Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

Aragorn said:
Here's an video with Greg Jenkins interviewing Judy Wood. Jenkins might have some lack of awareness of certain things, and his paper has it's flaws, but in this interview it is Wood who appears like she is totally not knowing what she's talking about. Changing the subject, interrupting, not being able to provide coherent scientific explanations for her theories.

Sorry, but she does not come across as a real scientist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

Judy Wood is one of the first and foremost supporters of the hypothesis that so-called (imaginary) "Directed Energy Weapons" were used to destroy the World Trade Center Twin Towers on 9/11.

This topic is discussed and analyzed in this interview between Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins (of DC 9/11 Truth) on January 10th, 2007. The relevant features of Judy Wood's "hypothesis" are discussed and shown to be wholly inadequate and unscientific (ridiculous in fact!).

Many of Wood's weakly supported arguments rely on misinterpretations about "what happened" that are subsequently used to advance misleading explanations for "how it happened".

The topic covered in this interview is also dealt with extensively in Dr. Jenkins' paper: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (PDF), available at the following link...

Added: I don't know what you guys think, but after watching this I see no way that Wood would be capable of calculating anything. I mean, she doesn't even remember the numbers on the Kingdome comparison, which is one of her corner stones, saying that the numbers don't matter. Well, if you do a comparison, the numbers DO matter. Or, maybe the recent (supposed) coma has dumbed her down. On the other hand, she does come across as somewhat manipulative.
 
dant said:
Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine.

Here it is he who is unscientific. Breaking fundamental tenets of physics is not the same as "perpetual motion machine". At one point of history quantum theory broke "the fundamental laws of physics". But quantum theory is not being labeled as "perpetual motion machine". Between being able to destroy molecular structure of matter and "perpetual motion" there is a big difference. Lack of precision of thinking, and also drawing conclusions that are not based on strict scientific logic. Overstretching.

Moreover, physicists in their papers discuss the possibilities of "breaking the fundamental laws of physics" on a daily basis. We know that that these "laws" have their limits and their possible exceptions.
 
Laura said:
I think that something isn't being made clear and I just realized what it was: none of us thinks that Judy's evidence analysis is worth much. I think that it is a big part of the disinfo plan for her to collect the photos and testimonies about what happened that day and give it the "free energy/Hutchinson/Tesla" spin which we have been saying from the beginning is hogwash or whitewash. The MAIN point is the fact that the building turned to dust and all the photographic evidence of that point (not to mention that we all saw it happen with our eyes) and the anomalous side-effects all over the place.

Her attempts to prove her theory about "free energy" or "Tesla/Hutchison" is the big red herring. That's what Ark intended to approach with her, to point out that her collection of materials (photos, testimonies, etc) could be explained a completely different way.


This has helped me clarify two nagging thoughts I've had for a long time:

One...why is she still alive?
And two...who is this guy Hutchinson and what's he doing here????

Her claim of being able to demonstrate everyone of the high strangeness effects in Hutchinson's lab (and I've seen pictures of his lab...boy oh boy!) has never sat well with me. Yet this is the big pillar in her argument. Hutchinson can do it and I've seen it! Then it gets worse. It goes something like: well he just mixes and matches the various component waves you know, whatever he feels like that day...you know, he doesn't really understand it you know...but it all just happens. And I've seen it.

To my mind, not good enough.

Her next pillar are weather created anomalies...from tornadoes and hurricanes. This argument is equally weak. While a straw or piece of plywood through a tree is intriguing, it is far from sufficient proof for a directed energy hypothesis.

And if I understand McCanney correctly, Tesla never really dealt with "free" energy. What he did with his Tesla Tower was to tap into the electrical energy in the ionosphere.
 
I finally listened to the show last night. Wood was certainly interrupting everyone, but it was not as bad as I thought it was going to be, having followed this thread. That is, until Ark was introduced, then it went to another level. I thought everyone on the show was trying as hard as they could to get a flow of conversation going, but it just wouldn't happen with Wood's state of mind. It was a relief when Lisa Guilliani came on. But the whole disruptive atmosphere seemed to linger (even apart from Wood's fans continuing to call in during Lisa's time).

I've been meaning to read Wood's book for a while, but never got around to it. I've seen a few videos of her presentations. At this point, it seems that her book and stance are being used to divert attention away from the perpetrators (especially Israel's dominant role). Not in the chance that the perpetrators would be brought to justice through a court of law (I think that's highly unlikely), but in the court of public opinion. I think if a large percentage of the public became aware of their role, it would be disastrous for Israel (in terms of the huge grants they get from the U.S. and the protection to do whatever they want). And this seems to be part of the zealous march of getting a totalitarian police state in place in the U.S. especially and the rest of the world.

I think another thing Wood did on the show was to take up so much time and energy during the show that not much was left to examine other aspects of 911, like the Pentagon hit -- the weakest link in the whole sorry official story.

I agree that Wood's work is important in gathering specific evidence that the destruction of the WTC was no ordinary event. Whatever happened, it certainly wasn't done by "19 hijackers with box cutters" (7 or 8 of whom were still alive in 2002) as if we needed any more evidence added to the mountains available about 911 in its entirety.
 
Aragorn said:
Here's an video with Greg Jenkins interviewing Judy Wood. Jenkins might have some lack of awareness of certain things, and his paper has it's flaws, but in this interview it is Wood who appears like she is totally not knowing what she's talking about. Changing the subject, interrupting, not being able to provide coherent scientific explanations for her theories.

Sorry, but she does not come across as a real scientist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

It's actually totally ridiculous, because in that video, a lot of the time is spent debating with Jenkins about whether or not the "plume" as the towers disintegrate could have contained enough material to account for the mass of the building, when the REAL point is that the mass of the building clearly DISINTEGRATED! So you don't NEED to read Wood's book, just look at the disintegration of the towers and understand that this was not a normal building "pancake" collapse. If you really need or want more details, read the book.

p.s. That Jenkins guy is such a slimy piece of work.
 
Perceval said:
Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

Totally agree, except that Dr. Wood can and does deliver coherent speeches. But yeh, she should drop interviews.

http://vimeo.com/57923364
 
Kniall said:
Perceval said:
Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

Totally agree, except that Dr. Wood can and does deliver coherent speeches. But yeh, she should drop interviews.

http://vimeo.com/57923364


Yeah, just looking at another one (with my old 'pal' Theo Chalmers) where she actually does a decent job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmQ6OWMHTI

Maybe the problem is that she is unable to keep it together when she is being (of thinks that she is being) challenged. That's still a problem because she needs to be able to handle challenges.
 
Perceval said:
Kniall said:
Perceval said:
Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

Totally agree, except that Dr. Wood can and does deliver coherent speeches. But yeh, she should drop interviews.

http://vimeo.com/57923364


Yeah, just looking at another one (with my old 'pal' Theo Chalmers) where she actually does a decent job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmQ6OWMHTI

Maybe the problem is that she is unable to keep it together when she is being (of thinks that she is being) challenged. That's still a problem because she needs to be able to handle challenges.

This brings me to a something I want to mention.

From my personal experience, I have a real problem to discuss and explain something to somebody in a coherent way when I know (or think I know) that this person can not crasb what I'm trying to say at all. And it gets worst when I know (or think I know) that the other person does not even want to understand something that I want to say from the get go, but is rather trying something else, like to fooling me or make me look silly.

For example: When I'm engaging directly with people in my workplace and they ask me for example about my diet, something in me blocks me and makes me somehow afraid, with the result that I'm speechless and coherent thoughts are disabled and when something is coming out of my mouth it probably doesn't make much sense or is very coherent. My mind walks away to imaginary things and I can't focus nor convey something calmly on my knowledgebase.

On the other hand, it is much easier for me to explain something to somebody of this forum for example, both directly in person as well as in written words. This blocking mechanism wich makes me speechless and hampers me from thinking and express myself clearly, is almost not there in that case.

The bottom line is, if somebody would interview or ask my about a given topic, who I perceive as not wanting to understand what I'm saying, or is not on the same page, I would probably end up similarly speechless and incoherent as Woods.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Wood (or part of it), just saying that I think I know of instances in my everyday life, where I end up similarly incoherent and at times speechless and thoughtless.

I don't know though if If you understand what I'm trying to say here?
 
ark said:
Moreover, physicists in their papers discuss the possibilities of "breaking the fundamental laws of physics" on a daily basis. We know that that these "laws" have their limits and their possible exceptions.

I think physics (and all sciences) would be very well served if they removed the word "law" from their vocabularies and used a word like "suggestion" instead - that way they could say the "fundamental suggestions of physics" - it might allow some inherent freedom of thought that use of the word 'law' shuts down. After all, a law can't be broken, but a suggestion? Heck, a suggestion can be entirely ignored if the data takes you in a new direction. :)
 
Pashalis said:
This brings me to a something I want to mention.

From my personal experience, I have a real problem to discuss and explain something to somebody in a coherent way when I know (or think I know) that this person can not crasb what I'm trying to say at all. And it gets worst when I know (or think I know) that the other person does not even want to understand something that I want to say from the get go, but is rather trying something else, like to fooling me or make me look silly.

For example: When I'm engaging directly with people in my workplace and they ask me for example about my diet, something in me blocks me and makes me somehow afraid, with the result that I'm speechless and coherent thoughts are disabled and when something is coming out of my mouth it probably doesn't make much sense or is very coherent. My mind walks away to imaginary things and I can't focus nor convey something calmly on my knowledgebase.

On the other hand, it is much easier for me to explain something to somebody of this forum for example, both directly in person as well as in written words. This blocking mechanism wich makes me speechless and hampers me from thinking and express myself clearly, is almost not there in that case.

The bottom line is, if somebody would interview or ask my about a given topic, who I perceive as not wanting to understand what I'm saying, or is not on the same page, I would probably end up similarly speechless and incoherent as Woods.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Wood (or part of it), just saying that I think I know of instances in my everyday life, where I end up similarly incoherent and at times speechless and thoughtless.

I don't know though if If you understand what I'm trying to say here?

It sounds like what you're describing is what happens when the emotions run the intellect. Basically, your emotional center takes over (or is usually in control of) the intellect and you can't say what you need to say because the emotional center can't access, analyze and present the data that the intellectual center could, if allowed to. The emotional center is really a terrible driver of the intellect - all fire and speed with no cool clarity and purpose. So, when your emotions drive you, and drive your thinking, you basically shut down when challenged, or, depending on individual temperament, do the exact opposite, which is get contrary and combative and use all sorts of verbal and logical tricks to 'win' an argument, leaving the actual data by the wayside because it's so much easier for the emotional center to use verbal and logical tricks (these things acting on and through the emotions more than the intellect).

It's really interesting to observe since, to my understanding, it works the same way in everyone who has the energy of the emotional center running the intellect (wrong work of centers as Gurdjieff would say). That vehemence (whether it is evidenced in shutting down and the mind going to imaginary things, or the opposite of going on the verbal attack with emotive tactics) is always present as well - the emotional center is great at emotions and utterly terrible at thinking, which is why emotional thinking leads so many people into disaster. Learning to keep emotional energy where it belongs and intellectual energy where it belongs is a very important thing.

My personal experience (which may or may not be applicable) has been that when the intellectual center is actually running the intellect free and clear, there is a coolness to thinking, a calm clear function of thought, unhampered by what's going on in the solar plexus, as it were. The energy of the intellectual center is always cool in my experience, never hot and frantic and urgent. Thinking with the energy of only the intellectual center is a completely different experience than thinking with the emotions (or having the emotions perhaps not entirely run the intellect, but color it strongly), again, at least in my experience. Often, when I sense my emotions are running my thinking, I consciously move that sensation, that 'feeling', to my solar plexus to get it out of my head and my thinking clarifies almost instantly. It's basically using the physical location of the solar plexus as a 'touch stone' to remember myself and stop the flow of emotional energy into the intellect so that the intellect can do its job with its own energy. It's taken a lot of time to learn to do that, and since emotions move so much more quickly than intellect, I'm often mid-stream before I can take control of those horses, but it does usually work. I say usually because, of course, there are always exceptions when I'm well across the stream and halfway to the next town before I realize my emotional horses have run away with me and I haven't been thinking in any real way at all. ;) I'm sure I'll be working on that particular issue for a very long time to come.

Anyway, it's probably easier for you to get your thoughts across on the forum because you're writing and not talking and that alone is a different process that tends to 'cool' things down by necessity because you're processing your thoughts a little bit differently and there's more time to gather them together. Just some thoughts on that since my center of gravity is in my emotional center and it's an ongoing learning process to keep that emotional energy where it should be and not muddling up everything else! fwiw.
 
I am thinking loud. Could be wrong though. some of the C's comment still puzzles me.

Q: (L) We watched one film that showed a strange, dark object, shooting down towards the ground. What was that?
A: 4th Density energy surge.
Q: (L) Where was it surging from and to?
A: Dome of destruction energy time lock to ground.
Q: (L) Are you saying that there was a dome of a time lock over this area? Do you mean that they put a "time lock" over this area so that they could
"harvest" bodies or energy?
A: Close.

i.e they froze the time, did what they want to do and edited the time frame and released the 4D movie ( 3D reality). that explains 8 sec free fall instead of 11 or so seconds free fall(if it free fall at all), All dustified except one elevator full of people like anamolies etc.

If this is true, isn't easy to create leave some crumbles or create some crumbles so that who ever doesn't fall under MSM magic will have some crumbles ( hutchinson effect iron, paper, some dust, australian reporter reporting collapse before it actually collapsed etc.) to work with and get lost.

Well, I am not sure whether visible dust from dustified towers is sufficient for 3D accounting (If possible at all) or not. same with the amount of paper there. we know gold and people are gone except select few.

Again we were told in elementary science education, energy either can be destroyed or created, only converted. Again 3D sensor/equipment measurable energy vs 3D unmesaurable energy is another factor here. Or some of the energy released is scooped out to 4D.

I am not sure of comparison of energy levels from molecular disbonding through information induction w.r.t pure 3D level energy usage for forced breaking of bonds.

I don't mean to mystify the situation.
The manipulating phonon stuff with modulating over carrier frequencies is a mind blowing concept in itself. I haven't read this one yet.

They( 4D or 3D through hierarchy ) can map the area of target at the molecular level including 1D to 3D (just like our CAD software for building but at molecular level including every thing in the area) and create modulating frequencies and scoop it out and release crumbles.

This makes the antics of entire NWO gang as useful idiot acts ( a setup) - like changing hands for the insurance, advanced stock market future trading, dubaya reading book to school children, subsequent patriot act imposition etc.

This israel security company worked weeks before is a facilitation instead of collapsing itself and shutting down the air traffic security to avoid complications.

At the end, we are 3D, can only explain in 3D terms possibly with technology that is bordering 4D. Fascinating to think of possibilities - A Mass abduction in front of billions of people to create 911 religion( MSM followers) ?.
 
Pashalis said:
I don't know though if If you understand what I'm trying to say here?

You are trying to say, I think, that even if Mrs. Wood looks or seems incoherent in public, in a interview, maybe she is not in real life or writing a book. Is that so? So we have to be careful when judging someone?
 
Pashalis said:
This brings me to a something I want to mention.

From my personal experience, I have a real problem to discuss and explain something to somebody in a coherent way when I know (or think I know) that this person can not crasb what I'm trying to say at all. And it gets worst when I know (or think I know) that the other person does not even want to understand something that I want to say from the get go, but is rather trying something else, like to fooling me or make me look silly.
Have you considered Fear of Rejection/ridcule from early childhood parental raising or friendships ?.
Did you accept mentally the possibility of failure to convince other so that that doesn't lead to perceived system 1 social rejection. This is system 1, as our mind's social/emotional circuits are build in such a way we want to be the part of the crowd, despite system 2 tries to be otherwise. Same with "Fear of being exposed". some thing to think about.
 
anart said:
It sounds like what you're describing is what happens when the emotions run the intellect. Basically, your emotional center takes over (or is usually in control of) the intellect and you can't say what you need to say because the emotional center can't access, analyze and present the data that the intellectual center could, if allowed to. The emotional center is really a terrible driver of the intellect - all fire and speed with no cool clarity and purpose. So, when your emotions drive you, and drive your thinking, you basically shut down when challenged, or, depending on individual temperament, do the exact opposite, which is get contrary and combative and use all sorts of verbal and logical tricks to 'win' an argument, leaving the actual data by the wayside because it's so much easier for the emotional center to use verbal and logical tricks (these things acting on and through the emotions more than the intellect).

It's really interesting to observe since, to my understanding, it works the same way in everyone who has the energy of the emotional center running the intellect (wrong work of centers as Gurdjieff would say). That vehemence (whether it is evidenced in shutting down and the mind going to imaginary things, or the opposite of going on the verbal attack with emotive tactics) is always present as well - the emotional center is great at emotions and utterly terrible at thinking, which is why emotional thinking leads so many people into disaster. Learning to keep emotional energy where it belongs and intellectual energy where it belongs is a very important thing.

I think it might be worth reading what stress does to thinking and how it might relate to being emotionally centered. What you wrote Anart reminded me of the journal article I posted. Maybe being emotionally centered relates to a underlying stress reaction in a person in some way.

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27582.msg374787.html#msg374787
 
anart said:
Pashalis said:
This brings me to a something I want to mention.

From my personal experience, I have a real problem to discuss and explain something to somebody in a coherent way when I know (or think I know) that this person can not crasb what I'm trying to say at all. And it gets worst when I know (or think I know) that the other person does not even want to understand something that I want to say from the get go, but is rather trying something else, like to fooling me or make me look silly.

For example: When I'm engaging directly with people in my workplace and they ask me for example about my diet, something in me blocks me and makes me somehow afraid, with the result that I'm speechless and coherent thoughts are disabled and when something is coming out of my mouth it probably doesn't make much sense or is very coherent. My mind walks away to imaginary things and I can't focus nor convey something calmly on my knowledgebase.

On the other hand, it is much easier for me to explain something to somebody of this forum for example, both directly in person as well as in written words. This blocking mechanism wich makes me speechless and hampers me from thinking and express myself clearly, is almost not there in that case.

The bottom line is, if somebody would interview or ask my about a given topic, who I perceive as not wanting to understand what I'm saying, or is not on the same page, I would probably end up similarly speechless and incoherent as Woods.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Wood (or part of it), just saying that I think I know of instances in my everyday life, where I end up similarly incoherent and at times speechless and thoughtless.

I don't know though if If you understand what I'm trying to say here?

It sounds like what you're describing is what happens when the emotions run the intellect. Basically, your emotional center takes over (or is usually in control of) the intellect and you can't say what you need to say because the emotional center can't access, analyze and present the data that the intellectual center could, if allowed to. The emotional center is really a terrible driver of the intellect - all fire and speed with no cool clarity and purpose. So, when your emotions drive you, and drive your thinking, you basically shut down when challenged, or, depending on individual temperament, do the exact opposite, which is get contrary and combative and use all sorts of verbal and logical tricks to 'win' an argument, leaving the actual data by the wayside because it's so much easier for the emotional center to use verbal and logical tricks (these things acting on and through the emotions more than the intellect).

It's really interesting to observe since, to my understanding, it works the same way in everyone who has the energy of the emotional center running the intellect (wrong work of centers as Gurdjieff would say). That vehemence (whether it is evidenced in shutting down and the mind going to imaginary things, or the opposite of going on the verbal attack with emotive tactics) is always present as well - the emotional center is great at emotions and utterly terrible at thinking, which is why emotional thinking leads so many people into disaster. Learning to keep emotional energy where it belongs and intellectual energy where it belongs is a very important thing.

My personal experience (which may or may not be applicable) has been that when the intellectual center is actually running the intellect free and clear, there is a coolness to thinking, a calm clear function of thought, unhampered by what's going on in the solar plexus, as it were. The energy of the intellectual center is always cool in my experience, never hot and frantic and urgent. Thinking with the energy of only the intellectual center is a completely different experience than thinking with the emotions (or having the emotions perhaps not entirely run the intellect, but color it strongly), again, at least in my experience. Often, when I sense my emotions are running my thinking, I consciously move that sensation, that 'feeling', to my solar plexus to get it out of my head and my thinking clarifies almost instantly. It's basically using the physical location of the solar plexus as a 'touch stone' to remember myself and stop the flow of emotional energy into the intellect so that the intellect can do its job with its own energy. It's taken a lot of time to learn to do that, and since emotions move so much more quickly than intellect, I'm often mid-stream before I can take control of those horses, but it does usually work. I say usually because, of course, there are always exceptions when I'm well across the stream and halfway to the next town before I realize my emotional horses have run away with me and I haven't been thinking in any real way at all. ;) I'm sure I'll be working on that particular issue for a very long time to come.

Anyway, it's probably easier for you to get your thoughts across on the forum because you're writing and not talking and that alone is a different process that tends to 'cool' things down by necessity because you're processing your thoughts a little bit differently and there's more time to gather them together. Just some thoughts on that since my center of gravity is in my emotional center and it's an ongoing learning process to keep that emotional energy where it should be and not muddling up everything else! fwiw.

Yeah, from what you are describing, the emotional center seems to be running me, almost in every instance of my life. But it gets especially bad when I'm in real life interactions. Even though I think I've gotten better in realising that and trying to hold my horses, I'm a very longggg way from actually controlling it, especially in real life situations. Not to mention from getting my intellecual center, as you call it, back to run things in a cool and thoughtfull way in real life.

Very, very difficult for me, indeed!

Also, I think part of the problem could be, that I've not enough of a solid hard wired knowledgebase wich I could savely tap into.

Fact is, that I've lot's of reading and intellectual real understanding of many topics ahead, before I can even transform this not at all enough intelectual knowlege, into real used knowlege.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom