Should We Listen To Our Inner Wisdom? | Podcast 0434
Download Episode Here – right click link and select “Save Link As…”
In this podcast, Joel and Antonia take a break from personality types to talk about trusting our inner wisdom as humans.
In this podcast you’ll find:
- Should we alter our inner wisdom based on the results of scientific studies?
- What can be known based on a study?
- To what extent can we trust our inner knowing?
- How is our reality created?
- What can make us betray our inner wisdom?
- Can we know the truth?
- What is inner knowing and inner wisdom?
- Are they related to our instincts?
- Can they be part of something bigger than us?
- What comes between us and our inner knowing?
- Joel shares his experience in being in touch with his inner wisdom.
- How consistent is our inner knowing?
- Are there contradictions between different people’s inner knowing?
- How do you avoid bias in your inner knowing?
- Should we accept uncertainty?
- Antonia shares a story that illustrates how you can access your inner wisdom.
- How does our ego protect us?
- Joel shares a story that shows us how to listen to our inner wisdom.
- Why is it so difficult to distinguish between what is and isn’t inner wisdom?
To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:
Subscribe with iTunes
If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!
Want to learn more?
Discover Your Personal Genius
We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…
Showing 2 comments
I love this topic! It speaks to my “6 ness” and the work that I have to do around not transferring my personal authority outside of myself.
There is something on the subject of certainty vs. uncertainty in our head that comes to mind. We seem to have the ability to hold a lot of uncertainty in our heads, but the real challenge is what happens when we make a decision around this. At some point we have to take a stand, and that decision will feed back into the systems of Reality to influence the outcome, and eventually alter the truth in its own way. Maintaining certainty seems to me more like a strategy for maintaining “readiness” for quick decisions; when you’ve precalculated all your certainties ahead of time, you’re always ready to execute a decision. This leaves one possibly closed to new information or subtle influences.
In joining your woo-woo, this same concept reminds me of Quantum computing, particularly Qubits. The general idea is that while a Bit, “binary digit,” can exist in a value of 0 or 1 (off/on, etc), a Qubit exists in a “state of superposition” between 0 and 1 and can be influenced by input to shift or influence what is best thought of as a statistical probability. I feel this is an analogy for uncertainty – a qubit that hasn’t been measured yet is still “in superposition” and can be influenced up or down a tiny bit. However, it’s when one *measures* the qubit, that quantum coherence is lost and a single value is expressed – 0 or 1.
I’m holding space for the idea this feels eerily similar to how some of our thoughts and cognitive abilities work. I’m far from the only one to suggest, fwiw, that neurons employ some sort of room-temperature quantum computing paradigm; the evidence is quite scarce right now though.
Dessert for thought: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-quantum-criticality-life-proteins.html