6/3/2017
Aloha! It is now 1:39 PM EST for me. I invented this idea called ‘Discuss’ just 2 days ago and yesterday, and I want to explain it before I explain ‘Take’. The reason is that if I explain ‘Discuss’ before ‘Take’, I think you may feel like you have earned the understanding of ‘Discuss’ more.
Because of the nature of the instigation identified by idea ‘Discuss’, I have decided to recommend to you some sort of generalistic humanistic music video, since the instigation I am about to explain to you may impose an adverse sense of exciting you. The music video is called ‘Can’t Stop the Feeling’ recorded by celebrity Justin Timberlake for the animated movie ‘Trolls’. Here’s the description of the music video from web site www.wikipedia.org:
‘…the “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” video follows Timberlake on a tour to everyday places like a laundromat, diner, barbershop and a donut shop, with an individual dancing along to the single at every stop.’
‘Talking to Entertainment Weekly, director Mark Romanek described the concept as “just the overall feeling of unironic and sincere humanism. …It makes people smile for four minutes.’
To watch the music video for free, just go to www.youtube.com and search for phrase ‘can’t stop the feeling music video’. It should be the 1st selection offered, the one that has over 506 million views. As of 1:58 PM, I just finished watching the entire “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” music video, and I recommend that you watch at least most of it.
Discuss:
The 1st thing I want to do is try to add some credibility to what I am about to say with a reference. The reference I want to use is the ‘Sticks and Stones’ reference. Here is a description of ‘Sticks and Stones’ from www.wikipedia.org:
‘“Sticks and Stones” is an English language children’s rhyme. The rhyme persuades the child victim of name-calling to ignore the taunt, to refrain from physical retaliation, and to remain calm and good-natured.’
The version of the rhyme I remember is:
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.’
The version in wikipedia is:
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never harm me.’
There are other variations, but the version of that rhyme I am using for this advice is the one I remembered.
Pain discuss:
So, here’s the main discovery I have made, an idea I call ‘Pain discuss’. 1st, let’s examine the definition of ‘Sticks and Stones’ given by wikipedia:
‘The rhyme persuades the child victim of name-calling to ignore the taunt, to refrain from physical retaliation, and to remain calm and good-natured.’
The existence of the rhyme ‘Sticks and Stones’ and it’s definition given by wikipedia is what I am using to give some credibility to idea ‘Pain discuss’. Now, here is the explanation I am giving you. This explanation is from an extrapolated evaluation from part of the ‘Sticks and Stones’ rhyme, specifically:
‘But names will never hurt me’
How would name calling hurt another person? I discovered that the popular way that one person may hurt another with name calling is by improperly imposing an impression of discussion upon the victim. Even though the innocent victim did not agree to have such a discussion with the instigator, the instigator would insist that the innocent person would interact with such an impression of discussion. The explanation of ‘Pain discuss’ is that, over time, and after a certain amount of false discussions is imposed upon the victim, the victim may be more aware that a sense of discomfort is associated with an interaction with such impressions of discussion, for both real time and recalled impressions of discussion.
The good news is that, if you read Wishlist #1084, the one with the recommended music video ‘What Makes You Beautiful’ by the music band ‘One Direction’, then you have probably also learned idea ‘Language’, which was also in that Wishlist. If you choose to, if you have learned the ‘Language’ idea, you can use that idea to manage better how you evaluate impressions of discussion that other people cause you to respond to, as well as impressions of discussion that you choose to recall. So, for a quick review, you can go to Wishlist #1084 and review the ‘Language/Snowden’ idea. I can also go over some of it now. For an illustration of ‘Language’, go to www.youtube.com and search for phrase ‘snowden preview’. It should be the 1st selection offered, and it has over 14 million views. Select that, and go 1 minute and 39 seconds into the trailer, when Snowden(Joseph Gordon-Levitt) greets one of the security guards. He then tosses the security guard a Rubik’s Cube before Snowden goes through the metal detector. Soon, the security guard tries to resolve the Cube. That is essentially the ‘Language’ idea. Refurbished, an instigator may bring to your attention something to resolve, and the resolving, at least before this idea, probably caused you to commit to an associated sense of language use. The realization of that allows you to be better able to change the language use, instead of being manipulated into using the language associated with a sense of resolving the instigator wants you to interact with.
So, in the case of the rhyme ‘But names will never hurt me’, you can see the fact? that you are experiencing discomfort from certain experiences from instigators as a language that the instigator wants you to commit to that is part of how you should interact with that discussion. The solution I recommend to you using your ‘Language’ idea is to not use that language of discomfort in order to evaluate and interact with that imposed upon discussion instigators wanted you to experience. For kids, teenagers, and adults, when you would recall such experiences of discussion, you may notice that the instigator wants you to interact with discomfort as part of such discussions. You can choose not to, to change that language.
In order to give you most of the explanation today, what I am doing now is to just give you the word explanation without any tv show or movie illustrations. That way, at least you will have the core explanation 1st, and then afterwards, hopefully today, I plan to give you the tv show and movie illustrations. So, from where I left off, for this to work for you easily, I am assuming you read the ‘Blink’ idea(Wishlist #1003-1008) that I typed near the beginning of this blog. You have the ability to decide how you contribute to a discussion. You can choose for that sense of discomfort to not come from you. So, even though in the beginning or when you experience that sense of discussion real time, you don’t have to use that sense of discomfort as something that you choose to use to contribute to a discussion. So, if you choose to, for example, go to a minor experience you had in your past that involves some minor discomfort that was used by you as a language you used in order to interact with such a discussion, and choose to no longer use that discomfort as part of your contributing discussion. For example, to start over, contemplationally say phrase ‘Pain discuss’ when recalling such an experienced discussion, so that you can choose to not use that discomfort in your use of discussion. The original name of ‘Pain discuss’ is ‘Discomfort discuss’, but I think ‘Pain discuss’ has reasonable effectiveness. To give the use of the word ‘Pain’ more of an acceptable use, use definition ‘Pain in the neck’:-‘A source of annoyance, a nuisance, as in ‘Joan is a real pain in the neck, with her constant complaining.”
Resolve discuss:
‘Pain discuss’ or ‘Discomfort discuss’ was the 1st idea I invented. Using that idea, I invented idea ‘Resolve discuss’. That is when an instigator is using a misleading sense of discussion to cause you to contemplationally resolve something that may be inappropriate for you to resolve, out of context for you to resolve, or something you simply chose not to resolve. For example, in Wishlist #1047 I offered you idea ‘Impression of expectation meaning is not ‘thinking it through’. An instigator may improperly impose an impression of meaning in that sense of resolving created because of that misleading sense of discusssion that you did not think about it well enough. However, since that impression of meaning is in that sense of resolving in your mind, you still may treat it as something you did think through. I suspect that instigators do that to impose more of an adverse response from innocent people. The solution is to contemplationally say ‘Resolve discuss’ to check if those out of context an non-relevant impressions of resolving contain meanings that you did not think through, so that you can more tenably allocate such meanings. For example, if such impressions of resolving are out of context and not relevant to address, using ‘Resolve discuss’ can help you more tenably not use such impessions of resolving inclinations.
Invasive from:
Idea ‘Invasive from’ is also called ‘Invasive from discuss’, since it is also a ‘Discuss’ idea. When I contemplationally use the idea, it seems to me more effective if I just call it ‘Invasive from’. Idea ‘Invasive from’ means that the misleading aspect of the discussion feels like it’s coming from you, even though you know that it is not your chosen use of discussion. One example is feeling guilty of doing something, even though you know you didn’t do it. You know what the cause is, something that you are unavoidably experiencing from an instigation or inadvertency. However, even though you know it’s not you, the experience feels like it’s invasively coming from you. The solution is to contemplationally use phrase ‘Invasive from’ to choose to not use that misleading, invasive sense in your use of discussion. Since you may be new to it’s use, if you feel that phrase ‘Invasive from’ may be too awkward to use because the instigation imposes an awkward identity, then use instead ‘Resolve from’, that the invasive resolving is not from you.
[I want to stop now and finish this idea next Saturday. To me, the hardest part was the beginning explanation of this idea, such as finding the music video for idea ‘Discuss’. I considered other music videos, but eventually chose to use ‘Can’t Stop the Feeling!’ because of it’s possible need to have some sort of endurance to exposure to criticism from instigation(How can instigators complain about that generalistic ‘feel good’ music video that was made for a very popular animated movie? I’m assuming it’s popular based on what wikipedia said about it, for example quote-…’The film received generally positive reviews from critics, grossed $344.5 million worldwide’). [As of 6/17/2017 7:07 PM, I am now saying that of course instigators can complain about music video ‘Can’t Stop the Feeling!’ if they choose to. I do still believe that such a music video has some endurance to exposure to criticism to some forms of instigation.
I also want to add that, if you managed to make this idea work for you, even though I didn’t give you those tv show and movie illustrations I planned to give you, keep in mind the ‘Chair’ idea in Wishlist #1073. Before this idea, you contemplationally used what was available to you, so to speak. Nobody knows everything. I’m saying this because if you believe this idea was personally useful to you, you will probably experience an epiphany using it. Also, I would like to remind you that, as I said in the beginning of this list, I invented this idea this past Thursday and Friday, just 2 days ago and yesterday, which means I gave you this idea as soon as I reasonably could. So, I guess I’ll see you next week!
6/10/2017
Salutations! For me, it’s now 12:49 PM EST. I invented a few more ideas for idea ‘Discuss’ since last week, so what I’ll do is go over that ‘Sticks and stones’ rhyme again, start explaining an idea that I call ‘Recover’, and then finally explain several ideas related to idea called ‘Exert guilty’. Hopefully, I’ll finish that by today, which will allow me to finally explain idea ‘Take’ next week.
To start, here is the full rhyme again:
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.’
And here is the part of the rhyme that I will talk about:
‘…But names will never hurt me.’
After the invention cheap cialis from india of the drug, mostly the people who sooner or later are going to be facing erectile dysfunction. As soon price levitra as you drop your order, you will receive a confirmation message, and the firm will start working on that order. The problem initially surfaces as softer erection, low resistance duration, lesser online levitra ejaculation force or difficulty climaxing. Females can cialis on line decide finest form of self defense based upon their desire.
I want to start with the question ‘Why would name calling hurt another person?’ I made the logical conclusion that instigators may improperly cause an innocent person to interact with a sense of discussion, even though that person did not make an obvious indication to want to interact with such a discussion. Since an image is worth a thousand words, so to speak, I have a refurbished for advice illustration for that. It’s just one example, not all examples. The illustration, according to imdb.com, is in episode 1.12 ‘Truth or Dare’ from tv show ‘Undeclared(2002)’. The episode is available on DVD from Amazon, but Amazon does not have the episode available for streaming. If you look in google, you may be able to find it streaming or DVD rentable from another service. I was able to find it streaming for free from www.youtube.com. According to wikipedia, ‘Undeclared centers on a group of college freshmen at the fictional University of Northeastern California.’ In the illustration I am recommending for you to watch, Ron(Seth Rogen), a college freshman, is pretending from a distance to be one of the people in a tour hosted by Kelly(Busy Philips), the tour guide that Ron likes a lot. Ron is even pretending to avidly(showing great enthusiasm for or interest in) participate with the tour, making verbal comments with enthusiasm to the tour guide Kelly. All that is done from a distance. He’s not actually participating. And when Kelly notices that Ron is doing something that unusual, she looks at him directly and gives an impression of discussion to him, a discussion that Ron did not agree to, since he was just imagining participating in Kelly’s tour, and not actually participating in Kelly’s tour. So, when Kelly impressed upon Ron that discussion that he did not actively agree to, that impression of discussion confused Ron, causing Ron to leave Kelly’s line of sight. To watch that scene for free, search for phrase ‘undeclared truth or dare’, and it should be the 1st selection offered by youtube that has over 32 thousand views, and it’s video length is 22 minutes and 34 seconds. The illustration starts 7 minutes into that youtube video. That’s when you start seeing Ron pretending to avidly participate in Kelly’s tour from a distance.
Now, using the rhyme ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.’ as a reference, an instigator may impose upon you to interact with an impression of discussion, both real time/as you experience it, and when you recall the experience, that involves an unavoidable use of discomfort to contemplationally interact with such a discussion. For example, before this advice, you probably didn’t even think you had a choice but to interact with certain forms of discussion using it’s impression of discomfort in order to contemplationally interact with it.
The solution I created is that, if you read Wishlist #1084, then you may have chosen to use idea ‘Language’, which is from that list. If you choose to use the ‘Language’ idea, you can identify the discomfort as a language, and simply choose not to use that language in order to interact with certain impressions of discussion. For example, let’s say an instigator imposes upon you the impression of a discussion that involves a sense of discomfort. After that impression of discussion is over, and you no longer need to actively interact with such a discussion, you can use the conceptualization of that conversation represented as ice cubes placed on top of one of your cars. Once that discussion is over and you no longer need to interact with it, you don’t have to leave those ice cubes on top of your car and wait for them to melt. You can instead use one of your imagined hands and just remove those ice cubes that are on top of your car, the ice cubes that are associated with discomfort.
When you use this ‘Discuss’ idea, I recommend you call the discomfort ‘Pain’, as in ‘Pain in the neck’. You can use the phrase ‘Pain discuss’ or ‘Pain from’. You can also use the word ‘Discomfort’, such as ‘Discomfort discuss’ or ‘Discomfort from’. For example, before this idea, you may have believed that you had no choice but to interact with discomfort that was associated with an impression of discussion, a discussion that you may not have even agreed to participate with. Now, you may have the ability to manage that discomfort better, to leave it there, but you don’t need so much of it’s intensity, and to not need to wait for it to metaphorically melt on top of your car.
Recover:
I want to start with the illustration example. The illustration is in movie ‘New in Town(2009)’, starring Renee Zellweger as Lucy Hill and J.K. Simmons as Stu Kopenhafer. According to Amazon Video rental, the illustration starts 29 minutes and 36 seconds into the movie. In that illustration, Lucy Hill is talking to the men in a bar. She believes they are listening to her concerns. However, she made the logical conclusion that the men listening were also playing a drinking game based on the words that she was using to talk to them. Here is a quote:
Lucy Hill:-‘I’m really sorry, guys, I meant for that to be a D-word so you could all do a double shot. ‘…I thought this would be an opportunity for us to bury the hatchet. Instead, you just turn me into some dumb drinking game?’
Innocent people make logical conclusions, and it’s not just absurdly obvious instigations that may influence the use of those logical conclusions. Here is my interpretation of what happened in that illustration of movie ‘New in Town’, refurbished for advice in case I get it wrong. The men were trying to sincerely listen to Lucy Hill. However, what they were also doing was playing a drinking game based on the words Lucy Hill uses. You see, Lucy Hill was not supposed to know that they were playing that drinking game. However, Lucy Hill discovered that they were, and her use of that discovery made her feel insulted. My point is that the ‘New in Town’ illustration could be an example of innocent people making logical conclusions of what other people are doing, but what those conclusions may have discovered were not intended for them to be aware of it, and those discoveries were not prepared to be presented for such innocent people to evaluate. So, if you take the possibility that instigations could be absurdly obvious in getting the attention of your logical conclusions and the possibility that your logical conclusions could also have make discoveries that were not prepared for you to evaluate, that can create many varieties of evaluations that could be too difficult to identify individually. So, what I have done is instead identify such evaluations based on how long it may take to recover from such experiences, whether the experiences are unavoidable or by choice.
Here is an illustration that may help you understand what I am trying to teach you. The illustration is in movie ‘Starship Troopers(1997)’, starring Clancy Brown as Sgt. Zim. The quote starts 24 minutes and 7 seconds into the Amazon Video rental:
Sgt. Zim:-‘To think this had to happen to me. What a bunch of apes. No! Strike that! You don’t rate that good! Never in my life have I seen…’ One of the cadets starts to laugh. ‘Do you think I’m funny? Do I make you laugh? Do you think I’m a comedian, son?
Cadet:-‘I’m sorry.'(The cadet still can’t stop laughing.)
Here’s my interpretation, refurbished for advice, as to what happened in that illustration. I am not using the evaluations of Sgt. Zim. I’m using the evaluations of a civilian watching a movie. And the way I see it, when Sgt. Zim said quote-‘To think this had to happen to me. What a bunch of apes. No! Strike that! You don’t rate that good!’, all the cadets felt like laughing. After all, they’re just starting to learn to be Starship Troopers. So, what is happening is that, whoever the 1st person is that laughs, every other cadet will use that person as strength to NOT laugh. How else will they do it? They haven’t been taught much yet. It’s understood in that illustration that no one is supposed to be laughing, so that ‘Starship Troopers’ movie illustration could be used as an example of managing your sense of recovery.
Now, going back to that ‘New In Town’ illustration, notice that when Lucy Hill made the logical conclusion that the men listening to her were also playing a drinking game with her use of words, she couldn’t just let it slide(disregard). She took the discovery personally, and it may take her some time, let’s say 1 day, to recover from such an experience. So, the point I am trying to make is that, before this idea, if you made logical conclusions that involved certain instigations that involve some obvious recovery time, you were probably like Lucy Hill. You weren’t able to ‘let it slide’. Instead, you chose to recover from such an experience. Now, of course I’m still speculating, but let’s say that for the older adults that, over the course of many years, you have learned to manage many possible examples of recovering from mild to moderate instigations. Still, that is something that took many years to accomplish.
For the kids, teenagers, and adults, I offer you the option to have the ability to choose to not need to recover from certain mild to moderate instigations. Let’s say, for example, before this advice, when you experienced a mild to moderate instigation that imposed a sense of recovery, you simply tried to manage how you were going to recover from such an instigation. Now, I recommend that you at least try to have the evaluation of using a daily contemplation allowance as to how much you should spend to recover from certain mild to moderate instigations. By having such an allowance, and it doesn’t have to have a specific quantity, I believe you can manage better if it’s even relevant for you to recover from certain mild to moderate instigations. Instead of addressing the ‘allowance’ idea further, I am going to start explaining idea ‘Exert guilty’.
Exert guilty:
After I invented idea ‘Recover’, which was less than a week ago, I invented the idea of not addressing certain impressions of discussions that instigators want you to contemplationally address, but that you don’t believe it is relevant or even appropriate to address. There are 3 examples of instigations that may cause you to address certain discussions I will try to discuss today. The 1st example is when instigations interrupt your private train of thought, and even though such thoughts are viable to you, those thoughts, those contemplations, were not intended to be used as part of any discussion. The 2nd example is when instigators improperly encourage you to address issues that relate to them, let’s say that such an encouragement is from an impression of grievance from them that you would rather avoid thinking about. The 3rd example is when an instigation causes you to use your own sense of grievance to address certain discussions that you should not address. This 3rd example reminds me of a story I learned in high school about the Nemean lion. Refurbished for advice, of course, there is an article about the Nemean lion in www.wikipedia.org. The story is from Greek mythology. Basically, the Nemean lion’s skin is impervious(incapable of being injured or impaired) to attack. The only thing that can pierce the skin of the lion is the lion’s own teeth and claws. Refurbished for advice, of course, that is what I think the 3rd example is like, when an instigation causes you to experience a sense of grievance that is coming from you personally, such as a grievance that is from your own chosen sense of intent, that causes you to address discussions that you should not address.
The solution I invented to help me manage what to address and what not to address was to 1st create a sense of discussions from myself and from others that can be regulated to allow me to stop addressing certain discussions. Such a discussion diagnostic simultaneously senses impressions of discussions that try to come from me and try to come from others. And then I reasoned that, in order for instigators to try to cause me to address such discussions, they would probably try to cause me to feel some sort of contemplation effort. After making that deduction, I started to invent phrases that identify such efforts. The phrases that I invented are 1)’Obnoxiously guilty’, 2)’Drag/(ging) guilty’, 3)’Exert guilty’, 4)’Sour exert’, and 5)’Grievance not intent’.
[It’s 5:20 PM EST, and I am going to stop now and plan to continue next Saturday. Once I finish explaining these ideas, which should be by next Saturday, I plan to finally start explaining idea ‘Take’. I am optimistic that you will find something useful from this list. So, if you choose to read this blog next Saturday, I plan to add more ideas then.
6/17/2017
Salutations! According to my computer, it is now 3:56 PM EST, so I don’t have much time to finish this list. I spent several hours trying to find another music video to offer you, but I couldn’t find one.
Now, when I recommended music video ‘What Makes You Beautiful’ in Wishlist #1084, I didn’t realize how the girls would be affected by it. I think I’m doing the same thing again when I recommended the ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.’ rhyme. This reminds me of episode 6.23 ‘Rightful Heir’ from sci-fi series ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation(1993)’, when even though Worf(Michael Dorn) discovered that Kahless was a clone, Worf and Gowron(Robert O’Reilly) reasoned that Kahless was still useful. Here is a quote about the episode from www.wikipedia.org:
‘Worf tells Gowron he has decided to support Kahless, explaining that he has made a leap of faith as Data once did, adding that the clone’s origins don’t matter. He suggests the Klingon High Council appoint Kahless to the ceremonial position of Emperor; while only a figurehead, he might be able to unite the Klingon people. In conclusion, Worf observes that while not the “true” Kahless, this man is at least the “Rightful Heir” to Kahless; opposing him might lead to civil war. Seeing the wisdom of cooperation, Gowron offers his devotion.’
Basically, one example is that there will probably be people who will use this advice simply because it associates itself with the ‘Sticks and stones’ rhyme. So, what I have decided to do is finish this list by giving it the most recent, relevant, reasonable idea I have invented, because what I would usually do is finish the list in order to continue to the next list.
Not able from explain:
The idea I call ‘Not able from explain’ I invented while I was at the supermarket yesterday. It basically means that ‘I am not able to keep up with an imposed impression of explanation that is from me.’ This idea identifies a possible impression of explanation that, when a person experiences such an instigation, the innocent person experiences an impression of explanation that is either coming from the contemplation identified vantage point of the instigator, or the contemplation vantage point of the innocent person. For example, when you experience such an instigation or inadvertency, you will contemplationally feel that you are participating in some sort of explanation, that the explanation is coming from you, and you are not able to comfortably keep up with that sense of explanation.
The only example I can think of right now as to how that feels, of course refurbishedly toned down for advice, is in episode 2.4 ‘Mirror, Mirror’ from sci-fi tv series ‘Star Trek(1967)’, episode available to be watched without extra payment if you have an Amazon Prime membership. The illustration is when Captain Kirk(William Shatner) tried to return to the Enterprise, but a transporter accident sent them instead to an alternate universe. The illustration begins, according to Amazon Video, 2 minutes and 33 seconds into the episode, when Kirk and the others were realizing that their clothing and other things have changed when they tried to return. What surprised me is how quickly they have learned to adapt to their science fiction like circumstance. For this advice, you are only using that beginning moment when they were realizing that their clothing and circumstance has changed. In other words, use the illustrations before the agonizer was used on Lieutenant Kyle(John Winston).
The 1st part of the solution I invented is that you identify the instigation by contemplationally saying the phrase ‘Not able from explain’, which means that ‘you are not able to keep up with the impression of explanation that has the impression of coming from me’, and then choose not to interact or participate with such an impression, or like Kirk did in that ‘Star Trek’ example, to use a more tenable means to interact with it.
Exert remove:
The other part of the solution is that, if such an instigation is also imposing upon you an exerting, removing, draining sense of an explanation that is coming from you, what you then do is identify the fact that the composure response that feels like an exerting, removing, draining sense is your composure response, and not the instigation’s. You see, when you feel that adverse sense, I suspect that the instigator is trying to ‘steal’ your composure response, to cause you to not use that composure response in a preferred context, which would probably cause you to make more of a contemplation effort to reinstate a composure response that is more acceptable, more familiar to you(I discussed ‘composure response’ in several past lists in this blog already. For example, Wishlist #1042. If you want more ‘composure response’ examples, search for phrase ‘composure response in the front page of this blog). So, once you believe that it is your composure response, simply interpret that exerting, removing, draining sense as a reinstating composure response, not from the out of context impression that the instigator wants you to believe, but it is instead a reinstating composure response from an intent that you are supposed to have(If you are having some trouble understanding how to do that, the next idea called ‘Take’ will make it much easier for you to do that, if you choose to). Since this 2nd part of the solution is more aggressive that the 1st solution, instead of calling it ‘Not able from explain’, call it ‘Exert remove’. I forgot to mention that idea ‘Exert remove’ was not invented yesterday, but this afternoon earlier today, when I was out buying food.
Here are some of the words that I used to ‘shuffle’ in order to make this idea work: ‘Not able’, ‘Keep up’, ‘From’, ‘Explain’, ‘Exert’, ‘Remove’, ‘Drain’, and ‘Reinstate’.
So, for example, before this idea, when you experienced such an instigation, refurbishedly toned down of course, it was like you were only temporarily stuck in that mirror universe from the ‘Star Trek’ illustration. It wore off eventually. Now, instead of what you were doing before, you can now reinterpret such a misleading composure response as your own composure response trying to reinstate to what you are supposed to be experiencing. For example, in the beginning, that could be like a minor physical ache that represents an interaction involving a reinstatement as it pertains to the usual and customary interactions of your job or school. So, for example, even though the reinstatement may feel awkward or embarrassing, such an awkward and embarrassing reinstatement is still coming from the usual and customary interactions of your job or school. In other words, the advice is helping you re-direct how you contemplationally land from such an instigation. I think that’s a change for the better, if you choose to use such an option. And, of course, with a little practice, you’ll probably improve it’s use.
For example, when I used the idea earlier today and contemplationally used the phrase ‘Exert remove’, it felt like the instigator wanted me to remove a certain exerting feeling. What I did instead is to allow that exerting, draining feeling to represent a reinstatement to what I was supposed to be doing. [What you may also have the option to do is reinstate it to something else that makes the instigation experience more tenable. After all, it is still your composure response that the instigator is trying to ‘steal’. so to speak. For example, you can still use the ‘Star Trek’ reference. Notice that in the ‘Mirror, Mirror’ example, Kirk redirected the reinstatement in the form of ‘playing along’ with their circumstance, to buy some time in order to determine what had happened, how to get back to the Enterprise, and also all sorts of Starfleet stuff. My point is that it’s your composure response to begin with.
To be more fair and more courteous, there are other ideas I didn’t offer you yet, for example, the ideas from bookmark ‘Take’, and this other idea involving an upgrade for your ‘Not agree to address’. However, even though I did not present to you these ideas yet, I still believe that you have at least a working consideration for the ideas I have offered you in this list. In other words, I believe the ideas in this list may be useful to you.
Some viewer discretion for tv show ‘Undeclared’. Rated PG viewer discretion for movie ‘New in Town’. Rated R violence and viewer discretion for sci-fi movie ‘Starship Troopers’. Violence and viewer discretion for sci-fi series ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ and sci-fi series ‘Star Trek’. Use only refurbished for advice references recommended. Throw away rest of episode, series, and movie. [Use mental bookmarks ‘Discuss’, ‘Discomfort discuss’, ‘Discomfort from’, ‘Pain discuss’, ‘Pain from’, ‘Resolve discuss’, ‘Invasive from’, ‘Recover’, ‘Exert guilty’, ‘Not able from explain’, ‘Exert remove’, and ‘Exert reinstate’ for reference, allocation, and prevention when needed.
.
So, if you are here next Saturday, I plan to see you then.