Who do you Trust? How do you know? Seeing the Whole Gold David's Desk - Maps KidsCan: Being and Doing What Is Mindfulness? Inner B Ani Choying: With or Against Nature? Do you see the signs? Ready to Start Living? How Do I Love Trees? You're A Big Deal! Dont worry you're not crazy! Time To Slow Down. Bring Yourself Back to Life Gratefulness: An Empath's Guide To Balance! Fire in the Madhouse by Anngwyn St. It's the Universal Awakening!
First They Came For Dr. The younger Gargoyles who survived with Goliath and Hudson name themselves Brooklyn, Lexington, and Broadway, while they name the canine Gargoyle Bronx. The clan goes to retrieve the data disks from three locations belonging to Cyberbiotics. Hudson goes to an underground Cyberbiotics bunker with Bronx, Brooklyn, Broadway, and Lexington attack a Cyberbiotics tower on land, while Demona and Goliath take the Cyberbiotics airship, Fortress I , which Demona mercilessly sets to crash before they escape.
After Elisa discovers and tells Goliath about Xanatos' deception, he reveals robotic Gargoyles dubbed the Steel Clan to kill the group. Demona also reveals her name and her allegiances both with the Captain at Wyvern and with Xanatos. When both she and Elisa are put in danger, Goliath must make a choice of who to save. The Heroes Awaken was the direct-to-video animated movie re-cut of the five episodes, edited into one long feature film, approximately 90 minutes in length.
As a result, numerous scenes were cut from the original broadcast episodes due to time constraints. In addition, a number of scenes were also moved around and some dialogue was changed. Sign In Don't have an account? It aired on October 24 - 28 , Contents [ show ]. Retrieved from " http: This page uses content from the English Wikipedia. The article or pieces of the original article was at Awakening.
The list of authors can be seen in the page history. But what happens when we attempt to shortcut a natural process in our growth and development? If you are only an average tennis player but decide to play at a higher level in order to make a better impression, what will result? Would positive thinking alone enable you to compete effectively against a professional? What if you were to lead your friends to believe you could play the piano at concert hall level while your actual present skill was that of a beginner? The answers are obvious. It is simply impossible to violate, ignore, or shortcut this development process.
It is contrary to nature, and attempting to seek such a shortcut only results in disappointment and frustration. On a ten-point scale, if I am at level two in any field, and desire to move to level five, I must first take the step toward level three. If you don't let a teacher know at what level you are -- by asking a question, or revealing your ignorance -- you will not learn or grow. You cannot pretend for long, for you will eventually be found out. Admission of ignorance is often the first step in our education. Thoreau taught, "How can we remember our ignorance, which our growth requires, when we are using our knowledge all the time?
They were afraid to open up with their parents for fear of the consequences. And yet they desperately needed their parents' love, understanding, and guidance. I talked with the father and found that he was intellectually aware of what was happening. But while he admitted he had a temper problem, he refused to take responsibility for it and to honestly accept the fact that his emotional development level was low. It was more than his pride could swallow to take the first step toward change. To relate effectively with a wife, a husband, children, friends, or working associates, we must learn to listen.
And this requires emotional strength. Listening involves patience, openness, and the desire to understand -- highly developed qualities of character. It's so much easier to operate from a low emotional level and to give high-level advice. Our level of development is fairly obvious with tennis or piano playing, where it is impossible to pretend. But it is not so obvious in the areas of character and emotional development.
We can "pose" and "put on" for a stranger or an associate. And for a while we can get by with it -- at least in public. We might even deceive ourselves. Yet I believe that most of us know the truth of what we really are inside; and I think many of those we live with and work with do as well. I have seen the consequences of attempting to shortcut this natural process of growth often in the business world, where executives attempt to "buy" a new culture of improved productivity, quality, morale, and customer service with strong speeches, smile training, and external interventions, or through mergers, acquisitions, and friendly or unfriendly takeovers.
But they ignore the low-trust climate produced by such manipulations. When these methods don't work, they look for other Personality Ethic techniques that will -- all the time ignoring and violating the natural principles and processes on which a high-trust culture is based. I remember violating this principle myself as a father many years ago. One day I returned home to my little girl's third-year birthday party to find her in the corner of the front room, defiantly clutching all of her presents, unwilling to let the other children play with them.
The first thing I noticed was several parents in the room witnessing this selfish display. I was embarrassed, and doubly so because at the time I was teaching university classes in human relations. And I knew, or at least felt, the expectation of these parents. The atmosphere in the room was really charged -- the children were crowding around my little daughter with their hands out, asking to play with the presents they had just given, and my daughter was adamantly refusing.
I said to myself, "Certainly I should teach my daughter to share. The value of sharing is one of the most basic things we believe in. My second method was to use a little reasoning. The third method was bribery. Very softly I said, "Honey, if you share, I've got a special surprise for you.
I'll give you a piece of gum. Now I was becoming exasperated. For my fourth attempt, I resorted to fear and threat. I don't have to share! I merely took some of the toys and gave them to the other kids. In fact, unless I possess something, can I ever really give it?
She needed me as her father to have a higher level of emotional maturity to give her that experience. But at that moment, I valued the opinion those parents had of me more than the growth and development of my child and our relationship together. I simply made an initial judgment that I was right; she should share, and she was wrong in not doing so.
Perhaps I superimposed a higher-level expectation on her simply because on my own scale I was at a lower level. I was unable or unwilling to give patience or understanding, so I expected her to give things. In an attempt to compensate for my deficiency, I borrowed strength from my position and authority and forced her to do what I wanted her to do. But borrowing strength builds weakness. It builds weakness in the borrower because it reinforces dependence on external factors to get things done. It builds weakness in the person forced to acquiesce, stunting the development of independent reasoning, growth, and internal discipline.
And finally, it builds weakness in the relationship. Fear replaces cooperation, and both people involved become more arbitrary and defensive. And what happens when the source of borrowed strength -- be it superior size or physical strength, position, authority, credentials, status symbols, appearance, or past achievements -- changes or is no longer there? Had I been more mature, I could have relied on my own intrinsic strength -- my understanding of sharing and of growth and my capacity to love and nurture -- and allowed my daughter to make a free choice as to whether she wanted to share or not to share.
Perhaps after attempting to reason with her, I could have turned the attention of the children to an interesting game, taking all that emotional pressure off my child. I've learned that once children gain a sense of real possession, they share very naturally, freely, and spontaneously. My experience has been that there are times to teach and times not to teach. When relationships are strained and the air charged with emotion, an attempt to teach is often perceived as a form of judgment and rejection.
- Download Books Sites.;
- Wisemen.
- The Choice;
But to take the child alone, quietly, when the relationship is good and to discuss the teaching or the value seems to have much greater impact. It may have been that the emotional maturity to do that was beyond my level of patience and internal control at the time. Perhaps a sense of possessing needs to come before a sense of genuine sharing. Many people who give mechanically or refuse to give and share in their marriages and families may never have experienced what it means to possess themselves, their own sense of identity and self-worth.
Really helping our children grow may involve being patient enough to allow them the sense of possession as well as being wise enough to teach them the value of giving and providing the example ourselves. The Way We See the Problem Is the Problem People are intrigued when they see good things happening in the lives of individuals, families, and organizations that are based on solid principles.
They admire such personal strength and maturity, such family unity and teamwork, such adaptive synergistic organizational culture. And their immediate request is very revealing of their basic paradigm. Teach me the techniques. They may eliminate some of the cosmetic or acute problems through social aspirin and band-aids. But the underlying chronic condition remains, and eventually new acute symptoms will appear. The more people are into quick fix and focus on the acute problems and pain, the more that very approach contributes to the underlying chronic condition.
The way we see the problem is the problem. Look again at some of the concerns that introduced this chapter, and at the impact of Personality Ethic thinking. The Personality Ethic tells me I could take some kind of dramatic action -- shake things up, make heads roll -- that would make my employees shape up and appreciate what they have. Or that I could find some motivational training program that would get them committed.
Or even that I could hire new people that would do a better job. But is it possible that under that apparently disloyal behavior, these employees question whether I really act in their best interest? Do they feel like I'm treating them as mechanical objects? Is there some truth to that? Deep inside, is that really the way I see them? Is there a chance the way I look at the people who work for me is part of the problem? The Personality Ethic tells me there must be something out there -- some new planner or seminar that will help me handle all these pressures in a more efficient way.
But is there a chance that efficiency is not the answer? Is getting more things done in less time going to make a difference -- or will it just increase the pace at which I react to the people and circumstances that seem to control my life? Could there be something I need to see in a deeper, more fundamental way -- some paradigm within myself that affects the way I see my time, my life, and my own nature? The Personality Ethic tells me there must be some new book or some seminar where people get all their feelings out that would help my wife understand me better. Or maybe that it's useless, and only a new relationship will provide the love I need.
But is it possible that my spouse isn't the real problem? Could I be empowering my spouse's weaknesses and making my life a function of the way I'm treated? Do I have some basic paradigm about my spouse, about marriage, about what love really is, that is feeding the problem? Can you see how fundamentally the paradigms of the Personality Ethic affect the very way we see our problems as well as the way we attempt to solve them?
Whether people see it or not, many are becoming disillusioned with the empty promises of the Personality Ethic. As I travel around the country and work with organizations, I find that long-term thinking executives are simply turned off by psych up psychology and "motivational" speakers who have nothing more to share than entertaining stories mingled with platitudes. They want substance; they want process. They want more than aspirin and band-aids. They want to solve the chronic underlying problems and focus on the principles that bring long-term results. A New Level of Thinking Albert Einstein observed, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
We need a new level, a deeper level of thinking -- a paradigm based on the principles that accurately describe the territory of effective human being and interacting -- to solve these deep concerns. It's a principle-centered, character-based, "inside-out" approach to personal and interpersonal effectiveness. It says if you want to have a happy marriage, be the kind of person who generates positive energy and sidesteps negative energy rather than empowering it.
If you want to have a more pleasant, cooperative teenager, be a more understanding, empathic, consistent, loving parent. If you want to have more freedom, more latitude in your job, be a more responsible, a more helpful, a more contributing employee. If you want to be trusted, be trustworthy. If you want the secondary greatness of recognized talent, focus first on primary greatness of character.
The inside-out approach says that private victories precede public victories, that making and keeping promises to ourselves precedes making and keeping promises to others. It says it is futile to put personality ahead of character, to try to improve relationships with others before improving ourselves. Inside-out is a process -- a continuing process of renewal based on the natural laws that govern human growth and progress. It's an upward spiral of growth that leads to progressively higher forms of responsible independence and effective interdependence.
I have had the opportunity to work with many people -- wonderful people, talented people, people who deeply want to achieve happiness and success, people who are searching, people who are hurting. I've worked with business executives, college students, church and civic groups, families and marriage partners. And in all of my experience, I have never seen lasting solutions to problems, lasting happiness and success, that came from the outside in.
What I have seen result from the outside-in paradigm is unhappy people who feel victimized and immobilized, who focus on the weaknesses of other people and the circumstances they feel are responsible for their own stagnant situation. I've seen unhappy marriages where each spouse wants the other to change, where each is confessing the other's "sins," where each is trying to shape up the other. I've seen labor management disputes where people spend tremendous amounts of time and energy trying to create legislation that would force people to act as though the foundation of trust were really there.
Members of our family have lived in three of the "hottest" spots on earth -- South Africa, Israel, and Ireland -- and I believe the source of the continuing problems in each of these places has been the dominant social paradigm of outside-in. Each involved group is convinced the problem is "out there" and if "they" meaning others would "shape up" or suddenly "ship out" of existence, the problem would be solved. Inside-out is a dramatic paradigm shift for most people, largely because of the powerful impact of conditioning and the current social paradigm of the Personality Ethic.
But from my own experience -- both personal and in working with thousands of other people -- and from careful examination of successful individuals and societies throughout history, I am persuaded that many of the principles embodied in the Seven Habits are already deep within us, in our conscience and our common sense. To recognize and develop them and to use them in meeting our deepest concerns, we need to think differently, to shift our paradigms to a new, deeper, "inside-out" level. As we sincerely seek to understand and integrate these principles into our lives, I am convinced we will discover and rediscover the truth of T.
We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time. The Seven habits -- An overview We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. Aristotle Our character, basically, is a composite of our habits. Habits are powerful factors in our lives. Because they are consistent, often unconscious patterns, they constantly, daily, express our character and produce our effectiveness As Horace Mann, the great educator, once said, "Habits are like a cable.
We weave a strand of it everyday and soon it cannot be broken. I know they can be broken. Habits can be learned and unlearned. But I also know it isn't a quick fix. It involves a process and a tremendous commitment. Those of us who watched the lunar voyage of Apollo 11 were transfixed as we saw the first men walk on the moon and return to earth. Superlatives such as "fantastic" and "incredible" were inadequate to describe those eventful days. But to get there, those astronauts literally has to break out of the tremendous gravity pull of the earth.
More energy was spent in the first few minutes of lift-off, in the first few miles of travel, than was used over the next several days to travel half a million miles.
Download Books Sites. | Page 6
Habits, too, have tremendous gravity pull -- more than most people realize or would admit. Breaking deeply imbedded habitual tendencies such as procrastination, impatience, criticalness, or selfishness that violate basic principles of human effectiveness involves more than a little willpower and a few minor changes in our lives. Like any natural force, gravity pull can work with us or against us. The gravity pull of some of our habits may currently be keeping us from going where we want to go.
But it is also gravity pull that keeps our world together, that keeps the planets in their orbits and our universe in order. It is a powerful force, and if we use it effectively, we can use the gravity pull of habit to create the cohesiveness and order necessary to establish effectiveness in our lives. Knowledge is the theoretical paradigm, the what to do and the why. Skill is the how to do.
And desire is the motivation, the want to do. In order to make something a habit in our lives, we have to have all three. I may be ineffective in my interactions with my work associates, my spouse, or my children because I constantly tell them what I think, but I never really listen to them. Unless I search out correct principles of human interaction, I may not even know I need to listen.
Even if I do know that in order to interact effectively with others I really need to listen to them, I may not have the skill. I may not know how to really listen deeply to another human being. But knowing I need to listen and knowing how to listen is not enough. Unless I want to listen, unless I have the desire, it won't be a habit in my life. Creating a habit requires work in all three dimensions.
By working on knowledge, skill, and desire, we can break through to new levels of personal and interpersonal effectiveness as we break with old paradigms that may have been a source of pseudo-security for years. It's sometimes a painful process. It's a change that has to be motivated by a higher purpose, by the willingness to subordinate what you think you want now for what you want later. But this process produces happiness, "the object and design of our existence.
In harmony with the natural laws of growth, they provide an incremental, sequential, highly integrated approach to the development of personal and interpersonal effectiveness. They move us progressively on a Maturity Continuum from dependence to independence to interdependence. We each begin life as an infant, totally dependent on others. We are directed, nurtured, and sustained by others. Without this nurturing, we would only live for a few hours or a few days at the most.
Then gradually, over the ensuing months and years, we become more and more independent -- physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially -- until eventually we can essentially taken care of ourselves, becoming inner-directed and self-reliant. As we continue to grow and mature, we become increasingly aware that all of nature is interdependent, that there is an ecological system that governs nature, including society. We further discover that the higher reaches of our nature have to do with our relationships with others -- that human life also is interdependent.
Our growth from infancy to adulthood is in accordance with natural law. And there are many dimensions to growth. Reaching our full physical maturity, for example, does not necessarily assure us of simultaneous emotional or mental maturity. On the other hand, a person's physical dependence does not mean that he or she is mentally or emotionally immature. On the maturity continuum, dependence is the paradigm of you -- you take care of me; you come through for me; you didn't come through; I blame you for the results. Interdependence is the paradigm of we -- we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together.
- Playing for Paterno: One Coach, Two Eras . . . A Father and Sons Recollections of Playing for JoePa!
- Your Comprehensive Green Juicing Guide: PLUS The Only 10 Recipes You Will Ever Need.
- Episode information.
- Adam Buckham O! - Score;
- .
Dependent people need others to get what they want. Independent people can get what they want through their own effort. Interdependent people combine their own efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success. If I were physically dependent -- paralyzed or disabled or limited in some physical way -- I would need you to help me. If I were emotionally dependent, may sense of worth and security would come from your opinion of me.
Powerful Lessons in Personal Change
If you didn't like me, it could be devastating. If I were intellectually dependent, I would count on you to do my thinking for me, to think through the issues and problems of my life. If I were independent, physically, I could pretty well make it on my own. Mentally, I could think my own thoughts, I could move from one level of abstraction to another.
Attribution information
I could think creatively and analytically and organize and express my thoughts in understandable ways. Emotionally, I would be validated from within. I would be inner directed. My sense of worth would not be a function of being liked or treated well. It's easy to see that independence is much more mature than dependence. Independence is a major achievement in and of itself. But independence is not supreme.
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Nevertheless, the current social paradigm enthrones independence. It is the avowed goal of many individuals and social movements. Most of the self-improvement material puts independence on a pedestal, as though communication, teamwork, and cooperation were lesser values. But much of our current emphasis on independence is a reaction to dependence -- to having others control us, define us, use us, and manipulate us. The little understood concept of interdependence appears to many to smack of dependence, and therefore, we find people, often for selfish reasons, leaving their marriages, abandoning their children, and forsaking all kinds of social responsibility -- all in the name of independence.
The kind of reaction that results in people "throwing off their shackles," becoming "liberated," "asserting themselves," and "doing their own thing" often reveals more fundamental dependencies that cannot be run away from because they are internal rather than external -- dependencies such as letting the weaknesses of the other people ruin our emotional lives or feeling victimized by people and events out of our control.
Of course, we may need to change our circumstances. But the dependence problem is a personal maturity issue that has little to do with circumstances. Even with better circumstances, immaturity and dependence often persist. True independence of character empowers us to act rather than be acted upon. It frees us from our dependence on circumstances and other people and is a worthy, liberating goal. But it is not the ultimate goal in effective living.
Independent thinking alone is not suited to interdependent reality. Independent people who do not have the maturity to think and act interdependently may be good individual producers, but they won't be good leaders or team players. They're not coming from the paradigm of interdependence necessary to succeed in marriage, family, or organizational reality. Life is, by nature, highly interdependent. To try to achieve maximum effectiveness through independence is like trying to play tennis with a golf club -- the tool is not suited to the reality.
Interdependence is a far more mature, more advanced concept. If I am physically interdependent, I am self-reliant and capable, but I also realize that you and I working together can accomplish far more than, even at my best, I could accomplish alone. If I am emotionally interdependent, I derive a great sense of worth within myself, but I also recognize the need for love, for giving, and for receiving love from others.
If I am intellectually interdependent, I realize that I need the best thinking of other people to join with my own. As an interdependent person, I have the opportunity to share myself deeply, meaningfully, with others, and I have access to the vast resources and potential of other human beings. Interdependence is a choice only independent people can make. Dependent people cannot choose to become interdependent. They don't have the character to do it; they don't own enough of themselves. That's why Habits, 1, 2, and 3 in the following chapters deal with self-mastery.
They move a person from dependence to independence. They are the "Private Victories," the essence of character growth. Private victories precede public victories. You can't invert that process anymore than you can harvest a crop before you plant it. As you become truly independent, you have the foundation for effective interdependence.
You have the character base from which you can effectively work on the more personality-oriented "Public Victories" of teamwork, cooperation, and communication in Habits 4, 5, and 6. That does not mean you have to be perfect in Habits, 1, 2, and 3 before working on Habits 4, 5, and 6. Understanding the sequence will help you manage your growth more effectively, but I'm not suggesting that you put yourself in isolation for several years until you fully develop Habits, 1, 2, and 3.
As part of an interdependent world, you have to relate to that world every day. But the acute problems of that world can easily obscure the chronic character causes. Understanding how what you are impacts every interdependent interaction will help you to focus your efforts sequentially, in harmony with the natural laws of growth. Habit 7 is the habit of renewal -- a regular, balanced renewal of the four basic dimensions of life. It circles and embodies all the other habits.
It is the habit of continuous improvement that creates the upward spiral of growth that lifts you to new levels of understanding and living each of the habits as you come around to them on a progressively higher plane. Effectiveness Defined The Seven Habits are habits of effectiveness. Because they are based on principles, they bring the maximum long-term beneficial results possible. They become the basis of a person's character, creating an empowering center of correct maps from which an individual can effectively solve problems, maximize opportunities, and continually learn and integrate other principles in an upward spiral of growth.
This principle can be easily understood by remembering Aesop's fable of the goose and the golden egg. This fable is the story of a poor farmer who one day discovers in the nest of his pet goose a glittering golden egg. At first, he thinks it must be some kind of trick. But as he starts to throw the egg aside, he has second thoughts and takes it in to be appraised instead.
The egg is pure gold! The farmer can't believe his good fortune. He becomes even more incredulous the following day when the experience is repeated. Day after day, he awakens to rush to the nest and find another golden egg. He becomes fabulously wealthy; it all seems too good to be true. But with his increasing wealth comes greed and impatience. Unable to wait day after day for the golden eggs, the farmer decides he will kill the goose and get them all at once.
But when he opens the goose, he finds it empty. There are no golden eggs -- and now there is no way to get any more. The farmer has destroyed the goose that produced them. I suggest that within this fable is a natural law, a principle -- the basic definition of effectiveness. Most people see effectiveness from the golden egg paradigm: But as the story shows, true effectiveness is a function of two things: If you adopt a pattern of life that focuses on golden eggs and neglects the goose, you will soon be without the asset that produces golden eggs.
On the other hand, if you only take care of the goose with no aim toward the golden eggs, you soon won't have the wherewithal to feed yourself or the goose. P stands for production of desired results, the golden eggs. PC stands for production capability, the ability or asset that produces the golden eggs. Three Kinds of Assets Basically, there are three kinds of assets: Let's look at each one in turn.
A few years ago, I purchased a physical asset -- a power lawn-mower. I used it over and over again without doing anything to maintain it. The mower worked well for two seasons, but then it began to break down. When I tried to revive it with service and sharpening, I discovered the engine had lost over half its original power capacity. It was essentially worthless. Had I invested in PC -- in preserving and maintaining the asset -- I would still be enjoying its P -- the mowed lawn.
As it was, I had to spend far more time and money replacing the mower than I ever would have spent, had I maintained it. It simply wasn't effective. In our quest for short-term returns, or results, we often ruin a prized physical asset -- a car, a computer, a washer or dryer, even our body or our environment.
Keeping P and PC in balance makes a tremendous difference in the effective use of physical assets. It also powerfully impacts the effective use of financial assets. How often do people confuse principal with interest? Have you evere invaded principal to increase your standard of living, to get more golden eggs? The decreasing principal has decreasing power to produce interest or income.