How to know what is what we really want?

Aha, we have arrived at the question of the million. If I had a prescription to answer that question, I would make a program of TV where respond that doubt to him to a single person and would have thousands of million viewers and hearing. It is possible that the basic question that all human being must answer itself when enters the adult age is so difficult to answer? Perhaps the human beings do not know what we want?

Perhaps it is possible that we do not have nor the most remote idea of which we want, in many cases but in almost all? If, it is possible. Perhaps it is an analogy of which the Principe of Saint Exupery said: The essential is invisible to the eyes. We would say, the Question that Seems More obvious is Most difficult To respond. Not in vain the psychologists proliferate and psychoanalysts who search our soul in look for that answer. But although there is no a prescription that says to us what mechanism to use for knowing it, we can give some tracks.

First it is to differentiate to want from to wish. The things that I want to not always are those that I desire and vice versa. To want to have something is to want it, simply, so that my mind wants that I have it. To wish it is a less mental feeling, and than it is lived more with the body, with the senses. I at this moment wish a chocolate ice cream, but I do not want for my future a chocolate ice cream, I don´t know if the difference is understood. We want with the mind, we wish with the body, the soul and the heart yet. The Science To become Rich is a mental attitude, is to want but that to wish. And what I want for my future, which I want to have, to have, to enjoy, to be, is something that I must visualize it in my mind, not to mix it with sensations or feelings. Science is mental, so that the mind creates, the heart or desire does not create.

The second is the deep introspection. There is no another way. I said in a post of some days ago that everybody has not been wanting nor truly is prepared to be rich, with all the problems that it can carry. There it is the point where we must be absolutely sincere with we our self. In the generalized case more of the readers of this blog, they will agree with me that when one arrives at certain adult age, is difficult to know what it is really wanted. This is thus so that we have been lived much, have seen many things, have been verified that the life is something so complex and complete, that one really does not know whereupon part of the life to remain, where to put the accent. It is why the sincerity with one is fundamental. Nobody as you is to say what is what you really want, but nobody as you will deceive to you so easily. It is a two-way road. And we must be sincere with ourselves, with whom but?

And the third track is “bloody more”, to give an adjective: it is to think about our personal history. The ways that we have taken and left, the place from where we come, our frustrations of kids, which sometimes we wanted to be and we did not animate ourselves or they did not let to us be, the frustrations of our parents who still weigh on us. Really, the history of our own life. That history is in the root of which we are, therefore to remove or to interpret our objectives from our same history, could not never be something other people’s to us. And perhaps we find there what really we want forwards, towards the future.

To watch to us but in history, in our history, to count it like a film and to remove there from what we need, the direction that we looked for, the future that we yearned for but without knowing it. It is obvious to mention that this is simply a way indication, each one must take the best thing than it sees and follow it. In the future, far but closely together, is there what we wished. Wattles knew it, and thus he wrote it.

To be rich is the opposite of being poor?

This is a clear example of how the culture, the language and the concepts deceive to us. To be poor is not to be able to fulfil our basic necessities. To be rich is not the opposite, so that to fulfil ours basic necessities only transforms to us into people of middle-class, very far from being rich. The statistics that each government makes demonstrate that in each country there are many families who cover their basic necessities and at at the same time there are very few rich ones.

Why this error of concepts appears, in which what seems to be the opposed thing is not really the opposite thing?

It is produce by the facti that the poverty does not exist, in a practical sense. The wealth yes. One cannot have poverty, is something intangible, is a quality, is not an object. Nevertheless the wealth is an object, is measurable, quantifiable, it is measured in dollars or houses or cars or in… There are many forms to measure the wealth actually. The poverty is simply a quality, the one of not reaching to cover the basic necessities with feeding, house, clothes, education and others.

And what are the consequences of this fundamental difference?

Beacuase the poverty, being a quality or a condition, has much better press than the wealth. To the poor men in some countries everything is allowed, including the crime, by its own condition of poor men. The rich ones are punished in any case, considering them bad people by the only fact of being rich, persecuting them in different forms, in almost all the countries. And are crime suspicions or Mafia organized is believed like origin of its fortune.

And what other consequences exist?

They are many. There are governments that opress the masses with the pretext to defend the poor men, and other governments who tolerate crimes or foment them with the pretext of defending the freedom of people. Those that say to defend the poor men make them poorer, whereas those who say to defend the freedom, still put below all the liberties the freedom of commerce, confusing the population.

What we would have to change?

Only our mind. If a rich one made fortune with legal means and their own capacity, is worthy of admiration, emulation and respect. If a rich one made its fortune with no legal means, he is gangster like those which robs to eat. We have to make an agreement in the society in what is crime is crime, and criminals are criminals no matter if are rich or poor. Of course the poor man can have excuses in front of a judge, but it does not stop being a delinquent. When the entire world understands this law, will be more rich people and and less poor ones.

All we are afraid of being rich

I received a mail from a friend that comment that a while ago with her husband they have a successful business. And the more successful were more problems began to appear, which ended up with the copule separated. She thinks that they were so affected that now her mind is hindered and that prevents it from moving, advance economically and have more things. She thinks that this fact makes them think, unconsciously, that if they do well with the money to go back to finish separated.

It is the fear of progress, leave happiness today. It is as if they were going to be punished by ambitious, and the universe will punish his ambition stripping what they want more than money.

I told my friend that this trauma actually exists in many people. Many of us do not want to progress faster or not we want to make progress at all because we are afraid of losing what we have, it seems to us very much. We believe that if we get rich by a coup, for example, we would bring bad luck and we could lose our family or our friends. And so we are satisfied, not risk, and try to improve a little, a very little without the Universe realize.

It is a defense mechanism of nature, while we are well, best dont innovate, dont change.

But it is a trap, an absurd  trap. Particularly because it means accepting the fear, adopt our own fear as a matter of course, who lives with us all the time. And that fear is going to finish winning our soul and seizing us. That fear will make us to progress increasingly slow, slower, to stop. And then there is no way out. No way.

The future and wealth are made for us. For whom instead? And that future we need to take, the way you want. First, we must dispel the fear of our minds, and then take in the future. As Wattles said, there is nothing good to be poor or have a modest life. If so were true, all the poor would be happy, and they are not. Poverty is not a good thing, is a sorry state that does not help us at all. And the middle class only increases the frustration of the people. Nobody can fully develop if it does not have everything that want, everything you need to show all your human qualities. Nobody can be happy in mediocrity.

And the security that we believe to have, in a shot could disappear. So we have to take our future, clean our minds of fear, and be free from fear that causes us forward. Only then can we quickly get everything we want and be truly happy.

The powerful people that have used their will and desire

I read somewhere that the promoters or disseminators of the book and film The Secret, based on the Law on Attraction, are given paternity on the most famous fortunes of mankind. We are told, at least I thought well understood that Carnegie, Rockefeller and the like, have become millionaires through carrying out the secret that these groups now deveale to us.

Besides being quite presumptuous, since there is the slightest way of knowing how Rockefeller made his fortune in his intimate brain, it seems to me completely nonsensical award all these fortunes to a certain way of thinking. And if the holders of such fortunes were a secret inviolate mysteriously conveyed to them, we can hardly check.

Care, I am not saying that coincidentally may have reason not to a great extent, because there is no way to prove it. But presuming it to sell books or movies I think excessive marketing. Of course, in addition to this statement stained with a conspiratorial component, as they suggest that all these wealthy individuals shared the same secret that was passed them all so dark and underground.

It is useless to mention that all this is impossible to prove. But that would be the lesser of two evils. The downside is that it puts them at a level of presumtion that makes intelligent people unbelieve immediately of his theories, ignoring its positive elements. In other words, well-intentioned people who are exposed to this level of exaggeration were horrified by its sharp smell of cheap marketing.
At least that’s what I think.

Acting on positive

In every one of those situations which we live, we stand with people who have a competitive vision of life. People are living trying to compete with others to secure their position at work, at society or at love. People do not hesitate to destroy their peers to earn a place in the office or in the company. People who speak badly of others, sowing doubt about its morality or simply discredited by envy.

This happens in all countries, all cultures and all activities. And this is part of a deep contradiction: Many times people make much damage to others to get a good thing for one, without thinking that an injury can never build a well. Even up to the war, the most brutal act of collective human, nobody wins, and the victors often lose more than the losers.

To think that a bad action to a coworker, speaking ill of him or destroy his reputation, can generate some good for ourselves, is to think that evil can generate a good thing. Perhaps temporarily this could happen, and we get some improvements for a while, but in the long run this will reverse in some aspect of our lives, the universe will pass the bill.

No one is alone or isolated in the universe, and the damage that we do to others is what we are doing to ourselves. Only that for our confusion, sometimes occurs positive effects misleading. If we can understand this truth so simple and naive, the world would be a place much more livable and humane.

How to use the creative mind

Wallace Wattles indicates us repeatedly that we should use the creative mind instead of the competitive mind. The competitive mind is that makes an effort to win, that wants to take most of something that already exists in its own benefit. It is the mind that suposes that the wealths in the universe are limited and that therefore I should take it for me before it could be taken by another. And if I can take what another has well, quicker I will become rich. It is almost the limited mind, the mind of the economic rules, the squizo mind.

On the other hand the creative mind is that makes an effort to create wealths where there are not exists. It is the creative thought that looks for generating instead of appropriating, to put instead of taking out, to invent instead of competing by using the invented. It is the way like the big men of the history have become big, generating what doesn’t exist instead of keeping a portion of the existent thing.

And I think of an example excessively paradigmatic, first for the current times and then because it shows the same person clearly and consecutively in the use of their two minds. It is Bill Gates example.

When he was young, Bill used their creative mind deeply. In those years the computation companies decreased to a minuscule group led by IBM that had the vanguard and most of the market. The blue giant, as they call it, possessed enormous resources dedicated to develop more and more powerful machines and that alone could be bought by gigantic companies in many thousands or millions of dollars.

But young Bill was resolved to create an empire. Anyone in their situation, and with some common sense, had been given that it could not compete against IBM. Anyone also that had their ambition and their desire of wealth and had not still been discouraged, had thought that if he really wanted to make it should look for big investors, to propose them a convincing idea in exchange for many millions, and to rush to compete against the blue giant to be about stealing them although a small part of their enormous market. Maybe in few years it could have taken a tiny percentage of the market of the big computers and he had lived happy for ever in a humble middle class condominium.

But on the other hand Bill used his creative mind and decided to dive until finding a new niche, a new market, and he found it soon: computers for common people, for the man of the street, for the home and the small office, instead of computers for the big corporations. Their genius exploded and the substance helped him to develop a gigantic market that transformed it in few years in the richest man in the world. This way, instead of fighting for a small portion of the cake of other, his creative mind impelled him to create a new cake that was almost everything of its property and filled him with thousands of millions of dollars. Not alone he won thousands of millions but rather it contributed to change the life and the work like we know them, making an enormous jump to the modern world.

But the time passed. Not exacerbated by their enormous success the so young Bill already decided that it was moment his cake to be only for him that should not allow to enter to anybody. And it began to impel monopolic practices that were worth him millions of dollars in trials and a bad reputation like greedy, disloyal and not very prone character to the innovations if these were developed by others. The antimonopoly trials of Microsoft are a classic in all the areas of the planet and the bad reputation of its company is not gratuitous, due to those not very friendly practices. If the good of Bill had maintained their trust in itself, their honesty of young and open venturesome, their vision in the face of the risks, another would be the concept of their company among the customers.

An example like this shows us that the use of the creative mind can make us grow to high limits while the use of the competitive, greedy and conservative mind, the only thing that will make is that we lose our innocence and our capacity of creating wealth.

To give always more than received

One of the clearest teachings in Wallace Wattles is that one always has to give more, in using value that what receives from the other. In spite of an poor enough translation, we can interpret that what is telling us is that we have to give something that is more useful or has more benefits than what they are giving us in change.

If we are in the trade, for example, and we sell some thing or we lend some service, we have to overcome the strictly necessary thing for the price that they pay to us. As note to the margin, this makes me agree a song that say “I don’t count the change, it is always over.” Not we should limit ourselves to the strictly necessary thing.

The mercantilist mentalities will be able to say that this is to lose and that losing any business prospers. If we have the habitual smallness of mind we will think that this is really this way. But it is enough with observing the reality to our surroundings to realize that the truth is just the opposite.

In my city there are many bakeries, or bread manufacturers. But there is only one that has an extraordinary quality, the other ones all manufacture the same thing and they charge the same thing. And all time is the same thing. But the one that excels progresses every day for thirty years. He has five times more clients than the other ones, in spite of charging the most expensive bread. It has been enlarged several times, has other annexed businesses as a coffee shop, and their owners don’t stop of getting rich. One day I asked to the owner, a Spanish man arrived here forty years ago which was their secret to make such a nice bread. Their answer was scanty: it is necessary to put attention” he told me.

Not I doubt that he makes the same thing with the same materials and same people that their competition. After all to manufacture bread doesn’t have big secrets. But the he dedicates a great attention to that. It seems a little thing, but that is making the difference. People will think that he didn’t want to give me the secret. I believe that there is not such a secret. It simply pays attention to what he makes, and that is received by those that consume their bread, in some way that it is perceived in the pleasure, or in the consistency, or in the aspect, or in all that at the same time. It is a form of putting his love.

It is to give more, always a little bit more. A touch, an element that is something our that denotes our love, our intention. That make the difference.

Technorati tags: Love | Work | Make it perfect |

How to obtain the complete wealth

Wattles speaks of the Science of Becoming Rich, but the wealth that Wallace understands is a complete wealth, an integrative wealth. If one only notices the material wealth, the money, forgetting the gratitude and the faith, becomes a greedy person that joins currencies, that only monopolizes money. However, the acquisition of fortune that Wattles proclaims is a total, included acquisition of the gigantic understanding of how the universe works.

To know how is the way to announcing what will happen to me, how is that common men that built big fortunes have worked, how those that have built empires, either economic or politicians being almost illiterate people, has been able to make it, it is the biggest wealth to which a common man can aspire. As well as we were always attracted by that statement of not giving them fish but teaching them to fish for the good and firm that possesses, the Wattles’ method is rich in becoming trained about how the universe works. And although his method is one of test and error, that is the method that the scientists always used.

It is for this reason that Wattles speaks not only several times of obtaining wealth, but of who we really want to be, what we want to make of our life or how we want to live. Everything can be gotten with the method that he proposed. And there is the enormous wealth that not only implies to obtain the fortune or the money that we want but knowing how it is obtained, which are the rules that is necessary to follow to continue getting it.

At the same time, and considering the demonstration that gives us of why is not sinned to obtain wealth, but rather is the form that has the human being of being developed fully, there is another factor that to consider when we think of the wealth.

To obtain wealth is not only to obtain money or material goods. As he explains it, the wealth is the money and the goods that allow the man to be developed completely. This way, the wealth that we will obtain should be applied to our development. Otherwise, it is only to monopolize the greedy person’s currencies, like we mention at the beginning. That fortune should be, as is obtained, applied to our happiness and that of the others, to our best growth, to our development as integral and complete people, to our approach to the divinity of the substance.

So the substance brings the wealth that we want, Wattles doesn’t say it definitively but he suggests it, we should use it to be better people, wiser, with better judgement, with better culture, with more solidarity. Only in that way the fortune will come more and more toward us. If we only put it in a drawer and we go and we count the currencies every day, that fortune will dry off quickly, it will look for somebody that give a better use.

It is for that reason that the wealth should be completed with the knowledge that we have of how one obtains and for the use that we give it, to improve our life and the one of those that are close, for the biggest life that we contribute to create and the biggest happiness that we give to our atmosphere, to those that surround us and therefore, the happiness that we impel in the whole universe.

Technorati tags: Wealth | Rich men | Get money |

The key of the success is not the ambition, but the generosity

I like a lot this phrase of Craig Newmark, the founder and owner of Craiglist.org. Though this it is not a blog of general matters, neither of news, this called my attention the position of this guy regarding as handles its company, its ideas about winning money and its decision always of donating all the benefits of his business.

The Rigidity of Science of Getting Rich of Wallace Wattles

From the first time that I read the book The Science of Getting Rich I had in mind one short phrase that says Wallace Wattles in the second chapter. I transcribe it with its context:

The ownership of money and property comes as a result of doing things in a certain way; those who do things in this Certain Way, whether on purpose or accidentally, get rich.