Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Highest Attainment

Leadership in every field is not determined by those who say everything everybody else is saying, but by those who say things people are not used to hearing, and the more they reflect upon and even try to dispute it, the more it becomes an undeniable truth that gives comprehension to their previous world of disorder and confusion.

People are not used to this manner of confronting the new; if anything, how they live their lives causes them to only seek the familiar -- and then live in that unchanging security the rest of their lives. That used to be the ideal model for a lifestyle when the unexpected things were regarded as bad -- unlike in these times, when the unexpected can and often is the good. But those with the previous conditioning, reject these opportunities as catastrophes -- which is the truth of what life is telling them -- that they previously were taught, to disbelieve, as that which was too good to be true, was false, and not the greater truth.

In this manner, they could never embrace a greater truth -- of the greater life now possible, but were limited only to that which was true when they first learned “everything,” and then stopped, once they were convinced they "knew it all." For many, that was far too prematurely, as it is, whenever learning stops before it is no longer possible at death; to do so before that physical death, is actually a death of sorts, that many condemn themselves to -- some even joyously and ceremoniously.

Once having discovered “everything” there is to know, they think that all that is required then is to accumulate “more” -- and that there is nothing else. It may be money, power, and food -- for most; they have stopped growing beyond fulfilling those “needs,” the fulfillment of which, just leaves them feeling more unfulfilled. Always, there is something “more” they do not have -- and think that if they just have more, it will be the source of their happiness, even if presently, it is the source of all their unhappiness.

They think the problem is that they do not have “enough,” and once they do, it transforms their unhappiness to great joy and fulfillment -- and not that the little of what they have seen and experienced, is an indication of that “more” to come.

Things that work, work from the start -- and not only at the end, after many years of not working. That is the truth of life and experience -- that unfortunately, is not taught in most curricula. Instead, one is taught about pumpkins that turn into gilded coaches -- as the necessary preparation for the life ahead. Many do not get beyond that -- because that is what everybody learns too.

But despite that, there have always been a few, who have gone where none have gone before, asked the impossible question, and changed the course of the world because of that. Those few are those who can stand alone -- and because they persist, others come to wonder, why can’t I too? That is how the new world is created daily.


At May 26, 2007 2:09 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

As early as 1974, I realized that 5 minutes of an extremely intense workout once a week could provide the stimulus for sustained definitive, if not dramatic growth. That's when I had a heavy workload of people I trained personally and so was curious to find out what was the absolute minimum time one could devote to this and sustain obvious signs of continued, satisfactory progress.

However, such a limited schedule of intense stimulus, produced other problems that many might not want to accept as a trade-off.

Such intensity produced extreme muscle soreness until full recovery to higher levels of strength were achieved in one week.

But as soon as that normalization was achieved, the once-a-week shock then put one in that virtual continuous state of recovery from extreme muscle soreness -- although growth was undeniably sustained on that schedule.

One of the other important things to note was that such high-intensity was best achieved by those seemingly in the best condition -- by which we saw marathon runners predictably get very sick and throw up, which they did not do running marathons, of obviously greater duration at less intensity than achieving this momentary failure.

The well-conditioned athlete was capable of producing this state of all-out exhaustion to a much greater degree than the less- well conditioned person, who was safe from themselves in this way.

So what was apparent was that the beginner, over time, as his conditioning, learn to tap this intensity and exhaustion of momentary ability to a greater extent.

In doing so, it was apparent from before and after photos, that they learned to transform themselves to a much greater degree so that the difference in their "before" photo on their last workout, was almost as great and dramatic as the difference in the before the first workout and after the last workout.

The power of the workout was therefore, the ability to transform themselves not over time -- but momentarily! They learned that skill -- as their conditioning practice.

Even extremely muscular people can effect a person in very poor physical condition -- but they usually never try, because why would one want to, ordinarily?

The most common exception is when one doesn't want to be attractive to another -- or any others. Many are not consciously aware of that intent -- for whatever reason. They may be convinced that it is vanity, or they are no longer young, or whatever rationale they create to justify their actions, or in this case, inactions.

A large part of effective conditioning, is just the awareness of this -- that one isn't being at one's best, because the world they live and work in, is indifferent to these things.

Before bodybuilding became accepted into mainstream society, it was largely considered the activity of freakish types living on the margins of society -- obsessed with their appearance, diet and everything they did in life as almost a personal religion -- that was disturbing to many convinced that they should never stand out, never be anything more than "normal," as the ideal.

So this whole concept that they should be all they could be -- was a very alien one to them, that seemed to violate the old-fashioned values they were taught -- generally not to challenge those higher on the pecking orders of society. Many societies are still that way -- and it perplexes most modern people how anybody could still be living that way, totally subservient to the directives of others.

Usually, in this country, when people do that, they are considered a cult far out of the mainstream. Most want to fancy themselves as many up their own minds and making their own decisions -- except that they are not aware of the great extent to which they are unduly influenced.

This is a huge problem of mass marketing propaganda techniques -- that are actually taught as approved curricula in many "professional schools" -- as simply what works. That such tactics may be deceptive and manipulative will be defended as being value and judgment free; they are just the messenger -- as though they had no responsibility beyond that. they are simply following orders, or the more contemporary justification, following the money -- and wherever that leads, must be right as an end in itself.

One of the great dilemmas of every professional and profession must be therefore to question the largest of their objectives: is it to make the most money form their efforts, or to do what is best for the client, regardless of their own best outcome.

Without this consideration, every professional then can justify anything they do because they deserve as much money as they can get -- even if it is to create an even more lucrative and greater problem, or merely perpetuate the existing condition for as long as possible.

At May 26, 2007 2:48 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Obviously, the highest intensities achieved by the most advanced participants before reaching the level in which they physically could not continue was very brief -- and so a way of lowering that intensity is to increase the duration -- which many think is the reason for the stimulative effect.

If one decreases the intensity while increasing the duration, it has a negative growth effect in draining the recovery ability without stimulating growth. Contrary to popular belief, bodies wear out, as well as deteriorate from inactivity. The trick has always been finding that proper balance -- rather than the gross generalities that MORE exercise is always better. It could be that one's exercise, is actually the reason for their poor condition or injuries.

People with back pain, hip pain, knee pain, and foot pain, are not well-advised to overtax their condition as though through some miracle of stubborn perseverance, they will be cured in that manner. They should correctly consult with a person who might provide them insight into their behaviors and practices -- until they find satisfactory answers that may solve their condition.

Explanations that don't solve the condition, or make any difference, is not a solution. Most explanations don't make a difference; they are merely conjectures and opinions -- until they've been tested by actual experience, preferably each individual themselves.

In that way, they come to find out the truth of something for themselves - -rather than just accepting what some authority tells them is the truth, which is the unfortunate manner of mass education techniques. Students are simply told what the "truth" is -- and tested and rewarded for repeating that truth faithfully.

Many don't even realize that there is a difference -- in this manner of learning, from the empirical way, which is testing reality to find out whether what is thought, is actually in fact what happens. They just take the word of the person whose job is to seem "credible.'

Determining credibility is therefore one of the key skills in today's world that not everyone possesses. Those that do, are operating on another level, and recognizable to a few others on that same level.

This ability to make these valid distinctions (discriminations) virtually fell out of favor and was closed to being outlawed by "political correctness," except that that oppression was successfully recognized and defeated.

"Political correctness" is the tyranny of the experts that one does not think about these things for oneselves but accept what the experts advise us, is how we should behave on such matters -- as though they know exclusively, what is best for everyone else. Usually, that is just to establish themselves, as the few who should do the thinking for everybody else, as the rhetoric and demagoguery of a previous era.

At May 26, 2007 3:06 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The ultimate easily sustainable fitness regimen actually prescribed itself in this way -- that there be daily exercise of 5 minutes duration of low intensity and one of higher intensity but longer duration once a week.

Such a program is both physically and psychologically satisfactory so that one ceases to be preoccupied about such matters as long as one simply maintains this simple regimen.

The 5 minute exercise is not the only exercise and movement one is expected to obtain during the normal course of one's day. but the 5 minutes predisposes and prepares them for any subsequent activity -- which is the way one would want to integrate activity into their lives, rather than to have it fracture and fragment one's life in the often prescribed way of being one more unreasonable and excessive demand on one's time, energy and inclinations.

In doing so, it makes it far more unlikely that one can maintain such a program effortlessly throughout their lifetime -- and particularly during those crises of greatest need for such a regimen when it is easy to be distracted and diverted otherwise.

Fitness should not be a problem, if the understanding is right. Lacking this right understanding, one can't "force" the right condition because one wants to. "Fitness" is about the right understanding, and not about more effort with the improper understanding hoping to "force" a right action and conclusion. It doesn't happen that way.

At May 26, 2007 3:12 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

There will always be many people who perpetuate the wrong understanding -- about virtually everything.

If one can find out the truth of even one thing for themselves, that is a lesson they can bring to any other subsequent activity or study they undertake.

But they need that one experience to be able to recognize it when they encounter it again -- and know it for a fact.

At May 26, 2007 4:16 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The 5-minute daily workout was largely conceived as the best way to relieve the muscle soreness produced by intense once a week workouts and not doing anything else -- and not just to maintain the status quo or further deterioration.

It may be enough to be all a person requires who isn't interested in stimulating further muscle growth and improving performance.

However, I do not foresee a condition in which one would NOT want to improve upon one's current condition and abilities as indefinitely as possible.

While it is true that certain performances will in fact decline, that need not be the measurement of progress -- because there are infinitely many one can choose from or create.

About the same time I was developing ideas on exercise and conditioning, I was also writing about that process -- and found that likewise, there could also be growth in this performance -- if one allowed the benchmarks to evolve.

People interested in the blogging phenomenon often ask me if and how many "hits" I get on my blogs, or how do I know that I'm reaching anybody out there -- since my comments by others seem to be so few, and are mostly my own.

I think the greatest measurement of a writer is not the number of comments one receives about one's writing as the quality of the writing itself -- which each writer is their own best judge of progress. So there is the assessment of whether I'm breaking new ground regarding content or style -- and stimulating my own thinking and further development, of which these notes are evidence.

I insist that content and style are integral to one another and it is meaningless to discuss one apart from the other. I actually have more people tell me in person that tell me they read my blog, than write to tell me they read my blog, and don't want to detract from the seriousness of my purpose with unworthy comments-- which is perfectly understandable because number of comments were not my objective or measurement of my success at blogging (writing).

The measurement was whether I could continue to be mentally alive and creative -- and then to record those observations. As a writer, thinker, artist (innovator) on any subject matter, many ostensibly successful people fail to evolve further -- and become the status quo defending the turf, as their sole preoccupation anymore, losing their original purpose and clarity.

Pretty soon, they're just pandering to everybody else's opinions, and have become the worst of the worst. Winning everything is not necessary to be "successful," but being able to tell those things that really matter. That is the real success -- to be able to tell that difference.

Very importantly, it's what each person determines for themselves.

At May 26, 2007 7:12 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

When change is very limited, it is easier to observe (measure) than when change is widespread and everything changes. Often, when one begins a study, that which one thought was most significant to study, is overwhelmed by another factor not considered, but since the study is underway, they can't stop to take notice of it instead but stay with the original program and (hypo)thesis.

There is this tremendous investment in proving what they originally started out to prove -- rather than just being open to the information. The funding has been circumscribed by the original purpose -- which is to prove what the fundor wants to prove. Very few are in the business of funding just to find out.

That's left to those with just a personal passion to find out -- maybe their own affliction. Those people have a tremendous interest in a real cure -- and not the most lucrative tratment for that condition, that doesn't eliminate (cure) it.

Thus their case study, is regarded as anecdotal rather than the study proven rule. The exceptional is not the normal -- but that is more useful to know than the normal.

We're more interested in knowing what the world record for the pole vault is than we are interested in knowing what the average pole vault. In fact, nobody would be interested enough to launch that study. What is the point and value of knowing that information?

Yet we're provided countless studies by the media, schools and universities of such "information," as though it was worthwhile knowing -- rather than the limits and parameters of achievement.

The "average," or generalization, is not more important to know than the specific individual case. A doctor does not say, "The average person is healthy and so should you be, so goodbye," but instead, his job is to find out about that individual "real" case.

So should we all conduct our lives in that fashion -- rather than reading about these studies, polls and experts, and thinking we know something, and in some people, everything -- because we've heard it from the experts. In information hierarchies, the experts often just heard it from experts above them -- and nobody has ever questioned anything. Everyone assumes somebody else must have.

Usually, the challenge is at the conclusions -- but the premises and assumptions went unquestioned to begin with. That is what the knowledge of most people consists of -- rather than verified and validated to be true, before further discussion can really be productive and useful.

So while their arguments may be logical and well-researched, they may have little or nothing to do with actuality (reality).


Post a Comment

<< Home