Clinical Somatic Education: What’s it Good For? Getting Feeling Good, again Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development Clinical Somatic Education: What’s it Good For? Getting Feeling Good, again Lawrence Gold

What’s Somatics Good For? Getting Feeling Good, Again. Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development What’s Somatics Good For? Getting Feeling Good, Again. Lawrence Gold

Sexual Discord, Wholesomeness, and The Price

I suspect that a large part of the discord between the sexes has to do with that neither really has a sense of the healthy or wholesome version of the other.

That observation speaks volumes, if you let it.

Now, to be careful with language, I used the word, "sense", not the word, "idea" or the word, "concept" -- each being further from the essence than the preceding.

I used the word, "sense". That's a feeling thing. By feeling, I don't necessarily mean, "emotion". Emotion is one kind of feeling. "Gut feeling" (to use a common term), is another. There's also musical feeling and a more general aesthetic feeling. There's intuition. There's the feeling of integrity and that's the feeling of wholesomeness. It's a kind of balanced self-content.

I use the word, "wholesome".

"Wholesome" is an old-fashioned word: "whole"-"some".

When someone is whole, they don't need anything more.

Apart from the interesting connection between, "whole" (which implies completeness) and "some" (which implies partiality), the word is out of use (or in disuse) at the same time as "not needing anything more" is a rarity.

The world is crazed with needing more -- and unfortunately the ones who emotionally need the most -- the very wealthy -- cause the unfortunate ones at the bottom of the economic heap really to need more. The great sucking sound at the top creates a wealth vacuum around the ones at the bottom.

Back to the genders' lack of a wholesome sense of each other.

Wholesomeness makes going deeply safe. Unwholesomeness is unsafe.

This "crazed with needing more", the opposite of wholesomeness, is disturbing on an ongoing basis. It's disturbing to oneself and it's disturbing to others. It is a state of relative insanity or at least an epidemic of stress that has a smell and an atmosphere all its own.

However, instead of cleaning up their unwholesomeness, and its stink, unwholesome people seek to cover over their inner stink with pleasing smells, pleasing sights and sounds and objects and the endorphins (brain soothing chemicals) of triumph or buying things or Prozac. They engage in unwholesome behavior to escape their unwholesomeness by seeking experiences -- such as a SuperBowl win, or a war, or a new lover, or high office, or lots and lots of orgasms, or wanting a different partner, or just, stuff.

It's a futile effort. The fruit of unwholesome behavior is entrenched unwholesomeness and so they need more and more to cover up the growing stink of their own unwholesome inner state. Such is one origin of greed ( in its out-of-balance form ). It's a sorry state, a pathetic state, if it weren't so tragic and so common.

And this pile-up of insanity affects both males and females and shows up as as the average male and female character. Nice on the surface, but scratch a little deeper.

An unwholesome approach to life mis-represents (fails to represent) a wholesome male or female nature. Unwholesomeness gets taken as, and is championed as, normal. There are so few examples of wholesome individuals. It's even socially correct to behave in unwholesome ways. Wholesomeness has largely gone by the wayside. It's insane, it's nuts, it's sick. Unwholesome individuals consider themselves to be wholesome. They can't help it. They don't know better.

The problem between the genders, where it exists as a common social "flavor", has much to do with the results of an unwholesome state of life, as I have described. They can't really perceive each others' depths. That's why the sexes aren't often very attractive to each other -- whichever the sexes, by the way -- or why their attraction is superficial and short-lived.

That brings us to, "depth".

I wonder at the depth of love commonly experienced, by people. Have many people got any idea of the psychic depth to which love can reach, penetrate, and permeate? or is "love" largely a social agreement to make available certain kinds of gratification?

As the song goes:

... in a restless world like this is
love is ended before it's begun
and so often midnight kisses
seem to cool in the warmth of the sun.

Those who have not known depth cannot know what I mean by the word. Those who do know depth recognize what happens to depth when integrity breaks down in a relationship.

Those of us who have sacrificed our integrity for the sake of acquiring someone or something actually did so in the hope of experiencing greater depth as a result. When we did that, the one who would have experienced those things in their wholesome form ( our wholesome self ) is no longer wholesome. There's a fly in the ointment.

Those of us, of unwholesome inner stink, who seek an alternative to our inner stink in the fragrance of another, can never plumb their depths without also plumbing our own depths.

That's the price.

About Pandiculation — the Prime Technique Used by Hanna Somatic Educators Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development About Pandiculation — the Prime Technique Used by Hanna Somatic Educators Lawrence Gold

Choosing Sides is Not How to Resolve a Situation

Don't "solve" the problem.
"Dissolve" the problem.

The Usual Trend is for people to Choose Sides.

The purported ( I say, "purported" ) belief is that one side prevailing is "the answer". They may not look forward far enough to see that even in the event their side prevails, a whole new set of problems will ensue and the search for answers will continue, but with new targets. Endlessly. 

The names may change, but the News pretty much stays the same.

No, the Way to Resolve a Situation is Not to Have Ones Side Prevail or to Change Sides. Neither.

It is to Dissolve the Compelling Force of Both Sides. Only then, does one come to mental balance -- i.e.: sanity.

... recovered from compulsive acting as the Thinking Mind,
back to ones senses.

The Thinking Mind is a NoiseMaker,
a Newscaster
a Hypnotist
a Shimmering of Mirage Suspended in the Air
a Flickering Candle in the Wind
a Strange Attractor, Attractor.

It attracts attention one way
it attracts attention, another
it attracts attention both ways at the same time. at the same time.

This is called, Confusion.
Confusion is a common state of dis-ease among humans.
It makes situations seem confusing.

The common remedy that humans apply to control Confusion
is to choose a side and dig in
to forcibly overpower the internal argument for the other side
that one harbors in oneself
and to make oneself impervious to any argument from outside.
This is called, "internal conflict".

Socially one prefers the company of others who agree with their preferred position, but with the same misgivings.

Sometimes, it shows up as taking up a positive attitude
to gird up ones sense of internal weakness,
i.e., shaky integrity
produced by internal contradictions.

This is having one foot on the accelerator
and one foot on the brake. brake.

It is the formula for frustration. It is commonly life for a human of the 21st Century, computer/TV, money-is-king, gender-correct civilization.

Confusion and Frustration characterize the common common human human.

On top of that, is the social shellac of,
"How are you?"
"and You?"

It's like a two part joke with no punchline.

Few question the ridiculous phrase, "How are you?" (Which used to be, "How Do You Do"  -- another ridiculous phrasing. It should be, "How Well Do You Do What You Do? What Do You Do?")

When I hear someone say, "How are you?", I sometimes just want to ask, "How am I what?"

People don't question these things, and thus they blithely go about life in a state of chronic stress flavored with confusion, which most everybody seems to take for granted because rarely is there anyone around who can be an example of something different. They drink coffee or Coca Cola or consume other "psychoactive substances" -- or, none at all -- it makes no difference. They watch sports or listen to very loud music (which rarely shows any sense of rhythm, anymore, but instead, sports a pounding beat that people have to synchronize themselves with. Sensory over-overload to drown everything out).

All because they believed they had to choose a side -- or change sides -- instead of dissolving the compelling forces of both sides. They took a side, again and again, with every incident of life. Each incident left a memory and with it, a state of readiness, no longer quite a state of being at rest, unready. Life has piled up in them and they feel the burden of endless stress, decisions and confusion, but have no clue that their stress at the moment is compounded by all of their accumulated, residual stress of a lifetime. It's the burden of memory, the burden of the compelling forces of the arguments between alternatives piled up over a lifetime. The burden of 21st Century life as a human.

Slows a person down. Makes 'em less capable of taking in new information. Less capable of creative action. It gives weight to the notion of, "destiny". No wonder people die.

Action coming from a certain state of being always stamps that certain state of being upon the outcome. That goes for action coming out of, "Foot on the Accelerator*Foot on the Brake"; it goes for action coming out of a free -- or "dissolved" -- uncompelled condition. Coming out as free responsiveness, it's much more precise, much better timed, much more creative -- and much more resilient. Our thoughts go in new directions and our actions are different.

Capische? Capiscshe.

So, don't "solve" the problem. "Dissolve" the problem.


Ya Gotta Wanna.
and Ya Gotta Wanna Wanna.

This is just the beginning.

TetraSeed Naked Singularity 2016 11 4 Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858
Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care

#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development TetraSeed Naked Singularity 2016 11 4 Lawrence Gold

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

A Riff on the Gold Key Release 2017 5 12 Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care

#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development A Riff on the Gold Key Release 2017 5 12 Lawrence Gold

The Standard, Deviated Thinking and Straightened Out Thinking

The title is a play on words meaningful to those who know something about statistics.

If you don't know something about statistics, here's what "standard deviation" means: the average --
and not just a single numerical average, like, "the average of 1+3 is 2".

It's a range of "average" that contains about 60% of the population, with half (30%) more than the average and half (30%) less than the average. It's what we mean, when we say, "it's about average" or, "That's pretty normal." It's a range.

There's a standard, deviated thinking by people who consider percentages, in themselves, meaningful -- which is nearly everybody. Not we, of course, no.

A percentage tells a relative size, compared to something else, a relative degree of change -- but nothing of the quantity. The percentage is only part of the equation; the other part, "the percentage of What?".

Percentages, like, "10% off" "25% off" "40% off", etc., are significant only when the, of What, is taken into consideration.

10% of $10.00 is one dollar.
10% of $3,000.00" is $300,000.

One Dollar vs. Three Hundred Dollars - See? So, "10%" is really meaningless, by itself.

Is this obvious?

Here's the undeviated thinking outside the first standard deviation (what 60% of people think): Whenever someone, say, a newscaster or a politician or any other thought-caster cites a "government" or "official authority" percentage-statistic in an effort to persuade or "inform", ask, or at least wonder to yourself, "That percentage of What?" Don't let them dissuade you from exercising your intelligence about a percentage number that is meaningless, by itself. What is he [or she] really saying? Is it puffery?

For example: with taxes:  Get the dollar amount of the increase of the tax base, altogether, and the dollar amount of the new tax induced change, say a tax decrease: "A 2% decrease of What?" -- and give the statistic in dollars, not just in terms of percentage. How much, altogether? and what percentage change? Then, how much is left? Proportion.

See if a "thought-caster" is blowing things out of proportion or just being lazy-minded, carelessly distorting the importance of things, or perhaps aiding an "official smoke screen." Don't let your intelligence be weakened or distracted by half-witted assertions -- and that's what stating a percentage without a quantity to which that percentage applies, is: a half-witted assertion.

Then, notice how significant, or trivial, someone's percentage statistic really is. Consider the overall amount involved as well as the percentage of change of that amount.

Now that I've brought this to your attention, you'll find that you do sometimes end up asking, "of What?". You won't be able to help yourself. You'll just find yourself doing it -- perhaps figuring out how much tip to leave at a restaurant. Percentage? Amount? Again . . . . . and again . . . . . because it tickles your brain.

To do it once, as described -- noting both the amount and the percentage of something will trigger the formation of an internal connection and you may undergo a spontaneous deep breath and postural shift, particulary if you are paying at a restaurant. Let me know if you don't.

This kind of effect is what the term, "psycho-active", refers to, in educational settings (as distinct from "chemical" settings).

To ask, "10% of What?" and get an answer awakens your Attentional Intention and it cultivates your Intentional Attention; it prepares you to learn (Imagine into Remembering).  It activates your intelligence.

Experience The TetraSeed (all Four), for yourself, --

The TetraSeed, Revealed:


different angle

a mental deviant. Deviate from the standard track of thinking and acting as everyone else does, going down "the same familiar track" direction, which leads to more of the same . . . . . to the next track a divergent track 15% further developed along the spectrum of intelligence, on average.

Play with The TetraSeed.

  • the ultimate "mental tinkertoy set and mental workout"-in-one, 
  • refreshing self-grooming process, 
  • relationship transformer,
  • spontaneous intelligence booster, 
  • karmic clean-up tool,
  • dilemma-buster 
  • philosophical mind-game and mind-probe, 
  • transformational power-contemplation matrix, 
  • both the tangible and transcendent foundation of all epistemology, phylogeny, and ontogeny.
  • de-stressor: "karmic override program" 
  • the "self-straightener-outer"

Below, The Star TetraSeed {SOMA} consisting of two TetraSeeds, interfitted so that their corresponding parts face each other. "subjective" and "objective". You figure out which is which, below.


The Gold Key Release

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

Shit or Shinola?

Good fiction enhances imagination and intelligence. Bad fiction abuses imagination and degrades intelligence -- leading to the inability to "tell Shit from Shinola" -- to distinguish deception and low-grade creativity from authenticity and high-grade creativity -- and yes, that is a valid distinction. (In case it's before your time, Shinola is a brand of shoe polish that comes in brown, beige, and black.)

Here's what fiction, as in stories that portray possibilities that never happened, does to the human consciousness.

When read, it stimulates the imagination and also creates, through the "seepage" of imagination into memory, remembered impressions that bring a certain resonance to someone's life.

When portrayed in theater by actors, the situation calls for a suspension of disbelief that must be cared for by the playwright -- not to insult the intelligence by calling for suspension of disbelief to the point of abandoning ones intelligence or accepting the abandoning of intelligence, by others.

Fiction should not require us to be stupid, to enjoy it.

Another thing fiction does, if suspension of disbelief has been abused to the point of stupidity, is to dull our ability to tell truth (or honesty) from falsity (or dishonorable actions) -- to distinguish "authenticity " from fallacious behavior -- so that the phrase, "The Real Thing", takes on an absurd significance -- you know what and whom I mean.

This effect is inherent. The very fact that actors (or fictional characters) are not as they appear gets people used to accepting things that are not as they appear, unquestioningly.

Fiction, mis-handled, may leave people abandoning their intelligence for a time of distracting entertainment. That's okay, momentarily, but when it becomes a trend . . . . .

On the other hand, theatrical/film acting, well done brings, to the audience, a channel of understanding of a character, an authentic feeling based upon insight that deepens intelligence. It's a degree of depth that awakens discernment. This is the potential magic of theater, that the actor shows what is in the audience members and they recognize it, in themselves. And thus fiction may then aid recognition and release.

Thus, fiction may go two ways. The thing is, which of the two ways is more prominent, today?

When the higher possibility of fiction is made junior to the possibility of making money publishing fiction in one form or another, and money is the object, and not the artform (a high-quality product of which may call for more money in the act of creation than a poor production) the rigor of creation falls short of the level that would do anybody any good. That's much of contemporary film/cinema, theater, art and music (especially music). It seems to me the overwhelming output of film entertainment comes out motivated by a mediocre intelligence and seeks to appeal to the mediocrity and immaturity of consumers, for its sustenance -- gratuitious sex and violence, spectacle without human insight, exploitation of unnecessarily extreme turns of fictional plot (explosions, chase scenes, deaths, caricatures of "evil characters") -- you get the idea.

Fiction in the hands of fools
develops a generation of fools who can't tell the difference
between what enhances them
and what degrades them --
between shit and "Shinola" (shoe polish).

They assert the right to go any old way they want and never be questioned, about it. "Don't tell me what to do!"

Fiction can awaken or weaken the intelligence of the populace.

It has.