The Man Comes Around

(originally written 4-10-09 but never published)

Opening Introduction (Spoken part)

And I heard as it were the noise of thunder
One of the four beasts saying come and see and I saw
And behold a white horse

Song

There's a man going around taking names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Everybody won't be treated all the same
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down
When the Man comes around

The hairs on your arm will stand up
At the terror in each sip and in each sup
Will you partake of that last offered cup?
Or disappear into the potter's ground
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling, voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

Till Armageddon no shalam, no shalom
Then the father hen will call his chickens home
The wise man will bow down before the throne
And at His feet they'll cast their golden crowns
When the Man comes around

Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling and voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

In measured hundred weight and penney pound
When the Man comes around.

Close (Spoken part)
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

"The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash

Lines on the Sphere

For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great,
You who distress the righteous and accept bribes
And turn aside the poor in the gate.
Therefore at such a time the prudent person keeps silent, for it is an evil time.
Seek good and not evil, that you may live;
And thus may the LORD God of hosts be with you,
Just as you have said!
Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the gate!

Amos 5: 12-15

Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Amos 5: 23-24

Do horses run on rocks?
Or does one plow them with oxen?
Yet you have turned justice into poison
And the fruit of righteousness into wormwood

Amos 6: 12

(Okay, for the mathematicians and other science types, I know I'm taking liberties with this lines-and-spheres metaphor, but I think it works somewhat for my purposes.)

While the United States Constitution guarantees us the Freedom of Religion and forbids the establishment of a mandatory State Religion, too many postmodern "thinkers" have decided that the only way to protect these rules is to completely eliminate all religious influences from public life. Well, it should be logically obvious that such thinking clearly cannot be defended because it violates its own premise of Freedom. How can restricting the "free exercise" of religion in the public sphere be consistent with protecting any true Freedom? Some might object and insist that they are guaranteed some "freedom from religion" and that all public places should be free of any kind of religious symbolism or other influences, but that kind of 'reasoning' does not fit on a sphere where it does not intersect with other fully reasoned freedoms. How else can I make it obvious that one cannot violate a basic principle with such an exception? We know that parallel lines on a sphere will eventually always intersect, and this is not a flat world.

Basic principles and fundamental laws and liberties cannot be breached for the sake of "exceptions." And to favor or champion the exceptions at the expense of the basic and fundamental is inconsistent with reason, justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

An inconvenient reality for the postmodern Constitutional flatlanders is that our entire system of Freedoms is dependent upon the Christian concepts of morality. As Christ taught people how to live in peace and harmony with one another, and he insisted that all men treat each other with the same esteem and respect as themselves. He berated the leaders who did not live in accordance with these principles.

Jesus answered, "How terrible also for you teachers of the Law! You put onto people's backs loads which are hard to carry, but you yourselves will not stretch out a finger to help them carry those loads

Luke 11:46

"How terrible for you teachers of the Law! You have kept the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge; you yourselves will not go in, and you stop those who are trying to go in!"

Luke 11:52

It seems to me that the downfall of our Constitution (and arguably, our society) began with the illogical and errant Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education which used faulty sociological reasons for declaring that "separate is inherently unequal." Now, no one should confuse himself that I am defending racism or any kind of mandatory segregation. That is NOT my point and that does not fit anywhere on the Sphere of Freedom. My argument is that the very idea that 'separate cannot be equal' is completely wrong and unnecessary to assure equal freedoms. Racism is not an argument I am pursuing, and I will not engage in it at this time except to suggest that one look at the evidence of the last 40 or so years that shows us the steady decline in the quality of education and social conditions since the Court ruling. Usually such evidence speaks for itself.

Jesus Christ himself was arguing that separate IS equal - that all men are equal in the eyes of God (and should be in the eyes of the law) even if they are "separated" by the natural variations of life experience and conditions. And this idea is at the heart of our American psyche and soul:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What that means is basically the same as what Jesus Christ taught his disciples about their own status in the world:

And there was an argument among them about which of them was the greatest. And he said, The kings of the Gentiles are lords over them, and those who have authority are given names of honour. But let it not be so with you; but he who is greater, let him become like the younger; and he who is chief, like a servant. For which is greater, the guest who is seated at a meal or the servant who is waiting on him? is it not the guest? but I am among you as a servant.

But you are those who have kept with me through my troubles; And I will give you a kingdom as my Father has given one to me, So that you may take food and drink at my table in my kingdom, and be seated like kings, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22: 24-30

Of course, Jesus Christ required that men accept the judgment of God over the judgment of other men in order to have eternal life in heaven. While these are religious requirements, one cannot dismiss or deny the basic truth of equality within the statements. Our Founding Fathers knew, and assumed that others would know, the biblical basis of their own principles. However, it cannot be considered any kind of co-mingling of Church and State to have your basic principles founded in the truths that are shared by a religion. It is merely an intersection of the parallels on the sphere

Transcend the Poison and Boot the Bastards

This whole financial scandal is full of poison, and it's making many of us very sick. On top of that I've been dealing with my own monthly possession by some kind of evil, satirical demon, as well as going through a battery of tests to make sure there isn't any more cancer trying poison my body. I am working on transcending all of this poison. Here is a dose of reality to try to help others transcend it too.

Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending.

However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.

May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.

October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:

Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.

...

The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."

The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.

That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah

All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?

Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:

Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”

Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.

Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.

My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.

Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.

Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:

... the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)

As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.

At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.

I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.

Amen, go in peace. :-)

Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)

Because I'm Worth It

(I used to work for L'Oreal, by the way, in my pre-vicious momma life.)

There is a price for availability. Nothing is free. I've said this before, I think. As you might have noticed in the last post, Vicious Momma has a new rule. "No free rides- ass, grass, or gas." (that order is negotiable ;-) ) I've realized that I do an awful lot of things for "free" that many people get paid, often large sums, to do. So, I'm taking some advice from someone and raising my price. If there is a long line (and there is actually) then the price is too low. That is the principle upon which this advice was given. Well, hell, let's try it out and see if it works.

Anyway, I've been moping around lately needing some motherly nurturing. I need to go see my "hired mom" (counselor). I pay her $80 (thereabouts) to be motherly for 50 minutes. She gives support and good advice, just like my mom used to do. For whatever reasons (actually, the cost was one consideration because almost a thousand bucks a year is a lot of money) I haven't been maintaining my monthly appointments with her for probably most of this year, and I'm suffering for that.

She frequently has told me that I am worth more than I expect and she has wondered why I don't value myself more. Well, there's neither the time nor space to explain all of that right now. ;-) One day I surprised her. Our session was much more intense than usual because I finally lifted a different part of my mask and showed her a new mess underneath. She had no idea I hid such a chaotic wreckage of guilt and conflict. I hide it well sometimes, even when I'm supposed to be showing it. See, the fear is that even someone paid to look would be so annoyed, disturbed, horrified, bored, uninterested or whatever that they "quit" me. Actually, I think the fear of abandonment is the primary root of all insecurities and problems. Not sure who said that first. Maybe I'll look it up later.

In thinking about what today's sermonette would cover I decided to consult the great oracle box: the TV. Since I like to think that I'm 'attuned' to the underlying currents I thought I'd check and see what the TV preachers were talking about today. Well, wouldn't you know it? The first sermon I found was about value and self worth and all of that. Coincidence, you say? Heh, whatever.

I'm in a bit of a hurry today so I didn't listen too long to the sermon because I got the confirmation that I needed pretty quickly. And don't we all love when that happens? I sure do!

Anyway, this preacher was talking about how if we don't value ourselves then we are not valuing God. By hating or rejecting ourselves we are hating and rejecting God and all the things He has done for us. I missed the scriptures he used to back up his statements, but I've listened to this guy before and he's pretty good so I trust that he's not just blowing smoke. His basic point was that if God didn't value us then we wouldn't have all of this (life, the world, and so), and so in order to please God we should value ourselves, each other, and the world.

That jealous God of the Old Testament just wanted to be appreciated and recognized. Much like anyone else who does so much for "free." In trying to get man's attention he did many things, most notably, sending his Son to die for man's salvation. "For God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) In God's efforts to show us how much he values us he also realized that we humans tend not to value those things that are free. So he set one condition, or price, for our salvation. No more free rides, He said. You see, even God doesn't give free rides, so why should I? Indeed, there is a price for all of life. And if we don't value ourselves, no one else will.

I think I have an appointment to make soon... And that's today's Sunday Sermonette.


Afterthought: Like Stephen Hawking, I know the mind of God. And let me tell you, it's very interesting but only in finite portions. ;-)

Dear Pope Benedict XVI,

I'm not sure of the proper way to address your Excellency or whatever. ;-) Please forgive my American informality. With all due respect I admire your intelligence, reason, faith, and diplomacy. If I may, I'd like to make you an unusual offer. In light of the recent controversy over your words about the nature of Islam and the resulting confirmation of your statements, I'd like to provide you with an opportunity to express how you really feel about the death threats and other nonsense in a personal and private way.

Sometimes it's necessary to express our displeasure through some form of empathic projection or other therapy. I realize that you have a real close relationship with God and that He sustains you in all the ways you need, but I think God would not be too upset with you if you joined me for a little joyride. Sometimes when I'm feeling put-upon I'll get in my (red) Corvette convertible and drive around playing some loud music. This is a "safe" way to express the thoughts and feelings I have that I can't otherwise fully express in good conscience.

What in particular I have in mind is that we could listen to "Ridin" by Chamillionaire and sing along but change some of the words if you'd like. The first part is okay as is (actually it's the best part):

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin'
And tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
My music so loud;
I'm swangin'
They hopin'
That they gon' catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty

Well, don't you agree that it fits with your situation? Those crazy Jihadists love to try to catch you ridin' dirty (criticizing Islam). In this next part you can think of the "police" and "law" as the Jihadists, and you can think of all the other stuff as just 'fluff' that makes you feel like a badass, kind of like all the papal vestments and all that. ;-) The parts that I've made bold type are parts that I think you'd really appreciate.

Police think they can see me lean;
I'm tint so it ain't easy to be seen.
They see me ride by, they can see the glean
And my shine on the deck and the TV screen.
Ride with a new chick, she like "Hold up."
Next to the Playstation controlla;
well have a full clip, in my pistolla
that I'm a send a jacker into a coma.
Girl, you ain't know, I'm crazy like Krayzie Bone;
Just tryin' to bone, ain't tryin' to have no babies.
Ride clean as hell so I pull in ladies.
Law's on patrol; you know they hate me.
Music turned all the way up and to the maximum;
I can speak for some niggas tryin' to jack for some.
But we packin' somethin' that we have
And, um, will have a nigga locked up in the maximum
Security cell. I'm grippin' oak.
Music loud and the tippin' slow.
Twins steady twistin' like hit this dough;
Police pull up from behind and I'm sittin low.
Windows down, gotta stop pollution.
CDs change; niggas like "Who is that producin'?"
This the Play-N-Skillz when we out and cruisin'
Got warrants in every city except Houston
But I still ain't losin'.

But really, the content of the verses is kind of hard to understand, and it might be better if you didn't understand them anyway. ;-) But the chorus is great and sounds really good in my car. The point is to allow yourself to temporarily feel the indignation and redirect it through the music and the wind blowing past you. It will make you feel better. I call it Corvette Therapy. :-) (for a preview, click here)

And I totally respect your oath of celibacy and all those other concerns. You do not need to worry about being in a fast sports car with a hot-blooded American woman. I promise I won't put a move on you or anything. You'll be perfectly safe. (you're a little 'mature' for me anyway) ;-)

So just think about it and let me know if you think you'd like to try it. I might even let you drive a little, which is a huge thing because I don't let anybody (except grudgingly my husband sometimes) drive my Corvette. But if you can't trust the Pope then who can you trust? Do you know how to drive? It's an automatic so it's easy, but don't let that make you think it's not powerful and quick and very responsive. It is. Very.

I'd be most pleased to be able to fulfill this offer. Thanks. And stay tough and hang in there.

Most respectfully and sincerely,

Rae Ann (a.k.a. Vicious Momma)


PS If you like "Ridin'" you might like Snoop Dogg's "Drop It Like It's Hot" too.

PPS Just last night I heard Weird Al's parody of "Ridin'" ("White and Nerdy"). Visit Weird Al's MySpace Page to hear it. It's hilarious!

Magic Words and Alchemy

Much of the Cognitive brand of psychology tells us that we create our own reality with our thoughts and perceptions. A nice summary (from the above linked wikipedia article) of this approach to psychology is as follows:

Cognitive theory contends that solutions to problems take the form of algorithms—rules [processes] that are not necessarily understood but promise a solution, or heuristics—rules [exploratory or trial-and-error processes] that are understood but that do not always guarantee solutions. In other instances, solutions may be found through insight, a sudden awareness of relationships [intuition].

I must confess that I've had a longterm love/hate relationship with this Cognitive approach. While it seems to be one of the 'best' approaches to understanding our minds it still is missing something. And those "rules that are understood but that do not always guarantee solutions" are just not satisfying. When I was in school there was little discussion about the physical/biological aspects of our thoughts and behavior other than some brain anatomy about which structures were 'believed' to be related to different thought processes, etc., and even then the brain imaging technologies were still in their infancies so we just didn't know that much. All of that is probably the main reason I was unsatisfied with this 'cognitive only' approach. Apparently, many other people felt this same way because these fields were much more widely researched and developed shortly after I graduated.

Now I have the benefit of many more years of living and experience to add to my education. I've had plenty of time to observe, examine, study, and learn about my own thought processes and behaviors so that I've been able to figure out what's what (for the most part). Of course, not all people are like me so I can't assume that because something works for me that it must work for everyone else. But it's probably safe to assume that I'm not an anomaly either.

Besides, one of the things I've noticed over the years is that the things I get interested in are almost always very 'popular' soon after I get into them. I think it's just that I somehow have insights about future events/trends a little sooner than most people. And largely, when I talk about being "psychic" that is what I mean- "having insights about future events/trends sooner than most people." However, as I get older I'm finding that I'm becoming more accurate in more 'specific predictions' in addition to the more general trends. Maybe this is some brain mechanism or process that "burns" an 'easy track' in the neurons so that it speeds up with use. Maybe it's like a 'smoothing' or 'polishing' effect more than just a simple 'carving' out of space. Whoa, where'd that come from?? *snickers*

(Okay, so, I just got a little lost in the smoothing-and-polishing visuals ;-), sorry.)

"Neural Perturbations"


Anyway, this cognitive approach to understanding behavior has successfully spawned a large movement of psycho-spirituality which advocates the idea that we are ultimately in control of our mental environment (and by extension our outer environment somewhat) by adjusting our thoughts and perceptions of the world and how we react to them. The Four Agreements are a reflection of this movement, too, even though the Toltec Wisdom that bases them is much older than modern cognitive psychology. Part of this psycho-spiritual movement's growth has happened because of the compatibility of that older wisdom with the newer 'discoveries.' And in many ways it can and does work for people. We can stop thinking a certain way about things and therefore change our 'reality' (extrinsic and intrinsic environments) within limits.

But at what point does it fail to work? I've always thought that it is at some physical or biological point in the process, a threshold of sorts. I'm tempted to call this the Point of Alchemy*, meaning the point of "an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting," but that term is not optimistic enough for me. ;-)

It's pretty clear that there are many things we can't do just by thinking about it. We can't think up a rose out of thin air. We can't change water into wine just by thinking it. But at some point we are able to alter our reality with our thoughts, and by extension, with our words. And this is pretty much the basis of the Cognitive Therapies as well as the concepts of prayer and magical incantations.

We have lots of 'magic' words - words we can say that change our realities. Probably one of the most powerful is "love." If someone tells us, "I love you," it has the power to make us soar. How is it that one word (or three) can have so much power or 'magic'? And in case someone's heart is so hardened that "love" can't work its magic there is most likely some other word that would work just as well to change that person's reality.

Cognitive therapies are largely based on 'talk therapy' and working on 'controlling' or altering thoughts and behaviors through the use of words. The same is true for prayer (spoken or not). This cognitive practice in whatever form it takes can work at large scales of influence on people just as it can work on individuals. I think a good example might be the way the media can use particular words to alter reality. But again, I'm asking myself about the boundaries, or thresholds, or constraints. ;-)

Let's return to the quote at the beginning about cognitive problem solving. What it seems we need is something to 'consummate' or bridge the gap between the "algorithms" and the "heuristics". Even in psychology we need a 'unifying' theory of everything. Is it some 'physical' or biological process at which this 'alchemy' of reality happens? We know that many psychiatric drugs work by altering the 'chemical imbalances' that result in 'wrong' thoughts and behaviors. It seems we understand the chemistry of that action. But what about the changes that aren't assisted by introduced chemicals? What about those changes we induce ourselves by our own thoughts, etc.? Through biofeedback we do know of some things we can alter by our thoughts, like heartrate, pain relief, etc. But again, we don't know exactly why or how or to what extent.

I certainly hope that whenever someone does discover and 'prove' a Theory of Everything that he/she or another someone will be able to translate it easily enough to terms that describe how our minds work. And in many ways translations are a type of magic words and alchemy too. ;-)


--------
*Alchemy was the medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to live forever, unless you could remain at your youthful peak forever. ;-) And besides, I think that life is indefinitely prolonged no matter what we do. That's probably my Christian upbringing and its "eternal life/eternal damnation" influence showing. ;-)