Sight is seeing with the eyes... Vision is seeing through the eyes
James Arthur Ray
It seems like every time James Arthur Ray tries sounding profound ::: he ends up sounding profoundly stupid. But then that's just my take ::: and I'm a nit picky opinionated bitch. (Smile when you read that damn it!)
I read today's James Arthur Ray post and groaned. Sounds cute, and would look great in a greeting card ::: but it's just more of JAR's same-old same-old ::: meaningless don't mean shit ::: Twitter Peeps.
Yeah ::: technically the word "sight" can be used to define the process of seeing via one's eyes (assuming they both work) ::: BUT ::: and it's a big BUTT (pun intended) vision is not the process of seeing through the eyes.
I think what friend James meant to say was "vision is the process of seeing through our mind's eye" ::: or some such huggy cutesy feel good sounding drivel.
When the average ::: educated ::: person on the street thinks of the word "Vision", he/she immediately thinks imagination (hint: envision) NOT 20-20 vision. Friend James must have had a brain fart and accidentally substituted the wrong word. Then again ::: perhaps not :::
The Dark Side of James Arthur Ray's Twitter Posts
James enjoys substituting words A LOT ::: and not because he's stupid. Perhaps there's a more sinister reasoning behind all of James Arthur Ray's strange, bizarre and disjointed Tweet Posts. I believe these posts are part and parcel of James Arthur Ray's INTENTIONAL and ongoing efforts to manipulate (translation: brainwash) his followers.
James Arthur Ray has shown himself a master of redirection and manipulation. He lies, steals, bullies, misdirects, abuses, kills ::: and yet NOTHING he does is ever his fault. It's almost as if his very soul were made of Teflon.
James Arthur Ray would have the world believe that everything he says is the truth. He has consistently promised his followers, the universe on a platter ::: IF ::: they trust whatever he says (without question) ::: do whatever he says (without question) ::: and give him LOTS of money (without question).
The words of an unrepentant sociopath:
I told you to do it ::: BUT :::
If during the course of following James Arthur Ray's direction (without question) ::: people get poor or negative results ::: people lose money ::: people are hurt ::: people die ::: his comeback is always ::: (ILLNESS, BROKEN BONES, BAD REACTIONS, VOMITING, HEAT STROKE, DEATH) IT WASN'T MY FAULT.
Various Brainwashing / Mind altering and abusive control techniques which have been used by James Arthur Ray.
~ information taken from Wikipedia ~
Love Bombing: is the deliberate show of affection or friendship by an individual or a group of people toward another individual. Critics have asserted that this action may be motivated in part by the desire to recruit, convert or otherwise influence.
Critics of cults often cite love bombing as one of the features that may identify an organization as a cult. When used by critics, the phrase is defined to mean affection that is feigned or with an ulterior motive and that is used to reduce the subject's resistance to recruitment.[5]
The term was popularized by psychology professor Margaret Singer, who has become closely identified with the love-bombing-as-brainwashing point of view.[6] In her 1996 book, Cults in Our Midst, she described the technique:
Dr. Geri-Ann Galanti (in a sympathetic article) writes: "A basic human need is for self-esteem.... Basically [love bombing] consists of giving someone a lot of positive attention."[10]
Gaslighting: is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. Gaslighting had a colloquial origin explained below, but the term has also been used in clinical and research literature.[1][2]
The term derives from the 1938 stage play Gas Light (originally known as Angel Street in the United States), and the 1940 and 1944 film adaptations. The plot concerns a husband who attempts to drive his wife to insanity by manipulating small elements of their environment, and insisting that she is mistaken or misremembering when she points out these changes. The title stems from the husband's subtle dimming of the house's gas lights, which she accurately notices and which the husband insists she's imagining.
Gaslighting has been used colloquially since at least the late 1970s to describe efforts to manipulate someone's sense of reality. In a 1980 book on child sex abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor's 1944 film version of Gas Light, and writes, "even today the word [gaslight] is used to describe an attempt to destroy an other's perception of reality." [3]
Crowd manipulation: is the intentional use of techniques based on the principles of crowd psychology to engage, control, or influence the desires of a crowd in order to direct its behavior toward a specific action.[1] This practice is common to politics and business and can facilitate the approval or disapproval or indifference to a person, policy, or product. The ethical use of crowd manipulation is debatable and depends on such factors as the intention of and the means used by the manipulator, as well as the ends achieved.
Destabilisation, bullying, and other power tactics. The word destabilisation can be applied to a wide variety of contexts such as attempts to undermine political, military or economic power. In a psychological context it is used as a technique in brain washing and abuse to disorientate and disarm the victim. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, destabilisation applied to the victim may involve:[1] [2]
James Arthur Ray
It seems like every time James Arthur Ray tries sounding profound ::: he ends up sounding profoundly stupid. But then that's just my take ::: and I'm a nit picky opinionated bitch. (Smile when you read that damn it!)
I read today's James Arthur Ray post and groaned. Sounds cute, and would look great in a greeting card ::: but it's just more of JAR's same-old same-old ::: meaningless don't mean shit ::: Twitter Peeps.
Yeah ::: technically the word "sight" can be used to define the process of seeing via one's eyes (assuming they both work) ::: BUT ::: and it's a big BUTT (pun intended) vision is not the process of seeing through the eyes.
I think what friend James meant to say was "vision is the process of seeing through our mind's eye" ::: or some such huggy cutesy feel good sounding drivel.
When the average ::: educated ::: person on the street thinks of the word "Vision", he/she immediately thinks imagination (hint: envision) NOT 20-20 vision. Friend James must have had a brain fart and accidentally substituted the wrong word. Then again ::: perhaps not :::
The Dark Side of James Arthur Ray's Twitter Posts
James enjoys substituting words A LOT ::: and not because he's stupid. Perhaps there's a more sinister reasoning behind all of James Arthur Ray's strange, bizarre and disjointed Tweet Posts. I believe these posts are part and parcel of James Arthur Ray's INTENTIONAL and ongoing efforts to manipulate (translation: brainwash) his followers.
James Arthur Ray has shown himself a master of redirection and manipulation. He lies, steals, bullies, misdirects, abuses, kills ::: and yet NOTHING he does is ever his fault. It's almost as if his very soul were made of Teflon.
James Arthur Ray would have the world believe that everything he says is the truth. He has consistently promised his followers, the universe on a platter ::: IF ::: they trust whatever he says (without question) ::: do whatever he says (without question) ::: and give him LOTS of money (without question).
The words of an unrepentant sociopath:
I told you to do it ::: BUT :::
If during the course of following James Arthur Ray's direction (without question) ::: people get poor or negative results ::: people lose money ::: people are hurt ::: people die ::: his comeback is always ::: (ILLNESS, BROKEN BONES, BAD REACTIONS, VOMITING, HEAT STROKE, DEATH) IT WASN'T MY FAULT.
Various Brainwashing / Mind altering and abusive control techniques which have been used by James Arthur Ray.
~ information taken from Wikipedia ~
Love Bombing: is the deliberate show of affection or friendship by an individual or a group of people toward another individual. Critics have asserted that this action may be motivated in part by the desire to recruit, convert or otherwise influence.
Critics of cults often cite love bombing as one of the features that may identify an organization as a cult. When used by critics, the phrase is defined to mean affection that is feigned or with an ulterior motive and that is used to reduce the subject's resistance to recruitment.[5]
The term was popularized by psychology professor Margaret Singer, who has become closely identified with the love-bombing-as-brainwashing point of view.[6] In her 1996 book, Cults in Our Midst, she described the technique:
The Unification Church rejects this view of its practice. Church leader Damian Anderson has written:As soon as any interest is shown by the recruits, they may be love bombed by the recruiter or other cult members. This process of feigning friendship and interest in the recruit was originally associated with one of the early youth cults, but soon it was taken up by a number of groups as part of their program for luring people in. Love bombing is a coordinated effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members' flooding recruits and newer members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual touching, and lots of attention to their every remark. Love bombing - or the offer of instant companionship - is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives.[7]
Steven Hassan and Keith Henson are among the other cult critics to write about love bombing, postulating that it is similar, in terms of effects on neutrotransmitters within the brain, emotional state, and conduct, to the administration of drugs of abuse, temporarily producing intense euphoria when under its influence, and encouraging the actions from which the stimulus was derived. Pursuit of the stimulus often becomes an obsessive focus that is detrimental to financial status and human relationships.[9]One man's love-bombing is another man's being showered with attention. Everyone likes such care and attention, so it is unfortunate that when we love as Jesus taught us to love, that we are then accused of having ulterior motives.[8]
Dr. Geri-Ann Galanti (in a sympathetic article) writes: "A basic human need is for self-esteem.... Basically [love bombing] consists of giving someone a lot of positive attention."[10]
Gaslighting: is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. Gaslighting had a colloquial origin explained below, but the term has also been used in clinical and research literature.[1][2]
The term derives from the 1938 stage play Gas Light (originally known as Angel Street in the United States), and the 1940 and 1944 film adaptations. The plot concerns a husband who attempts to drive his wife to insanity by manipulating small elements of their environment, and insisting that she is mistaken or misremembering when she points out these changes. The title stems from the husband's subtle dimming of the house's gas lights, which she accurately notices and which the husband insists she's imagining.
Gaslighting has been used colloquially since at least the late 1970s to describe efforts to manipulate someone's sense of reality. In a 1980 book on child sex abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor's 1944 film version of Gas Light, and writes, "even today the word [gaslight] is used to describe an attempt to destroy an other's perception of reality." [3]
Crowd manipulation: is the intentional use of techniques based on the principles of crowd psychology to engage, control, or influence the desires of a crowd in order to direct its behavior toward a specific action.[1] This practice is common to politics and business and can facilitate the approval or disapproval or indifference to a person, policy, or product. The ethical use of crowd manipulation is debatable and depends on such factors as the intention of and the means used by the manipulator, as well as the ends achieved.
Destabilisation, bullying, and other power tactics. The word destabilisation can be applied to a wide variety of contexts such as attempts to undermine political, military or economic power. In a psychological context it is used as a technique in brain washing and abuse to disorientate and disarm the victim. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, destabilisation applied to the victim may involve:[1] [2]
- failure to acknowledge good work and value the victim's efforts
- allocation of meaningless tasks
- removal of areas of responsibility without consultation
- repeated reminders of blunders
- setting up to fail
- shifting of goal posts without telling the victim
- persistent attempts to demoralise the victim.
- All-or-nothing thinking (splitting) – Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every", "never", and "there is no alternative". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.) All-or-nothing-thinking can contribute to depression. (See depression). Also called dichotomous thinking.
- Overgeneralization – Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)
- Mental filter – Focusing almost exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of an event while ignoring other positive aspects. For example, focusing on a tiny imperfection in a piece of otherwise useful clothing. (See misleading vividness.)
- Disqualifying the positive – Continually deemphasizing or "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)
- Jumping to conclusions – Drawing conclusions (usually negative) from little (if any) evidence. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
- Mind reading – Assuming special knowledge of the intentions or thoughts of others.
- Fortune telling – Exaggerating how things will turn out before they happen. (See slippery slope.)
- Magnification and minimization – Distorting aspects of a memory or situation through magnifying or minimizing them such that they no longer correspond to objective reality. This is common enough in the normal population to popularize idioms such as "make a mountain out of a molehill." In depressed clients, often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negative characteristics are understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
- Catastrophizing – Focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
- Emotional reasoning – Assuming reality to reflect emotions, e.g. "I feel it, therefore it must be true." (See appeal to consequences.)
- Should statements – Patterns of thought which imply the way things "should" or "ought" to be rather than the actual situation the patient is faced with, or having rigid rules which the patient believes will "always apply" no matter what the circumstances are. Albert Ellis termed this "Musturbation". (See wishful thinking.)
- Labeling and mislabeling – Explaining behaviors or events, merely by naming them; related to overgeneralization. Rather than describing the specific behavior, a patient assigns a label to someone or himself that implies absolute and unalterable terms. Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.
- Personalization – Attribution of personal responsibility (or causal role) for events over which the patient has no control. This pattern is also applied to others in the attribution of blame.
- sight
- The faculty or power of seeing
- - Joseph lost his sight as a baby
- - a sight test
- The action or fact of seeing someone or something
- - I've always been scared of the sight of blood
- The area or distance within which someone can see or something can be seen
- - he now refused to let Rose out of his sight
- A person's view or consideration
- - we are all equal in the sight of God
- A thing that one sees or that can be seen
- - John was a familiar sight in the bar for many years
- - he was getting used to seeing unpleasant sights
- Places of interest to tourists and visitors in a city, town, or other place
- - she offered to show me the sights
- A person or thing having a ridiculous, repulsive, or disheveled appearance
- - “I must look a frightful sight,” she said
- A device on a gun or optical instrument used for assisting a person's precise aim or observation
- Manage to see or observe (someone or something); catch an initial glimpse of
- - tell me when you sight London Bridge
- - the unseasonal sighting of a cuckoo
- Take aim by looking through the sights of a gun
- - she sighted down the barrel
- Take a detailed visual measurement of something with or as with a sight
- Adjust the sight of (a firearm or optical instrument)
- Imagine
- The faculty or state of being able to see
- - she had defective vision
- The ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom
- - the organization had lost its vision and direction
- A mental image of what the future will or could be like
- - a vision of retirement
- The images seen on a television screen
- An experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition
- - the idea came to him in a vision
- A vivid mental image, esp. a fanciful one of the future
- - he had visions of becoming the Elton John of his time
- A person or sight of unusual beauty
| noun /sīt/ sights, plural verb /sīt/ sighted, past participle; sighted, past tense; sighting, present participle; sights, 3rd person singular present vi·sion
|
No comments:
Post a Comment