rethink PERFECT

Like Icarus flying too close to the sun most of us seem to think that we can think too much and end up going crazy.

Think too much = going crazy

But Icarus was just a myth and in fact if we could fly too close to the sun our wax wings would not melt they would actually freeze!

Personally I don’t think that we can actually think too much per se, but more to the point think about the wrong things.

I do not know exactly what are the “wrong” things to think about that would drive us crazy as I have covered a lot of stuff in my 53 years and not managed to go crazy yet, hopefully!

Being afraid of thinking too much, to me, is like a sailor being afraid of
sailing too much or a pilot being afraid of flying too much. Kind of ridiculous.

Maybe, just being afraid that thinking too much can drive us crazy is the
wrong thing to think about and could be what tips us over the edge?

Worth thinking about.

This was one of my first jackets for my book as I was writing it some 2 years ago.

It is funny to me, that I am reading Seth Godin’s latest book, The Icarus Deception, and although I think it is great, there is one thing that I disagree with him on and that is his ability to deal with dissenting views and comments.

First, a bit on The Icarus Deception. Based upon the concept that Icarus was warned by his dad, Daedalus to not to fly too close to the sun nor too close to the sea. Seth warns that we forget the second part of the moral at our peril and risk crashing into the sea also. The Gods warn us not to aim too high but also not to aim too low either.

In his book he points out how he feels that he is scarred by receiving “negative” comments on his work. That he can receive 99 positive ones but it is the negative one that he can and has in the past spent his time pondering upon to, what he considers his own detriment.

I think he has hit on the point. A convers-ation is just that, a sharing of converse views. Sounds to me like Seth wants an “agreementation” with no converse views thank you very much.

So, as much as I like most of what he has written it is this point that I think leaves him open to missing the day when someone wants to tell him that they think that he is flying too close to the sun or to the sea. I think we are all each other’s keeper and cutting off this opportunity to receive converse and dissenting views could very well be his loss in the long run.

Not wanting to learn to receive dissenting views is how I think we can crash (into the sea or sun) and has a the same effect as hubris or arrogance, I think, Sorry Seth.

Just thinking that when anyone ever says to me that I think too much
that I will apologise and tell them that I did not realise that they thought so little.
That that their small thinking probably goes with their small talking.

I guess that is what small talk is for so that we can eventually get to big talk and big thinking.

It is no wonder to me that there is still so much aggression, violence, wars, broken relationships and disputes in the world, today when I have been unable to find just one person that believes that anger is unacceptable. Understandable? yes, but not acceptable behaviour.

I do not believe one war or dispute was begun without the input of anger and yet everyone seems to want to be able to defend their own anger and justify their feisty outbursts. “You can’t control emotions!” I have been reminded on a number of occasions.

Can you justify your anger or can you admit that it is a poorly delivered message waiting to either escalate into an argument and potential fight or to be accountable for and improved?

Funny, I listen to so-called “conversations” around me at Gloria Jeans in Melbourne Central and I do not seem to be hearing any converse ideas, thoughts or concepts.

“Absolutely”…., “You’re exactly right…” etc, all in perfect agreement, so it seems. More like an “agreementation” than a conversation, me thinks.

George S. Patton said “If we are all thinking alike then someone isn’t thinking”.
If we really want to get the benefit from the Cafe Culture and conversation, unless we are going to take a risk and share our converse ideas and concepts then we are destined to be mediocre in our thinking.

I asked a young fella tonight what he thought conversation was for and he said to learn.
I asked learn what? And he replied learn “who to steer clear of!”.

I guess that is one type of learning but I can think of more constructive ways and of things that one can learn from a conversation.

I think that conversation is a conversion process.
For converting your concept and my concept into our concept.

Like a plug-in system for our mouth and ears, Rethink Perfect is a common
delivery & receiving system for helping convert “your concept” and “my concept” into “our concept”. It is a conceptual standard measure that we can refer to, and measure by, and allow us to recognise “our concept” from, “my concept” and “your concept”.

The Rethink Perfect plug-in consists of 6 values all beginning with A and if adopted as “our conceptual standard” by the parties, act as the first step in the conversion process.

Values for Delivering a Proposal:
Adjustable, Accountable and Acceptable language and behaviour
Values for Delivering a Response:
Appreciation, Acknowledgement and Apologia (speech in defence)

The Conversation
My first concept proposal is that: “I think that anger is understandable but not acceptable.
And therefore, although we can understand that it may well occur we need to be accountable for it and not excuse, blame or attribute our anger to another party, object or circumstance”.

This proposal seems to endorse the need for the Rethink Perfect plug-in to assist us to reduce our anger in the first place.

Based on the context of this post any response will be appreciated.

Let me run this by you:
It seems to me that there are a lot of men out there that believe in the numbers method.

Do women really have to wait in 2013?

That is, they think that if they go up to say 10 women they will get 1 result, a woman that
will return his advances. In other words he “scores”. This is commonly called the numbers game and has possibly been around as long as the oldest occupation has been ( that is another story).
So, is there another system/way that women play the numbers game or are they just the passive recipients of this numbers game and have to wait for what ever comes along?

Hmmm….what if women played this numbers game but in reverse? Where they more actively courted men and put the hard word (commitment) on the men and got 1 out of 10 to reciprocate.

Or where they actively courted men and waited for them to eventually put the “hard word” on her and knock back the 9 out of 10 guys?

Anyway, I refuse to participate in the “numbers game”, and dare say other men are doing the same, as it seems to me that the dice are loaded and the poor relationship statistics could be an indication of this.

Participating in this numbers game, as it stands, seems to build relationships on very shallow foundations (sex), and it is no wonder that so many of these relationships fail. I think it is time for a social change. I think that it is time us blokes took on a more passive role in the mating cycle and that the woman, as the liberated person that she now is, took on a more active role.

Then again I might just lack confidence or might be just fighting the way nature meant it to be, who knows?

Any feedback much appreciated.

In Australia some 25% of prison inmates are Aboriginal yet they only represent
some 5% of the population.
In New Zealand their prison inmates represent some 45% of Maori are and they are only 10% of the population.

Why is this so?

Is this because the original people of these countries are basically “bad” people or are
the systems skewed to favour white Australians and New Zealanders? I think it is
the latter yet there are many that believe the former and that our system is perfectly
fine and that our indigenous peoples should “move on” or “get over” the past. I think
this is such a narrow way of thinking and until it changes we will continue to have
the “GAP” that is continually being talked about that needs reducing.

“Deduce” is to “see” as “conversion” is to “connect”