How to Defeat Kolrami (Blog)

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I suppose not everyone is visual. That makes me wonder now... are there text based porn sites out there?? Hmm.....

Others have been mentioning "Romance novels" but that is a bit slow for porn in my opinion. But apart from that there are real text based porn sites out there too where there is not much delay before getting into the action. Or sites that have both stories and images. Those exist as well, of course.

[zetta]

I guess most people like their porn visual because they aren't looking for information or instructions.

Anyway, the marketing method paul described was altering the content, so that machines will give you better results. Although the clients may see better results in form of page views, they may also have damaged the content in the process. I could imagine marketing methods that are more playful, like connecting to people interested in the content or write a guest post for an other blog. If you need to make people aware of your great creations, use a way that's as playful and authentic as your content.

[Datum]

I think Steve oversimplifies this and Paul overcomplicates this. There is no formula for being successful. Most self-help books authors usually become successful by teaching success. Steve is a perfect example of that. Another famous example is Robert Kiyosaki who only become reach by teaching how to become reach. Success comes in many forms, and if having fun works for some, determination, hard work, and desire to be number one will work for others (Chris Gardner). One thing for sure the big part of success is having faith in your product/service and being at the right place at the right time (this one is probably more important than anything else). I am sorry to say this, but success resembles lottery in many ways.

I would like to add to my post a word or two about fun. Doing something for fun make you relaxed and more aware, almost Zen-like, - it usually happens when you like what you do but do not care about the outcome. I am sure many of you felt it before. Playing to win usually associated with trying too hard. And when you try too hard you become aggravated, agitated, and very narrow-minded. Tense fighter vs. relaxed fighter. Given that both fighters are equally skilled, chances are the relaxed fighter will win. So, in my opinion, you must care about winning but learn to get into Zen-like state of mind.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pjhaggerty

When steve focused on making money, he lost a lot of money. When he focused on providing value, he made a lot of money.

Seems to me you all should be focused on providing value to others.

Actually, I think it tends to move in cycles.

There is a certain stage when the optimal approach is to do it for the love of it.

Then there is a certain stage when you need to focus on stuff like marketing, monetisation, reducing inefficiencies etc.

Then the cycle goes on, and at some point, you'll need to come back to the love of it etc etc.

Or to rethinking what you want to do at all. Eg one day, it is possible that Steve may stop doing whatever he has been doing so far, because he has decided that there's something more worthwhile for him to be doing.

---------

Most things in life work like that. People hunting for the perfect strategy never find it, because things are always developing and changing, and even if you find the perfect strategy, it's only perfect for a certain period of time.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by SatvikBeri

They're traditionally called "Romance novels."

Only some romance novels are pornographic. Some are almost entirely devoid of actual sex and don't go beyond kissing! And some can get pretty direct, sexually speaking. (There are even terms in the publishing industry to describe each level of eroticism, kind of like a movie rating system.)

Generally the term for what's being discussed here is "erotic fiction" or "erotic romance". The latter will have some elements of people falling in love or being in love. The former may not. Depending on the author, they may be equally graphic.

I'm just saying.

(Sorry for the off-topicness.)

As for the question of visual vs written, I tend to prefer written content. If something really needs illustrations, I don't mind that, but how to cook brown rice is not something that needs pictures, IMHO, nor are most of Steve's articles. (And for the record, I am an extremely visual person; the reason I know about erotica and romance is I used to do covers for a publisher of that kind of material ).

[Lioness]

Nice to have you back ALG.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

People hunting for the perfect strategy never find it, because things are always developing and changing, and even if you find the perfect strategy, it's only perfect for a certain period of time.

I agree, but this applies more to the mechanics of an operation that must be tweaked and adjusted. I think Steve's overarching philosophy of focus on value, give more than you take and don't try to squeeze the maximum dollars from every transaction is one that will pay the most dividends in the long run. It may not guarantee success if you don't have the right product, service, delivery system, etc. in place at the right time, but it seems to me there is a powerful kind of karma in it that rings true as a general practice.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually, I think it tends to move in cycles.

There is a certain stage when the optimal approach is to do it for the love of it.

Then there is a certain stage when you need to focus on stuff like marketing, monetisation, reducing inefficiencies etc.

Then the cycle goes on, and at some point, you'll need to come back to the love of it etc etc.

Or to rethinking what you want to do at all. Eg one day, it is possible that Steve may stop doing whatever he has been doing so far, because he has decided that there's something more worthwhile for him to be doing.

---------

Most things in life work like that. People hunting for the perfect strategy never find it, because things are always developing and changing, and even if you find the perfect strategy, it's only perfect for a certain period of time.

Great post. In my PD work, I have realized that what works in this moment may not work in the next. And furthermore, what works for me may not work for the next person. When I decided to become the Self-Confidence Advocate, I started posting lots of deeply inspired "advice"... I cannot just be conscious of how my advice helps me; I had to consider seriously whether it was helping others. And I couldn't help but notice that sometimes the fact that it didn't help others wasn't due to necessarily to the person's finitude, but rather the finitude of the advice, the strategy.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Lioness

I think Steve's overarching philosophy of focus on value, give more than you take and don't try to squeeze the maximum dollars from every transaction is one that will pay the most dividends in the long run.

Not so sure about that.

I'm a bit of a corporate warrior, been there, done that, seen that.

Fact is - there are many large corporate organisations which will take as much as you will give, and squeeze you as much as you are squeezable, and then they will give you back as little as they can, to still retain your services.

It is the nature of companies, to make as much money as they can while incurring the lowest costs possible.

If you work for a company (and zillions of people around the world do), you have to plan your personal strategy around that. There are many possible personal strategies, but giving and giving more and more without the expectation of getting back more and more (either in terms of money or other kinds of reward) is unlikely to be a good one.

Could hurt your personal life badly. Not to mention health.

The nature of large organisations is that employees who do a lot of good work (i.e give a lot of value) aren't necessarily rewarded or recognised for it. Most likely their contributions will be recognised by their immediate colleagues or their immediate boss ... but whether that translates into anything could depend on a range of other factors.

[impaul99]

Another thing to consider here, which I was just thinking about today is that one pattern I have seen repeated MANY times with people who don't make a lot of money is that they have a deep, unconscious belief of "undeservingness".

Maybe when Steve began focusing on providing value, it was his way of building up that "Deservingness" thermostat within his subconscious.

By the time he had hundreds of articles on his website and saw millions of views coming in, a part of him went "Holy crap there are so many people reading my site. I'm helping so many people! I'm worthy. I deserve the wealth I always wanted." at an unconscious level and POOF the money started to manifest.

My point being that it may have nothing to do with actually providing value, but rather with feeling an inner feeling of deservingness.

Last year I had a situation where I was making money on all kinds of projects, but NOBODY would ever pay me on time. There were always excuses and "legitimate" delays. I was getting so frustrated with everyone, but they all had excuses.

Then I had a PSYCH-K session with my instructor Sandra and we discovered that I tested "weak" for the belief "I deserve to get paid on time." at the unconscious level. We balanced out that belief, and within less than a week I began receiving payments from everyone.

I'm not saying providing value is not important, but I'm just saying maybe it has a lot more to do with self-esteem and "deservingness" than the value you provide.

Maybe "Kolrami" is just your own subconscious mind. If you choose to believe that the only way to make money is to not focus on making money, then so it is in your reality.

[Jonathan Browne]

What's interesting about this article though is that Kolrami is just a being who is unstoppably good at playing a strategy game.

But then this article takes that and translated it into some sort of amorphous metaphor for "the competition". As if Kolrami respresents the inevitable that someone will always be better than you.

But what if you could become kolrami?

I mean, the thing about Steve, not to diminish his accomplishments, is that he is a middle of the road type of success story.

His strategy of playing to a draw has given him exactly the kind of success that you would expect from that. I wouldn't really even say he's playing for a draw, since he himself has said that he's really not even playing the game against anyone at all.

So really the metaphor doesn't even fit. He's not even playing against Kolrami. He's playing a game with no competition.

The result though is that the rewards financially are smaller. He's sort of just scooping up the things on the sidelines that other people ignore which has snowballed into a pretty sizable amount simply because everyone else continues to ignore those things because they don't have some extremely large payoff.

It doesn't bother him though to be on that level.

Is there anything wrong with pursuing epic levels of success though?

An example would be someone like Will Smith. There's a big difference in the thinking of someone on that level to someone like Steve Pavlina.

In a sense, someone like Will Smith IS kolrami. He stated in an interview once "No one is going to work harder than me. If me and you are on a treadmill next to each other i'll DIE before I let you outrun me."

The dude is absolutely rocking it though, I don't think that serves as a warning against trying to become kolrami.

If at some point he decided to chill out and not be so competitive, it's not like he can't do that...

If anything by being determined to be THE WINNER, it means that you have to set a new level of performance higher than has ever been accomplished.

Isn't this ultimately the most powerful way to serve the higher needs of the overall body?

By setting an entirely new level of performance you then create a new definition of what is possible for every cell in the body.

[ellie]

Originally Posted by impaul99

eling an inner feeling of deservingness.

Last year I had a situation where I was making money on all kinds of projects, but NOBODY would ever pay me on time. There were always excuses and "legitimate" delays. I was getting so frustrated with everyone, but they all had excuses.

Then I had a PSYCH-K session with my instructor Sandra and we discovered that I tested "weak" for the belief "I deserve to get paid on time." at the unconscious level. We balanced out that belief, and within less than a week I began receiving payments from everyone.

I

God that sounds like me. What steps did you take to balance it out?

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not so sure about that.

I'm a bit of a corporate warrior, been there, done that, seen that.

Fact is - there are many large corporate organisations which will take as much as you will give, and squeeze you as much as you are squeezable, and then they will give you back as little as they can, to still retain your services.

It is the nature of companies, to make as much money as they can while incurring the lowest costs possible.

If you work for a company (and zillions of people around the world do), you have to plan your personal strategy around that. There are many possible personal strategies, but giving and giving more and more without the expectation of getting back more and more (either in terms of money or other kinds of reward) is unlikely to be a good one.

Could hurt your personal life badly. Not to mention health.

The nature of large organisations is that employees who do a lot of good work (i.e give a lot of value) aren't necessarily rewarded or recognised for it. Most likely their contributions will be recognised by their immediate colleagues or their immediate boss ... but whether that translates into anything could depend on a range of other factors.

Very good point, again. I've heard too many stories about people giving and not taking care of themselves and hurting for it.

But I don't think Steve is suggesting that. He is just suggesting leaving a little "extra value" on the table. I particularly like the part he mentions about not "extracting maximum value" from our relationships... because I do have issues with focusing too much on my romantic relationships, sometimes even my other close friendships, and... now I think about it, it's quite that - an attempt to extract maximum value from an interaction. It has gotten me into a lot of trouble.... seeing the other person as highly valuable, it's easy to want to extract maximum from them. But they're also finite beings and people. What's maximum value for you isn't for them. So you have to strike a balance. Where you value you something, you can't try too hard to have it... do try to have it, but also let it be what it wants to be, and let the relationship balance out... because it is, after all, a relationship between two equal beings with each their own desires and needs. And that's part of the beauty of it... because even though it isn't easy or as pleasant and comfortable as another person just falling into your lap and perfectly matching for all of your desires and needs, there is a beauty of the dance between two equal partners. With great power comes great responsibility, said my swing dance instructor of being a lead. lol. There is beauty in being able to let go of a person you love and desire and letting them be their beautiful self and dance solo when they need to, dance with others when they need to, dance a dance you don't want to... when you realize all of this, then you actually get more of what you want than when you wanted it more, because it's more accurate to life, more appreciative of life's complexity, more respecting of our own finitude.... and people, of course, want that in you. But you can let go the relationships that aren't working for you until they do, and focus on appreciating and discovering what *is* working at the moment. To be powerful means to be very responsible, very mature, able to let go and flow... and that feels a deeper great than the great of kissing someone, even though a kiss is very deep in its own way... it's for a reason: because a sense of true power over your life is the greatest thing of all.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

An example would be someone like Will Smith. There's a big difference in the thinking of someone on that level to someone like Steve Pavlina.

In a sense, someone like Will Smith IS kolrami. He stated in an interview once "No one is going to work harder than me. If me and you are on a treadmill next to each other i'll DIE before I let you outrun me."

The dude is absolutely rocking it though, I don't think that serves as a warning against trying to become kolrami.

I used to be very competitive, when young. Less and less competitive, as I grow older.

Not in the sense of producing lousier results, but in the sense that I'm not interested in doing something for the sake of outshining or defeating someone else.

The way I see it, I *am* playing my own game, and generally, most other people are (most of the time anyway). Therefore the idea of competition is somewhat meaningless, because the other guy isn't necessarily even competing with you, and is quite likely motivated by other things.

Eg you are running on a treadmill next to me, and you are determined to outrun me - you see this as a competition. Actually I might not even have noticed you.

I might be lost in my own thoughts while running, or absorbed in listening to the music on my iPod, or I might be sticking to my own pre-determined workout of how far and how fast to run - irrespective of anything YOU are doing.

This extends to so many other things in life. Eg you compete to be the top executive in your company, and you see your competitors as Tom, Dick and Harry.

Unknown to you, Tom is not interested in competition at all and actually just harbors the secret wish to be a full-time musician. Meanwhile Dick just wants to collect a paycheck and not work too hard so he can spend more time with his family. As for Harry, he secretly despises the company and has been planning all this while to change jobs and get into a bigger, better company. He's not interested in competing with you at all.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by ellie

God that sounds like me. What steps did you take to balance it out?

We used a number of PSYCH-K balances to balance it out. With PSYCH-K we were able to identify which unconscious limiting beliefs were responsible for me not believing that I deserve to get paid on time. The beliefs we balanced actually had nothing to do with getting paid or being deserving. That's why I like that method so much, because it finds the ROOT cause, not the surface symptom.

I can't remember the exact set of beliefs we balanced out for me, but even if I did it would make NO difference to you as your set will be totally different anyways.

[Jonathan Browne]

Well I don't think it matters whether or not people actually notice your competitiveness.

The point is really that someone like will smith is competing with life itself, in a sense. He's competing with what is considered possible.

I mean it's not like he tried to take down other people or compete against people as in they lose and he wins.

But he studies the patterns and then goes in completely determined to set a new standard for what's possible.

I mean it's like, to be the first black president like Obama, you have to compete. He didn't go through his entire life trying to compete with John Mccain so he could win.

But what he did do was he played to win and he competed with various opponents by both playing his own game, AND competing against them directly.

Sometimes you have to actually directly compete against an opponent to get a particular result you might like. I'm not a fan of just saying well i'm too scared to do that so i'm gonna just avoid all competition.

Where there is competition, there is usually ridiculously huge rewards.

[impaul99]

I was just reading a book called "Creating Money" and in the particular paragraph I was reading, they were talking about choosing the path that you perceive to be most joyful to you, not the path that you perceive will make you the most money.

This just made me think about something.

In life we can only make decisions in the present moment, and then all our decisions string together into a series of events which then produce results. But at the basic level it all comes down to one decision at a time.

So, defeating "Kolrami" isn't about the whole game, but about the next move - one at a time.

Now, lets say we are presented with 4 options in this present moment, and our logical mind sees the options as follows, with $ signs indicating what IT thinks is the likelyhood of making money on each of the choices:

Option 1 - $$
Option 2 - $$$$$
Option 3 - $
Option 4 - $$$

Based on this logical analysis, if our primary purpose was to make the most money, we might choose Option 2 since it has the highest income potential.

However, if we look at the "Joy" factor of each of these decisions, we might see the options as follows (with 9 representing joy).

Option 1 - 9999999
Option 2 - 9
Option 3 - 999
Option 4 - 9999

So basically, if we were trying to go after money we would take Option 2 since it has the highest $, (but the lowest joy rating). But if we were to go after joy, it would be Option 1 which is NOT the highest $ rating.

So really, what we are saying is to go after JOY (9's) in any given moment, rather than MONEY ($'2).

Now what I was just thinking is that in REALITY we can't predict which option will pay us the most money. The logical brain is a horrible predictor of such things. So really, we are not choosing JOY > MAKING MONEY... we're choosing JOY > PERCEPTION OF MAKING MONEY.

In reality, the REAL likelyhood of us making money might be:

Option 1 - $$$$$$$
Option 2 - $
Option 3 - $$$$$
Option 4 - $$$$$$

Essentially what I'm saying is that the EGO mind, the logical/rational mind is NOT a good predictor of profit/money. A better predictor is our intuitive/creative mind, and the way it speaks to us is by making one of the choices more joyful, fun, exciting.

[jacare]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Essentially what I'm saying is that the EGO mind, the logical/rational mind is NOT a good predictor of profit/money. A better predictor is our intuitive/creative mind, and the way it speaks to us is by making one of the choices more joyful, fun, exciting.

I don't think making money is a "spiritual" process, so much as a mechanical process.

Simply, making money is a matter of building a good "money catcher". For example, a minimum wage job is a basic money catcher. But it is a limited money catcher, since you are limited to the hours in your day, inventory is always running out, and you are selling cheap. Building a business is a much better money catcher, since you can scale it.

Building a business where there is a great demand, and a strategic delivery is the best money catcher. You will see most great businesses started out as something entirely different, and then did a pivot. Apple was not what it is now in the PC business, they are what they are now because of iPod and iPhone, and the strategic delivery of apps and music. And there was an absolute mob of people waiting to receive this product offering.

What I'm saying is that I believe money itself has nothing to do with spiritual development. Money is neutral. Money flows to the highest demand and the best delivery systems of the demand.

Where spiritual development comes in is giving ourselves permission to do the tasks to seek out the demand, and to do the trial and error to find the most strategic delivery systems for the demand. We can't do that effectively if we have a subconscious voice in our head telling us bad things about ourselves. Thus, when you went to your coach, and changed your subconscious beliefs about being paid on time, you probably became more assertive to your customers, or other subtle nonverbal cues that made it clear to your customers that you were to be paid on time, thus improving your business efficiency system.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by jacare

Thus, when you went to your coach, and changed your subconscious beliefs about being paid on time, you probably became more assertive to your customers, or other subtle nonverbal cues that made it clear to your customers that you were to be paid on time, thus improving your business efficiency system.

No, there was absolutely no communication between myself and the people who owed me money at that time. Meaning, they all just started paying. I didn't have to call them, email them, hound them etc. Like for example, one person just sent money via Paypal without any interaction with me. Others sent me checks etc.

This wasn't an issue of me not knowing how to ask people for money and then all of a sudden knowing how to ask them. It was an issue where they simply COULDN'T pay me... For example, the person who tried to pay me by Paypal would try to pay and Paypal wouldn't allow him to use his AMEX to pay, which is where he had money. I then had to ask him again, and he kept saying something was wrong with my payment link.

I tried fixing the link several times and nothing, it would still have a problem. I then had to ask him to call Paypal to find out what's wrong. He called Paypal and they told him it was probably a problem with my account. I called Paypal and they said my account is fine, it's gotta be his account. I couldn't help thought since they won't tell me anything about his account.

Then he tried again and called Paypal again. This time they said it's his AMEX. He called AMEX and they told him it's Paypal.

This kind of retardedness just kept going on for weeks. People just COULDN'T pay me. Not that they didn't want to... it's like there was an invisible wall between me and getting money into my bank accounts. And it wasn't just with Paypal, there were many other examples.

Once I did my PSYCH-K balance, all those problems just seemed to melt away.

[pjhaggerty]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not so sure about that.

I'm a bit of a corporate warrior, been there, done that, seen that.

Fact is - there are many large corporate organisations which will take as much as you will give, and squeeze you as much as you are squeezable, and then they will give you back as little as they can, to still retain your services.

It is the nature of companies, to make as much money as they can while incurring the lowest costs possible.

If you work for a company (and zillions of people around the world do), you have to plan your personal strategy around that. There are many possible personal strategies, but giving and giving more and more without the expectation of getting back more and more (either in terms of money or other kinds of reward) is unlikely to be a good one.

Could hurt your personal life badly. Not to mention health.

The nature of large organisations is that employees who do a lot of good work (i.e give a lot of value) aren't necessarily rewarded or recognised for it. Most likely their contributions will be recognised by their immediate colleagues or their immediate boss ... but whether that translates into anything could depend on a range of other factors.

In that environment, giving more and more might not be the best way to deliver value.

Obviously it's not just about delivering value, but about maintaining the ability to deliver value.

Say someone sacrifices their health and personal life for the sake of delivering a huge burst of value. Although in the short term it might seem like they're doing good, in the long term they're not. They would be hurting their ability to deliver value in the long term.

Also, if it's important to help others, sometimes it might be necessary to play politics etc. to help more people. Rarely, of course, because these are side considerations to giving value. But it's possible to give much more value as a vice president of a company than it is working in the mailroom, no matter how good you are in the mailroom.

[jacare]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Once I did my PSYCH-K balance, all those problems just seemed to melt away

Impaul, what is a PSYCH-K balance? What are you suggesting here:

1. That the outside world is just a reflection of your PSYCH-K balance, and you can somehow manipulate other minds with it?

or..

2. The outside world is a figment of your imagination, and you need to do a PSYCH-K balance to adjust your imagination?

These are the kinds of things I kind of want to believe in, because it would make my life a lot easier if I could PSYCH-K a couple of million dollars instantly.

[cortocabezas1111]

Kudus on this article Pavlina. Good job. I spent the morning reading it and sharing it with my roommate's girlfriend who also enjoyed it immensely.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by jacare

Impaul, what is a PSYCH-K balance? What are you suggesting here:

1. That the outside world is just a reflection of your PSYCH-K balance, and you can somehow manipulate other minds with it?

or..

2. The outside world is a figment of your imagination, and you need to do a PSYCH-K balance to adjust your imagination?

These are the kinds of things I kind of want to believe in, because it would make my life a lot easier if I could PSYCH-K a couple of million dollars instantly.

There are different ways of looking at it. The easiest way to look at it is that there are 3 different "minds" at work here:
(1) Your Conscious Mind
(2) Your Subconscious Mind
(3) The Superconscious Mind

You conscious mind is obviously the one you're thinking with right now. It makes decisions and choices and "controls" some of who you are etc. We all have the illusion that our conscious mind is in control, but it's not. It is only a little bit in control.

Secondly you have your subconscious mind, which controls things like your heart beating, or making you throw up when you've drunk too much alcohol or even controls what you see/don't see via the reticular activating system, etc.

At the subconscious level is where PSYCH-K does most of it's work. Our beliefs control everything, from how we think, to how our body expresses it's DNA (See Biology of Belief book by Bruce Lipton). Most of us try to make changes at the Conscious level, but really it is at the subconscious level that they need to be made.

PSYCH-K is a method of "reprogramming" your subconscious beliefs. That way, once you have the subconscious mind aligned with your conscious mind, then you're not feeling like you're spinning your wheels. You no longer self-sabotage etc.

If that was ALL that was going on, then PSYCH-K would be an incredible tool already. You could finally get yourself to DO what you WANT to do without feeling like a part of you is stopping you - which is exactly what happens by the way if your subconscious is not aligned with your conscious.

However, there is a 3rd component as well. That component is the Superconscious mind which permeates through everything and everyone. It links everything and everyone together in the Universe. When you align your Subconscious mind, it also communicates to the Superconscious mind what you really want. See the Superconscious mind doesn't really typically listen to the Conscious mind...it listens to the subconscious (the subconscious mind is at least 1 Million to 1 Billion times as fast/powerful as the conscious).

So when your subconscious mind believes/thinks something, then the Superconsciuos mind goes to work to try to align it with other minds in to make what you want happen. It's just like if a cell in your body wants something like water, then the body makes that happen.

This doesn't mean that you "CONTROL" other people's mind's in some way against their will. It simply means that if for example I do a PSYCH-K session related to my business and my business is doing web design for example, then people who were already looking for web design will all of a sudden notice me.

Like maybe they'll be browsing online and they'll actually click on an Ad that I have somewhere instead of ignoring it, because their subconscious mind - through the Superconscious - allows them to see "Hey, this guy does web design and he would be a good fit for what you're looking for within the budget you want to spend."

A subjective reality model is very similar to this, but slightly different. Either way, we are ALL connected. That is something that both New Age spirituality, religion AND science all agree on. The illusion of separation is just that....an illusion.

Hope that helps to explain it.

[freddy]

Really enjoyed the artical Steve. Thank you for writting it.

[jacare]

Originally Posted by impaul99

There are different ways of looking at it. The easiest way to look at it is that there are 3 different "minds" at work here:
(1) Your Conscious Mind
(2) Your Subconscious Mind
(3) The Superconscious Mind

....

Hope that helps to explain it.

Impaul, thanks for taking the time to explain this. It actually makes sense to me. I'm going to look into this further.

J

[sanjay71]

very nice explaination impaul99. and i am very satisfy with your answer. but here the question arise. if it is so simple than why not the teacher who teach the Psych-k course are more successful. because i know someone who is a teacher but also doing some part time job to fill the gap which is left by the practicing teaching psych-k. i mean she is not able to earn the required money so doing the part time job. she does not have any limiting beliefs and she is interested to earn the money and also doing her best to make the money but still doing the part timejob. why there is no big noise around this concept like secret or google+ or star wars. because it change the life of the person. and if it is so effective than everybody is going towards it.

am i wrong in certain point ? please reply.

[inverse Paranoid]

Originally Posted by sanjay71

very nice explaination impaul99. and i am very satisfy with your answer. but here the question arise. if it is so simple than why not the teacher who teach the Psych-k course are more successful. because i know someone who is a teacher but also doing some part time job to fill the gap which is left by the practicing teaching psych-k. i mean she is not able to earn the required money so doing the part time job. she does not have any limiting beliefs and she is interested to earn the money and also doing her best to make the money but still doing the part timejob. why there is no big noise around this concept like secret or google+ or star wars. because it change the life of the person. and if it is so effective than everybody is going towards it.

am i wrong in certain point ? please reply.

I think sometimes we want a deeper experience of life rather than to just figure out what we want and then get it. Our primary intention wasn't to be born into this world, experience a bunch of contrasting experiences, and then one day learn to get everything we want by employing a single technique again and again. There's much more to life than that.

So, even when we find something that works for us, that something isn't going to work forever. Steve wrote an article about this called The Afternoon of Life and shares a very pertinent Wayne Dyer quote: "the solutions that work in the morning of our lives will eventually cease to work in the afternoon of our lives." And uber-successful executive coach and author Marshall Goldsmith echoes this sentiment in his bestseller What Got You Here Won't Get You There. The bottom line is that you are continually evolving, so the methods you use to take yourself from one experience of life to a vastly different one must evolve with you.

I got some very powerful results after taking the Basic/Advanced Psych-K seminars four years ago, but now I seldom even think to turn to Psych-K when I want to create a shift. My method of shifting has evolved, and the way that I approaching shifting now matches me much better than if I were to expect Psych-K to be my be-all, end-all answer.

Perhaps your friend has a part time job because s/he has more desires than the one s/he easily fulfills through teaching and practicing Psych-K. Perhaps s/he's a multifaceted human being who would not what to limit herself to the benefits of only one line of shifting. Maybe it's not an indicator that there's something that Pysch-K can't accomplish, but that she would gain more from the journey of building up her Psych-K practice (or whatever she chooses to do) brick-by-brick, than by magically having it all fall into her lap right away, and not having a chance to experience the in between times.

Paul seemed ready to shift his relationship with being paid on time, and Psych-K was likely the path of least resistance for creating this shift. He likely didn't have huge desires around truly experiencing the journey between never being paid on time and having everything come in with ease. But does he want to live his whole life that way? Would he truly enjoy his experience of life if it was simply, "I discovered I wanted this, then I used Psych-K to get it. Then I discovered I wanted this, and balanced out my limiting beliefs with Psych-K again. Then I decided I wanted this, and Psych-K kept on working..." and to just experience that repeatedly off into infinity? Wouldn't it be a boring life story to say, "Yeah, I just kept using Psych-K. No real ups and downs, just figuring out what I want and balancing for it"?

I think we all want a richer experience of life than that. That's why there's no magic panacea to life. There's only the living of it.

The cool part is that we get to choose what we focus on and deliberately create our experience if we so choose. So the living of it can get better and better and better... even as it sometimes seems to take a turn for the worse.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Savage

I threw out various tech ideas simply to suggest there are plenty of other media to explore. That doesn't mean everyone will be attracted to them. If you're overflowing with inspiration right where you are, then feel free to stay put. But generally what I see is that the body loves to expand in new areas, so if you feel your current area isn't the right spot for you, then look at your fears, and you'll see some hints about where the body is directing you to go next.

Well I wanted to ask Steve what he meant about this, but since he no longer posts here causes a problem.

Does anyone know what Steve meant by this? Paul?

Specifically "Look at your fears, and you'll see hints about where to go next". If you can't be bothered to go back, the context is, Steve and Paul were discussing how to choose what to do as a new entrepreneurial or career path.

Is Steve saying that the things that you fear are the things that might make good career paths?

[WadudaNura]

Steve, would you be willing to turn this article into a podcast?
And maybe give some more ideas of application?

[mikeschu]

This is one of those posts that holds a great key to transformation if you're at a point where you can use it. It's not about changing one aspect like career or finances or relationships. It's about literally rewriting your operating system. Instead of looking at symptoms and leaves, start looking at the whole tree, from root to branch to leaf.

The best way I can contribute to this conversation is to ask everyone, "What does Data really represent?" If you can answer the question both in the context of the blog post AND in a more general view, that will unlock a part of the transformation.

Even if you "get" this post, it may take a long while for this to happen. It's not an overnight thing, though it might appear to be that way. It took me since Steve started writing about subjective reality for me to just be able to see it. I still struggle with it, and I have had to go through a couple of life experiences for it to come into view, including reading a book or two in the past couple of weeks (no, not PDSP!) that showed reality in a completely different framework and shifted my perspective.

I highly doubt that Steve could have written this post six or seven years ago, just based on what he was writing about back then. He had to go through what he did to be able to write this. If I were to guess, he's gone through the change I'm talking about (and has said so in several posts).

I'd say let this one sink in, mull it over, and read it again in a few months. But don't fall into the trap of thinking this is about a specific issue.

[browland]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not so sure about that.

I'm a bit of a corporate warrior, been there, done that, seen that.

Fact is - there are many large corporate organisations which will take as much as you will give, and squeeze you as much as you are squeezable, and then they will give you back as little as they can, to still retain your services.

It is the nature of companies, to make as much money as they can while incurring the lowest costs possible.

If you work for a company (and zillions of people around the world do), you have to plan your personal strategy around that. There are many possible personal strategies, but giving and giving more and more without the expectation of getting back more and more (either in terms of money or other kinds of reward) is unlikely to be a good one.

Could hurt your personal life badly. Not to mention health.

The nature of large organisations is that employees who do a lot of good work (i.e give a lot of value) aren't necessarily rewarded or recognised for it. Most likely their contributions will be recognised by their immediate colleagues or their immediate boss ... but whether that translates into anything could depend on a range of other factors.

Too true.

A corporation is a sealed system though. Those who can see the value you produce have a conflict of interest because they can't reward you too much. That would hurt their departmental budget.

Your employer is your customer. They want to keep your services, but won't pay your more than they absolutely have to. So they won't spread the word about your awesome skills, neither will they shower you with lavish rewards.

So instead you hear: "you did a great job - here's a bonus that amounts to one week's salary, and a pay rise to cover inflation".

Steve talks about how Erin could raise her rates many times over, and she'd still have clients. I doubt many of those clients would have voluntarily paid her more than the quoted rate, just for doing a particularly great job. It was only when she broadened her client base that the right deals could be struck.

I think lessons such as "How to Defeat Kolrami" work at certain levels, and not others. I'm sure there's a nice metaphor about cells and the body they belong to