Posts by :
Corporate Numerology is a team development tool, developed by Leticia Mooney. While it can be compared with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and DiSC, this tool far surpasses both in terms of both relevance and application, chiefly because it’s objective (where MBTI and DiSC are both self-reported).
A Corporate Numerology report gives you:
- An 8-page report per individual
- A team insights report
- Comprehensive instructions for application and use.
Here is a review from Intertek SAI Global.
Intertek SAI Global’s Experience of Leticia’s Corporate Numerology offer
“Leticia’s corporate numerology reading for our team was amazing. For us we are a relatively new team working together. The ‘Insights into your team report’ was extremely interesting and very confirming of how some of us already see each other in a work sense. This really helped process different actions and personalities between coworkers. It has encouraged an objective view and facilitated further understanding into ways of best working together.
“My personal report was very relevant and aligned to myself and my lifestyle. I could see tangible experiences and evidence from every section. The thing I loved most about the numerology report was being able to dive deeper into things I already knew about myself and cross reference it with those that I didn’t already know/perceive. Leticia provides a comprehensive, articulate report that allows you explore so much about yourself and will surely encourage you to share with those around you. It’s beneficial for personal and professional growth, and most importantly to provide confidence and grounding through the explanation of your numbers and characteristics.
“I would highly recommend Leticia and her numerology readings for your team, it’s a great way for different personalities to connect and understand each other. It will also help to confirm the strengths and weaknesses across the team which are so effective for planning and resourcing.
“Thanks for this I would recommend to anyone who’s interested in this type of thing especially in team development.”Rachel McGann, Intertek SAI Global Australia
How much is it?
This corporate service is priced at $250 per head. Contact Leticia for whole-corporation pricing and prices for teams of 50+.
Staged Relaxation is the third article in a series titled Mind Training. It’s about learning to control your mind by way of (firstly) controlling your physical self.
This article is the first exercise. I learned it when I was about 7 years old. I have taught it to hundreds, ever since I was about 8 years old. Always with great success.
Before you begin
1. Read this article in its entirety.
2. Close your eyes and think through the exercise completely. If you don’t have it in your head, reopen and re-read. Repeat this until you reckon you’ve got it. (It’s pretty simple, should be easy.)
3. Put your phone on silent *and* outside the room. Preferably at the other end of the house.
4. Ensure you won’t be interrupted for a while. It could take you 10 minutes, it might make you fall asleep and take you 60. Be aware of this; rushing is of absolutely no value to you.
5. If you are doing this with little people around, know that it’s still valuable even if you’re only able to do the first 5 minutes. Pick it up again later. (Yes, from the beginning.)
Instructions for how to do the staged relaxation
Staged relaxation is entirely about your physical self. It will help you to connect your brain to your body, and will show you where you have gaps.
This is the very first exercise. Meaning: You will activate your body as you do the exercise. Later you will feel it just with your mind.
Here is how to do the staged relaxation. Begin with your feet.
1. One at a time, feel the toes on your right foot. Wiggle the little toe, then the second-from right; then third-from-right; then your second toe, then your big toe. Curl your toes over, tense them up tightly. Then let them go. Imagine them falling off your foot.
2. Do the same with your toes on the left foot.
3. First with your right foot and then with your left, tense all of the muscles on your foot. Move your foot in circles. Tense it again. Then let it go. Imagine your foot sinking into the floor away from the bottom of your leg.
4. First with your right calf and then with your left. Tense your right calf as tight as you can, and hold it. Then let it go. It sinks through the surface of the floor. Just tense the calf, stay away from any other muscle or tendon.
5. First with your right knee and then with your left. Tense your knee as tight as you can and hold it. Then let it go. It sinks through the surface of the floor.
6. First with your right quad (the muscle on the top of your thigh), and then with the right hamstring (the muscle underneath your thigh). Tense the muscle as tight as you can, and hold it. Then let it go. It turns into wobbly jelly. After you do the same with your hamstring, the entire thigh sinks heavily, heavily through the surface of the floor.
7. Repeat on your left thigh.
Now you know it, keep going!
Repeat the tightening/relaxing process all the way up your body, in this order:
- pectoral muscles
- deltoids (shoulder blades)
- armpits and shoulders
- upper arms
- lower arms
- neck and throat
- (and if you can…) the muscles on your head.
Once you’ve moved through all of these elements, rest gently for as long as you like. You may go to sleep; know that if you do, that is perfectly ok. Sleep is a form of meditation.
Now you will know intimately which parts of your body your brain is connecting to, too. Can’t feel your fourth toe? Spend some time massaging it and connecting with it. Or any other part of your body to which you can’t easily connect.
If you have any questions, leave a comment or contact me.
Did you enjoy this? Get The Letter and unlock even more:
1+ letters per month by either email (sign up below) or in your real-life letterbox (sign up here instead).
The state of striving is a curious one to be in. For, while many of us lean on the definition of the term meaning ‘try’, it actually means to argue, to contend; ultimately, to ‘resist‘.
Indeed, the word ‘try‘ itself means to attempt to do, it doesn’t mean do. This is likely why the word contains failure. If you hypnotise someone to try to do something, they will never achieve it. (I believe I learned that from hypnotist Miriam Castilla.)
I learned recently that I’ve been striving my entire life. That striving is a legacy from my parents, and that this has affected my ability to achieve my dreams. Tellingly, it’s affected my willingness to work on my dreams. It’s been a deep, long-seated blocker against creativity. Since unearthing this taproot, I’ve experienced an outpouring of creative activity and a willingness to treat myself nicely.
The stillness that has emerged has been refreshing. No longer do I feel the immense weight of stuff hanging over my shoulders. More often am I able to experience the fullness of standing. To feel the expansion of this body that I inhabit. To be in the world in a way that allows me to experience the world rather than the emotions and thoughts arising as a result of it.
Today I realised that it’s been forever since I’ve written anything for myself that hasn’t been part of The Artist’s Way, which I’m re-doing with a group of fellow creatives. There is a lot of writing, reflection, activity, thinking, talking, discussing built into that recovery program. Working alongside creatives to do it is powerful, too. Together, we discover similarities, probe our sore spots, experience other people’s torches shining on limitations that we refuse to see. Because the group is built on mutual trust, respect, and love for who we truly are, there is no ill-will about seeing these wounds or being called out on our bullshit. You can do The Artist’s Way alone, and I have. But in a group it is communal in way that I’ve previously only experienced in communities centred on spirituality or God; communities that baffled me with their genuine ‘all-in’ on belief. Now I get it.
Then when I experienced a little serendipity, by way of an email pointing to this article in The Marginalia, I took a breath. I felt urged to write, so here I am.
That article is part of a series titled The Unphotographable. This focus on nature is deeply at the heart of what I’m being called to write. It’s at the heart of where I’ve been blocked. Desiring to write a thing, I have been having creative tantrums about the thing and thus not writing.
It’s because I preferred striving.
I preferred striving, I realise now. I preferred the feeling of striving to the feeling of doing, because my parents believe that achieving dreams (or investing, or being a successful landlord, or being an artist, or doing the thing your soul calls you to do) is something that other people do. I grew up seeded with this belief. I’ve lived my entire life subconsciously playing out this belief. The result has been that the feeling of striving meets my parents’ standards for hard work without the end result that might make them envious, and thus, damage our relationship.
Fucked up, isn’t it.
It’s so fucked up how we damage ourselves and our families without even realising. It’s so fucked up that I have no problem letting it go and coming back to a worshipful engagement of myself as creator. As soon as I began this process, the gates unlocked and poetry–beautiful, flowing poetry–flowed again.
With it, serendipitous reading showing me that there are multitudes of others, all equally steeped in the natural world. All called to write their experiences of phenomena like rain.
This recognition of me as creator, of writer of nature, is at odds with how I’ve described myself for my entire life. When asked what I write, I describe myself as a character writer: Someone for whom character is at the heart and soul of everything. It’s not story. It’s not place. It’s not life. It’s crafting a character in the fullness of their every dimension. It’s also untrue.
At heart, I am patterned on weather and the weather patterns me. When I read tarot, the wind gets stronger when I get to difficult topics, difficult news. When I am in the world, I teach others about how to read the weather without realising–and without being asked. I’m that person who knows how far away the winds are, and how strong they are. I can tell you when earthquakes will strike because of the character of the sea.
I’m that person, too, who has been shut down about it for my entire life. People sigh, get irritated, get sarcastic, as if my knowing is unwelcome or, worse, untrue. It’s questioned. I’m not the BoM, you see. I’m not the Weather Lady who programs you via television. I’m just a random woman who watches the clouds and notices when the swallows fly into the wind.
Talking about it is not a problem. But writing it has been.
Writing, as an act of creation is not mine, though. It never has been.
This act of creation is God’s. Or Source’s. Or The Universe’s. Or an Energy. Or whatever you want to call it. Currently I’m playing with my deep-seated thoughts about God, pondering whether God precedes energy, whether energy actually is matter but in another form. I’m awash in the wonder of it, open to possibility, and not tied to materialist beliefs in any sense. There are many realities and the three-dimensional is but one of them.
As someone who is easily influenced by others, relying on myself and my own knowing is extraordinary. I listen to people whom I trust, from authors and mentors to friends and children. I discover my own way a long time after taking their ideas on board and road-testing them. And I’m always disappointed to discover that their beliefs and perspectives aren’t compatible with mine. They’re not invalid, but they are sometimes very limited.
So as I sit here rambling about this state of my creative world, I know in my heart that at some point I’m going to be ok with talking about God. It’s not a churchy God. It’s not a God with rules and limitations, discriminations and punishments. It’s a God who is ever expansive, enthusiastic, incapable of finding fault with the act of creating.
As Julia Cameron writes (and here I paraphrase from memory), God is an exuberant creator who couldn’t stop at one or 50 or even 100 pink flowers.
If that trips your inner child, who splashed colours with glee over fifty thousand pieces of paper just because you could, good. That’s God at work and that’s the type of God who exists before energy exists.
Realising that I’m a channel for this most excellent, love-filled outpouring of creation is opening me to creation. Holding onto patterns of dreams for which I have to work and stress and strive is what shuts off the tap.
Striving got me nowhere fast.
My life hasn’t been a shitshow of nothing, don’t get me wrong. But in terms of my deepest and most heartfelt dreams, the condition of striving has served only to create unrest.
Right now I’m halfway through the Artist’s Way recovery program with my creative cluster. Standing on the precipice of Week 6, which is all about God and money (and other material things that we often put in the way of our art), I’m breathing different air. It wafts to me over the headland, washed in from the sea, cleansed and untouched by materialist humans. This time I’m breathing it the way it comes to me. Unfiltered. Fresh. Full of life.
As I breathe, I realise that the writing I’m drawn to is what I’m destined to do.
And if you don’t like it, that’s ok.
I’m not writing it for you.
I am ridiculously excited to share with you that Artist in Recovery will be released on 4 November in all formats.
This book is an extensive collection of poetry that was originally titled ‘woman as artist’.
Somehow the universe agreed it was good, and after a series of happy coincidences the result is that this is my first commercially published work.
Lionstower Books are releasing Artist in Recovery first via Amazon, on 4 November.
About Artist in Recovery
As I reconnected with my inner artist, this work of poetry emerged. It explores the dark, scary, solitary transformation of Maiden to Mother. That transformation is one you traverse blind, one whose process is known by every mother but one of which nothing is spoken. It is one that is filled with love, loneliness, and learning.
Ultimately, I wrote this poetry for you so that you can see women with new eyes. Women, all women, are divine creatures. They are portals to new lives and, thus, new worlds. They are all artists. Their default mode is “creator”. I realised that I could only know this now because of a specific rite of passage: Motherhood.May this work shine a new light for you on one of the most powerful moments in women’s lives. May it also encourage you to reconnect with your inner artist.
Links to the book will come to you as soon as I have them.
In the meantime, if you are a bookseller please reply and let me know if you’re interested in stocking this title.
If you know someone who is a bookseller, I’d be forever grateful for your warm introduction.
Malevolent creativity is apparently the study of creativity, where creativity is used for malevolent purposes. The phrasing has BIG problems. Here’s why.
I first saw the phrase malevolent creativity on LinkedIn. When I saw it, I experienced a physical effect, as if having been punched in the gut. ‘What on earth do these people mean?’ I wondered. ‘How can creativity be malevolent?’ It was in the spirit of these wonderings that I made a comment on the post, to the effect that creativity cannot possibly be malevolent. That the creatures using creativity to achieve malevolent ends are problem. That this phrasing creates certain expectations in the minds of those who hear it, as does all language.
What I learned is that there is a relatively new branch of academia, focusing on creativity, that focuses on malevolent uses of creativity. Instead of calling a spade a spade, however, someone (or a group of someones) decided that it’s creativity that is malevolent instead.
Do you feel the looming, dark shadows rising out of the horizon at this idea, as I do? Do you hear the warnings in the wind, the whispers of demons, and the threat to your viable life as a creator, as I do?
If you don’t, you ought to.
Creativity cannot be malevolent
In the beginning there was linguistics, and linguistics defines rules that tell us about actors and non-actors. Creativity it is not an actor. It is the state of being creative. That state cannot exist without someone — an actor — experiencing that state. The term creativity was first used to describe a state of ‘being imaginative’ in the 1800s. It’s recent usage, in other words.
The critical point here, in case you missed it, is that it is about the state ‘of being creative’.
The term ‘creativity’ doesn’t tell us who is being creative. Creativity is not creative. You have to pair it with a being that has agency in order to make creativity come to life. The person being creative is using creativity.
On the other side of the equation, we have the term ‘malevolent’. This term also has issues in a broader context. It means ‘wishing evil to others; or ‘having an evil disposition toward another or others’. Since the Middle Ages, the term evil has focused on moral badness though prior to that time ‘evil’ had a much broader definition.
Moral badness can only exist within a creature who possesses morals, an understanding of a social structure that defines morality. Again, you need an actor, an agent, to behave morally.
So if creativity is not an actor, how can creativity do things? If creativity is not an actor or an agent, how can it behave morally? How can it wish evil to others? How can creativity be anything, whether evil or comedic or inspiring or [insert thing]?
You may as well talk about malevolent sentimentality. Malevolent audacity. Malevolent obesity. It’s just ridiculous.
Creativity can’t be malevolent.
Defenders tell me I’m the problem
Of course, because I ‘can’t see’ the new shapes of creativity, I’m the problem. I was told that I have a problem seeing the fulness of creativity. This in the face of the person telling me about my limitation not even recognising the linguistic structure of the phrase. Perhaps I ought to have told him that he had a problem ‘seeing the phrase’.
The big-picture problem with the phrase is that it’s a short step from telling people that ‘creativity’ is malevolent to outlawing creativity. That’s what happened in the Middle Ages. Art was outlawed for fear that it would be confused with pagan worship. Almost all artistic practice was destroyed. That’s what the Renaissance was: The rebuilding of creative practice in service of art. What it does is divide humans into “those who are helpfully creative according to the ruling class’s definition of helpful”, and those who are not.
I’m calling it now: It’s a day, not far away, in which uncontrolled creative practices will be outlawed for fear they will be confused with terrorism, racism, conservative perspectives or whatever it is that the ruling class decides is cancel-worthy this week. I’m calling it now because that’s the pathway that malevolent creativity takes us on.
Instead of examining the actor doing the nasty stuff, which is the proper domain for discussions about their uses of creativity, this bullshyte area of study plonks it into studies of creativity. It is better plonked inside psychology. Perhaps study the creativity of psychopaths in order to better understand how the minds of psychopaths work. Or go and study murderers like Ted Bundy to understand how creativity relates to mathematics (as another example): He couldn’t see the problem with murdering people because there are ‘so many’ people! It’s not the creativity that was the problem. It was a conception of numbers. Perhaps mathematics would be malevolent too, if it weren’t one of the sexy members of STEM.
In any case, the vision of malevolent creativity is misaligned. It is a desperate attempt to create something new out of an old, worn-out trope. To get funding. To make universities somehow relevant. To give those who would otherwise use their own creativity to improve the world by making something new, to ignore their inner artists and focus elsewhere.
Study how people use creativity, fine. Don’t tell us that creativity is evil.
Humans are inherently creative and terminology is not inert
Every problem you solve, you use creativity to do it. That problem might be getting an apple tree to grow; it might be wiping people out of existence. Remember the Hermetic Laws: Everything exists on a spectrum.
If we begin to categorise an incredible power like ‘creativity’ into little boxes of type, defined by a ruling class’s definition of what is ok, we suddenly destroy that power. We create new ways of judging people and their creative outputs. Regardless of the end-point of that creativity, creativity is an amazing facility. Let’s not destroy it.
It is important to understand that language IS. Language changes, yes. Every word in the language carries a history that imparts itself to those who use it whether those people realise the history or not. Think about how you relate to the word ‘work’, and then go and read Work: The last 1000 years to really understand that.
Words are magical, because they are not inert. They inspire emotions, emotions inspire thoughts, thoughts inspire actions, actions create behaviours, situations, things. Thoughts become things. Any manifesty person will tell you that. Hell, even Julia Cameron will tell you that!
This is why malevolent creativity is destructive. It is a shortcut that tells people that their creativity is (or could be) evil. That creativity can be evil. If creativity can be evil then surely we ought to control it? And how do we control it? By making rules that stifle creation.
That’s not a world I want to live in. Do you?
Did you enjoy this? Get The Letter and unlock even more:
1+ letters per month by either email (sign up below) or in your real-life letterbox (sign up here instead).