The Gabriel Method

[Charter]

The method of weight loss is easy to understand, but practicing it is often not..

In advance - TL;DR

I agree, but it's also important for me to offer at least an alternative perspective on the matter, and to back said alternative with sound logic and empirical evidence.

Basically, my assertion has been that most psychological disorders behave in like but to varying degrees when influenced by external and internal catalyst.

Yoga,Prayer,Meditation,Hypnosis,Talk Therapy are methodologies which employ both in the hope of coming to a more let say... sane perspective.

Often the initiation of this process is something of a more superficial nature such as wanting to lose weight, wanting to quit smoking, wanting to stop drinking or drugs, wanting to stop feeling depressed.

All expressions of more base problems within a person. Oral fixation, repressed trauma, etc.

While causality certainly plays a role here I think the "Gabriel Method" is exactly what I said from the start - brainwashing. Throw in some voodoo reasoning, mix in some psychoanalytical technique, and then let people do what they already know how to do which is eat less and exercise more and then claim supreme understanding. Solid technique - works well on dummies I bet.

That being said -

I would also say that their is no such thing in my opinion as an objective reality apart from the observer.

As it is impossible for anything within the Universe to get outside of the Universe so as to look back at the Universe I find it very unlikely that any person at any level of consciousness can say that they have a way of quantifying an objective reality.

Therefore, I agree that everyone is stuck within their own subjective perspective influenced in part by nature and nurture, but that doesn't preclude one perspective from not being wider than the other.

We often think of some of the more ignorant people we meet as narrow-minded, and having "tunnel vision", but in reality we all have tunnel vision. Some more so, some less so.

I also agree that changing someone's beliefs by attempting to change their logic and reasoning has been proven to be futile. The alternative method is of course long term degradation of their belief system (which happens naturally, as people are apt to change dramatically over the course of their lives), but that would be an abuse of the person in what could be the worst possible way. There is much unforeseen consequence in tampering with another persons base psyche without proper instruction from a trusted individual who is giving personal care to each individuals specific case.

I don't see that in this case at all, and it's kind of disturbing.

 

[fufu]

In advance - TL;DR

I agree, but it's also important for me to offer at least an alternative perspective on the matter, and to back said alternative with sound logic and empirical evidence.

Basically, my assertion has been that most psychological disorders behave in like but to varying degrees when influenced by external and internal catalyst.

Yoga,Prayer,Meditation,Hypnosis,Talk Therapy are methodologies which employ both in the hope of coming to a more let say... sane perspective.

Often the initiation of this process is something of a more superficial nature such as wanting to lose weight, wanting to quit smoking, wanting to stop drinking or drugs, wanting to stop feeling depressed.

All expressions of more base problems within a person. Oral fixation, repressed trauma, etc.

While causality certainly plays a role here I think the "Gabriel Method" is exactly what I said from the start - brainwashing. Throw in some voodoo reasoning, mix in some psychoanalytical technique, and then let people do what they already know how to do which is eat less and exercise more and then claim supreme understanding. Solid technique - works well on dummies I bet.

That being said -

I would also say that their is no such thing in my opinion as an objective reality apart from the observer.

As it is impossible for anything within the Universe to get outside of the Universe so as to look back at the Universe I find it very unlikely that any person at any level of consciousness can say that they have a way of quantifying an objective reality.

Therefore, I agree that everyone is stuck within their own subjective perspective influenced in part by nature and nurture, but that doesn't preclude one perspective from not being wider than the other.

We often think of some of the more ignorant people we meet as narrow-minded, and having "tunnel vision", but in reality we all have tunnel vision. Some more so, some less so.

I also agree that changing someone's beliefs by attempting to change their logic and reasoning has been proven to be futile. The alternative method is of course long term degradation of their belief system (which happens naturally, as people are apt to change dramatically over the course of their lives), but that would be an abuse of the person in what could be the worst possible way. There is much unforeseen consequence in tampering with another persons base psyche without proper instruction from a trusted individual who is giving personal care to each individuals specific case.

I don't see that in this case at all, and it's kind of disturbing.

I understand that it is really impossible to see an objective world in isolation. The only consciousness we've ever known is our own, we don't know what the physical world exists like outside ourselves. Therefore we can only quantify it with our personal scope.

However, there is a relative objective reality that exists with everyone's personal scope, regardless of semantic or perceptual differences. Gravity effects us all, water is always two hydrogen and an oxygen. I know you are aware of this, but I am rounding off my point. I never implied that we can have "the eye of god" when it comes to knowing reality.

But yes, I agree we only know what we can sense, or build things to sense, we can unlikely know what the universe exists as ultimately.

And yes, I agree we are all subjects of our own biases, of course.

I also agree that drinking the kool-aid and subscribing to a guru is not healthy. People need to trek the hard and lonely road in developing beliefs individually and not have someone impress their own fantasy world upon them. People submit their skepticism far too easily when it comes to dieting and training.

The phenomena still exists though, people's motivations and emotions can be largely shaped by seemingly meaningless rituals and practices. It is something worth looking into rather than ignoring as mere ignorance or superstition.

BTW, what does TL;DR stand for?

 

[cheappinz]

The guy found a program that works for him. Good for him. It was just a nice thing to do--to try to share his positive results and enthusiasm.
Everyone is unique and has their preference of how they like to live, how they like to learn. If this technique isn't harmful, and takes a previously obese person from dangerously fat to above average and fit, then great. I'm glad for him.
We all know food and exercise are what makes a body. Who cares what motivates you into doing what is best for your body? I don't.

And look at this man's age. He's 19. Give him a break and don't ride him so hard. He's young and needs guidance not negativity.

 

[Charter]

I understand that it is really impossible to see an objective world in isolation. The only consciousness we've ever known is our own, we don't know what the physical world exists like outside ourselves. Therefore we can only quantify it with our personal scope.

However, there is a relative objective reality that exists with everyone's personal scope, regardless of semantic or perceptual differences. Gravity effects us all, water is always two hydrogen and an oxygen. I know you are aware of this, but I am rounding off my point. I never implied that we can have "the eye of god" when it comes to knowing reality.

But yes, I agree we only know what we can sense, or build things to sense, we can unlikely know what the universe exists as ultimately.

And yes, I agree we are all subjects of our own biases, of course.

I also agree that drinking the kool-aid and subscribing to a guru is not healthy. People need to trek the hard and lonely road in developing beliefs individually and not have someone impress their own fantasy world upon them. People submit their skepticism far too easily when it comes to dieting and training.

The phenomena still exists though, people's motivations and emotions can be largely shaped by seemingly meaningless rituals and practices. It is something worth looking into rather than ignoring as mere ignorance or superstition.

BTW, what does TL;DR stand for?

Too Long, Don't Read!

I agree that it's something worth looking into. In fact it's the entire reason for my posting.

Belief is ignorance in action. Belief is the death of intelligence. I know my post may seem roundabout, but that's only because the first couple of post I made in this thread were succinct and to the point of what I had to say.

"All phenomena are real in some sense, unreal in some sense, meaningless in some sense, real and meaningless in some sense, unreal and meaningless in some sense, and real and unreal and meaningless in some sense." - R.A.W.

Anyway, I diverge. Losing weight is important for people who are unhealthy due to their weight. This at least we can agree on. Whatever is necessary to that end is fine I suppose as long as it doesn't harm others.

 

[fufu]

Too Long, Don't Read!

I agree that it's something worth looking into. In fact it's the entire reason for my posting.

Belief is ignorance in action. Belief is the death of intelligence. I know my post may seem roundabout, but that's only because the first couple of post I made in this thread were succinct and to the point of what I had to say.

"All phenomena are real in some sense, unreal in some sense, meaningless in some sense, real and meaningless in some sense, unreal and meaningless in some sense, and real and unreal and meaningless in some sense." - R.A.W.

Anyway, I diverge. Losing weight is important for people who are unhealthy due to their weight. This at least we can agree on. Whatever is necessary to that end is fine I suppose as long as it doesn't harm others.

"Belief is ignorance in action. Belief is the death of intelligent."

I agree in a large sense, but I believe it would be better understood if expounded upon further. I think those phrases can sound a bit chauvinistic without more explanation of their meanings.

Belief, as a mechanism of terminal understanding, is ignorance in action. Meaning, the moment you stop further investigations because you think you have it all figured out, is the moment intelligence and critical thinking goes into submission.

Ok, I'm done!

Calories in versus calories out!!! I'm going to go eat a cookie now.

 

[Charter]

"Belief is ignorance in action. Belief is the death of intelligent."

I agree in a large sense, but I believe it would be better understood if expounded upon further. I think those phrases can sound a bit chauvinistic without more explanation of their meanings.

Belief, as a mechanism of terminal understanding, is ignorance in action. Meaning, the moment you stop further investigations because you think you have it all figured out, is the moment intelligence and critical thinking goes into submission.

Ok, I'm done!

Calories in versus calories out!!! I'm going to go eat a cookie now.

You hit the nail on the head. I could have and would be willing to expound further, but I mean...it's a internet bodybuilding forum so...yeah.

Explaining the failings of semantics and symbols with semantics and symbols is difficult to say the least, but it's the only avenue available.

The map is not the territory.

 

[piratedebo]

neuroscientits claim that we currently only use 10% of the brains potential

Today's christians are averaging 5% use of their brains while catholics are still down to 2%..

 

[fufu]

You hit the nail on the head. I could have and would be willing to expound further, but I mean...it's a internet bodybuilding forum so...yeah.

Explaining the failings of semantics and symbols with semantics and symbols is difficult to say the least, but it's the only avenue available.

The map is not the territory.

Nice metaphor, I haven't heard that before.

 

[MyK]

Today's christians are averaging 5% use of their brains while catholics are still down to 2%..

LMFAO!!!

classic!

 

[MyK]

The map is not the territory.

Nice metaphor, I haven't heard that before.

that one?

its nlp, Neuro-linguistic programming, crazy shit, check it out

Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fufu]

that one?

its nlp, Neuro-linguistic programming, crazy shit, check it out

Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great stuff.

 

[soxmuscle]

Insanity.

 

[Charter]

Why must I have 20 post to send a message to other users besides mods and also to post links?

It's not NLP, but plays a part in it, and NLP what in part was got me interested in General Semantics.

Fufu - well anyway - thought I'd throw some names at you for lite reading purposes.

Much of what I've said in the thread has been derived solely from these two gentleman. Wiki will bring up a wealth of information on both, but more importantly I think is Korzybski's work on General Semantics of which both were students. You'll find that linked shortly into Korzybski's wikipedia page.


The map is not the territory. - Alfred Korzybski


“I don't believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of brain damage, the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity, the atrophy of imagination. I have opinions but no Belief System (B.S.)” - Robert Anton Wilson

 

[fufu]

Why must I have 20 post to send a message to other users besides mods and also to post links?

It's not NLP, but plays a part in it, and NLP what in part was got me interested in General Semantics.

Fufu - well anyway - thought I'd throw some names at you for lite reading purposes.

Much of what I've said in the thread has been derived solely from these two gentleman. Wiki will bring up a wealth of information on both, but more importantly I think is Korzybski's work on General Semantics of which both were students. You'll find that linked shortly into Korzybski's wikipedia page.


The map is not the territory. - Alfred Korzybski


???I don't believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of brain damage, the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity, the atrophy of imagination. I have opinions but no Belief System (B.S.)??? - Robert Anton Wilson

I'll look into them, thanks for the info.

 

[ArnoldsProtege]

I am not here to argue ideology. If you are not open to it, I am perfectly ok with that. It does not affect my reality in any way. I am merely illuminating this method and book for those who may gain from it.

I am a fan and believer of subjectivity. While I do believe in an objective universe of simultaneous consciousness, I practice a subjective view. As in, if a belief benefits me i.e the belief that I can program my brain to want to be fit, the belief in the law of attraction, belief I am destined to be successful, etc. I do not care if anyone questions or tries to disprove any of them, for their input is irrelevant to me. I am also not stuck with beliefs; for a long time I believed in the Christian religion until it became detrimental to me, so I shed it and developed new ones.

For anyone open to new ideas, new methodologies, and ideas like the law of attraction, the idea behind The Gabriel Method is an invaluable resource.

Also, way to steal those quotes, I thought they were original lol. For a moment I thought you were being profound.

 

[Charter]

I am not here to argue ideology. If you are not open to it, I am perfectly ok with that. It does not affect my reality in any way. I am merely illuminating this method and book for those who may gain from it.

I am a fan and believer of subjectivity. While I do believe in an objective universe of simultaneous consciousness, I practice a subjective view. As in, if a belief benefits me i.e the belief that I can program my brain to want to be fit, the belief in the law of attraction, belief I am destined to be successful, etc. I do not care if anyone questions or tries to disprove any of them, for their input is irrelevant to me. I am also not stuck with beliefs; for a long time I believed in the Christian religion until it became detrimental to me, so I shed it and developed new ones.

For anyone open to new ideas, new methodologies, and ideas like the law of attraction, the idea behind The Gabriel Method is an invaluable resource.

Also, way to steal those quotes, I thought they were original lol. For a moment I thought you were being profound.

So you shed one belief system for another one. Still puts you in a mode of ignorance.

The problem with believing anything is not that we turn a blind-eye to everything else, but more importantly a blind-eye to that which we have begun to believe.

As soon as anything is assimilated as a belief (an ultimatum, and end all be all, a "personal truth") then investigation into that belief stops all together.

You bare witness to the fact that over time and do to stimuli - belief systems change (this is the same for everyone, and what I alluded to in an earlier post), but it's a repeating pattern of abuse.

People move from one belief system to the next, and each time the upheaval is usually a tumultuous experience which in itself is an addictive experience. It gives us a sense of self when our sense of self changes, and we like that.

What I'm trying to advocate is agnosticism about everything. Anything and everything which you experience as a phenomenon should be placed into proper perspective, and then continually re-examined. We do this anyway with the big questions in life, and continue to do so endlessly for all of our lives, but it's many of the "smaller things" that we take for granted, and on faith so to speak.

We aren't discussing idealogy, but rather methodology. The heart of the matter is a little more complex then I think you're able to grasp at this point, but I urge you to continue mentally digesting and re-examining what I and others have said in this thread (as well as yourself) rather than completely shutting down, and clinging to your beliefs.

I urge you to learn about fractals - if only to give you an idea of what infinity really means. You are wrong at every level.

Trust me when I say that everyone feels when clinging to an old paradigm at first as if they are at a precipes, but that precipes is just as imagined as the "belief" system itself. Cling rather to that immovable constant in life which you the observer. Just my personal philosophy there.

I would also say that it takes more then we imagine from individual to individual to go from knowing how to do something to actually doing it, and I applaud your ability to do so.

If anything your last post about me "stealing quotes" tells me more about you than anything.

When you really begin to understand some of said quotes, from Buddha to Korzybski to Jung to Watts to R.A.W. you'll understand that anything ever said by anyone was only ever a gamble anyway.

 

[fufu]

In addition to what Charter has stated -

There is a phrase I often tell myself - "Anyone can convince themselves that anything is real, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Anything within the realm of mental conception can become real if the individual so wishes. "

I try to keep that in the back of my mind at all times. In practical terms, we humans naturally judge things as black or white, good or bad. It makes things easier, we don't like to be unsure. We would rather ignore the unknown and create a user-based reality.

The other side of the coin is accepting the unknown; accepting that it is everywhere and everything. Like Charter said, "I don't know", "we'll see", or "maybe". I believe that is the heart of science and understanding. Is is of the same character as Socratic belief, "I know that I know nothing".

The problem with accepting the unknown is the mental incongruity. Accepting the unknown often brings people into a feeling of chaos and instability. But I think perhaps living in the world of instability will bring a person closest to the "reality" of life than anything else.

I'm not directly responding to anything specific, but just the general subject presented in this thread. I am not arguing good or bad, or right or wrong.

 

[Charter]

In addition to what Charter has stated -

There is a phrase I often tell myself - "Anyone can convince themselves that anything is real, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Anything within the realm of mental conception can become real if the individual so wishes. "

I try to keep that in the back of my mind at all times. In practical terms, we humans naturally judge things as black or white, good or bad. It makes things easier, we don't like to be unsure. We would rather ignore the unknown and create a user-based reality.

The other side of the coin is accepting the unknown; accepting that it is everywhere and everything. Like Charter said, "I don't know", "we'll see", or "maybe". I believe that is the heart of science and understanding. Is is of the same character as Socratic belief, "I know that I know nothing".

The problem with accepting the unknown is the mental incongruity. Accepting the unknown often brings people into a feeling of chaos and instability. But I think perhaps living in the world of instability will bring a person closest to the "reality" of life than anything else.

I'm not directly responding to anything specific, but just the general subject presented in this thread. I am not arguing good or bad, or right or wrong.

For sure. I subscribe to non-aristotelian logic, but that's merely as a means of widening my own personal perspective.

I would say to your analogy that there are not in fact two-sides of the coin, and if there are it's only because we the observer have invented said sides.

Accepting the unknown becomes easy when we realize that nothing is known period, and only taken for granted.

I try to remain in the moment, and tell myself that all perception is gamble.

It's a crap-shoot, and if anyone says they have the answers then they're probably full of shit.

In the end there is no substitute for experience. Limit your mind, limit your body, limit your experience. Experience is all the we have in life. Different experiences - some viewed subjectively as bad or good, but in the end all that we know that we have is experiences. Engage yourself fully in the moment.

I don't think that any man has learned the truth, but many men have experienced it.

 

[ArnoldsProtege]

Charter, I agree with much of what you have to say, and I respect you for the fact that you seek knowledge and education from important areas, where most people I know remain oblivious to social and political thought, cling to the ideas of success and happiness in life as a steady job and a mortgage.

I am aware, also, that belief can be detrimental to the invididual as well as society itself. Just recently where I live a bill was shot down after religious groups protested against it. They are NOT for teaching sex education earlier in childhood development, and find it sinful. I find it ridiculous, and fear that mankind cannot progress as a species while religion is present, but that is off topic.

I choose to believe in certain things because they benefit me, and that is all that matters for my subjective reality. I suppose you can say I am turning a blind eye and being ignorant, and I would not disagree. However, I have experienced incredible success in life when following these principles, and will continue to do so. Therefore, The Gabriel Method is highly effective for individuals who follow its teachings openly.

I read of a spiritual teacher who claims that we are infinite beings, and have chosen our lives before hand. Since in our infiniteness things like money and possessions are useless, experience is what we exist for, and we go through infinity gaining new experiences and feelings. At first glance, I thought it was completely absurd, and it probably is. But, if that belief enables that man to live his life fully, to accept pain, and loss, and death and agony as part of his journey, then in his subjective reality, it benefits him. Not saying it is right or wrong, only a different perspective on this lovely consciousness that we all have come to enjoy.

 

[fufu]

For sure. I subscribe to non-aristotelian logic, but that's merely as a means of widening my own personal perspective.

I would say to your analogy that there are not in fact two-sides of the coin, and if there are it's only because we the observer have invented said sides.

Accepting the unknown becomes easy when we realize that nothing is known period, and only taken for granted.

I try to remain in the moment, and tell myself that all perception is gamble.

It's a crap-shoot, and if anyone says they have the answers then they're probably full of shit.

In the end there is no substitute for experience. Limit your mind, limit your body, limit your experience. Experience is all the we have in life. Different experiences - some viewed subjectively as bad or good, but in the end all that we know that we have is experiences. Engage yourself fully in the moment.

I don't think that any man has learned the truth, but many men have experienced it.

Yes, a creation of the observer, but one with very real and wide-spread implications. I think my phrasing was suitable.

The notion of "the creation of the observer", while true to me, can be taken so far that it practically breaks down all attempts to describe things literally into complete absurdity. That is why it is a tough idea to throw into an argument, as I see it. I agree with it, but when the notion of contrivance is itself described through the fabrication of spoken and written word, the meaning is largely lost, or just compounded into a mind-fuck.

We just have to hope somebody gets what the other is saying when ideas are put through their own mental filters. Even harder when done over a forum. I like the way you think, though.

 

[Charter]

Yes, a creation of the observer, but one with very real and wide-spread implications. I think my phrasing was suitable.

The notion of "the creation of the observer", while true to me, can be taken so far that it practically breaks down all attempts to describe things literally into complete absurdity. That is why it is a tough idea to throw into an argument, as I see it. I agree with it, but when the notion of contrivance is itself described through the fabrication of spoken and written word, the meaning is largely lost, or just compounded into a mind-fuck.

We just have to hope somebody gets what the other is saying when ideas are put through their own mental filters. Even harder when done over a forum. I like the way you think, though.

Well put sir.

I would also like to make the point that in the moment I don't necessarily analyze and extrapolate like I am now. In fact for the most part I don't at all, and this being an internet forum it's hard to observe the social skills of those involved which plays a huge role in how we experience situations.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle dictates that I engage in the experience first, and re-examine later if necessary. It sounds ridiculous, but it's how everyone works, and I just make it a point to take it a little further. Why not? I've always taken things a little further then most.

If it's unnecessary which is to say - no new information, nothing of interest, no patterns created derived from said experience etc, I just don't worry about it.

I think that luckily for me I've always been extroverted and able to maneuver myself well in social situations. I like to think that I am an engaging person. People enjoy conversing with me, and that helps in this area in particular.

ArnoldsProtege - using a methodology which you know produces success doesn't mean you have to "believe" in it (and maybe you really don't) it just means you have empirical evidence of a methodology that works.

It's as simple as this. You perceive that the cracker is a cracker, and so it is as cracker. You are making the cracker.

You perceive that these methodologies work, and they work. You are losing the weight.

Now both of these things can be broken down into their basic parts, and we can see how they're the same.

Crackers = flour/salt/water = h2o,NaCL,carbon = subatomic particles.

Gabriel Method = psycho-therapeutic techniques/Faulty Logic/Eating Healthy + Working out = losing weight.

Everything may be seen as a means to an ends. You invented the cracker. You invented the methodology. Both to achieve your goal in reference to said phenomenon. One goal was to lose weight, and the other was to quantify that little square bit of disorder in the Universe.

Who is the Master who makes the grass green?

I would also say that while I believe consciousness is a infinite intelligence of which we are all apart I seriously doubt that we as individuals continue in any sense of which we could be recognized beyond our death.

Either the individual is stripped of identity and reinserted into the stream of consciousness or they become something so radically different that they'd be indistinguishable to those of us engaged in a personally preconceived pattern of consciousness.

You won't be you after you die. How's that for an answer? Bare in mind I'm probably wrong.