Cheating someone by way of their impulsive desires yields results, but the manipulation of perceived needs yields the greatest results.
The greatest danger we pose to ourselves with our own perceived needs is the risk of an adverse outcome. The weapons of another race would likely be incomprehensibly fearsome, and to risk triggering their use through our own follies is dangerous game to say the least.
This paramount risk begs the question, If ‘perceived’ needs are dangerous, are there other needs that we can use to protect us from ourselves?
Yes. They're called true needs.
The Inherent Safety of True Needs
A true need is neither real in the survival sense, nor is it perceived. Rather, it is identified through honest introspection. As William Shakespeare most aptly put it, To thine own self be true.
If we are indeed to be honest with ourselves about our true needs as well as those of another race, or another human for that matter, we must measure them using two simple scales: duality and reciprocity.
For example, if you feel the need to receive love without giving love, then all you have is perceived need. However, if you both feel the need to receive and give love, then you have the duality of true need. However, that only addresses one side of the ledger. What about the other?
If you feel the need to give and receive love, but the other race (or person) with whom you're attempting to establish a relationship does not share the same true need, what you have is an incomplete or unrequited true need. The harder you pursue your unrequited true need, the more vulnerable you become. Ergo, you do not have a true need.
On the other hand, if there is reciprocity you do have a true need in every sense of the word. Examples are:
+ Both honor life.
+ Both honor the dignity of life.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive love.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive respect.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive honesty.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive loyalty.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive compassion.
+ Both feel the need to give and receive understanding.
The fruits of a relationship born of such duality and reciprocity are neither obscure nor far-fetched. Rather, they are born out of such simple statements as, I love her and want to make her happy because of the way she makes me feel about myself.
We also need to acknowledge that our true needs are culturally dependent.
Time and again, studies have shown that marriages within Eastern societies, where the parents arrange them, are far more likely to succeed than in Western cultures where the mating rituals follow a romantic, Elizabethan model.
This is not to say that the parents who arrange marriages for their children are not looking at wealth, health, standing, and status. They do. We need to see a dowry of at least three cows, two goats and a horse, or go find someone else to marry your daughter.
However, what makes arranged marriages work is that the parent matchmakers know their children. Through their own life experiences, they know what works and what hurts. Hence, they focus more on true needs than those entering self-arranged marriages in other cultures.
That being said, counting livestock is not going to be the optimal approach to building a new relationship with an extraterrestrial race. Rather, we need to become our own savvy matchmakers.
The Need to Seek True Needs First
The reason we often find ourselves feeling rejected, disappointed, or put out by someone is that we lead with desire as opposed to seeking true needs.
Think of this. How many times have you heard someone say:
+ I don't understand what went wrong. He was so handsome.
+ She was gorgeous! Then she opened her mouth.
+ He has more money than God, but he won't buy me a new dress.
+ She just married me for my money.
How do we get ourselves into such perplexing relationships? We seek to fulfill our impulsive desires and perceived needs. Sure, we tell our cautious friends that we're ever mindful of our true needs and that we'll certainly get around to sorting them all out—eventually. In the meantime, we're usually more interested in seeing her in a revealing negligee, or in seeing his federal tax return for the previous year.
As a result, many of us lurch along from one failed and disheartening relationship to another as we layer ourselves with cynical and defensive expectations, one failed relationship at a time.
Yet, some of us really do get it-those of us who, after decades of a good marriage, still walk hand-in-hand through the park, enjoying one another.
Therefore, is it not in our best interests to build a similar long-term relationship with another race?
The Benefits of Seeking True Needs First
After decades of nihilistic feel-good dating and failed marriages, the numbers of those seeking lifetime partners by focusing on true needs is on the rise. As evidence of this, you can now visit a popular Web site that promises perfect matches based on the things that really matter. This simple approach works because when we focus our search on first upon our true needs, the most wonderful things can and do happen, such as:
+ We never feel rejected
+ We never feel used.
+ We never give up looking.
This is because when we search for the things that really matter, we stop acting like folly-driven lemmings marching cheerily along their way to the cliff of love.
In our search for extraterrestrial races, let us always remember to search for the things that really matter, in the cautious hope that other races also seek the same true needs. This is especially true for those amongst us who happen to be Indigos by birth.
Building a New Relationship with Another Race
If (God forbid) another race lands on our planet and summarily begins eating our brains in true MOS Hollywood fashion, then all we can do is to whip out our best weapons (and Cajun spices) and proceed to eat their brains with all the gusto of a universal roadkill chili cook-off.
However, if we are willing to set aside our Hollywood fantasies for a moment and study the ancient history of long-lived indigenous cultures (or our own Bible for that matter), what we see is that humankind has always benefited in some measure through contact with extraterrestrial races.
The Hopi Indians of North America call them the Ant People, and they say that they've always come to help after a devastating period of catastrophe. Perhaps this is because once we've been reduced to a day-to-day existence, we simply haven't the time or the will to waste our precious energies pursuing impulsive desires and perceived needs. Instead, we see the things that really matter above all else.
It would be a pity after all humankind has achieved in social and technological terms, to suddenly realize that, without a devastating catastrophe to compel us, we lacked the resolve to seek the things that really matter in our quest for contact.
Is it possible? Yes, especially for those, such as Indigo Children, who instinctively understand one simple concept: YOU MUST LISTEN WITH YOUR EYES.
* * *
Listening With Your Eyes
We often hear the advice, Don't believe your lying eyes (you're only seeing what you want to see) and, You won't believe your eyes (what you see will be so improbable you'll refuse to comprehend it). All too often, these hackneyed phrases are proffered up by those wishing to convince us that we need to adopt a different point of view because we are either self-delusional or because our powers of denial are overwhelming our powers of perception. The simplistic flip side meaning is that others know better-but do they?
A good example of this paradox is one of the oldest jokes used by flight instructors to embarrass their student pilots. It begins with the flight instructor asking, Do you know the nighttime engine failure emergency procedure for single engine airplanes?
The student typically says, No, I don't, half-dreading the answer.
Well then, its time to kn
ow, the flight instructor answers with a serious expression. If you're flying your single engine airplane at night and the engine fails, here is what you do. First, you descend to an altitude of three hundred feet and level off. Then, turn on your landing lights. If you don't like what you see, turn the landing lights off. That's it.
As the, Oh nuts, I've been had! draws across the student pilot's embarrassed face, the instructor chuckles. Gotcha! Another yutz bites the dust.
While this flight instructor's joke may sound like frivolous ribbing at first, there is a very cogent reason for using it. After the students have swallowed their pride, their instructors explain to them why they need to conduct a thorough pre-flight examination of their single-engine aircraft, which means taking a long hard look at the engine itself. Are there fluids dripping somewhere? Does the dipstick say the oil in the engine is clean and at the proper level? And so forth. Hence, this joke most always precedes a very serious discussion about pre-flight safety checks.
With this in mind, let's return to those who admonish us with Don't believe your lying eyes, and, You won't believe your eyes. Would you trust these people to teach you how to fly a single-engine airplane at night? If not, then why trust them with any other aspect of your life?
What You Say and What You Do
Whether you are initiating or involved in any kind of relationship, the first and often best defense against subterfuge is to listen with your eyes. This is because our ancestors honed their powers of perception long before the invention of language, which is why we instinctively place a greater reliance upon how a thing is said, as opposed what is actually said.
Another good example of perception that goes to the heart of this proposition is the phrase, Trust, but verify, which has been attributed to former President Ronald Reagan during his cold war negotiations with the Soviets over the implementation of strategic arms limitation.
Although Reagan's statement, Trust, but verify, served to fuel the late-night TV debates and powered a three-ring comedy of political punditry, the real story behind it is seldom told.
Reagan did not coin the policy statement of Trust, but verify. Rather, it was an English restatement of an old Russian saying, and was suggested to him by his then advisor, Condoleezza Rice, a noted expert on the former Soviet Union. It was a brilliant political move, both in terms of what it did to the Soviets in Russia and the American doves at home.
TV pundits quickly snapped up this semantic twist of logic and the news networks loved it. It was brain candy for a public that was weary and disheartened by the prospects of the cold war turning into a nuclear conflagration. Trust, but verify, was an instant success and the media dispensed it with lavish devotion and advertisements for things the average Russian wanted but could not have, such as new cars, two-ply toilet paper, and frost-free refrigerators.
However, the real fact of Trust, but verify, was that Reagan was not interested in trusting the Soviets, because his life experience told him that verification was a deeply flawed process. So, he listened to what the Soviets said for the benefit of the media circus and doves at home, but never kept his focus off of what the Soviets were actually doing. And they were doing a lot, such as building a massive biological weapons development program that flew in the face of the international treaties the Soviets had signed.
Regardless of what Reagan said for the benefit of pundits and doves, his true intention to decisively win the cold war by crushing Russia's troubled economy never wavered. Rice's advice to use the phrase Trust, but verify to quell dovish fears served as a brilliant smokescreen for the pursuit of his true aim: To decisively defeat the Soviets once and for all. So, were the Soviets taken in?
Given that the phrase had long been a feature of Russian folklore, the Soviets were not as na?ve as celebrity American TV pundits and doves. For them, it was a brilliant lose-lose strategic play by Reagan against them. They knew if they rebuked him, they would appear too intransigent and dangerous to the world at large. On the other hand, if they accepted it as an accurate indicator of Reagan's true intentions, they would be deluding themselves and therefore diminishing the defense of their own homeland. In effect, Trust, but verify, put the Soviets between a rock and a hard place and all Reagan had to do was to squeeze.
By using this handy bit of Russian folklore as a smokescreen for his true intentions, Reagan (the apparent conservative peacemaker) was then free to escalate the arms race to crush the Soviet economy with his futuristic Star Wars space-based defense initiative, and thereby foment an internal coup to sweep the Soviets out of power. That is exactly what he achieved.
The point here is not a historical analysis to support or rebuke Reagan's tactics. Rather, it is to make a simple point.
What people say and what people do are two completely different things. For Reagan, the only true measure of the Soviet's intentions were equivocally measured by their words and unequivocally stated by their acts.
In simpler terms, Reagan won the cold war because he listened to the Soviets with his eyes.
Can Only Presidents Listen with Their Eyes?
A quick retort to the proposition of the notion that Reagan won the cold war because he listened with his eyes would likely include the following statements:
Reagan took a huge gamble with his Trust, but verify smokescreen. True. However, there is another Russian saying: He who takes risks, drinks champagne.
Reagan had virtually limitless resources as president, including intelligence agencies and knowledgeable advisors like Condoleezza Rice. True. However, he also had something more valuable: the basic instincts we've developed as a sentient race dating back to the first moment our hominid ancestors first walked the Earth.
Reagan was a hawk, driven by anti-communist hysteria. False. If he had, it would have implied that he acted out of a need for vengeance or anger. This could have offered the Russians ample room for manipulative demagoguery. On the other hand, Reagan followed an old bit of Texas wisdom. You don't get mad. You don't get even. You just get your way.
When we take away all of the assets and resources available to a president, and the political agendas of those on all sides, what it all boils down to is that Reagan had enough sense of self to listen with his eyes and to believe what he saw.
That being said, if you cannot listen with your eyes like a president, then whom can you emulate for the best results?
Do you feel lucky today?
How Do Professional Poker Players Listen with Their Eyes?
There are a considerable number of people who make their livelihood as professional gamblers. Most notable of whom are those who play the game of poker for a living, and nothing expresses the key to their individual success better than Kenny Rogers's song The Gambler. The following lyrics from that song drive straight to the heart of the matter:
He said, Son, I've made a life out of readin’ people's faces,
And knowin’ what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.
And if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces.
If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.
You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin’ at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin's done.
In this timeless song, the older man tells the younger gambler in this song that he can see he is holding a weak hand just by the look in his eyes. Professional gamblers call this a ‘tell,’ which is a simple way of saying that professional gamblers hone their ability to perceive micro-momentary kinesics facial gestures as well as other non-verbal expressions.
Whoa! What on Earth is a micro-momentary kinesics facial gesture? In practical terms, it can be a change in the frequency with which you blink your eyes. Or as the old saying goes, the eyes are the windows to the soul.
Everyone blinks their eyes, because this is
how our bodies keep them lubricated with tears, and the fact is that women tend to blink twice as much as men. If you watch a man or a woman long enough, you can begin to get a sense of their normal blink rate. When they become afraid or evasive, the blink rate usually increases, provided they're not stone-cold axe murderers.
There are also other tells to look for, such as body position. If a man feels he can trust you, he'll face you, with his shoulders parallel to yours. If he is threatened by you, he'll likely turn his shoulder to you at a sharp right angle. Women, on the other hand, are subtler, and the degree to which they face you is relative to the degree to which they trust you.
Another tell is when someone folds their arms in front of their chest-a clear sign that you threaten them. However, if they place their hands in front of their face, they're trying not to reveal something. So how does this all boil down to a poker game?
If you are bluffing with a bad poker hand and you're not aware of the subtle tells you are giving off, a professional gambler will be able to translate your emotional state via your tells into the context of what you may or may not be holding in your hands.
On the other hand, if you have mastered the art of the poker face, you've learned how to mask your own non-verbal body language tells so effectively that only the most adept of professional gamblers can see through your mask-if at all. However, very few people, in fact, the smallest fraction of the general population imaginable, can and do master the art of the poker face.
Now imagine that you are a professional gambler and that a good share of your worldly wealth is mixed within a pile of chips in the center of the table. Sitting across from you is the only other remaining player who is so adept at his or her poker face skills that you cannot perceive enough tells to let you know whether to raise the bet or fold.
Do you simply choose to bet blindly and hope for the best? Not if you're a professional gambler facing a risky decision. Rather, you create an unforeseen situation that forces a spontaneous reaction from the other player. In other words, you go fishing for a tell.
Provoking a Tell
Indigo-E.T. Connection Page 5