Spiritual Blog

Archive

Older

Saturday, November 21, 2009

CREATING YOUR OWN REALITY CAN GIVE YOU THE CREEPS!

I am a firm believer in the "new thought" concept that we create our own reality. Some people even attribute my Personal Connector Word to God experience as me simply focusing on the word "Georgia," so then it appears. (I know, however, that my PCW goes way beyond that simple explanation. There is a universal force--I believe it's a divine force--that actually leads me with my PCW. It is more than the simple "law of attraction.")

But the "law of attraction," itself, is a very interesting (and often amusing) phenomena. That is why movies and books about "The Secret" or by Esther Hicks hold such appeal for people. Most people who take the universal law seriously, and truly understand it, find that it is a life-changing concept. I know it has been for me. It is very freeing to believe that you have the power to change your life with your thinking. And if you study the concept of "creating your own reality with your thoughts," you quickly find out that it has been around and understood by others for years and years. James Allen, Ernest Holmes and Jesus are just three humans who were "into the Secret" before "the Secret" was cool.

Now for my most recent amusing experience with the "law of attraction." If you read my previous blog entry, you will see it is all about reptiles. Reptiles are not something I particularly like or ever think about, and I must say I have very few encounters with the creatures. Maybe a gecko here and there, because, after all, I do live in Florida. However, while writing my blogs about aliens being depicted as reptiles, my mind--and emotions--began to focus on reptiles. Snakes and lizards and frogs--I mentioned all of them in my previous blog.

So, since that is what I had been thinking, is it any wonder then that THE VERY NEXT DAY after writing my blog, that the reptiles began materializing in my world? I stepped out my front door on my way to the mailbox and something rustled in the plants. Right in front of me appeared a black snake that slithered on the grass where I had stepped, nearly between my feet! I jumped back, startled. Oooooh. Creepy.

As this weren't enough, when I reached the mailbox and opened it, there was what I thought was a DEAD frog stuck to the back of the inside of the mailbox. I got a paper towel and reached back to remove it. Only it wasn't dead, it was very alive. It hopped erratically inside the box, then leaped out at me, hitting me in the shoulder! Startled again by a reptile! (Or are frogs amphibians? Whatever.) Oooooh! Creepy!

When I came back into the house and looked out at the pond that borders my backyard, I wasn't surprised to see--not one, but three--turtles up on the bank, sunning themselves. I've seen them before, of course, but not in such numbers.

Did my thoughts and emotions from writing my blog about reptiles and amphibians being the "low-life" of the planet cause them to all appear in my real world in such rapid succession? Some would say it was just a coincidence. A creepy coincidence, but a coincidence, nonetheless. But, I know better! My thoughts created my reality!

12:02 pm | link

Thursday, November 19, 2009

WHY ARE ALIENS ALWAYS DEPICTED AS REPTILES?

This blog is not going to be about whether there are aliens or not, nor am I going to debate whether they are here now, in our midst, or not. When all of pop culture starts "preparing" us for their arrival; when most other nations have de-classified and released all their UFO documents; when reputable pilots, military personnel and other authority figures around the globe hold a conference on UFO's and invite the press; when the Vatican, for God's sake (no pun intended), comes out and announces it's OK for all of us to believe in aliens; when a former astronaut who walked on the moon says he doesn't think there are UFO's, he knows there are UFO's. . . . well, a thinking person has to start thinking that perhaps there is something behind all of this. Perhaps the jig will be up soon. Maybe that is why Obama is making his global rounds to leaders. Who knows?

What I would like to blog about, however, is the new TV series "V." Apparently it is based on an old TV program by the same name with the same premise. (I didn't see the old one.) "V" is for "visitors" and in this TV series the aliens have INDEED arrived and have been among us in "sleeper cells" for quite some time. What I find interesting about "V" is that like many old movies and TV programs depicting visitors from outer space, the aliens turn out to be reptilian. Oh, they have cleverly "covered themselves" in skin and look just like us. But, underneath that fake skin, lies one ugly reptile. Or amphibian. It's often hard to tell. Even when they don't cover up and appear to be friendly (think ET), they usually are ugly suckers, often with green skin and bulging eyes. Reptilian.

Why do we assume that if intelligent life from another planet has the smarts to get here and has technology that would make ours look like tinker-toys that they would resemble the lowest of low-life on this earth: lizards or snakes or frogs. Why? Because reptiles give us the "creeps" and most people abhor them. Thus, if you want to portray "outsiders" from the beyond, it seems best to equate them to an earthly animal that is stupid, scary and abhorrent. Because, after all, if aliens do arrive here on earth it can only be to do us harm. Right?

The only movie I recall that portrayed aliens in a "good light" (pun intended) was "Cocoon." In this movie, when the fake skin is stripped away from the aliens, it reveals a golden light form. Just pure golden light. That's how I'd like to think of advanced beings from another planet. That's what I think aliens might be: enlightened beings. Perhaps even angels. Or spiritual beings. And they wouldn't necessarily be arriving from another planet, but from another dimension or plane. That might explain UFO's "coming and going," popping in and out of sight so quickly. Maybe they have to lower their energy vibration just to get "down here" with us.

And if they do come or are here, unlike the premise of "V," I think they'd be less likely to do us harm than we would be to do them harm. After all, they are more intelligent, right? And if WE were more intelligent, we would finally get past our behaviors of wars, greed, and violence. So, in my opinion, I don't expect to see giant lizards arriving from the great beyond in space ships intent on wiping out humanity. I expect, instead, to see enlightened beings, full of love and peace and harmony, who might gently guide us to a new age--one that rids the world of barbaric practices--one that unites, not separates.

Of course, if they look like geckos, well that would be all right, too, I guess. At least geckos are reptiles that are cute. And little. Not as comforting as golden light forms, but intelligent little geckos buzzing around in flying saucers would be acceptable. Just as long as they don't try to sell me car insurance!

10:26 pm | link

Monday, November 16, 2009

TWO RANDOM THINGS ABOUT MYSELF?

Tuesday's theme on Blogdumps is to share two random things about yourself.

Could I, or anyone, really blog about "two random things"? My spiritual path has shown me, time and again, that nothing in this Universe is "random." "Random" implies that I (and others on Blogdumps) will write something that has "no specific pattern, purpose or objective." I believe that everything in our lives--everything in the Universe--does indeed have a specific pattern, purpose or objective. All things are connected. All people are connected. All experiences mean something, and all aspects of our lives are there for a reason. Thus, whatever each of us CHOOSES to put down as two random things won't really be random at all. They will be choices we have deliberately made in order to share something about ourselves.

Let's say I really want to go for "random" in a big way. So, I will write the following two things about myself: 1. My big toe is itchy, and 2. My sprinkler system will come on in about one hour. Pretty random, wouldn't you say? Not really. Because if I choose to write those superficial and generic things about myself in response to Blogdumps theme, then it is probably because I don't really want to reveal anything of importance about myself. They're not really random things, but deliberately flippant and meaningless things.

If I want to share some "random" aspects that might make me look intelligent, however, I might choose these instead: 1. I began teaching high school at the age of 20, and 2. I wrote grant proposals for universities and colleges for 20 years resulting in millions and millions and millions of dollars. Then again, these so-called "random" things have a good chance of making me look like a braggart--and the last thing I want to project on my spiritual site is that I am all-knowing and arrogant. Writing those would be much too self-serving. More importantly, they are from my past. Spiritually, I've learned to focus on the present, and the future. So, please just scratch those last two "random" things.

Well, then let's shoot for neutral, but personal. That may be the best "random" route to go: 1. I recently visited Branson, Missouri, and 2. I am 5' 7" tall. How's that? I think that might be better. Not random, of course, since I just admitted I was going for "neutral, but personal," but not bad, given the complexity of this whole topic. See my point?

Gee, I wonder what my poor Blogdump friends are thinking about their own posts by now. Wondering, perhaps, what their two "random" things will really reveal about themselves? (Too late, you already posted them! LOL) Hey, perhaps next week's theme should be: what did you REALLY learn about your colleagues on Blogdumps from their posts about the not-so-random things about themselves. Wouldn't that make for an interesting topic? (Just kidding. Hey, that was one "random" thing I could have posted about myself here: I have a rather offbeat sense of humor!)

11:25 pm | link

Thursday, November 12, 2009

MORE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, BUT LESS COMMUNICATION

I like technology and all the advances it has brought. If I didn't, I wouldn't have my own website and this blog. But, every thinking person should stop and ask herself an important question: Have our communication devices resulted in BETTER communication or WORSE?

Lately, for me, the WORSE answer is surfacing more often. Let's start with e-mail, an amazing communications method that has practically put the U.S. postal service out of business. Yesterday I emailed Harvard Press with a simple question: Did I need copyright permission from them on use of a specific poem by Emily Dickinson? I didn't even know if they were the ones to ask permission from; what's more, this particular poem was said to be in the "public domain" and I just wanted to be sure it was. A simple yes or no answer. That's all that was required. Yes, submit to us for permission. No, we don't hold any copyright over that item. The wonders of email: I got a response the very next day!

The horrors of email: the response (from an actual person named David) was offbase and moronic. David obviously gives the same response to everyone who dares to email him with a question. David said I had to submit all permission requests following a laborious procedure. Then he attached a copy of that laborious process. David then gave me his "Best Regards."

David, I wasn't asking HOW to ask for "permission"--I was simply asking if I even HAD to. Why would I submit a lengthy application to you when I don't even know if you hold a copyright on the item in question? When I hit reply to ask David this, the email bounced, of course. You couldn't "reply" to David. David did not want to be replied to. David was not interested in two-way communication, only one-way communication. David had a set procedure and couldn't use his own brain to read and interpret a situation.

Then there are cell phones, the marvel of 21st-century communication. Texting is the new trend. It's fast, it's simple and it has revolutionized communication. Or has it? Parents tell me that it is often the ONLY way they can get their children to answer them. Think about why that is. When I was a youngster, my parents used to cross-examine me about my whereabouts--in person. They'd look into your eyes and could tell if you were lying or about to get into some mischief you shouldn't. When we moved to cell phones, the part about looking into your kids' faces to determine what was going on went by the wayside, but you could still judge from their voices and background noises. And, more importantly, when you had them on the line, you could ask questions. You could clarify. You could have a TWO-way communication. Why do you think kids like texting so much? They've just made two-way communication with their parents into ONE-way communication. Short and sweet. No follow-up questions. No reply needed. Just like David and his email, kids with their texting have taken control of the communication mode, and by doing so, they have literally STOPPED communication. They have stopped questions or clarifications. Is this better communication? Not if you are a consumer; not if you are a parent.

We have all experienced the frustration of calling a bank, a cable company, or nearly all entities these days--and getting their "automated answering system." Press 1 for this. Press 2 for this. Press 3 for this. And when you do, another menu comes up with more choices. You spend 5 or 10 minutes trying to wing your way through the maze of their offices, hoping eventually that you get a "real person" with some knowledge. Even if you are lucky enough to get to that point, it rarely results in an answer to your "simple question." Either you get the wrong person, the wrong office, or someone who has been trained in a "script" that they can't think beyond. Has this communications technology made for BETTER communication or WORSE? Who does it help? Certainly not the consumer. It only makes the company save money on employees.

The purpose of COMMUNICATION is to get two individuals to understand each other. In order to do that, it has to be two-way. It has to allow for follow-up questions, clarifications, and problems outside the box. It has to be a give and take. Often it takes TIME. And guess what, it results in a relationship! You get to KNOW one another. Apparently, we are exchanging SPEED for quality outcomes. David was fast with an answer. Texting is fast with an answer. Unfortunately, the answers don't really answer anything at all. Communication is more muddled now than ever before. All our devices haven't made human beings "more in touch," they have actually led to more isolation and ambiguity. For all our communication advances, people are more lonely and misunderstood than ever.

There is one communication, however, that is immune from all this nonsense. And that is our communication with God. By discovering your Personal Connector Word to God, you will connect with the most important entity of all: our divine source. And God doesn't have an automated answering system. He doesn't text message short and curt responses. God really listens to you. Then, He/She clearly guides you with his/her responses. God believes in real two-way communication.

Unfortunately, most of us are trying to do with God what we are doing with others via email and texting. We are trying to make it a one-way communication. We are going for speed. We "pray" and "ask God" for this or that, but we don't take time to see God's answers or directions. We are busy, after all. How can we discover our Personal Connector Word to God or all the other signs God sends us each day when we have reduced everything important in life to a 140-character Tweet?

News flash, folks: God doesn't tweet. He/She is not in a hurry and loves us too much to reduce our relationship with Him/Her to 140 characters. God's interest in us is genuine and deep.

Sometimes I think the Universe is purposely leading us all into this sterile, speed-driven, technology-inundated communication. I think God might be purposely taking us over the "communications edge." Because, sooner or later, we are going to miss REAL communication between REAL human beings. Sooner or later, we are going to pine for understanding, deep conversation, two-way exchanges and an investment of time in others we care about. Sooner or later, Youtube videos and blogs will not satisfy our souls. It is then, of course, that we will finally turn back to God.

12:20 pm | link

Sunday, November 1, 2009

IT'S NOT FUNNY, JAY LENO

I used to like Jay Leno's Tonight Show, so watching his new 10 pm show is very disappointing to me. Jay has decided to go the route of "young men aged 17-28," apparently. That means mindless humor that humiliates people, deals a lot with sex, and has as the ultimate joke anything that deals with a penis. Unfortunately, for Jay, none of it is funny or even approaches funny.

According to the Internet, Jay's new show is bombing, and to me, it isn't a surprise. Whether Jay realizes it or not, his AUDIENCE was NOT 18-49 year-olds (who TV-land mistakenly has identified as the best consumers), but has always been the over 55-year-olds, and a lot of them women. And, to be frank, to them, Jay's new show stinks.

Why does it stink? It's simple. It just isn't funny. Jay has taken to bringing on "new young comics," which frankly, are not new, not comic, and barely meet the criteria of being young. Their humor is not only NOT funny, it's not even understandable. It's lame. Then Jay has abandoned the things that used to be amusing--Jaywalking, interviewing people we could actually recognize, and amusing commentaries on life--in lieu of his NEW ideas, like White Moments in Black History. These excerpts are not only NOT funny, but actually border on being pathetic. Jay should have realized that he should KEEP to the things that made people watch him when he was on at 11:35pm. Instead, he's trying to pander to a group of pimply-faced boys who are NOT watching him at 10 pm., but are instead playing their mindless video games. No one thinks Beer Pong videos are funny, or even mildly amusing. Jay, it's SENIOR citizens who were watching you. Now that you've decided penis jokes are the way to go, we will STOP watching you. There will be no one left!

It's really sad to watch Jay Leno now. He's out of his element, and he's very uncomfortable. He has celebrities racing Ford cars that no one cares about. He sits out from behind a desk and doesn't know what to do with his legs. He brings on young "stars" that no one can even recognize. He makes penis jokes until you want to scream and say, "Enough already. We are tired of hearing about what is dangling between men's legs." He just isn't funny anymore. We are embarrassed for him. He has stooped to such a low, that we hurt for him.

Somewhere along the line, some idiot decided that the economic spending demographic was with "18-49-year-old's." I find that amusing. All the 18-49 year-olds that I know are either broke, in credit card debt up to their butts, or bankrupt. These people don't have any money, Jay. NO, they are not the demographic with the disposable income. News flash TV people: the people with the dough to spend are the OVER-55-year-old crowd. They are the ones who have the money. And contrary to your 20th century thinking, we do spend money and we DO change brands. And your 18-49 year-old's--who do you think they are getting money from? Their parents and grandparents, of course. They have none of their own. They are unemployed, underemployed or barely getting by.

Jay Leno, you are sinking. You are sinking because you believe marketing experts who are all wrong. You are sinking because you are abandoning what originally made you funny. You are sinking because you no longer believe in yourself and your own instincts. You are pandering to a younger generation, Jay, who don't give a damn about you, only about themselves. How sad. Use your humor to reach your OWN generation, and you may still yet succeed. Keep trying to be something you are not, and you will continue to fail.

That's a lesson for all of us. Be yourself. Be true to yourself. Act your age. And God will provide.

4:55 pm | link

Archive

Older