is not known - as humans need the input that gives the opportunity to understand that they can self-program and re-program with great benefits, correcting not-so-good programs.
But, be clear, it is not "you", the biological unit with its hardwiring, that is defective. It is the programming. Your job, then, should you accept it is to correct the programming. And, although the first part of that phrase is used in Mission Impossible, this reprogramming is a Mission Possible, with the greatest results imaginable. The problem is that the greatness of the results cannot be fully seen up front before the actual experience of them. However, we can see the effects in others and know that we can get the same effects, by using our most important function of "learning" data and applying logic to create great new programs. (See "Mission Possible" and the results of what people do. [Put the title in the site's search engine to link to it.])
THE INCREDIBLE MISIDENTIFICATION
If you received a Hewlett-Packard HP2480, and then it was loaded with a bunch of bad software, is the HP2480 a bad computer? Or was it just loaded with bad software - and you just need to remove the old and add the new good software?
Is the software a part of HP2480 or is it something that is added and usable but not a permanent part of the HP2480?
As humans, we confuse the programming and programs in us with who we are. We are the HP2480, not the programs. Then we feel bad about "ourselves" (which we think includes the programs) and compare ourselves to others who happen to have been more fortunate in their initial programming and/or corrected more of the programs and had better ones. Well, can't we just follow the process of getting better programs and just do fine in life?
If the perception of others is such that we are criticized, should we take it personally? Or is it possibly a reflection of the other person? Or the criticism of what the results are from the programming?
I say it is only a reflection of the other person's possibly incorrect perception and/or the results your programming caused. It is not actually You, the HP 2480. You the computer are fine. Of course, you need to have programming such that you take care of your computer for maximum performance, but amazingly it all still functions with the bad care many people give it.
Basically, any person who is actually aware (which means also that they are compassionate and understand this stuff) would not judge you or even pretend that any such judgment is possible much less valid. Plus no one can see You, inside all those programs jumping all over the place.
The good side of this is that I don't care what other people think of me, as it means nothing to me personally (though it could be something to respond to if I had a financial consequence). The bad side is that I don't get to have pride when someone is admiring or thinks I did a good job [though I can still enjoy it, but with zero attachment].
I am not dependent on anyone, so I am free. I have corrected my programming that said I must have approval - realizing that it was so outdated, from childhood and old ideas of dependency for my very survival, which are no longer at all true!
People will approve or they won't approve. People will like the results of my programming or they won't. If it is something that gets in my way and has some importance, I just need to correct the programming in order to get better results.
But it is not about me. I am invisible to others. And only my own opinion would matter, but I have also learned not to judge myself, for I am not my programs, I am only the computer. And, as the computer I am, the only point is for me to enjoy my life as much as I can, with the best programs I can devise and use.
I realize that if I think I "can't" and/or if I don't do something, it is merely do to the fact that I do not have the programming yet to do. If I had the programming, I would do it. For instance, if I had the rationale on why x is so good for me and I was clear about that and then I made a committed decision about it, I would be doing what is good for me - provided also that I had a program that had me process and create the rationale in an effective way (that's the point of The Site).
You'd think that it is good enough that we can survive so well, but we humans add "meaning" to it, that we "should" be a certain way, meet some greater ideal and/or be "as good as" others
There is no "you" to be criticized...you are invulnerable...
IT'S EVEN WONDERFUL AT THE LOWER LEVELS
If we didn't do the malfunction of comparing ourselves judgmentally against others and if we see that we are still able to get more out of life than an animal, we would see that we are so incredibly fortunate. If a child had Downs Syndrome, the child is perfectly capable of being happy, even without certain functions being as sharp as others. If a child is born autistic, its life is still a blessing. (Read Barry Neil Kaufman's Son-Rise and watch the movie about the blessing and the view he and his wife took of their autistic under 30 IQ and should-be-institutionalized child, who ultimately emerged from their special care with an incredibly wonderful life - a truly inspirational true story. See his organizations The Option Institute for training the various parts of living life at an extraordinary level, for all adults, and the special programs at the Autism Treatment Center Of America. )
AND THE PROCESS IS...
The process of correcting bad data and insufficiently functional programming is the same in all cases, but their varying complexities require different procedures to do so.
The basics are always (and you've seen this many times):
Be aware that there is a need to correct the program by seeing the signs. The signs are when you create or allow "undesired results" (other than the weather and things outside your control). And one of the indicators of undesired results or "something's wrong here" are a unique human sense that is called "feeling bad". Feeling bad is always an indicator of something is wrong. From the other end, any time you feel bad it means something is wrong. The "something that is wrong or awry" is not always what is occurring, but is in "incorrect thinking and processing of what is perceived". I repeat, any time there is a bad feeling that is a sign - and those who do well in life heed the signs and then correct the programming problem really, really soon. Others just let it be and, as a result, they "get to" reexperience the bad feelings from the bad programs, over and over. It's easier to be lazy and suffer and avoid, but is it really easier?
The obstacle in some people's minds (and an opportunity in other people's minds) is that one must acquire some knowledge, including the unique human function of "insight" and "wisdom", to get to the level of being able to "see" correctly (or better), interpret well, and re-program well. The methods of doing this are often incomplete, though getting some positive results. Examples are what is learned through going to church, which is not as much as going to Bible studies, but both are insufficient because they are feeding one data but not teaching as much as is needed about programming. Essentially, I think, you have no other good choice than to become your own computer programmer And if you're really good at it you can help other people to learn it. Of course, that also suggests that you can learn how to be a great computer programmer more quickly and better by going to a master programmer (who has done well with his life and where you can see that the thinking process he/she suggests is rational and reasonable).
WHAT YOU'LL LEARN
When you correct the programming, the results you will get are:
1. Virtual fearlessness, not of a "courage" or big effort type, but of seeing all false fears and exaggerated fears as false and exaggerated and seeing that almost all of what occurs in life is deminimus and, if it is a big "undesired outcome", it is handleable in terms of at least one creating happiness after it has occurred.
