Let’s think from the view of survival and look at the uses and limits of self-construction. I have claimed that this is your primary responsibility, and should come before all your other responsibilities. This is your global language. It is who you are. Social scientists have the old argument, still unresolved, that an individual's construction can be distilled into a traditional discussion of nature or nurture. You might be what your genetics allow you to be, or you might be what your environment encourages you to become. We will avoid getting locked up here in further endless discussion between these two ideas. We are only interested in our own self-construction from the view of our own survival. At this point, we will assume it is unknown whether we are successful because of our genetics, or because of our parents’ and friends’ care. For us, we cannot change these factors, so we must live with them. Maybe, after we are dead, someone can do a gene study, or dissect our brains; but, for now, we are not seeking blame. We want to do the best we can with the way we are now, and the way we will be in the future.

Having rejected the social scientist's view of self-construction as being too abstract and removed to help us now, what should a person who wants survival think about self-construction? Obviously, we do not want to prevent ourselves from real success, so we don't want to place any arbitrary limits on what we might be capable of. On the other hand, if we fall into illusion, or get pushed into denial, we may not amount to anything, and that would hurt our survival. Therefore, our self-construction must be first and foremost our responsibility. Having said that, what can we do? It is only in our self interest to open up and take a closer look at the way we think we are and the way we think we can measure qualities about our own selves.

What difference does it really make, how we treat ability as an abstract concept? The limits of self-construction are bounded by our self imposed definitions, or our attitudes, and this is our area of responsibility. The reason I brought it up, is that ability and IQs are very tricky subjects. (As concepts, they were probably set in stone in our lives somewhere around the fourth grade, and have not been open for inspection since then.) At some time deep in our past, when we were first exposed to the harshness of school testing and grading, we had to come to grips with our performance and the performance of others. If we were lucky, and had a good relationship with our teachers, we felt successful and capable of great things. If we were trouble-makers, and thought our teachers were rather slow, we might have been pigeon-holed into "the slow group." (A practice a teacher friend says is no longer practiced.) But, in any case, we had to recognize that all students did not do equally well on all tests. In any event, we now wish to review our thinking about ability, and perhaps come to a more flexible interpretation of our lot in life, and the potential for change in others.

Let us first take a look at the concept of ability and how we measure it. Just for the sake of discussion, let’s do a thought experiment. I'm going to make things up. Suppose we had a really good IQ test that worked. Next, we had a meter to objectively measure our ability. We could next examine somebody named Bill, and we could make statements like the following: Bill has an ability of 50 "a" units, and a measured IQ of 185. He would measure higher on the IQ test, but his reading operational skill is only 0.0074 "r" units. His interpersonal relationships' skills (his skill at verbally presenting his ideas and his skill at listening to others) are higher than most at 500 "i" units. Now, the future would provide us with an equation relating all these measured quantities that would have somewhat the following form.

Ability in "mq" units = a

Interpersonal relationship skills in "i" units = i

Reading skill in "op" units = r

( a ) x ( i ) x ( r ) x (desire) = measured IQ

All these factors multiply each other, rather than add, since any one of them can force the measured IQ to be zero. Of course, this is all hypothetical; it is only a thought experiment, since we see that "desire" is part of the equation and one more item: Bill would have measured higher if his wife of 10 years had not asked him for a divorce this morning. In other words, it was not a good day to test Bill.

In keeping with our thought experiment on the mythical "Bill," we can assume that the future would provide us with a rationale behind the meter to objectively measure ability. The amount measured could be attributed to genetics, or the parenting environment, or the lead levels in household paints. In any event, would it be held constant and not subject to change? I don't think good science has an answer yet, but popular thought (like the flat earth model) tells us that this is held constant. So now I have described a model to measure intelligence, at least hypothetically.

If we were to draw a diagram we would have;

On the left, we have the "Inside," a person as he or she is. Closest to us is our desire, and this box represents our desire as an abstract existence. The "A" box is our ability, as measured by our mythical meter that measures ability. The "I" box holds our interpersonal relationship skills, and the "R" box holds our reading skills. On the right we have the "Outside," or how other people see us. On the outside, people place an "IQ" value on us.

The "R" box holds all our reading skills, the translation of symbols on a page into ideas and concepts, plus the visual center and the glasses on our nose. The "I" box holds our interpersonal skills including all our past decisions about ourselves, others, and life generally. The "A" box holds all our ability to comprehend and the glue that translates the "I" box.

Now let's return to our thought experiment. We assumed there "could be" a meter to measure ability "objectively", and we could put a number on it. The meter must be something very special to discriminate between desire and the interpersonal skill box next to it. For our experiment, we consider the interpersonal skills to be all past decisions about ourselves, others, and life in general. These are the interpersonal structures, other than our reading skills, that we have accumulated from our past. In order to place a value on ability, the meter must separate our past decisions from our comprehension of new situations. If you think about this problem, you might come to the same conclusion I do, and that is that ability can never be really measured as an attribute, separate from our past decisions. When our IQs are measured, they are measuring our reading skills, our desires, and how our past decisions have created mental blocks to our comprehension. They are not measuring our "Ability", and separating it from our past experiences.

Many people have this conception that they have a fixed amount of ability, provided by some accident between conception and birth, and that what they are was formed a long time ago, and they can do very little now to change things. This fixed ability can be measured, and scientifically reported within an intelligence quotient, which is simply their IQ. I am not saying these people are "wrong" but they may not know that there are other interpretations of reality. There are other ways of viewing intelligence; and further, these other ways give people much more flexibility in dealing with their futures.

Suppose, as in our thought experiment, "Bill" had a measured fixed ability that we could put an IQ measurement on. What harm could it do? First of all, it is a great way to hide racism. If we think of other people as genetically inferior, we give up on real change. Second, if we think we are limited in some way, we have an excuse to fail. To me, the only guess worth taking is that each of us has infinite ability, and that any measured differences are due to other factors.

For the purpose of success, we can make the bold assumption that we have infinite ability, and lack the interpersonal success to demonstrate that infinite ability. This decision, by itself, does not change our outward overall effectiveness, since we have yet to change any of our accomplishments. We are just shifting how we see our limitations.

Of course this was only a thought experiment, since we have no real way to measure ability apart from our skill at interpersonal relationships. We have no way except language to find out what is behind the people talking. As our understanding of the other people improves, they appear to be smarter. That is because the "I" box becomes less of a hindrance, and our access to their real ability improves. It is my contention that if your relationships continue to improve, you will eventually see them as genius.

The real advantage from the assumption that people have infinite ability is that you now can concentrate on communication. After all, that is the only way change will take place. Ability is only a potential, so why guess? If you assume it to be infinite, you do not have to place a limited value on it.

Now let us look again at the uses and limits of self-construction. I recommend you consider your ability to be infinite, but not yet demonstrated. This should not make you fearless, since other people can also be considered to have infinite ability, therefore you have no net advantage. What you will have is all effort applied where it can do the most good. You have improved your chances to bring about change, not only in yourself, but in others too. Assuming that everyone involved has enough ability you can now focus on communication. By your focus on communication, rather than ability, you have the best approach to change, and therefore the best attitude.

Words that carry "charge." It is sometimes hard to describe and talk about many of these basic concepts. This is because some words carry "charge". Take, for example the last few paragraphs. You may want to agree with me that ability is mostly limited by communication skills, yet the word "infinite" scares you. Gosh! How do we comprehend "infinity"? Well, it's just a word that has a certain meaning, and when you think about it, it’s not that hard to "completely" understand it. People who have taken lots of mathematics in school have used "infinity" so much that the "charge" has been bled off. Unfortunately, math knowledge is often considered too hard for the average student, and unless you want to be an engineer, you get at best a bit of algebra. So just what is "infinity?"

It is easy to comprehend if we first start with a specific example, and then back up to a generalization. An example of "infinity" can be easily demonstrated as follows: pick any two numbers; say, for simplicity’s sake two and three. There is an infinite number of numbers between two and three! That means the number of numbers between two and three are unlimited. How do I know this? Well, you give me any wish for how many you want, and I can give you one more, or if you prefer ten more. So lets make the situation a bit more complex. I can show you an infinite number of infinite numbers between two and three. Suppose you want ten infinities between two and three. If I pick 2.0 and 2.1 I can give you as many numbers between these two numbers as you want. I can moreover give you an infinite number between these two. Yet that really means I can give you 10 infinities between two and three. If you want 20 infinities, I would pick 2.00 and 2.05 as my first two numbers. Continuing with the same logic I would give you twenty infinite numbers. So how many infinities do you want? What then is so difficult about infinity?

If you look at the concept of "number," you can see it is a noun or a pronoun, but if you think about infinity, it is a verb or an adverb, being used as a noun. Technically, I think it should be called a "gerund." A "gerund," according to my dictionary, is a word-type of verb form being used as a noun. Unfortunately, my dictionary calls "infinity" a noun, and I think the authors are wrong, and not thinking clearly. A number is a quantity, but infinity is a process; or as computer people say, an "algorithm." Another way to think about "infinity," is to think of it as a generalization, where a number is a specific. To understand "infinity" you might first start with a substitution with a real number, a specific example. Next, you might try a bigger real number, and then a bigger number, until you feel comfortable jumping ahead to the generalization where you see the process involved. You now should comprehend the idea of "infinity;" although you cannot make "infinity" a specific, it is a valid concept, and the word has a real meaning.

There are many such "charged" words, depending on your education and your exposures. If you like math, you don't find "infinity" all that challenging. I put it here in this book because of all the complaints I got from smart non-scientifically educated people who read this guide and felt upset by my using the word "infinite." Unfortunately, there are many such "charged" words in our American culture. Politicians have developed hundreds of "Charged" words that allow them to speak in public, and allow people to hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest. Unfortunately, "charged" words may block communication, since I say one thing, and you may hear something else. That is why politicians create and use them. It becomes a coded message, which can't be pinned down as to exactly what was said.

Where there was a good possibility of a "charged" word, I have included its definition as a footnote at the bottom of the page. Of course, not every term is defined, and in many cases you will have to guess by the word's context exactly what was meant. It is to be hoped that there is enough data, with enough consistency, that you will be able to understand without much difficulty. Where possible, stories will be used to help make a point, by giving the concept a context.

One major responsibility in the process of self-construction is your mental ability. You must not give up on yourself. It might be easy for you to conclude that you are not intelligent, or that mental concepts do not come easy for you. If you accept this point of view it will be true, because you will have made it so. If you resist this conclusion you will find other possibilities. Other possibilities will allow you to grow. Our thinking can be as sharp and as focused as we wish to achieve. The struggle for intelligence is worth the effort because your will, will be more effective.

For now, no matter what your past was, consider yourself to be highly intelligent. As a highly intelligent person you can understand anything that affects you. If you have any reservation, consider these reservations to be projects you are working on. Intelligence does not require immediate understanding, so you can take some time to digest it. Nothing is beyond your grasp. You will eventually clear up the mental fog.

Personal mental fog and unclear thinking can have many causes. First our language is full of "charged" words that have multiple meanings, so you might need to carefully consider the possibilities, and seek better definitions. Second, you will need to maintain your own context. Third, you will need to let others maintain their own context, and allow this to be different from your own context. Some people just cannot allow other people to be different, so they fight every discovered difference. This automatic conflict can easily make you stupid. Lastly, your thoughts may act as triggers which connect to other thoughts, and your whole mind may be interconnected and on automatic. Automatic thinking is a complex situation and we will cover it later when we cover becoming "mind-clear."

Self-construction is not limited to your attitude, your concepts, your intelligence, and your thinking process. You might also want to consider some physical changes, too.

You must take care to eat healthy and exercise as recommended by the latest health science. There is not much point to reading a book on survival into the next century if you have done nothing to avoid heart troubles 30 years from now. Generally, I think it is safe to say, you want to move up the food chain. At the bottom of the food chain are the liver and internal organs of complex animals who feed on other animals. Up the food chain are animals who feed on plants. Higher still are potatoes, and other mechanisms the plant uses to concentrate its resources. Higher still are the leaves of plants. For the most part, the closer to the sun you get, the better. Organisms that eat other organisms are lower, since they tend to concentrate toxins, and generally place you at more risk.

Personally, I don't know about vitamins. I only take them when I feel weak, or am not eating fresh fruits and vegetables. That is not to say that you should not take them, I just don't think enough scientific knowledge has been accumulated yet to motivate me to take them on a regular basis. I think when it comes to health you should stay out of any fringe group. I do not believe in macrobiotic rice diets, or any other diet that places you out of the main stream. Of course I avoid fat, since all the scientists think we Americans eat too much fat.

That is not to say that I have always been this way. I was a vegetarian for several years. There was also a time when I took 56 vitamin pills every morning, and washed them down with a brewer's yeast drink. I can still taste it. At one time, I went on a grape only diet for three weeks, and lost 35 pounds. One time, during this strict diet, I took a mouth full of water at a drinking fountain, and had to spit it out, since water was not on the diet. I had very strong control, until the end. Then I went out of control. I started with watermelon, and ended up on popcorn and candy. I could not control my eating for a long time after that. Now, I think it was fun to experiment, but my long-term conclusion is to avoid it.

On the whole, you should spend a small amount of time making moderate efforts to stay healthy, such as running 15 miles a week, if you are able. Running is my choice, since I can run with my friends. It is a social event, and it doesn't take much time. I spend about 30 minutes five days a week. I don't run every day, and some days I run 10 k road races. I have lots of energy, stay trim, and have lots of running friends. For several years I was running 45 miles a week, and I raced in 10 marathons, before I cut back to my present moderate level. (I was never fast. Most of my marathon times were around four hours.)

Your natural habits may provide you with good health and exercise; but if they don't, you will have to change them. This may not be easy. You should also become aware of basic medical information. You should know things like where bile juice is produced and what it is used for, and what the lymphatic system is and to some degree how it operates. You should also know about Melatonin and DHEA and decide if you too want to take supplements. There are many books on these subjects, and even some books that provide you with the information without all the jargon terminology. Learn enough about these subjects to make wise choices from your options. It is simply not responsible for you to "trust" your doctor, you must consider him or her to be a consultant, hired by you to perform a given function, such as diagnosis or surgery. As you approach 50 years old, you may want to find a doctor you are comfortable with. Not all medical doctors are equal, so you should not wait until you need one to pick one out. If you become a serious athlete, you may want to find a sports doctor, to prevent your health from interfering with your activities.

It is reported that 17% percent of people in the USA have sleep disorders. I found it was very common when I first left my parents’ house and started to determine when I went to sleep and when I woke up. I would get very excited and stay up all night doing something, and then pay for it for about 10 days until I got myself back under control. For months at a time, I would walk around sleep deprived. I actually thought this was the way you were supposed to feel. When I was 26 years old, I worked 50 hours a week at a job fixing aircraft radar systems. At the same time, I took 12 hours of college courses, making all As, by sleeping every other day for weeks at a time. At the end, my wife of seven years filed for a divorce. I guess what I am trying to say here is to be careful to give yourself a good chance to be successful at your activity. You can fight the odds in a few places, but you do not always win, especially when all the odds are stacked against you. It would have been smarter for me to find a part time job, maybe take the same 12 hours, and spend more time with my wife. She got the odds stacked against her, and I lost.

For the most part, there is no substitute for common sense. In the words of Sam Rayburn (speaker of the House in the US Congress for many years), "If a man has common sense, he has all the sense there is." I would disagree, since I feel you also need a sense of direction. Common sense is just the ability to watch and learn from others. At some point, you will need to challenge common sense, and put yourself out on a limb. Be careful about your choice in this challenge. You want to be able to pick your battles, and not just fight to be fighting. If you spend 10 to 15 minutes each day thinking about your life and how it is going in the larger context, say how it will look ten years from now, you will be able to find a balance between all your options. You must have a larger plan, than what you are going to do today. A sense of direction is very important to your making progress towards the future you want for yourself.

I enjoy playing chess. I think you can learn about life by learning how to play good chess. I started playing competitive chess three years ago as a USCF (United States Chess Federation) unrated player, and now my rating is somewhere above 1800. To progress to a higher rating, you usually have to learn through understanding a whole class of chess problems. To progress from 1600 to 1800 I learned the value of having a plan. Now I don't move unless I have a conceptual plan of where I want the game to go, maybe 15 or 20 moves from now. This creates a long-term future that I have some control over. It is not that hard, you just look at your assets, at your opponents' weaknesses, and you create an idea of how to set up your strengths against your opponents' weaknesses. To have a good chess plan, you must only deal with the pieces you have, and you must face reality. If you fall into illusion, you will lose. Of course, you can always hope your opponent makes a "blunder" and that is always possible. Unfortunately, people who make blunders regularly usually are rated around 1300, so by the time they get to 1600, they do not make blunders anymore. Often in games between two people rated 1850, you cannot find a blunder; you are more likely to see a clash between plans, and the losing plan was too optimistic, or otherwise unrealistic.

There are a whole group of concepts I have learned from playing chess and watching other chess players. The first concept is not to take losing a game as a personal example of how dumb you are. Your ability to learn is not being tested. Your present skill level is being tested, and you found someone who had a higher skill, or you moved too fast, and you did not consider what might happen. In any event, you must face this game and lift from that game the information contained in each of the moves. I spend at least as much time analyzing the game after it is over as I spent playing it in the first place. I even recreate my feelings towards my opponent. Often, when I become arrogant, I lose. I once tried to drink a beer while playing in a chess tournament; I thought it would take the tension out of my game, and I shortly lost. Chess requires full concentration, a pure heart, and a good reality-based attitude. I enjoy the games I lose almost as much as I enjoy the games I win. I learn more when I lose and I don't have any guilt for how I made the opponent feel. Many chess players only like chess when they are winning.

I have a friend with whom I play chess at lunch. He gets very mad at himself when he loses, so I let him cheat. If he makes a bad move, he yells at me for taking advantage of him, then he takes back the last series of moves. If I make a mistake, I live with the results, with which I can often win anyway. As a friend, I do not force him out of his denial. So, when over the course of a 30-minute game, he takes back two or three moves, then eventually check-mates me, he puts on a big smile and talks about his great game. I show genuine joy when he wins, which is easy, since I do not mind losing. His denial is something I am a good enough friend to let him keep.

I have tried a few times to break down his denial, but he gets very angry and he refuses to play chess for a few days. His denial is something he wants, so I was left with a choice - - either 1) force him to see me as the better player and then expect him to stop playing chess with me, or 2) allow the denial to continue and raise my skill to a higher level. Of course, I selected the second option, and over the last eight months, his skill has improved from a rating of 1400 to a rating of 1600. My friend has been rated at 1400 for the last 10 years of his chess activities, simply because he could not stand to lose. I have allowed him to play a different game, but very similar to real chess, and his ability has now grown to 1600. He reached a barrier to his increased understanding of chess, which was his need to win, and I allowed him to set aside the problem and to continue to make progress. I do not know what the future holds, and if I am really doing him good, or just letting him be a bully. I do know, for the time being, we are both gaining from the relationship, I am becoming a better chess player, and so is he. Furthermore we both enjoy the friendship we have developed together. This is a good example of being able to pick your battle, and not just fighting for fighting's sake.

I focused on my chess skill, and I let the other battles remain and continue unchecked. I have a theory as to why this person is so in need of winning, and it has to do with his general insecurity. To give him long-term help, so that his denial will not always be needed, I build up his ego. He has a lot of skills and abilities which others fail to recognize, so I spend time letting him know that I see and appreciate these skills and abilities. I have both a short and long-term sense of direction, or a plan as to where I am going, in my relationship with this chess friend. The plan will allow me to accomplish a change in my relationship with this person, and it will allow both him and me to be powerful people. This is a classic "win - win" situation, both of us are benefiting, so we are both building good Karma.

Karma is a useful concept developed in India by the Hindus and it can be explained in at least six different equivalent descriptions, as follows:

In conclusion, Karma is created by you to balance your life, and make it possible for you to communicate with others. It is an unavoidable part of your honesty with others and it is more important than your current life, since without it you could not have meaningful communications with others. You would be communicating, but there would not be any meaning to it. This is because your word would not have any history to it. You would be trapped into a double-speak and that would violate long-term established facts that you have already established with others.

Karma is all about balance and your relationship with others. To keep the tension on the Karma spring to a minimum, you need to look for situations where both people can gain in a relationship and the relationship can stay in balance. These can be called, "win - win" relationships, as compared to "win-lose", or "lose-lose". If you have not been exposed to this language, a win-win is a situation in a relationship where both people have the experience of being in a win situation. A win-lose, is where we win at their expense, and a lose-win is where we lose to give them the feeling of winning. When the relationship is out of balance, it cannot be sustained, and Karma takes place to try to bring about balance.

So, when I felt the balance going bad between my chess friend and myself, I did a lot of soul-searching and I re-examined my feelings. I recognized my true enjoyment for our interaction. I could see a new deeper balance in our relationship and that allowed me to continue. This looking for a deeper balance allows me to become powerful. This concept of "powerful," is a kind of ability to break the rules, that would stop others. If I were not powerful, I would have a knee-jerk reaction and I would yell at my friend if I caught him cheating. I gave myself some freedom, knowing Karma was at work. I was also willing to accept the consequences. I took the time to give myself a real choice. I also assumed that both my friend and I have infinite ability to play good chess and to improve. My friend has a blind spot in how he sees his ability. He thinks losing a game of chess makes him a loser, where I see that losing a chess game gives me an opportunity to make improvements to my game.

Playing games can be a great waste of time, especially if it is compulsive. That is called "a Games-condition". A games-condition is a situation where one feels that he or she can win or lose in the long run. That feeling of great consequence is what drives the compulsive aspect of the condition. When you are in a "games-condition" it is not enough to just win or lose. You feel as if something more important is taking place. A healthy outlook, on the other hand, would reveal that you don’t get something for nothing, and you know you will pay eventually. That is OK; you are now just playing a game. Life does not always have to be so serious. If, instead, you feel that winning is everything, you are then caught in a games-condition. You are committing a second order error, and you are not aware of the effects of Karma.

A games-condition can be a black hole for effort, and therefore time spent. To escape the trap, you need to look into the situation to a deeper level and gain greater perspective. In my case, chess was sometimes used to make people respect me. Now that is a game. With such a narrow vision, I was willing to put in lots of study time to become a better chess player. Being in a games-condition allows a level of misdirection which results in inaction on other more important areas of life. In my case, with some 200 chess books, I could spend weeks lost in study. I had no sense of how much was enough; I was addicted to chess.

It is not easy to break yourself out of a games-condition. There are at least two way to accomplish relief. The first is by going through the addiction and getting to the other side. This approach is the most healthy. You keep your ability and you don’t have to fear the addictive activity. To do that you have to understand your actions from some kind of distance. That gives you some perspective on the issue. You need to view your life in such a way as to allow you to predict your own actions. This gives you the distance you need to determine if your action is desirable or just out of your control. The games-condition can be viewed as a cycle of compulsion, hard work, accomplishment, and joy - - then followed by another cycle. The easiest time to walk away from the games-condition, is at the top of the cycle. You can give up an addictive activity just after you have "won" or experienced joy from the activity. The second way to accomplish relief from the games-condition is to just walk way and quit. This can work, but it does not work on the addiction itself. You have just decided to not be engaged today. If your will-power is lower, you can easily be sucked back in. Sheer force of will is not a good approach.

People who find themselves in a games-condition and really hooked, are caught in the compulsive phase of the games-condition cycle. They may try through sheer will to give up the activity entirely, but fail for some reason. The people who are really hooked use the will that they do have to avoid the hard-work part of the cycle. They fail to study. They are therefore unable to complete the full cycle, and they get caught in the compulsive phase. With chess it works as follows: People start to really love to play chess. They stay late at all the chess club meetings; but when you ask them if they like chess, they often say they like to win, but that they hate chess itself. They are likely to attend chess meetings compulsively, and then disappear for long periods of time. If they are to go through the addiction and get to the other side, they must read and study chess books that other players use, and actually understand the information contained in the large body of chess knowledge. Chess is like any other activity, you can understand the subject to any degree you wish, if you are willing to work for it. Many of the people who are unable to break the addiction to chess think to themselves, "Real men don’t read, or study, they just play good chess." Well, that is not true. You must work to get what you want. Getting something for free is at the heart of all addictions.

It is easy to lose your balance in life and become addicted to some activity. Chess was bad enough, and there were no chemicals involved. A popular view of the Buddhists is that they have a sense of balance that you should try to maintain in your life, called the middle way. When you take the middle way, you keep your balance. I think that is a useful hint, but it is just a little trick. In reality, the Buddhists’ middle way (called Chutai or simply "Chu") is a balance between physical existence and spiritual existence, not a path of moderation, as most people think. To really understand life, you need to actively live it fully, and be somewhat fearless.

Let's take stock of what has been presented so far. We are trying to become survivors into the next century, and we are going to try to accomplish this by becoming original thinkers, and allowing ourselves real choices. We also know that we have to pick through all the information presented to us, because not all of it is equally good. To this effect, we allow ourselves the ability to become critical readers and critical thinkers. In receiving information, we can recognize the context that accompanies the information, and we must spend the time to maintain our own context - - to allow ourselves a meaningful separate existence. Above all, we are trying to avoid secondary errors, because those are the ones that can really destroy us. We must examine all of our assumptions, and not allow any "denial" on our part to indirectly control us. We also open up to the possibility of being highly intelligent, with some mental fog due to factors we are still working on. We understand to some degree that Karma is playing a part, and we would rather face life directly than to back into situations where we feel somewhat victimized and not consciously in control of our own lives. By not acting automatically, we become more powerful as decision-makers. We recognized to some degree the trap of a "Games-Condition" and how games can lock us into a loss of real choice.