Living without fear

There are famous posts on this blog devoted to the topic of fear. They have been widely read and discussed. And of course the fear is famous too, has a lot of press. We are the only creature in nature that is afraid aware, the animals feel but is masked in the survival instinct. We feel fear about many more things that cannot kill us than those that could destroy our life.

Wattles does not say much, does not dwell on fear, but I discovered that his book is clearly written by someone who was immune to the fear of our every day life. Fear of not having a job, fear of emotional closeness, fear of disease, fear of physical pain, fear of not knowing how to do the things we do, fear but to do things that no one recognizes it, afraid to go unnoticed, fear of being the center of the meeting, fear a. ..

I would like to survey readers about the most common fears. Perhaps in the future put one of those automated systems that allow online surveys. But for now I just leave the question to see if someone picks up the gauntlet and answer: What do you think are the most common fears in a person? We hope the answers with genuine curiosity.

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.

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.

Why helping others? (cont.)

We all have something to give. That is a truth that has no discussion. We see it every day, at every step, in all situations. Even those who do not seem.In my work I know many people, both very capable and very prepared at universities in the first world, as well as people who just finished his elementary school and develops very simple tasks. I know also people of great experience, which many years ago that makes his task, and people just start in a trade, either simple or complex. And everywhere, absolutely everywhere, I see something that they have to give. Something that others need, at every step, every moment of the day.

We work in a group, more or less reduced. In this group, as I say, there are people of every background and experience. My first job was trying to join the group, namely giving the characteristic of a group. Understanding as a set of people with a common goal, with a project together. To do so the first thing I did, of course, to establish the common goal and comment it with everyone, making them see that we had to work for all the same.

But the second thing I did was make them see each of them that everyone had something to give to others. Rather than concentrate on showing that each was necessary that the work of each was part of the essential work of the group, my conversation with each of them was to show that they had something to give to the group. That meant that the motivation to grow exponentially. So, rather than show that each one was needed for a role, I concentrated on discovering that thing everyone could give to the group beyond their work.

Their work is the counterpart of his salary, but to enforce the injunction to Wattles “give more than they receive”, they each had to give more than they receive, that is needed to be something more than their work. Making their task merely part of a machine as a gear, which in the best case I could get perfect working to fulfill the goal. And never work in perfect shape, of course. But giving more than they receive, the mechanism of the machine operates more oiled and cover all the gaps that might have on the task of each. Thus, each one grows and the group grows and grows. Extrapolating, the universe grows, more life for all.

And what each one can give? I started mentioning all the joy and good education. Those two things are an essential first base that transform the workplace in a nice place, peaceful and pleasant. A good environment becomes all more productive and efficient. In addition lime roughness, generates confidence and makes us more easy the problems always, always going to happen.

And then I continued with leniency. The forbearance is a virtue that has no press, but is essential for understanding among human beings. The indulgence is a relative of generosity, and is to be sympathetic with the mistakes of others while we give a second chance and we have no accents too strong in the failures of others. The indulgence can build relationships between humans, that the mutual understanding of the errors of each generates an extraordinary familiarity and acceptance.

There is much more to say, and to give. But these three things I talked to each of them produced a multiplied impressive effect. Each of the people realized they had much more to give than just their work 8 hours in an office. Each became aware of how important it was to him for the whole group, and that solidified and joined the group.

Things are happening at this very moment, but I can assure you that neither ten years could have achieved as a group united as I managed in a few weeks to show what each has to give, without being obliged to do so. It is magical. Make the test.