The Importance of Self-Image

More than a desire is needed to master not just a subject or skill, but yourself. Yes...I believe that by being a master of all those things I mentioned in my last post means you have to master yourself. To take control.

But not forceful control.

Let me explain. Often when people decide to loose weight they "force" themselves to diet or exercise. They rely on willpower alone to get the job done. This works for awhile, but eventually, we tire of forcing ourselves to do something we don't naturally want to do. I've had it happen in my life numerous times. Not just with loosing extra flab, but with other things, too.

So the answer is not merely being disciplined to the point of being able to forcefully control yourself by the power of your will. Willpower alone does not result in longterm change. Admit it to yourself. How many times have you tried to change solely on the basis of willpower? How long did it work for you?

Something more is needed for permanent change. More than mere desire. More than strong willpower.

Maxwell Maltz, author of Psycho-Cybernetics (a book I HIGHLY recommend), explains that the root of the problem is not a lack of willpower, or a lack of desire to change, but a lack of a self-image that naturally incorporates the desired behavior.

For example, if you imagine yourself as someone who has no time to exercise, you're convinced that exercise is not fun, you have better things to do with your time, that exercise is to be avoided, or that it's a necessary evil, etc. Or if you appear in your mind's eye as an overweight person and are convinced that's what you naturally look like, then you'll BE overweight.

In other words, your self image is what determines your behavior. Your behavior determines who you are. Like I said in my post about that ridiculous book, "The Secret" (didn't see the film), you are who you think you are. Maxwell Maltz illustrates this beautifully in Psycho-Cybernetics.

On the other hand, say that you view yourself as an active, involved person. The kind of person who takes care of him(her)self, who eats right, who enjoys physical activity, who is naturally thin and fit...then you'll start naturally exhibiting the kind of behavior to support that self image. No "willpower" required. You just do it because those actions are congruent with who you believe yourself to be.

So the real root of change, then, is to change your self image. I always imagined that someday I'd master all those areas I mentioned in my last post. That has been my problem all along. I hadn't created a self-image that included mastery in those areas today. Right now. Not 10 years from now. It may be too late, then.

So I've decided to try an experiment. A 21-Day experiment. Maxwell Maltz says it takes 21 consecutive days to form a habit. After 21 consecutive days of doing anything, it will suddenly feel strange not to do it.

In the past, I've pretty much focused on one goal at a time. I felt this was the only way to get things done. But I believe I've been doing myself a disservice by thinking this way. We're all multi-dimensional beings. In order to be effective and well-balanced, it's important to have multiple goals we're simultaneously working toward and be able to effectively manage them.

I'll be discussing this 21-Day experiment in my next post.

The Stan

P.S. The image above is a self portrait by the famous Mexican artist, Frida Kahlo, who was considerably more attractive than this painting suggests. (She didn't have such a pronounced "unibrow" either.) But apparently, this is how Frida viewed herself. Many people have unhealthy self-images that make them to be less beautiful, less talented, less intelligent, less emotionally stable, less wealthy, less successful (I could go on) then they should be and have a right to be.

What Does It Mean To Be Great?

Continuing from my last post:

If you were to ask me that question before last Sunday, I would have likely answered (like many would, I suppose) that being great means to be extraordinary at something.

We talk about "great actors," "great musicians," "great salesmen," "great business leaders," "great writers." I could on and on.

To be great means to be great at something. Or to stress it differently, to be great at some thing.

But I no longer believe this to be the case. And here's why...

Often, in the pursuit of "greatness" at some thing, we wind up living massively unbalanced lives. I've seen it in my life. If I'm interested in a particular topic, I'll spend months, hours every day, reading everything I can get a hold of. On the one hand, this behavior is admirable. But on the other, it leads to an imbalanced life.

I wind up neglecting my body. Not exercising. Not eating healthy. I ignore the chores around the house. I don't balance my checkbook. In fact, I'll often not even want to think about anything else but what I'm studying, or practicing, or whatever. Clearly, that's not greatness.

It must be about more than just being great at some thing.

Consider all the "great" actors, or "great" musicians, or "great" artists that have (or had) massively screwed up lives because of sex, drugs, alcohol, or some other weakness or addiction. A few examples: Robert Downey, Jr.; Chris Farley; Judy Garland; Jimi Hendrix; John Coltrane; Elvis Presley; Charlie Parker...the list goes on and on.

Consider the "great" leaders who harbored a secret life. Bill Clinton; Richard Nixon (much vilified now, but was responsible for opening China to the West); Jim Baker (former televangelist); Ken Lay (of Enron fame)...again, there are many examples.

Clearly to be great at some thing, to be recognized by others for your accomplishments, to be a business, political, or spiritual leader, to be a public figure...those things in themselves do not make one "great" in the absolute sense of the word.

So what, then, does it mean to be great?

The conclusion I came to is that greatness includes someone who has not only mastered a skill or particular subject, but has a positive and lasting influence on those around him because...

• He has his life in proper balance.
  
• Has a healthy sense of himself and his place in the world.
  
• Is emotionally intelligent and stable.
  
• Maintains his physical health and appearance.
  
• Doesn't allow himself to be a slave to weaknesses or addictions.
  
• Is ethical in all his dealings.
  
• Doesn't neglect his spiritual side.
• Improves himself in some way on a daily basis.
• Is financially stable and independent.
• Is capable of influencing and persuading others without unethical manipulation in order to achieve great things.
  

How, then, does one manage to succeed in all those areas? How many people are there that actually fit all these criteria? Is it even possible? I can only imagine how effective someone who managed to succeed in all those areas would be!

Imagine, for example, if John Coltrane, rather than being a troubled soul, had been all of those things I just mentioned. Think of what he could have done for the world of jazz! For music as a whole! Think of the lives that could have been positively influenced and inspired! This is a whole new level of greatness. Above and beyond merely being great at some thing.

I want to be all those things. But wanting alone won't get me there. I've wanted to be all those things my whole life, yet at 32, my life is as unbalanced as it ever was!

Clearly, more is needed. The desire to be better, in itself, will get you nowhere. But "forcing" yourself to "try to do better" in those areas, doesn't work, either. I'll talk more about this in the next post...

The Stan

A Lesson in Personal Change

I went absolutely nowhere this last weekend. I didn't really do much of anything, either. But it was a fantastically productive weekend because of a few hours I spent in private thought on Sunday afternoon.

What I was thinking about, and the conclusions I came to, will be the subject of the next few posts.

When I was in college, my trumpet professor had a small piece of paper tacked on the bulletin board just outside his office that read, "Without change, there can be no improvement."

I don't remember who this quote was attributed to, but it has stuck with me all these years and I'll never forget it. Without any further elaboration, it's a powerful lesson.

So simple. Yet so profound.

I believe this phrase, which I think about nearly everyday, is part of the inspiration for me to try new and different things. As Matt Bingham told me recently, "The Stan, you're a man of ventures. Everyone else, when I ask them what they've been up to, say 'Oh...you know...same 'ole, same 'ole.' But you...you're always up to something!"

I can't help it. Without change, there is no improvement. My greatest fear is stagnation. Or worse, degeneration. Only the willingness to change, to try new things, to push yourself can you hope to become a better person.

The other day, I was reading the words of Igor Ledochowski, a well-known hypnotist and corporate consultant, when I came across a sentence that immediately struck me and will be with me for years to come:

"Great people become great because they got pushed--either by circumstances or by themselves--to keep growing on a daily basis."

Wow.

Did that ever hit home! "To keep growing on a daily basis." Not only is it important to change. It's important to change on a daily basis. Otherwise, it's too easy to become stagnant. Too easy to become lazy and complacent.

So what does it mean to be a "great person?" And how, exactly, do you become one?

This is what we'll discuss in the next few posts.

The Stan

Relating to an Invisible God, Part II

I've been thinking about this issue of relating to an invisible God for the last week or so. This whole thought process was spawned a week ago yesterday, as I sat at a round table in a meeting to discuss forming small groups at church.

I'm mildly interested in participating in a small church group of other people around my age, but I was mostly there for the pizza. At one point, we had an "exercise" with the other people at the table, and one of the questions was "How has your relationship with God grown over the years."

Well, I couldn't answer that question. I can't say it's "grown" at all. I'm still confused about how this is supposed to be a "relationship" as I understand the term. I'm honest in my reply. I've got nothing to hide.

As I think about this issue more, it occurs to me that I may have missed something here. (Stay with me as I work this out.)

Because God is infinite, he is not bound by a physical form...he's entirely "not physical." I'm avoiding the use of the word "spiritual" here, because my mind can't wrap itself around what exactly that means. The word "spiritual" has taken on many connotations. Maybe "not physical" is the simplest and best definition of the word "spiritual" and we should just leave it at that.

So because God is not in physical form, then if we were to have a relationship with Him, it would have to be fundamentally different from the kind of relationships we're used to having with physical people.

There would be no audible voice. No physical manifestation. It would be entirely "not physical."

I'm not saying God is not capable of producing an audible voice, or some kind of avatar, but it would certainly be out of the norm, as our experiences tell us--although the Bible does relate certain instances where this happened. But if I were to hear of a particular occurrence, I would be extremely skeptical...

Ockham's razor: a simpler explanation is that someone is making it up, imagining it, is mentally ill, or suffering a hallucination or wishful thinking. All such reports would have to be taken with a grain of salt because they are unprovable and unverifiable.

Therefore, I must immediately reject any claim of "God spoke to me, and...blah, blah, blah," unless the statement contained information that the speaker could not possibly know and that information was verifiable.

So...without an audible voice, or a physical manifestation, how would you know if God were trying to speak to you? (Does God even need to speak to us? Do we necessarily need God to speak to us--other than what's already in the Bible?)

So accepting that a relationship with God would be fundamentally different from anything we've known based on our physical experience, then I imagine it would be a pretty difficult and nebulous thing to define what exactly that relationship would be like.

Our experience is purely physical. God is "not physical." What does "not physical" mean? How can I relate to someone that is "not physical," since I am a physical being and all of my experiences are in the physical world?"

So again, I've circled back to the original problem: how do you relate to a "not physical" God? Certainly God would not be God if he were bound by a physical form. Yet because he is God, there is an immense gap between our experiences and His...between what we know and what He knows...between our senses and His.

In fact, in order to communicate with a "not physical" being, we would need an extra sense. Our five senses are tuned into the physical world. We would need a "sixth sense" that is tuned to a "not physical" world.

Even if God were to attempt to speak to us using the physical world, I would imagine that we would still need the "sixth sense" to recognize that it is, in fact, God trying to speak to us. Otherwise, we may not even recognize it--or we may attribute it to something else.

In any case, I've been reminded that prayer is certainly biblical. Jesus even gave us a blueprint for it in the form of the Lord's prayer. So that means we should pray, even if there is no "return message."

Relating to an Invisible God

This will be the very first post I've ever written about my spiritual life. I'm gonna be completely honest here, even though I know I'll probably be getting all kinds of "attempted conversion" comments on here.

The thing is, I'm not really a spiritual person. I guess I don't really understand exactly what it means to be spiritual. I grew up in church. My dad's a pastor now. I've read the bible, and still read it occasionally. But what exactly does it mean to be spiritual, or to have a relationship with God?

I used to pray and read the bible often. I used to feel that God talked to me. But then I realized that God wasn't actually talking to me at all. It was my own imagination and wishful thinking.

Then I figured if I, as a reasonably intelligent person, can be fooled into thinking God talks to me, can't just about anyone be fooled into the same?

It strikes me that prayer is pretty much a one-way conversation. How is that a relationship? All the relationships--the real relationships--I've had have been with real people. People I can see, feel, hear, interact with. That's what having a relationship is all about. Interaction.

I'm not doubting God's existence here. I have no doubt that God exists. My doubts have to do with whether we can actually have a real relationship with him the way modern Christians believe.

How do you have a relationship with an invisible God? Of course, I see God in everything around me. Nature itself is a virtuosic display of the power and creativity of an ultra-powerful God. But it's like seeing a painting by Picasso. Of course I can see his work. I can marvel at it. I can appreciate it. It can be all the proof I need that Picasso did (or does) indeed exist. I can even, perhaps, draw conclusions about some of Picasso's personality traits. But does that mean I actually know Picasso?

God is not only invisible, his voice is silent.

Well..."spiritual" people will talk about the still, small voice and brag about how God speaks to them all the time. But usually people who are so sure God speaks to them are in dire need of a visit to some men in white coats.

It's been my experience that people who talk that way are people who just like to sound spiritual and have probably never heard God's voice any clearer than I have.

I know people who fret about "God's will" for their life. And they pray and fast and read the bible searching for the answer as to whether they should buy the Honda Civic or the Toyota Corolla.

I just don't understand it. As my creator, didn't God give me free will to decide things for myself? Didn't he give me a brain and arms and legs so I can think up a plan and execute it on my own?

I marvel about people who "seek God's will." How the hell can you possibly know if God wants you to move to such and such a place or choose such and such a career if he doesn't have a voice to tell you? People often rely on "signs" or "confirmations." I think people just read too much into coincidences.

Or what about "relying on God?" What does that mean? When I hear people talking about "relying on God," I always think of this old joke...

A man sits on the roof of his house as the flood waters rage around him. A man in a boat shows up and yells "Jump in! I'll get you outta here!"

"No, it's okay!" The man on the roof replies. "God told me he was going to save me!" So he refuses to get in the boat and stays on his roof while the waters continue to rise.

Then another boat comes along, but the man once again refuses saying, "God told me he was going to save me!" The waters continue to rise, and the man is at the very peak of his rooftop, the water lapping at his ankles.

Then a helicopter materializes overhead. The rescue guard is lowering down the basket to snag the man from the roof. But again, the man refuses: "God will save me!"

Finally, the waters cover the entire house, and the man is washed away. He drowns in the raging waters and his last thought is a bitter one: "Why didn't God save me?"

So as the man's spirit appears before God, he questions Him: "Lord, why didn't you save me. I though you told me you'd save me from the flood?"

And God answers: "Well, my child. I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

This is the image I get in my mind every time someone talks about "relying on God." God gave me a brain. And arms and legs. God wants me to use them, I think. If I were the man on the roof, I'd hope for a boat or helicopter, but I'd be tearing up the damn roof trying to build a raft, just in case none came.

The most successful people in the world are people of action. They don't sit around waiting for God to do something. They take action themselves and make something happen. That's me. I'm a "doer," I think.

I don't pray very often. It's not that I don't believe God hears me. It's just that I can't hear what he's saying to me. How is that fulfilling? How does that make me into a better person? How is that a relationship?

There's one thing that strikes me about the bible: the central theme of love. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." The second one is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

When Jesus asked Peter, "Peter, do you love me?" And Peter said yes, then Jesus responded "Then take care of my sheep." Taking care of God's people is love. Loving God is loving others. Loving others is loving God. Maybe that's what having a relationship with God is all about.

Simply loving those that God loves. But loving in a real, practical way that enriches others' lives. Since a real relationship can only happen with real people...and the bible tells us God lives in those who love him, and that "they will know you're my disciples because of your love for one another," then doesn't it stand to reason that maybe a relationship with God is not really about locking yourself in a room and having a one-way conversation every morning, but about simply having relationships with those who profess to love him?

I'm curious, my friends, what your thoughts are on this.

The Stan

The Big "Secret"

Everyone's talking about "The Secret," the movie and companion book about "manifesting" just about anything with your mind.

I'll be the first to admit that the human brain is a very powerful and mysterious thing. I believe it is capable of much more than is generally given credit for. And I believe that we are manifestations of our thoughts. In other words, we are what we think...and we are what we think we are.

The "Secret," the book teaches, is about manifesting anything you desire with the power of your mind. That your thinking "attracts" good and bad things depending on whether your thoughts are good or bad.

On the one hand, I think this touches on a profound truth. But on the other, I think it's a load of horseshit.

Here's the thing: our mind is a powerful thing, yes. What we think determines just about everything in our lives, because we are what we think and we are who we think we are.

But to attribute all success (whether in wealth, status, health, wisdom, talent, learning, relationships, etc.) to the thinking of "positive thoughts" ignores one very powerful element to achieving success in anything:

Action.

I don't give a rat's ass how much "positive energy" you've been conjuring up for that big physics exam. If you haven't taken action and actually studied for it, you just ain't gonna pass!

You can think all the positive thoughts and generate all the manifestation energy you can drum up to conjure up wads of cash...but if you don't actually do something to earn that money (say, by starting a business that meets a need and marketing it successfully), then you're still gonna be a poor broke SOB.

Thoughts are important, yes. I believe it is the foundation to achieving anything. But that's not the end of it. New action and behavior must spring forth from your thoughts.

For example, the book teaches that people are fat because they think of themselves as fat. And that all they've got to do is start thinking themselves as thin and they'll magically start becoming thin. After all, there are thin people who can eat anything they want and still stay thin. (Matt Bingham comes to mind.)

But for anyone with an inkling of respect for science, this is hogwash. Thoughts are important. But they're important because they determine behavior. If you truly want to be thin, start thinking of yourself as thin and fit...and it will change your behavior to reflect your new self-image. If you think of yourself as thin and fit, you're going to start exercising more, you'll start eating healthier. You'll start paying more attention to your body.

But it's the behavior, the action, that gets it done.

But just as thoughts alone don't make things happen, behavior cannot change independent of thoughts.

So in the end, everything starts with the mind. And that's the truth of the secret. I just wish they hadn't dressed it up in a bunch of bullshit.

For a better book on this subject, I recommend "Psycho Cybernetics" by Maxwell Malz. I think it has particular relevance to musicians (but to anyone, really)...and actually was the inspiration for the "Inner Game" series of books, including "Inner Game of Music."

If you want to cut through the bullshit and get to the real meat of the matter, Maxwell Malz is the guy to read.

The Stan

The Critical Difference Between Sci-Fi and Fantasy

Due to the request of my reader, I’ve decided to make a post on the important distinction between science fiction and fantasy.

So at the extremely high risk of sounding like a complete and total nerd (which I suppose I am), I’m going to tackle this subject.

In general, sci-fi deals with possibilities based on what we know or can speculate about science and technology. Fantasy is based on medieval superstitions.

That being said, there are many examples of hybrid stories. Take Star Wars, for instance. To a die-hard sci-fi fan, it's not strictly hard science fiction because of the "magic" of using the force. That element is fantasy. Star Trek, on the other hand, while occasionally metaphysical, is more hard science fiction.

It's the difference between science...or speculative science...and superstition or the metaphysical.

Lord of the Rings, then, is pure fantasy. Star Trek is hard sci-fi (for the most part). And Star Wars is mostly sci-fi, with some fantasy elements thrown in.

To dismiss all sci-fi as fantasy is to dismiss the possibility of it ever happening. But that's the whole point of sci-fi...to extrapolate what could be.

Think of all the technological developments of recent decades…personal computers…personal communication devices (cell phones)…cloning…finding planets around other stars…genetic engineering…nanotechnology…advances in robotics…etc.

All of these things were imagined before they were created (or discovered). Indeed, before anything can be invented it must first be imagined. Is this mere fantasy?

Sci-fi writers wrote about submarines before they were invented (Jules Verne). Or about robots decades before they were created (Asimov, Karel Capek who coined the term). Or about trips to Mars and the Moon (Jules Verne, Ray Bradbury, etc.)

Science fiction writers have traditionally been the inspiration for much of our technology and development. Since nerds tend to read science fiction…and those same nerds tend to go into fields such as research science, engineering, medicine, mathematics, etc…(except for this nerd who went into music)…you can see how much science fiction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of speculative technology.

Sci-fi writers are the dreamers, the engineers the makers.

But there’s also more to it than that. You see, sci-fi deals with possibilities. Not just technological possibilities, but future history. Extrapolating possible futures based on what is happening now and what has happened in the past.

In this regard, sci-fi can serve as a warning…or a morality play…showing a world that could be if certain trends continue. Think of the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell. It’s a warning. I believe we’re still headed for 1984, but that’s a different story.

Fantasy, on the other hand reaches into the superstitious past…to some type of medieval world devoid of technology but full of magic. Lord of the Rings is a classic example.

I’ve typically preferred sci-fi over fantasy, but with Lord of the Rings being one big notable exception. I also really like the Harry Potter series.

But consider the difference between the two genres. Fantasy is just that. Pure fantasy. Sci-fi, on the other hand engages your mind in possibilities.

Now, keep in mind these are generalizations and aren’t meant to classify every book or movie firmly into one camp or the other. There are many hybrids, and many stories with elements of both.

But for the sci-fi fan, we call books devoid of all fantasy elements as “hard science fiction.” A speculation on what could be…

Dr. Nerdstan

P.S. “Hitchhiker’s Guide,” though a delightful read, can only be considered a sci-fi parody, since there’s very little real science in it.