Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#443 10/03/02 10:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1
SparX Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1
I haven't really looked through the previous posts, so this may have already been addressed... I'm thinking of purchasing the Genius Code program, but first I'd like to hear from someone that has completed (or nearly completed) the program and can comment on the benefits they've noticed based on all the claims made on the website.
Thanks in advance,
SparX






#444 10/04/02 05:37 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
Administrator
Offline
Administrator

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
I've completed the course and go back to parts of it when I get the urge. I also did all the exercises and challenges in particular I found it useful in cracking my code.

The benefits I've gained are astounding to me. My accuracy in just 'knowing' things still surprises me. I find I am getting answers quickly. While going the course intitally I had a major life problem that I was trying to resolve. While not yet solved it is in the process of being worked out, I am on the journey to resolving this problem. However while I was working with the course I was frustrated that the answer/solution was not coming. I kept going with the course because I was getting answers to other questions/problems. During the course I one of my image streams told me when I would have a breakthrough with the course. Exactly on the day as noted in my image stream I had that breakthrough and it turned out to be one for my major goal.

In other ways it's even harder to describe. Instead of coming up with only one answer I notice my mind giving me muliple answers and with clarity. Strangely I've also noticed that my communication skills have improved. I find that I am better able to express myself. I am using my intuition more and finding it amusing. For example yesterday I 'knew' that I would not be driving home in my car after going to my brothers place. I wasn't worried about how to get home I also 'knew' an appointment would be cancelled and that I would get a lift home. That is exactly what happened. I went to my brothers place. They had car trouble and needed a car I loaned them mine. While I was there I got the phone call that the 11:30 appointment was cancelled and mum arrived to drop off some stuff off so I got a lift home with her. Normally so many glitches in a day would be annoying but I just found it amusing how things worked out.

When I look at my thinking before I completed the Genius Code course and now. It feels like I've removed a lot of dams between my inner mind and my conscious mind and a lot are still moving out of the way with incredible ease now. When I look where I was and how I'm thinking, What I'm writing, What I'm experiencing and What I'm learning Now.

It's more than intuition... its opens up the lodgical mind too. Compared to my past thinking style I would say I used to have tunnel vision. Which is odd because I've always been credited with being able to take on new projects and point out solutions for problem areas before the projects even started. My supervisior made it a habit to discuss changes in the department procedures with me prior to the implementation. I would go away and think about it and come back and point out the problems we may have to face and solutions to those problems. It made the implementation a lot easier.

I bought a book teaching how to use ABC lists for problems solving it is intriguing yet I haven't had the chance to use it every time I think of a problem I get multiple answers. I also developed a problem solving technique through the Genius Code haven't used that much lately either. I know can fall back on them when I have major problems. One thing I have noticed I've improved my skill in defining the problem... once you do that answers seem to come surprisingly quick. Emotions still get in the way, yet even they are sidestepped quickly.

It's hard to describe what the Genius Code does for you it's not tangible in the sense that you can hold the results of the course in your hand like a trophey. You probably don't even notice how you've changed since doing the course unless you've been recording where you are coming from and where you are heading. I know that the goal I wrote down for the Genius Code course was major and I mean major goal. To see something happening toward that goal alone is worth 5 times what I paid for the course.

If I were to give a tip on how to proceed with the course I say do the exercises. Avoid getting hung up on Win's unusual style and expressions, just do the exercises. Seriously do what is suggested on tape 4 and try the High Think Tank challenge. Direct Learning is terrific for adopting new skills and modelling someone who has the skills you wish to acquire is made childs play with the course.

Alex






#445 04/15/03 08:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
As part of my guerilla ontology program I would liike to point out that AlexK is the only helpful participant on this forum aside from the so-called "LSC" staff. However, much of what he says sounds too good to be true. How many people here tend to experience the belief that they are benfitting enormously from this program? And don't just answer that impulsively. And no, that question was not a disguise for any disbelief/contempt for this program, it was a semantically/epistomologically correct question aimed at provoking analysis and clarifying a nagging question which I have. Furthermore, I don't know what Alex means when he says "until I deciphered my code". Does this mean you have one code, and that you found the one key? What does this code conceal? Now that you've "deciphered your code" where are you at? Do you consider yourself a Genius now? -some of those questions you answered in part but I just want more clarification. For all you guys know AlexK is just the name somebody at LSC uses to populate this board, in order that they might sell more products. Now I know that the last statement has provoked a lot of impulsive reactions in many of you reading this, ranging from amusement to the need to paternalize me in a post stating how ridiculous you think the idea is. The point is, I'm well aware of the implications of that statement, and I'm well aware also of the conditioned reflexes most of you still blind yourselves with, because I'm a genius. JK. Seriously, I have thought this through, I have liberated my thinking. The question you must ask is this: If this program makes geniuses- in any reasonable sense of that word, don't get hung up on that definition-- than why do we not hear about any important intellectual contributions coming from its alums, so to speak? With that in mind, might AlexK be a deceptive mask? Who knows, I don't, nothing is certain-- and, for the last time, that statement is NOT a contradiction of any sort, it accords perfectly with semantic meta-analysis regarding the order of abstraction and the relation of signifiers to the signified, i.e. words to the "reality" which people remain so obssessed with.

Now, one item remains to be dealt with: many of you, upon reading this post, perhaps reading it too quickly or because of evaluating it with a non-liberated, mammalion-emotional circuit, have the reaction that somehow I'm just trying to cause trouble, deal a "smack-down", or maybe that I'm just ego-tripping, entertaining some despicable arrogance. That may be true, whatever the phrase "is true" means. My intention, however, is to rephrase my major question-- the lack of geniuses around because of this system, which does not, by the way, mean that Wenger's techniques and beliefs are all wrong, that their is nothing to them-- and also to show how much impulsive reaction goes on when people read or think. The whole point of Zen Buddhism, General Semantics, and Deconstruction, as I realize them, "is" to show the fallacy of those sorts of reactions in formulating a text or a belief of any sort; they act as exercises in deconditioning among other things. I believe that proper study and training in these systems, with regard to the fact that they all inherently include a meta-critical orientation recognizing the limitation of any "system" as such, and thus making them immune to the fallacy of self-chauvinism as such, results in the best sort of improvement in thought possible. It goes way beyond any one technique, because it recognizes the nature, the Beingness, of thought as it manifests and functions, something which no amount of PRing can do. One test to see if you have liberated your own thinking involves looking at that last sentence and your reactions to it: did you think-feel that I was debunking PRing as such?

The ultimate verification of my above text would be if someone were to reply that either A) it was off-topic, B) they thought that I was arrogant, just on the basis of this post, C) They totally ignore my big question, D) They get hung up on my suggestion that AlexK may be "LSC-in-disguise", or E)they feel that I was only attacking certain beliefs just to be contrary, the "you're just a brat" reactions of authority figures everywhere.

I would, however, encourage anyone who wants to clarify some of my terminology to go to the general semantics website at: www.general-semantics.org

To be honest, if you still are reading this post than I offer you my greatest respect, you are part of the proud minority who actually bother with things they might not understand, or with things which they "feel" to be hostile. Thank you.

As In A Moment,
Kristoff "Dr.Faustus" Olafsson








#446 04/15/03 08:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
What's funny is, some of us at LSC actually joked that AlexK was Pete in disguise, too! Such great advice and helpful posts. Fortunately, we had the chance to meet Alex in person for the PhotoReading Instructor Training course about a month ago : )






#447 04/15/03 08:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
I might add, she looks nothing like Pete!

Keep up the good work Alex!






#448 04/15/03 11:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
Administrator
Offline
Administrator

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
G'day Sandy My arms have recovered from my flight back home.

quote:
However, much of what he says sounds too good to be true.

Do you think so? That post was my experience some months ago. I own the experience and you may own your opinion.

quote:
Do you consider yourself a Genius now.

Everyone has genuis potential. Some people limit it it to Linguistic and logical analylitical skills represented by a piece of paper provided by some schooling instituitions. There is sheer genius in an individual who has:
- has figured out how to kick a winning goal for a sporting team,
- to persude a fellow teenager to keep going and not commit suicide.
- to keep nursing people in ill health in a hospital while the patients treat them badly
- to read a nonsense book to a child
- to dress up like a clown to lift the spirits of someone emotionally down.

The choice to see genius as something only a few people have or something that we all do when we express ourselves by our actions in our daily life is yours. I do not share a limiting view. When we join with other people to learn and grow we are expressing our true genius.

quote:
The greatest genius will never be worth much if he pretends to draw exclusively from his own resources.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

As long as I am permitted to offer my assistance to help people find their part and their means to achieve their true goals in life I will continue to post on the forum. No doubt others have thought that perhaps I am an LSC employee too. To that I can only reply - I wish.

Those who chat with me through MSN have noted that I do not keep to USA time. Being in Australia they have had the fortunte or misfortune of the getting my Australian slant on life.

Why do I support LSC? because they honour their money back guarantee. If you try it and it doesn't work for you send it back and get your money back or try one of their other courses. They realise that not one package or course fits all and we are not computers where data can just be entered into our brains to make us what we want to be. Their courses are about realising what we want to be in our life we already are we just haven't cleaned the mirror yet to see it in ourselves. They are about discovering that we inidividuals are valuable human beings where ever we are in our lives. To recognise our fustrations are only the perceived distance between our emotional wants and the place we want to be. There are many roads to roam and LSC is providing the variety of maps to get us there. Not everyone is going to want, like or need the LSC products but at least LSC gives people the chance to give their products an honest trial and provides personal coaching in the form of other people sharing their experiences and staff who understand the reason the course was created.

Alex

[This message has been edited by AlexK (edited April 15, 2003).]






#449 04/16/03 02:57 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 393
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 393
Kristoff,

This is a fine post. You state your position clearly and without malice. Thanks.

I choose not to quibble with the use of the word genius, although it may be an overstatement. Here is my interpretation:

Genius means using more of your potential than you might otherwise use. Nothing flowery here. No promise of grand inventions. We all have a different baseline. No program will get us all to an equal level that the general population might consider genius. However...I do believe that the program will get all of us beyond our current level of functioning. I can say that I sometimes practice the techniques spelled out in Genius Code and sometimes don't. I can, with complete sincerity, claim that I feel sharper and more intuitive when using the techniques then when I don't.

In a world of absolutes, the claim is overstated. If you're willing to accept that we all could stand to raise our level of functioning, the program provides an effective means for getting there. If I claim to be a great cook, it is based on my starting point, NOT on where some world-class chef might be. Does this mean that my ending point exceeds your starting point? Not necessarily. Regardless, if I am pleased with my progress and satisfied with my current ending point, what difference does it make? My reality is not your reality, and progress is a good thing. The product is an enabler, NOT a morphing tool.

So, it is quite possible that this product could take you beyond where you are now. Then again, it might not.

[This message has been edited by mgrego2 (edited April 15, 2003).]






#450 04/16/03 04:22 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
Was it just me, or did Kristoff's post sort of look like just a bunch of intellectual contradictions with...no one? lol I don't know, maybe I read it wrong, but every statement is like:

"Now this is not to say that I do not exactly agree, which is not to say that I actually disagree."

-youngprer






#451 04/16/03 03:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Congratulations Youngprer and welcome to the world of uncertainty. The question you bring up about agree/disagree highlights my point. As it stands that formulation implies a binary, a two-valued logic-- i.e. analogous to on/off, present/absent, subjective/objective etc. Those formulations have a limited use, and we construct them artificially--that is to say, abstractly--in our attempts at mapping "how things really are", "reality", "Being", whatever you call it. They really only exist in our abstract symbol-system of such two-valued logic, sort of like much of the mathematics you learn in school, especially at the "higher" levels. They may have some use, but in order to create more accurate maps of "what is really happening" we must recognize and sort-of transcend those formulations. Thus: "Now this is not to say that I do not exactly agree, which is not to say that I actually disagree" may serve to highlight the limitedness that such two-valued orientation imposes on our thinking. Besides I never use double-negatives so excessively...To sum up so far: I aim at establishing a more fluid ontology, which will mainly complement other mental-techniques such as PRing or whatnot, in order to provide a meta-critical foundation- the critical thinking which is aware of itself, and its own criterion, and endeavors to overcome semantic limitations, such as any binary or two-valued logic--on which a more capable "Genius" can develop. This foundation would thus interpenetrate all other layers of mind, "liberating" them in a very 'real' sense. The benefits of such an orientation prove immense, freeing people of dogma, 'irrational' emotion-reactions, and the suffering which comes from any intellectual allegiance-- which really means dependance.

I believe that people who spend valuable time practicing techniques aimed at unlocking Genius owe it to themselves to also work on such a foundation, as it provides the mental flexibility and the penetrating insight necessary for developing more accurate evaluations of "what is really happening". The difficulty with this path lies in the fact that no dogma, no preconceived, bottled and throttled system of metaphysics, can apply. The thinker must shed this baggage for the dead-weight it burdens him/her with. If you ask me that is the true path of knowledge, the true path of Socratic Inquisition, and the path of the Faustian Spirit as I have heavily referenced in my "name".

Unfortunately, the authority-figures, the "little Fathers", which most of our country elects as representative, not only into political offices but throughout our social situation, show little interest in such knowledge, preferring instead to launch moral-crusades, "faith-based" education and to generally retain their position as the sheperds that lead and fleece the sheep; they too live as sheep to impulses and emotion-reaction which, in a sense, herd and fleece them.

So, you can retain whatever beliefs you have about "genius", you can also retain any beliefs you have, but until you have questioned everything about yourself, down to a new foundation, one which, I hope, resembles and reflects a many-valued semantic orientation, containing the inherent understanding that all things sayable "are really just maps of 'what is really going on'", among other things, you cannot really experience Freedom. Wow, I must have mastered the LONG SENTENCE in one of my philosophy classes...

I'll end this lengthy addenda by saying, as usual, that much of my inspiration derives from certain 'philosophical' and 'spiritual' roots including: Zen Buddhism, Deconstruction, General Semantics, Martin Heiddeger, Nietzsche, J.W. Goethe, William Blake, and Taoism. I strongly encourage the study of all of those people/'systems' if you feel inspired or just plain interested by anything I've said. This does not mean that you must abandon the techniques of LSC, nor that I necessarily discredit such techniques, I want it to mean that a broader, deconstructed and liberated basis, provides the best soil from which the flower of Genius can bloom. Furthermore, in studying those systems, one often doesn't understand as quickly as one would hope, but stick with it, try to internalize it, meditate and reflect over it, dream about it, write about it, I promise great reward. Perhaps this world we live in will grow more sane, and suffering can be abolished, the goal, remember, of Buddhism.

Don't take my word for it, See for yourself

Kristoff Lundholm Olafsson

[This message has been edited by Kristoff Olafsson (edited April 16, 2003).]






#452 04/16/03 09:33 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 208
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 208
Kristoff I'd rather read your well-founded skepticism than read any of Saraswati's caustic remarks. Or did you create her character to see how nuts we'd go...LOL.






#453 04/26/03 06:46 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 81
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 81
I quote a famous man called Fenyman, please ignore my spelling mistakes: "When someone says something simple, it's easy to know if its right or wrong. But when college kids say things which are complicated, one only can wonder. But i always know that they are wrong, because things are always simpler than you thought." I may of added somethings, but again, i ask that you ignore the mistakes.






#454 04/29/03 09:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Quite often that may be usefull. However, I direct you to the discussion of the philosophical position at hand, presumably Ockhams Razor, in Nicholas Fearn's accessibly book "How to think like a philosopher". Ockhams razor doesn't work so simply that a simple catch-phrase like that sums up its validity. One still needs to follow the argument in order to clarify their own position.
KO Philosopher-at-large








#455 07/05/03 01:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
This is a very interesting discussion.

Too bad it is probably completely dead.

I found Kristoff's and mgrego2's statements to be particularly pertinent.

I believe the term "Genius" is thrown around too loosely and wildly. If Genius is to be found as easily as suggested, then the term Genius becomes ubiquitous and consequentially meaningless.

Kristoff, do you think that being aware of mental processes necessarily transcends them? That is, if I am aware of the reactions of my mind, and I include them self-referentially in conversation, does that mean anything whatsoever?

I may be aware of thoughts and feelings and yet this awareness may bring to bear no real effect upon them.

I suppose what I am saying is that being self-referential is not the same as being self-controlled.

Regarding another issue, I do see the value, however, in expanding upon binary thinking by trying to linguistically work your way around that trap. Both/and and at the same time neither/nor is always a fascinating place.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited July 04, 2003).]






#456 07/05/03 06:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9
This is a great thread. Probably one of the more philosophically 'honest' of the threads that I come across here.

Let me start by saying that I have not purchased many of the products on this site. I purchased the photoreading book, but suspect that similar to many 'get smart' books it is better to use one of the guided programs.

Thus far, I have my doubts about the efficacy of 'photoreading' as I understand it or more specifically what I 'wish' it were.

The jury is still out on it and I will probably invest in the course because the potential benefits outweigh the cost of the program. If there were a 1.2.3. way to develop 'spontaneous activation(SA)' then the course would be a no-brainer to invest time effort and energy in. I would like to see some valid research to determine the rate at which (SA) occurs. Hell, I'd participate in a study.

I've looked at some of the memory optimizer descriptions and they are quick to bring out the fact that its main principal are different than 'association and pegging'. If the MO course is more effective than the MegaMemory style 'associations and pegging' then it would be highly impressive.

I've got perfect material to 'try' it out on. I'm doing an esperanto and GRE course using MegaMem techniques and SuperMemo. I'll give it a shot and give a very fair and honest report on the methodology.

To join the broader discussion, Genius is not a zero sum game. Everyone on the planet could be a genius. If they came up with a pill that raised your IQ, creativety, memory and tacit knowledge a thousand fold, we would all be geniuses. Some of us would still be smarter than others, but we would all exceed our current 'threshold' of mental ability defining genius.

That is one of the tough parts, defining genius. Some may define a long-term welfare person as a genius because they have found a way to 'beat the system' and avoid working. Your first instinct might be to say well no they are making a moral decision to take advantage of a flawed artificial system in order to avoid work. However, we wouldn't be as quick to deny the term 'genius' to someone who does essentially the same thing by investing money in the market or a business to avoid work. The only real differences are the approach and how the time 'not working' is spent.

How about the case that the welfare person has used the system to stay home and all they do is work on philosophy and math, they become extremely knowledgable but they never come up with any really orignal. Is this genius? Is it closer?

How about this case: The welfare person, uses their time to study science and genetics, then bam they figure out a way to just turn cancer off. Now are they a genius? More importantly does their going on welfare show an 'early' piece of genius?

Do we define genius by the means or the end? Is it something in between or is it hopelessly subjective?

The smartest guy in my high school (not just high grades), named Floyd, was a phenom in math, science, language etc. In my non professional opinion, I'm willing to bet Floyd was a 160-170 IQ range. He was reading, understanding and relating to Kant, Hiedegger and Ponte when we were in 7th and 8th Grade. Was/Is Floyd a genius? There is no doubt in my mind that he was/is. However,(you probably saw this coming), the last time I saw Floyd (about 5 years ago at the age of 26-27)he was bagging groceries at small local supermarket and had been doing so since he got kicked out of the local state university (where he was double majoring in Math and Chemical Engineering). He got kicked out because he would start these huge arguments in class and would start screaming at the professors.

I've always known I was a 'smart' person. I also knew from the time that I met Floyd that I was nowhere near being one of the smartest 'kinds' of people. I knew that there were people whos own mental abilities towered over mine. This realization was quite a relief for me. It was like finding my place in life by finding out where I wasn't. I wasn't pond scum and I wasn't troposhperic.

However, since my encounter with Floyd,I have always been fascinated by the concept of intelligence. I've always wondered what the difference between what Floyd had and what he didn't have.

Whenever, I think of Floyd when I see the part in Beautiful Mind when Dr. Nash is telling his hallucinations that "You're not real.", and the hallucinated 'G-Man' tells asks him "Is this what you've become, some useless Ghoul? The local Madman?"

Floyd is the 'Useless Ghoul' now. I still call him every year or so, he usually is cordial initially eventually slips into a hyper-intellectual rant about some obscure aspect of philosophy or mathematics or Popular music even. I truly feel for Floyd. I have joked with one of my brightest friends about the CIA initiating a "Geek Reclimation" program; where the CIA picks up types like Floyd and locks them in a basement at Langley and have them processing intelligence resources.

So the question remains, What is Genius? If this Genius Code program, helps us to access the quality that Floyd lacks then it addresses one side of the Genius equation but how about the other side. The pure mental ability side, understanding complex books (i.e. Process and Reality, Whitehead), understanding complex mathematics, physics and chemistry, remembering enough significant details to deal with big problems etc.

A true 'genius' program would have to deal at least with both sides of this issue. And as evidenced by Floyd they are not perfectly correlated items.

My own issues revolve around a few critical points. 'Stick to it', I've started more projects than most people even think about. My problem is that I'm a quitter. When things get to complicated and I feel like I could fail at it. I tend to back out of it and move on to something else that interest me rather than face failure.

This has gotten better over time. I have 'gone back' and completed many of my task: Half-read books, dropped college course, completing military schools etc.

I've done my current job longer than anything I've done before. I'm probably one of the best (top 100/20000) people in the field. I don't know why I've stuck with this so long...probably because it is commission based technical work and the pay system is almost a pure meritocracy.

But unfortunately, I feel like I have 'cheated' myself. My friend John gets on me all the time. He says, "You like doing your lock work because it is easy and profitable for you, plus it's unique; but you should be a doctor or a scientist of some kind. Of course you are one of the best at what you do...you should be doing something else."

So in a way I draw an analogy between myself and Floyd. What is it that John Nash, Watson and Crick or other nobel prize winners have that I don't?

I would feel a bit more confident about saying "This program is good or this methodogy is working for me." if I was some nobel physicist (which as you can see I generally consider the pinnacle of human development but for you it may be a pulitzer or some other grandiose recognition). But in actuality I'm just a Technician class. My angle has always been leadership. Not because I read the Prince and got some rank in the military. It's because I have a deep rooted desire to understand things and make them better (myself included).

To summarize, Genius is not a zero sum game, it is not limited by some certain Percentile definition. If more people got smarter...more people would be geni.

Genius is at least two sided. What Floyd had (and at that level)which is easier to measure progress on (see post Ultra High Ceiling IQ Test) and what Floyd did not have which seems impossible to measure potential for because it is defined as produced results. EQ? Common Sense? Restraint? Mental Stability? Very hard to say what this second aspect is but most of you reading this will know what aspect I'm talking about.

Anything that contributes 'significantly' to either of these two aspects is worth wrestling with.

I appreciate your attention to this and if you enjoy similar 'streams' let me know and I would love to correspond with similar 'searchers'.

Rob Reynolds
Drinkblot@yahoo.com






#457 07/05/03 08:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
I hate to make generalizations here but ... it takes more than just genius to be successful in life. You have to have motivation, incentive, passion, and a vision for going beyond your existing paradigms and thermostat setting. A great deal of success depends on above average interpsersonal skills, social skills, intuitive skills, oral and verbal communication skills that many very intelligent individuals fail to develop. Who was it who said that the higher your IQ, the lonelier you are?

In short, one must look at success holistically and develop many of the abilities that school nerds have tended to avoid. To borrow a concept from nonlinear dynamical systems theory, you have to change your attractor fields to attract to yourself what you want in life. This is where you start using more of your brain and delve into nonlinear modes of information processing and Hegelian dialectics. The whole brain is not dedicated to logical, rational, linear, technical processing. Most people may use less than 10% of their brain but when they start using more of it, they find themselves going beyond the traditional logical, rationalist, positivist, materialist thinking into realms beyond. Real geniuses like Einstein and Tesla applied a more integrative mental processing approach as a matter of course.

People are where they are in life because they do not take action to get out of the rut they are in. In a feedback control system, you have to raise the setpoint provided by the negative feedback loop if you want to change the results. You change your mind and you can change your life.

One of the reasons we do not use more of our brain is because our brains are intensive consumers of the body's energy and oxygen and the body would have to work harder to support it. So the evolutionary efficient approach was to localize brain usage to a minimum area for efficiency's sake. If you want to use more of it, then first increase your efficient management of greater amounts of energy and oxygen. Pretty soon you'll be turning to yoga, meditation, and qigong but that's the kind of stuff that's normally avoided and outright rejected by most.

[This message has been edited by shr33m (edited July 05, 2003).]






#458 07/06/03 05:09 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Drinkblot,

As I was reading your post I really started to feel for you and your experiences. I have had similar ones ... though I don't consider myself in the top 100 of anything.

My intuition tells me that your experience of genius may lie outside of figuring things out. Rather, it probably lies in pioneering and creativity. You seem to be very adapt at figuring, of accumulating knowledge and learning to navigate with expertise within existing patterns.

What might be very exciting and rewarding for you is to take the body of knowledge you have in your current field of endeavor and excellence and mapping that space. Now take your finger and put it on a spot outside of that shape.

There's your area of experiementation, creativity, and pioneering, if you will.

I think Shr33m is really on to something, and I agree with what he (?) says.

I've enjoyed reading both your posts. You have good things to say.







#459 07/07/03 06:38 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 393
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 393
It's good to see this thread go "all Romero" and come back to life.

As Drinkblot has experienced, possibly the most intelligent person I've ever met was a guy with whom I attended elementary and jr. high school. The guy was brilliant. He was a whiz at calculus and chemistry. He could write well. He socialized well. In fact, he was probably more well rounded than a lot of folks that are considered geniuses. (Was Einstein a genius or a savant?) Last I heard (12 years ago), he had dropped out of college and was working as a handyman. It seems almost a crime for the world to lose the benefit of that intellect.

But, and this points to something else in Drinkblot's post, it may well be that he is enjoying what he does and feeling fulfilled. Who is to say that this means he is wasting his life? If Drinkblot is challenging himself, enjoying his work, and getting paid at a level that he deems adequate, who is to say that this is a waste? This probably puts him way beyond a large percentage of the population who are just earning a paycheck. Maybe there is genius at work there...What if Drinkblot drops his profession and studies medicine for a significant portion of his life, and then decides he absolutely hates it? What happens to that ability that once seemed so effortless? What happens to the contentment that once existed? Even if he sailed through the program with excellent grades, what value is there if he hates his life? (At this point, I'm seriously hoping Drinkblot is a "he." If not, you are feeling VERY sleepy. Whenever you look at this paragraph, your mind automatically converts any he to she. Of course, as Hofstadter pointed out, the result would be that you eventually get only ssssssssssssssssssssssssssshe... and completely lose track of the thread).

Perhaps there is a more appropriate word than genius. What about that person who has learned to be effective on many levels and who applies those abilities to better the lives of those around them? If it doesn't usher us into a new age, does that make it any less valuable? I haven't clearly determined from the new posters what their definition of genius is. The most appropriate definition in Webster for genius is "a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially: a person with a very high intelligence quotient
"

This suggests, as Shr33m has mentioned, a person who may or may not have other qualities that qualify them as "successful." Based upon Webster's definition of genius, the only difference between a savant and an idiot savant is an IQ score. So what?

Is personal genius a better term? If someone can exceed the perceived limitations of his/herself and of others around them, can they qualify as achieving personal genius? If they can extend their capabilities in a variety of disciplines, doesn't that qualify them? If by extending their capabilities on several fronts, they can improve their situation and, by extension, the situation of those closely related to them, can they qualify?

With apologies to Michael Gelb, there is probably not a product out there that can make me a DaVinci. However, if there are techniques out there that can get me closer, isn't there value to that? Maybe our own "elitist" view of what genius should be holds us back.






#460 07/07/03 09:59 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
Administrator
Offline
Administrator

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,351
Thought this piece of information might be of interest to the folks following this thread.

quote:
The second interesting fact is that, concurrent with the global rise in psychic abilities, IQ is also increasing worldwide. The evidence of this rise has been collected by James Flynn of the University of Otago, in Dunedin, New Zealand.

This rise has been called the Flynn Effect. and it has intelligence experts perplexed, because the increas in IQ is coming primarily from an increase in only one area - pattern recognition. In areas like maths or arithmetic there is not much of a gain at all. When you understand the link between patterns and metaphysical ability, the reason for increasing IQ scores in this area is obvious. The human race is becoming more psychic.


Manual for the Mind 5 Keys to Psychic Ability by Catherine Wilkins ISBN 0 9578583 4 5 p 10-11

Alex

[This message has been edited by AlexK (edited July 07, 2003).]






#461 07/07/03 04:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
There's nothing wrong with being in any type of work that you enjoy. That's what really matters - doing your dharma. Not everyone has to be a doctor, physicist or CEO. Everyone has a different definition of success.

Some people do their greatest work outside of their regular jobs. When Einstein published the paper that won him the Nobel Prize in Physics, he was employed in the Patent Office.

When you look at the large unused brain capacity, you have to wonder if humans had fully used it at one time having abilities like clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis, healing, etc. These skills must have been useful in meeting the large energy and oxygen requirements a fully utilized brain needs. And why did it fall into disuse? Was there an energy/oxygen famine? Or did Force begin to replace Power as the dominant paradigm?

It's only in the last decade or so that the collective human race raised its LoC level from 190 to 207 (thanks to a few individuals who saw fit to use more of their brains). Maybe we are coming full circle again as the post from Alex indicates.

(Note: The terms LoC, power, and force are used in the context of "Power vs. Force" by David Hawkins, MD, PhD)






#462 07/07/03 06:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Just to revivify this discussion, ostensibly about "Genius", I would like to add that I believe the word "Genius" does not float much meaning anymore except as a SOCIOLOGICAL category or label. It is synonomous which such labels as "intelligent", "smart", etc.etc. There is no essential metaphysically-discrete unit which one can use as an indicator of "Genius". In genealogy the word originated as a term for spirit, usually the spirit of a place. It indicated a sort of creative, or formative potential...not really an abstract, mind-like entity. I think it best now to drop this argument about the 'label' genius and to have everyone turn for themselves into an inner-experience of thinking. Is not all thought, given attention and allowed to express itself in consciousness, an expression of creativity? What is called thinking, for that matter? Do we not experience, in our 'problem-solving', breakthroughs of reorientation when some pattern, or meta-pattern has seized our consciousness, illuminating the phenomena-as-a-whole? How do we phrase this in terms of predication, of cause-and-effect? Is it I created this thought, thus, or this thought created I? Can one say that it is both, and still maintain that 'intuitive' sense of knowing- does it account for the phenomena at hand? If we are to speak of I, do we not need a more implicit recognization that is not a static, metaphysical entity?
And finally, to deconstruct this grammar still more: Is it not an error of grammatical predication that we assume that some 'appearance' requires behind it that 'which-is-appearing', or the creator-in-itself (i.e. does the chain of causality, conceived in our prevalent usage inevitably lead to the trap of the Causa Sui, or the final, or original Cause, from whence the notion of the creator deity arises?)?

If one slowly reflects on the above, and in the spirit of experimentation enters into their own experience of thinking, it will bring about the beginnings of a reordering of linguigrammaticosemantic- there's a word for you-- awareness which can lead to the beginnings of freedom and liberation in thought and experience. I firmly believe, as a matter of my own experience, that the riddles of that elusive nature which we deem "genius" begin to manifest from that freedom. The creative potential liberates itself from unconscious conditioning.

For a better world,
Kristoff Olafsson








#463 07/07/03 07:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 306
Perhaps we can interject a bit of controversy into an otherwise dull topic.

All these arts of divination, like numerology, vedic astrology, runes, i-ching, etc., when done correctly and interpreted correctly have validity. That they have validity is due to the notion that free will does not exist.

The characters that make up a name, the position of the planets, do not in themselves, cause events to happen. There are no coincidences and these seemingly unrelated events are associated together, not through causality, but synchronicity.

We only have the illusion of free will. Or if we really do have free will, it's actually quite irrelevant.

In all the dimensions that make up the physical, astral, and causal planes, (all of this constitutes Maya or the Matrix) we think we are responsible for our actions. ("You've already made the choice, you only need to understand why you made the choice." - but is that really choice???)

The illuison of free will is what drives karma which in turn drives Maya. At the highest level (Pure Consciousness) from which energy emanates as Maya, there is no free will. Everything has been predetermined and we're all acting out scripts on the universal stage. Maya is a dream (or computer simulation) of Brahman, the One who created all this.

The whole rationale for karma is to provide lessons for learning experiences. The true self, or Atman, is here to experience the many variations of karmic game-playing in order to learn. These roles that we assume in each lifetime tend to be scripted affairs. Randomness just would not do since it is a waste of time to re-experience a karmic lesson that's already been learned.

The key to becoming liberated from karma is to realize the futility of free will. There is no do-er. For example, you can't hate someone because of what they did to you. They were just trying to learn the lesson or set themselves up for a future one. The Atman is just tagging along for the ride as an objective observer. You become liberated from Maya (and the samsara of endless rebirths) when you realize there is nothing more for you to learn. But then that's all been predetermined anyway.

Admittedly though, most people enjoy playing the Maya game and don't want to leave it just yet. So you see, spiritual growth is just the accumulation of game points. The name of the game is to become liberated and become a siddha like - Super Sayan or Neo!!!

Do we gamers like it when we see the words:

GAME OVER

or do we play more rounds like the addicts that we are.

shr33m







#464 07/08/03 07:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 126
To clarify, you claim that karma derives from the lack of free will in "maya", and that to escape from maya we pass from lack of free will, into not having free will, and in both stages we act from a deterministic "script". The only difference than is that in one state we think we have, or CAN have, free will, and in the other we don't. To obfuscate matters still further you claim that we "are here for the purpose of learning". But then you say that it is Brahmin, the ultimate, from whence maya, as manifestation, proceeds, who is doing the learning. You sort of have this immanent dualism in our nature going here. How you equate this with the notion of free will-- for you the opinion of the lack thereof- does not seem clear to me. Nor does the reason why you brought any of that up in the first place.

I take it upon myself to say that free will does exist, it can exist. Most people do not possess it however- it is a matter of experience. It can be cultivated, and the only sort of free will worth consideration- not the metaphysically based, transcendent "soul" type of free agency-- follows upon an examination and an entering into, and a subsequent development of the nature of thinking. Using mindfulness and attention to our unconscious we can become aware of the psychic forces impelling us into our patterns of consciousness. And by bringing them into consciousness we can work upon them and shape them, and their consequent actions, on the basis of our Ideals- if I may so speak. Slowly, but surely, our consciousness and actions will change as a result, in the full light of consciousness and reason. You can either experience this or ignore it, even ignore the possibility of it. But for those who do experience this, it results in the sort of freedom I'm talking about. In fact, 'free will' MEANS NOTHING apart from experience. Getting trapped in metaphysical logics surrounding 'free will' is what has hampered its development in most people. In truth, their is no way to argue against this-- either you experience it or you don't; that is the whole of which one can argue about. No amount of discursive rambling, nor the manipulations of logicians can deny the barest facts of experience. This is the ground from which all thinking must proceed if it is to lay claim to any sort of knowledge-of-phenomena.

Now, as an example of 'free will' at work: why did I write this? I wrote this primarily as an example of the sort of path which relates to my above commentary on approachin genius. My own "progress" on this path is still only the beginning- but also, the end-in-itself as long as we're thinking purposively and categorically- and developing my thoughts thorugh writing, in response to the wide panorama of divergent views, helps to bind together my thinking as a greater and greater referent of my experience, and my experience-of-thinking. Psychologically, I would presume that it also satifies a desire for expression- and my choosing of this form for that, in full consciousness, is entirely appropriate. Finally, I think that it benefits everyone to read words which point them towards an experience of themselves. I feel that this discursive method, while inadequate and easily deceptive, is the only medium which can adequately speak to a secular, 'Western' audience. If we were in a Zen Monastery I would not feel this need at all. If I were speaking to poets I'd speak in poetry. To engineers, I might even draw them a diagram...but the medium 'is not' the experience. Remember this and be well,
KO









#465 07/08/03 08:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
quote:
Originally posted by Kristoff Olafsson:
I take it upon myself to say that free will does exist, it can exist. Most people do not possess it however- it is a matter of experience. It can be cultivated, and the only sort of free will worth consideration- not the metaphysically based, transcendent "soul" type of free agency-- follows upon an examination and an entering into, and a subsequent development of the nature of thinking. Using mindfulness and attention to our unconscious we can become aware of the psychic forces impelling us into our patterns of consciousness. And by bringing them into consciousness we can work upon them and shape them, and their consequent actions, on the basis of our Ideals- if I may so speak. Slowly, but surely, our consciousness and actions will change as a result, in the full light of consciousness and reason. You can either experience this or ignore it, even ignore the possibility of it. But for those who do experience this, it results in the sort of freedom I'm talking about. In fact, 'free will' MEANS NOTHING apart from experience. Getting trapped in metaphysical logics surrounding 'free will' is what has hampered its development in most people. In truth, their is no way to argue against this-- either you experience it or you don't; that is the whole of which one can argue about. No amount of discursive rambling, nor the manipulations of logicians can deny the barest facts of experience. This is the ground from which all thinking must proceed if it is to lay claim to any sort of knowledge-of-phenomena.

Now, as an example of 'free will' at work: why did I write this? I wrote this primarily as an example of the sort of path which relates to my above commentary on approachin genius. My own "progress" on this path is still only the beginning- but also, the end-in-itself as long as we're thinking purposively and categorically- and developing my thoughts thorugh writing, in response to the wide panorama of divergent views, helps to bind together my thinking as a greater and greater referent of my experience, and my experience-of-thinking. Psychologically, I would presume that it also satifies a desire for expression- and my choosing of this form for that, in full consciousness, is entirely appropriate. Finally, I think that it benefits everyone to read words which point them towards an experience of themselves. I feel that this discursive method, while inadequate and easily deceptive, is the only medium which can adequately speak to a secular, 'Western' audience. If we were in a Zen Monastery I would not feel this need at all. If I were speaking to poets I'd speak in poetry. To engineers, I might even draw them a diagram...but the medium 'is not' the experience. Remember this and be well,
KO


Hmmmm.... I would describe this as "linguistic complexity masquerading as intellectual insight."


You really shed no light whatsoever on the question of free will. So you are saying that there are people who don't have any free will whatsoever, whose actions are completely deterministic? Show me these people! Right now!!

And the process you describe for cultivating free will, is just a prescription for "mindfulness" which has been re-hashed in thousands of different forms, by lots of different people, including on this website. There's nothing new or insightful there.

I like how you say "I presume it satisfies a desire for expression..."
You sound kind of out of touch with yourself...

A better philosophical point to think about: who is it, exactly, that has free will anyway? That's the crux of it. How are you defining this "I". You presume an "I" in relation to "thought", and never bother to define what that is or what you are talking about. What are you talking about?


Just trying to help you become a genius,

Garic








#466 07/09/03 12:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,631
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,631
People are trying to become a geniuses are they? Hmmmm

Advice:

Fake it until you make it. Naaa doesn't sound right.
A long journey that starts with small steps and eventually brings you to yourself. Naaaa, not really advice. That sounds more like insight.

When you still yourself you will hear the answer. Nope that's still insight.

Believe in yourself, and get out of your way. Yeah, now that's my advice.

Iam2






#467 07/09/03 05:06 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
quote:
Originally posted by Iam2:

Believe in yourself, and get out of your way. Yeah, now that's my advice.

Iam2


Dude, no, that's like...Paul's advice. Remember? Like...all that stuff in say...NATURAL BRILLIANCE that he talks about...?






#468 07/09/03 02:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,631
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,631

I never claimed to be the originator of any of those ideas. It's cool if that's what's in the NB book / course. I still haven't activated the NB book, but I think I used it while practicing the PR step. However, that advice must be in the PR material and is definitely on the PR forum, and it follows naturally from NLP and reducing negative internal talk.

OOOOPs. I did, I did say "my advice".

Or maybe I should say Whoa me and Paul think the same way.

Or maybe I just exhibited my own psychic ability to tap into the universal (or just Paul's) wisdom.


Keep knowing, growing and going.
Iam2







#469 08/14/03 11:08 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 10
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 10
More reviews on the course... come on... it's so good yet only one person really gives a positiver review...


I want to buy the genius code, but I not shure yet


To tell you the truth it would make me more angry to waste my time and commit myself to the course than acctually pay for it. Hate puttin trust and time in something to have it not reek any benefits.


The problem with the material LSC has to offer is that the effectivity is very subjective and difficult to measure, which at the pices charged for some people presents a problem.


any more reviews??






#470 08/14/03 11:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 10
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 10
On another topic...


Why does LSC not offer the deluxe version of the course that other web pages offer?






#471 08/20/03 02:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 313
The deluxe version offered by other sites is not something we publish, although Learning Strategies has given them permission to offer it.






#472 08/31/03 10:30 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Dantian,

I know this is a cliche, but you will get out of the Genius Code what you put into it.

You can certainly reap benefits from reading the Einstein Factor and doing the exercises in there.

Essentially, what you are doing is free-associating and describing aloud your internal experience. This activity, I think, strengthens interconnectivity between the normal, cognitive linguistic self and the sort of free-wheeling, visual, dream-self. You will develop skills, certainly, from practicing this. How you use it and how creative you can be with it is up to you.

I have not continued using it, but that is just me. I think that many people can find it very, very useful and rewarding. I don't think it'll be a waste of your time. If anything, it's a very interesting course.

Stephen







#473 09/12/03 04:24 PM
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504
Learning Strategies
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504
The "Deluxe" version came up...

Next month we will introduce the Genius Code Accelerator.

If you've purchased the Genius Code from us and if we have permission to send email to you, then you will receive information on the Accelerator in mid-October.

I've just listened to two of the eight CDs, and if you like the Genius Code, you'll love the Accelerator.

More then...








#474 11/01/03 07:12 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2
Genius can be measured through creative and inventive results, what is the end result. Imagine solving a problem in a new and creative way. We do it all the time and sometimes act upon it. There are more Genius's out there than what people think there are. Having vast knowledge and a vast vocabulary does not mean Genius. I look at genius as delivering his/her imagination into reality. Example: Why is Einstein so popular in this field? He figured out a way to communicate his imagination and ideas through the art of math. This can be marketed easily to the masses. Even though others have imagined greater things but didn't know how to communicate those imaginations. Artist are poor until they figure out a way to communicate their ideas. I find that the Genius Code works in building this base, ie. collecting, organizing and constructing alternate information, from there it is up to the person to strive for those results. The Genius code works those, I believe, who want to enhance themselves constructively to reach results through communicating ideas.






#475 11/06/03 04:01 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3
Per Kristoff Olafssons post:

Thanks for your post. Thanks for questioning.

I recommend taking the Avatar 9-day Course if someone wants to rediscover free will and experience the creator (you) behind all your creations (mental, physical, life circumstances, etc.).

You also get a few simple tools to discover the transparent beliefs that are creating aspects of your life and creating your current definition of self, and tools that allow you to insert and delete beliefs at will. You are not asked to subscribe to or reject a belief system or truth-teaching you already have in order to use the tools.

The course is faster than digesting all the teachings and books mentioned in the post and it will ensure that what is learned is experiential. Web site is avatarepc.com. Download the book Living Deliberately for free.

Note: The use of the word "enlightenment" on the avatar website is unnecessary, hypish, and misleading in my opinion, but I think it is a great course and completely priceless. I wish everyone knew what the course allows you to experience and know. Check it out if you wish.








#476 11/06/03 05:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5
If you want the gist of Avatar you can get it much cheaper here:
http://www.sourcecourse.com/order.htm

You might also want to have a broader context:
http://www.scientology-kills.org/Avatar/pg_1/pg_1.htm






Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Wendy_Greer 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5