20190625 SAVERS for TUESDAY

SILENCE

Did it for 60 seconds - sorta.

AFFIRMATIONS

1. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
2. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
3. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
4. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
5. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
6. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
7. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
8. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.
9. I, Ken Taylor, am a loving human being.

Also said aloud for 60 seconds.

VISUALIZATION

I AM A SAFE AND COURTEOUS DRIVER.

EXERCISE

Did my full base-70 routine for a Tuesday:

1. ankle/wrist circles 70
2. toe/finger stretches 70
3. bicycle crunches 70
4. shoulder rolls 70
5. inversion table 3 70-second sets
6. squats 70

READING, WRITING

Read 60 seconds in SAPIENS by Yuval Noah Harari.  He says that in spite of times of plenty (when there were enough resources to feed many MORE people than was needed), human beings still fought each other.  He gives the French Revolution (spearheaded by affluent lawyers), the Roman Empire collapsing, and Yugoslavia (recent bloodbath)... as examples.  As I read, I felt that Harari was seeking dubious examples to support his claims.

For example, an author might say, "You, the reader, probably think that hunger causes uprisings.  But NOOOOOOOO, you are wrong!  In the cases I am citing, the uprisings were caused by surprising influences, and NOT what you've thought all along.  Therefore, you need to re-think this and change your opinion to mine."

Well, he MIGHT be doing this, and he might not.  But for whatever reason, I am TERRIBLY suspicious of his motives.

Could it be he wants to sell more books?  Could he just like being contrary?

I don't get in him the approach of a scientist, who would logically and reasonably and unbiasedly select the examples he can see, and THEN draw a conclusion.  Rather, I get that he says "HERE!  and THERE!  See??"  And we're supposed to follow along behind his train of thought.

Well, I'll keep reading, because maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe all he claims is legitimately reasoned.  Maybe I DO need to change my thinking.

We'll see.