|
|
|
Mega
Genius® Intelligence Briefing: How
to Know if You Are on the Right Track One day in the early 1970s, amid the poisonous Agent Orange, exploding napalm-B, and other horrors of the Vietnam War, an American soldier there recorded his assessment of life on Earth. Paraphrasing a line from the science fiction television series Star Trek, he wrote on a wall, “Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here.” One might still wonder if there is any: a few days ago, a man married a dog. (I have a line here that I fervently want to use, but I cannot.) I have been expecting something like this, ever since I learned early this year that, on the advice of astrologers, Miss World of 1994 married a banana tree. (I am not making this up.) It seems that 15 years ago, Mr. Selva Kumar, from the village of Avilakulam, in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, in India, stoned two dogs to death, while ignoring their anguished yelps, and hung them overhead in a tree. There is a technical and precise universal law of retribution. The gist of it is that to the degree that a person acts unethically, his abilities will decrease. Consequently, we would expect to learn that Mr. Kumar subsequently experienced not only impaired hearing from ignoring the dogs’ cries, but also some forceful injury both to his hand that he used to stone the dogs to death and to his legs that held him upright as he hung the dogs from the tree. In fact, within four days, the 18-year-old Mr. Kumar suffered a stroke that deafened him in one ear and paralyzed one hand and both legs. Now a 33-year-old semi-disabled agricultural worker, Mr. Kumar has not responded well to medical treatment throughout the past 15 years. Therefore, earlier this month, he sought the help of an astrologer; we can all see where this is going. The astrologer concluded that the dead canines had cursed Mr. Kumar, and explained that the only way that the stroke victim could lift the curse (law of retribution) was for him to marry a dog. I would have expected Mr. Kumar to ask, “How much of it can I lift by just kissing it?” Instead, marrying a dog seems to have instantly struck Mr. Kumar as a first-rate solution. (Beam me up, too, Scotty.) Mr. Kumar’s relatives then set out to find the appropriate nuptial dog for him. I might have guessed one born under the constellation Canis Major, probably with Pluto rising. Nevertheless, his relatives’ only qualification seems to have been that it had to be a stray. I suspect that the word had spread quickly, and that all his neighbors were watching their pets so closely that the village was on lockdown. “Oh, good morning, Mr. Kumar. Please stand right over there, where I can see you. Princess, get away from him!” Regardless, someone finally captured a large stray dog, and I am sure that as soon as Mr. Kumar proposed to it, all the villagers were greatly relieved. The Times of India, and dozens of other newspapers, unequivocally referred to Mr. Kumar’s fiancée as a bitch … which inspires two thoughts about the news media. First, it was probably the first time in the history of the world that newspapers used the word bitch in reference to a bride, without risk of litigation, since the law customarily recognizes that truth is an absolute affirmative defense to any charge of libel or defamation. Second, the newspapers’ prompt decision to specify that Mr. Kumar’s dog fiancée was a female, not a male, appears to be a gracious act meant to protect Mr. Kumar’s reputation, which I imagine would have been ruined if anyone had suspected that he was marrying a gay dog. Apparently, Mr. Kumar had no intentions of taking advantage of a child bride. To discourage any rumors of puppy love, he clarified that he believed his fiancée to be about 10 years old, or some 70 in human years. In fact, as a stray, she had been self-sufficient. Mr. Kumar even announced that her name was Selvi, which means “Goddess of Wealth” in the Tamil language. (I would have recommended a credit check.) On Sunday, 11
November 2007, the “Foxhound” mongrel was bathed and clothed for the formal
ritual, in Manamadurai, 470 kilometers (494 miles) south of Mr. Kumar was dressed in a white dhoti (loincloth) and a white shirt. His fiancée’s bridal gown was an elegant and simple, off the shoulder, pink and light-orange brocaded sari. Like the grrr-oom, around her neck she wore a lovely deep-pink azalea and tuberose garland. All the wedding guests said the bride looked radiant (despite her hangdog expression). Do you take this dog? Mr. Kumar did, vowing even to take care of her forever. Then he tied a sacred thread, called a mangalsutra, around his dog bride’s neck, knotting it and solemnizing the ritual. It was a grand day for Mr. Kumar. In a wedding photograph, taken at the moment of their official union, he, his relatives, and his invited guests all were smiling broadly. His dog bride was, too (although it might have been just gas). The wedding reception was held at the newlyweds’ house, where the groom partook of a lavish feast and tossed his low maintenance bride a bun. However, this chauvinistic approach did not go over well with the bride on her wedding day. Never having vowed to obey, she promptly ditched her bridal gown and ran away. Doggone! Let us hope that true love is never having to save your sari. Regardless, she was finally doggedly tracked down by the groom, who tied the knot again and then led his bride back home on a leash. I admit to a nagging feeling that this sari state of affairs violates some international law, although I have not yet put my finger on it. Regardless, I think still that the dog could have done better. Now, how you reacted to that factual story reveals a great deal about you. Were you somber? Or, angry? Or, were you offended? On the other hand, did you laugh? Or, did you at least find it amusing? I have questioned many comedians about the subject of laughter, including Johnny Carson, Jonathan Winters, Ruth Buzzi, Walter Matthau, Rue McClanahan, Bea Arthur, Doris Day, Loretta Swit, Edgar Bergen, Dick Sargent, Martha Raye, George Jessel, Totie Fields, Jim Nabors, Minnie Pearl, Fred MacMurray, Howie Mandel, Jack Weston, George Wallace, and Truman Capote. Although they have been acclaimed as some of the funniest people in the world, none of them concurred as to why something is humorous. In fact, I doubt that any two comics on Earth agree on this question: what is laughter? Since that question relates directly to your level of awareness, and because it has been a conundrum throughout the ages, I will answer it now. Laughter is a physical response to a person’s self-determined decision to reject someone, someplace, or something. It must be a self-determined decision, as the person must have the choice of rejecting it or not, because one is as free as he has choices, and lack of freedom is not a laughing matter. What makes something humorous to you is your decision to reject it. If you reject it, it is funny; if you choose not to reject it, or are unable to, it is not funny. For example, the animated fictional character Homer Simpson asked, “If God didn’t want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?” We reject the ridiculous reasoning, and laugh. For example, someone once said, “When I die, I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather did, in his sleep – not screaming, like the passengers in his car.” We reject the bogus concept, and laugh. For example, when comedian George Burns was approaching 100 years of age, he admitted to still chasing girls, drinking martinis, and smoking at least a dozen cigars a day. When a reporter asked George what his doctor thought about that, the aging humorist replied, “My doctor’s dead.” We see the truth, reject that doctors invariably know best, and laugh. What we laugh at may be ridiculous, false, or true. However, we can never consider that it is serious, for if we do, then we cannot easily reject it and, therefore, it will not seem funny. We never laugh at things that we consider at that moment to be serious. What makes us consider that something is serious? Our own inability to see truth. Enough falseness will invariably make a person act serious and will disable his sense of humor, as he cannot easily reject the falseness that is impinging upon him. Conversely, a person will always laugh when he sees truth, if he sees enough of it, because he can then easily reject the falseness that he was looking at. Falseness begets seriousness, which begets mass. The more serious something is, the more mass tends to be associated with it. People try to balance mass and seriousness. That is why serious institutions appear massive, and massive institutions seem serious. For instance, when a person is surprised, shocked or aggrieved, or otherwise forced to think deeply, he will move mass toward his head, where he is forming his serious thoughts. The more serious his thoughts, the greater the mass with which he will try to balance his thoughts. First, his finger might touch his lips. Then, as his thoughts become more profound, his hand might rub his chin or forehead. Finally, if his thoughts become too serious, he might grasp the sides of his face with both hands You can use this knowledge to judge a person’s honesty. When someone is about to tell a lie, he will tend to touch his face. He knows that his lie is falseness, which begets seriousness, so he moves the mass of his hand to his head to balance the seriousness of the lie that he is forming there. Rodin sculpted The Thinker, accurately. His famous sculpture makes sense to people, because the seated man looks like he is thinking, as his fist is solidly against his head. The figure is not resting his head on his chin because he is tired, but because he is balancing the seriousness of his thoughts with the mass of his fist. If he were to stand and walk about while continuing to think deeply, he would still be holding his face, to balance his serious thought with mass. Not only does falseness beget seriousness, which begets mass, but mass begets effect, which is not easily rejected. Show me an extremely serious person, and I will show you a person who believes great falseness, and who is very much the unwanted effect of his environment, and who laughs with considerable difficulty, if at all. That is an accurate way to spot deficiencies in awareness. Beware of people when they are serious, and those who are easily offended. Conversely, show me a person who sees enough truth, and I will show you a person who is cause over his environment and who laughs easily and freely. One should not laugh aloud at everything, all the time, as a person who does will not relate well with other people, and is probably stuck in the glee of insanity. Nevertheless, as I have often said, “Anytime you cannot laugh, you are off the track of truth.” You do not have to laugh. However, you need to be able to laugh. Accordingly, a person of immeasurably high intelligence can easily laugh at anything, at anytime, and is one of the most consistently happy people that you could ever hope to meet. Remember the American soldier who wanted Scotty to beam him up, because there was no intelligent life down here? Well, he was no fool, for amid all that poisonous Agent Orange, exploding napalm-B, and other horror, he had maintained his sense of humor. Now, decades after the Vietnam War has ended, let’s reassess our society, not by counting the latest whiz-bang electronic gadgets that we own -- none of which ever made anyone treat anyone else more courteously -- but by examining the bottom line: the value that we place on human life. If you think that you are living in an advanced civilization, I want to terminatedly dispel you of that thought. In the past 100 years, more than 50 million (50,000,000) human beings on our planet were systematically mass murdered, purely for ethnic, political and religious reasons. In fact, the total may have been twice that; forensic scientists are still recovering and counting skeletons. If humanity were advancing through the millennia, the 20th century should have been the era of our greatest kindness to one another. Instead, the last century was the bloodiest period in the recorded history of Earth. You live in a primitive society of vast ignorance and arrogance. Earth’s barbarism is not a laughing matter; you should not laugh at it. However, you had better be able to laugh in spite of it, for laughter is the only way out. Be sure that you get this. Falseness begets seriousness, which begets mass, which begets effect, which is not easily rejected. Consequently, a person who is being fooled by considerable falseness will act serious, and will not be inclined to laugh. The more serious a person is about any subject -- including even his own profession -- the less he understands it. As Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, said, “One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.” If you cannot at least smile at that, you are taking life too seriously. Mega Genius® 24 November 2007
NOTICE - Although these "Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefings" originate from beyond the top of the IQ scale, they are not substitutes for "The Mega Genius® Lectures" -- "The Genius Formula™ Series," " The Uncommon Sense Series," and "The Whole Truth Series," -- which are the fundamentals of wisdom. To learn how to skyrocket your intelligence in three easy steps with "The Genius Formula™ Series" of six lectures, in mp3 downloadable format, just select the glowing treasure chest below.
Copyright © 200 7 - 2008 - Mega Genius®. All rights reserved.
|
