Because the Watchtower Corp. is doomed to thinking inside a corporation box they are ridged, predictable, and very very limited in solutions. dictated by a 19th century naïve view of biblical supreme being.
Brokeback Watchtower
JoinedPosts by Brokeback Watchtower
-
2
Think Outside The Box And Watchtower Limited Structure
by Brokeback Watchtower init is not lie that watchtower corporation limits your options to problem resolutions.
and so brain shrinkage is a natural result of restraints on information processing and so the less neuron firing the more the brain atrophies another word 2 + 2 = 4.. compartmentalization shortcuts to problem resolution leads to deterioration of brain cells.. think out side the box is a sign of mental health is my opinion..
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
-
2
Think Outside The Box And Watchtower Limited Structure
by Brokeback Watchtower init is not lie that watchtower corporation limits your options to problem resolutions.
and so brain shrinkage is a natural result of restraints on information processing and so the less neuron firing the more the brain atrophies another word 2 + 2 = 4.. compartmentalization shortcuts to problem resolution leads to deterioration of brain cells.. think out side the box is a sign of mental health is my opinion..
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box
Thinking outside the box entails a thinking process, which comprehends the implementation of an unusual approach to the logical thinking structure. It's a procedure which aims to escape relational reasoning and thinking.[1]
Thinking outside the box (also thinking out of the box[2][3] or thinking beyond the box and, especially in Australia, thinking outside the square[4]) is a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective. This phrase often refers to novel or creative thinking. The term is thought to derive from management consultants in the 1970s and 1980s challenging their clients to solve the "nine dots" puzzle, whose solution requires some lateral thinking.[5] This phrase can also be found commonly in dance, as encouragement to move creatively, beyond simple, geometric box steps and their basic variations, to literally step outside the box into more complex patterns of expression.
The catchphrase, or cliché, has become widely used in business environments, especially by management consultants and executive coaches, and has been referenced in a number of advertising slogans. To think outside the box is to look further and to try not thinking of the obvious things, but to try thinking of the things beyond them.
Contents
[hide]
Analogy[edit]
A simplified definition for paradigm is a habit of reasoning or a conceptual framework.
A simplified analogy is "the box" in the commonly used phrase "thinking outside the box". What is encompassed by the words "inside the box" is analogous with the current, and often unnoticed, assumptions about a situation. Creative thinking acknowledges and rejects the accepted paradigm to come up with new ideas.
Nine dots puzzle[edit]
The notion of something outside a perceived "box" is related to a traditional topographical puzzle called the nine dots puzzle.[5]
The origins of the phrase "thinking outside the box" are obscure; but it was popularized in part because of a nine-dot puzzle, which John Adair claims to have introduced in 1969.[6] Management consultant Mike Vance has claimed that the use of the nine-dot puzzle in consultancy circles stems from the corporate culture of the Walt Disney Company, where the puzzle was used in-house.[7]
The nine dots puzzle is much older than the slogan. It appears in Sam Loyd's 1914 Cyclopedia of Puzzles.[8] In the 1951 compilation The Puzzle-Mine: Puzzles Collected from the Works of the Late Henry Ernest Dudeney, the puzzle is attributed to Dudeney himself.[9] Sam Loyd's original formulation of the puzzle[10] entitled it as "Christopher Columbus's egg puzzle." This was an allusion to the story of Egg of Columbus.
The puzzle proposed an intellectual challenge—to connect the dots by drawing four straight, continuous lines that pass through each of the nine dots, and never lifting the pencil from the paper. The conundrum is easily resolved, but only by drawing the lines outside the confines of the square area defined by the nine dots themselves. The phrase "thinking outside the box" is a restatement of the solution strategy. The puzzle only seems difficult because people commonly imagine a boundary around the edge of the dot array.[11] The heart of the matter is the unspecified barrier that people typically perceive.
Ironically, telling people to "think outside the box" does not help them think outside the box, at least not with the 9-dot problem.[12] This is due to the distinction between procedural knowledge (implicit or tacit knowledge) and declarative knowledge (book knowledge). For example, a non-verbal cue such as drawing a square outside the 9 dots does allow people to solve the 9-dot problem better than average.[13]
The nine-dot problem is a well-defined problem. It has a clearly stated goal, and all necessary information to solve the problem is included (connect all of the dots using four straight lines). Furthermore, well-defined problems have a clear ending (you know when you have reached the solution). Although the solution is "outside the box" and not easy to see at first, once it has been found, it seems obvious. Other examples of well-defined problems are the Tower of Hanoi and the Rubik's Cube.
In contrast, characteristics of ill-defined problems are:
not clear what the question really is
not clear how to arrive at a solution
no idea what the solution looks like
An example of an ill-defined problem is "what is the essence of happiness?" The skills needed to solve this type of problem are the ability to reason and draw inferences, metacognition, and epistemic monitoring.
The single straight line solution[edit]
Another well-defined problem for the nine dots starting point is to connect the dots with a single straight line. The solution involves looking outside the sheet of paper on which the nine dots are drawn.[14]
If solving the four line solution is called lateral thinking, then solving the one line solution could well be called orthogonal thinking,[15] as it requires two distinct phases: drawing the line and assembling the line.
Metaphor[edit]
This flexible English phrase is a rhetorical trope with a range of variant applications.
The metaphorical "box" in the phrase "outside the box" may be married with something real and measurable — for example, perceived budgetary[16] or organizational[17] constraints in a Hollywood development project. Speculating beyond its restrictive confines the box can be both:
(a) positive— fostering creative leaps as in generating wild ideas (the conventional use of the term);[16] and
(b) negative— penetrating through to the "bottom of the box." James Bandrowski states that this could result in a frank and insightful re-appraisal of a situation, oneself, the organization, etc.
On the other hand, Bandrowski argues that the process of thinking "inside the box" need not be construed in a pejorative sense. It is crucial for accurately parsing and executing a variety of tasks — making decisions, analyzing data, and managing the progress of standard operating procedures, etc.
Hollywood screenwriter Ira Steven Behr appropriated this concept to inform plot and character in the context of a television series. Behr imagined a core character:
He is going to be "thinking outside the box," you know, and usually when we use that cliche, we think outside the box means a new thought. So we can situate ourselves back in the box, but in a somewhat better position.[17]
The phrase can be used as a shorthand way to describe speculation about what happens next in a multi-stage design thinking process.[17]
-
2
Think Outside The Box And Watchtower Limited Structure
by Brokeback Watchtower init is not lie that watchtower corporation limits your options to problem resolutions.
and so brain shrinkage is a natural result of restraints on information processing and so the less neuron firing the more the brain atrophies another word 2 + 2 = 4.. compartmentalization shortcuts to problem resolution leads to deterioration of brain cells.. think out side the box is a sign of mental health is my opinion..
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
It is not lie that watchtower corporation limits your options to problem resolutions. And so brain shrinkage is a natural result of restraints on information processing and so the less neuron firing the more the brain atrophies another word 2 + 2 = 4.
Compartmentalization shortcuts to problem resolution leads to deterioration of brain cells.
Think out side the box is a sign of mental health is my opinion.
-
21
Making Every Thought Captive To Christ(Washing the Brain Of Good Reasoning)
by Brokeback Watchtower innot a very good idea to say the least.
when i read paul's words the more i see how delusional the guy was.
he was a genuine religious fanatic who contradicts jesus words on the sermon on the mount.. 2 corinthians 10:5 5we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to christ.. delusional and in need of some serious psychological help.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
I know this might sound crazy but what if Paul was also the writer Luke(the beloved Healer)?
Luke book of Acts and introduce us to Paul and his on the road to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
Acts of the Apostles[edit]
Acts of the Apostles discusses Paul's conversion experience at three different points in the text, in far more detail than in the accounts in Paul's letters. The Book of Acts says that Paul was on his way from Jerusalem to Syrian Damascus with a mandate issued by the High Priest to seek out and arrest followers of Jesus, with the intention of returning them to Jerusalem as prisoners for questioning and possible execution.[4] The journey is interrupted when Paul sees a blinding light, and communicates directly with a divine voice.
Acts 9 tells the story as a third-person narrative:
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
— Acts 9:3–9, NIV
The account continues with a description of Ananias of Damascus receiving a divine revelation instructing him to visit Saul at the house of Judas on the Street Called Straight and there lay hands on him to restore his sight (the house of Judas is traditionally believed to have been near the west end of the street).[5] Ananias is initially reluctant, having heard about Saul's persecution, but obeys the divine command:
"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."
But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
— Acts 9:13–19, NIV
Acts' second telling of Paul's conversion occurs in a speech Paul gives when he is arrested in Jerusalem.[Acts 22:6-21] Paul addresses the crowd and tells them of his conversion, with a description essentially the same as that in Acts 9, but with slight differences. For example, Acts 9:7 notes that Paul's companions did not see who he was speaking to, while Acts 22:9 indicates that they did share in seeing the light (see also Differences between the accounts, below). This speech was most likely originally in Aramaic[6] (see also Aramaic of Jesus), with the passage here being a Greek translation and summary. The speech is clearly tailored for its Jewish audience, with stress being placed in Acts 22:12 on Ananias's good reputation among Jews in Damascus, rather than on his Christianity.[6]
Acts' third discussion of Paul's conversion occurs when Paul addresses King Agrippa, defending himself against the accusations of antinomianism that have been made against him.[Acts 26:12-18] This account is more brief than the others. The speech here is again tailored for its audience, emphasizing what a Roman ruler would understand: the need to obey a heavenly vision,[Acts 26:19] and reassuring Agrippa that Christians were not a secret society.[7][Acts 26:26]
Differences between the accounts[edit]
An apparent contradiction in the details of the account of Paul's revelatory vision given in Acts has been the subject of much debate.[8] Specifically, the experience of Paul's traveling companions as told in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 has raised questions about the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, and generated debate about the best translations of the relevant passages. The two passages each describe the experience of Paul's traveling companions during the revelation, with Acts 9:7 (the author's description of the event) stating that Paul's traveling companions heard the voice that spoke to him; and Acts 22:9 (the author's quotation of Paul's own words) traditionally stating they did not.
Biblical translations of Acts 9:7 generally state that Paul's companions did, indeed, hear the voice (or sound) that spoke to him:
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
— Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
— Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
— Acts 9:7, New International Version (NIV)
By contrast, Catholic translations and older Protestant translations preserve the apparent contradiction in Acts 22:9, while many modern Protestant translations such as the New International Version (NIV) do not:
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
— Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)
My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
— Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)
My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
— Acts 22:9, New International Version (NIV)
"Hear" or "Understand"?[edit]
Critics of the NIV, New Living Translation, and similar versions contend that the translation used for Acts 22:9 is inaccurate.[9] The verb used here — akouō (ἀκούω) — can be translated both "hear" and "understand"[10] (both the KJV and NIV translate akouō as "understand" in 1 Cor. 14:2, for example). It often takes a noun in the genitive case for a person is being heard, with a noun in the accusative for the thing being heard.[11][12] More classically, the use of the accusative indicates hearing with understanding.[13] There is indeed a case difference here, with Acts 9:7 using the genitive tēs phōnēs (τῆς φωνῆς), and Acts 22:9 using the accusative tēn phōnēn (τὴν φωνὴν). However, there has been debate about which rule Luke was following here.[8][13][14] On the second interpretation, Paul's companions may indeed have heard the voice (as is unambiguously stated in Acts 9:7), yet not understood it,[13] although New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace finds this argument based on case inconclusive.[15]
"Voice" or "Sound"?[edit]
A similar debate arises with the NIV's use of the word "sound" instead of "voice" in Acts 9:7. The noun used here — phōnē (φωνῆ) — can mean either.[16] By translating 9:7 as "they heard the sound" instead of "they heard the voice," the NIV allows for Paul's companions to have heard an audible sound in Acts 9:7 without contradicting the statement in Acts 22:9 that they did not hear a comprehensible voice.[citation needed]
The New American Standard Bible,[17] New Century Version,[18] and English Standard Version[19] maintain the "hear"/"understand" distinction while using "voice" in both passages. On the other hand, the Holman Christian Standard Bible has "sound"/"voice" with "hear" in both passages,[20] and The Message adopts a similar translation, but with "sound"/"conversation."[21] The French La Bible du Semeur distinguishes between entendaient ("heard") and compris ("understood").[22]
Although it is possible that there is a contradiction in these two passages unnoticed by their author, Richard Longenecker suggests that first-century readers probably understood the two passages to mean that everybody heard the sound of the voice, but "only Paul understood the articulated words."[23] Similar comments have been made by other scholars.[24]
Theological implications[edit]
The conversion of Paul, in spite of his attempts to completely eradicate Christianity, is seen as evidence of the power of Divine Grace, with "no fall so deep that grace cannot descend to it"[25] and "no height so lofty that grace cannot lift the sinner to it."[25] It also demonstrates "God's power to use everything, even the hostile persecutor, to achieve the divine purpose."[26]
The transforming effect of Paul's conversion influenced the clear antithesis he saw "between righteousness based on the law,"[27] which he had sought in his former life; and "righteousness based on the death of Christ,"[27] which he describes, for example, in the Epistle to the Galatians.[27]
Alternative explanations[edit]
The Bible says that Paul's conversion experience was an encounter with the resurrected Christ. Alternative explanations have been proposed, including sun stroke and seizure. In 1987, D. Landsborough published an article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,[28] in which he stated that Paul's conversion experience, with the bright light, loss of normal bodily posture, a message of strong religious content, and his subsequent blindness, suggested "an attack of [temporal lobe epilepsy], perhaps ending in a convulsion ... The blindness which followed may have been post-ictal."[28]
This conclusion was challenged in the same journal by James R. Brorson and Kathleen Brewer,[29] who stated that this hypothesis failed to explain why Paul's companions heard a voice (Acts 9:7), saw a light,[Acts 22:9] or fell to the ground.[Acts 26:14] Furthermore, no lack of awareness of blindness (a characteristic of cortical blindness) was reported in Acts, nor is there any indication of memory loss. Additionally, Paul's blindness remitted in sudden fashion, rather than the gradual resolution typical of post-ictal states, and no mention is made of epileptic convulsions; indeed such convulsions may, in Paul's time, have been interpreted as a sign of demonic influence, unlikely in someone accepted as a religious leader.[29]
A 2012 paper in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences suggested that Paul’s conversion experience might be understood as involving psychogenic events. This occurring in the overall context of Paul’s other auditory and visual experiences that the authors propose may have been caused by mood disorder associated psychotic spectrum symptoms.[30]
A completely different theory has been put forward in 2015 by astronomer W. K. Hartmann[31][32] who argues that the three accounts in the book of Acts describe exactly the sequence of events that occur when a fireball, like the Chelyabinsk meteor of 2013, passes through the sky. This includes people being knocked off their feet, the physical effects on Saul's eyesight, etc.
-
3
A World Of Pure Experience William James
by Brokeback Watchtower inwilliam james a psychologist and philosopher:.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/william_james.
along with charles sanders peirce and john dewey, james is considered to be one of the major figures associated with the philosophical school known as pragmatism, and is also cited as one of the founders of functional psychology.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
William James a psychologist and philosopher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
Along with Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, James is considered to be one of the major figures associated with the philosophical school known as pragmatism, and is also cited as one of the founders of functional psychology. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked James as the 14th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[7] He also developed the philosophical perspective known as radical empiricism. James' work has influenced intellectuals such as Émile Durkheim, W. E. B. Du Bois, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty,[8] and has even influenced Presidents, such as Jimmy Carter.
Born into a wealthy family, James was the son of the Swedenborgian theologian Henry James Sr. and the brother of both the prominent novelist Henry James, and the diarist Alice James. James wrote widely on many topics, including epistemology, education, metaphysics, psychology, religion, and mysticism. Among his most influential books are The Principles of Psychology, which was a groundbreaking text in the field of psychology, Essays in Radical Empiricism, an important text in philosophy, and The Varieties of Religious Experience, which investigated different forms of religious experience, which also included the then theories on mind-cure
-
21
Making Every Thought Captive To Christ(Washing the Brain Of Good Reasoning)
by Brokeback Watchtower innot a very good idea to say the least.
when i read paul's words the more i see how delusional the guy was.
he was a genuine religious fanatic who contradicts jesus words on the sermon on the mount.. 2 corinthians 10:5 5we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to christ.. delusional and in need of some serious psychological help.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
Good point IM, There's no guarantee that Paul wrote every letter ascribed to him, personally I feel both books of Corinth were his with perhaps a few redactions. Because they match up so well as written by a person that has temporal lobe epilepsy by the visions he describes.
I have a sneaky suspicion that Paul might have a strong influence on the writer named Luke and perhaps could very well be the same person.
-
21
Making Every Thought Captive To Christ(Washing the Brain Of Good Reasoning)
by Brokeback Watchtower innot a very good idea to say the least.
when i read paul's words the more i see how delusional the guy was.
he was a genuine religious fanatic who contradicts jesus words on the sermon on the mount.. 2 corinthians 10:5 5we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to christ.. delusional and in need of some serious psychological help.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
I think Paul being a person suffering from frontal lobe epilepsy explain his serious problems he was having with people not following his rules as if he was in direct contact with the divine and so ordered the disfellowshipping people not obedient to his commands and rules. He was on a divine mission because he suffered from epilepsy.
-
21
Making Every Thought Captive To Christ(Washing the Brain Of Good Reasoning)
by Brokeback Watchtower innot a very good idea to say the least.
when i read paul's words the more i see how delusional the guy was.
he was a genuine religious fanatic who contradicts jesus words on the sermon on the mount.. 2 corinthians 10:5 5we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to christ.. delusional and in need of some serious psychological help.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
I'm not trying poison the water's other drink, I am merely trying to understand the past in a much more honest light. I find it interesting that Paul suffered from frontal lobe epilepsy and so that explains his eccentric behavior and total commitment to his cause to the point of recommending it to others, which I think is true.
I'm sorry if what I wrote offends you, but try to look at as another point of view and that people need to think freely not restrained by religious indoctrination to better understand the past.
And yes I do have a certain dislike for the Watchtower brainwashing mind control cult, so I may express a tinge of anger hut it is mainly just reconsidering of views previously held and giving more informed impressions.
I hope in all I say I don't offend that is not my motive, please except my apology.
-
39
How Do You Feel About Trump's Tuff Talk To Korea To Make Korea Behave?
by Brokeback Watchtower ini know or think i know that trump is bluffing and acting very bully like with threats of unleashing his power as commander and chief a military with super weapons.
but why bluff with such boyish stupidity?
i think mr trumps barginings skills are at an all time low and so the threats of violence and retaliation for misbehaving according to the whims of a narcissist.. my confidence in him is at an all time low, talk about cave man club you over the head approach to problems this guy takes the cake.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
I also think that approval rating polls will drop to the bottom in the outcome of the tough guy approach threatening mass destruction of a country with weapons at his disposal parked near your borders.
USA needs to slowly back out of the region to avoid serious repercusions, not act aggressively but slowly back away.
-
39
How Do You Feel About Trump's Tuff Talk To Korea To Make Korea Behave?
by Brokeback Watchtower ini know or think i know that trump is bluffing and acting very bully like with threats of unleashing his power as commander and chief a military with super weapons.
but why bluff with such boyish stupidity?
i think mr trumps barginings skills are at an all time low and so the threats of violence and retaliation for misbehaving according to the whims of a narcissist.. my confidence in him is at an all time low, talk about cave man club you over the head approach to problems this guy takes the cake.
-
-
Brokeback Watchtower
I do feel the days of US dominance of the world and interference are numbered as it is impossible to hold that it forever or very long change is a part of life.
And if I try to take a less biased towards USA always being in the right, and try to imagine what these ruling governments Korea, China, Russia, and others in the region have their dislikes of USA influence and I see some very angry people,, so I see the danger for the USA with Korea having long range missiles now and hope cooler heads prevail and every side walks away a winner. But I'm afraid that for security reason that the US should display a friendlier posture toward North Korea, now that they have long range missles.
.jpg)
