A Devil Put Aside For Me

My animus has been drained by all of the events of the last few years, especially last year. I'm speaking of the Jungian idea of the "life energy" that keeps us going. Jung was basically describing the psychology of shamanism, so if you think he was a crackpot then I guess I am one too. ;-) His "science" wasn't that of experiments and formulas but of observation, perception, and intuition. Maybe he was more of a philosopher than a scientist, but does it really matter so much?

Human nature has changed little, if at all, since humans have become literate. We're no better or smarter, really, than the people who lived thousands of years ago. Maybe we are a little cleaner and more comfortable, but ultimately we have not eliminated our biological and animalistic instincts and urges. Through neither "behavioral" therapy nor "cognitive" therapy have we succeeded in defeating our basic nature. And why should we anyway?

Even the Bible tells us this:

The Futility of All Endeavor

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
3 What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun?
4 A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever.
5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.
6 Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns.
7 All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again.
8 All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
9 That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new”? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us.
11 There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11

For those who think the Bible is only full of stories of an angry, immature God, well, they just don't know.

I need to regain my health and well-being, whatever it takes. The drive of self-preservation has kicked in, so to speak. So much of my life has been spent on others - helping them heal, helping them die, helping them with whatever demons they were fighting. This is the job of a shaman after all. But even the shaman needs healing sometimes. There is a time for all things. The Bible tells us this too:

A Time for Everything

1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—
2 A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to mourn and a time to dance.
5 A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7 A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak.
8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.
9 What profit is there to the worker from that in which he toils? 10 I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-10

The hunter has to hunt. The cat has to prowl. The cougar has to prey. The trickster has to trick, and the joker has to joke. Jung would agree.



"Ten Years Gone" Led Zeppelin

Typealyzer Blog Personality

via Backreaction

Typealyzer says it can guess the personality of a text, or communication style, but does note that "writing style on a blog may have little or nothing to do with a person´s self-percieved personality." According to their calculations I'm a Hoe (as well as all of my other blogs - public and private) is this:

ISTP - The Mechanics

The independent and problem-solving type. They are especially attuned to the demands of the moment are masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously. They generally prefer to think things out for themselves and often avoid inter-personal conflicts.



The Mechanics enjoy working together with other independent and highly skilled people and often like [to] seek fun and action both in their work and personal life. They enjoy adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters.

Analysis

This show what parts of the brain that were dominant during writing.



Add to that the gender analysis of this blog from GenderAnalyzer that says:

We think http://viciousmomma.blogspot.com is written by a man (87%).

And it appears that by some kind of "statistical analyses" I should be a male, but I am most definitely a woman, at least my body that produced three children is female. :-)

I suppose that despite being a "vicious momma" my being a "hoe" which is a type of tool does fit the mechanic theme. And since most mechanics are males that use tools then these results make some kind of sense.

Being labeled as a Mechanic might also be related to my fixing things. And the description about liking adventure and fast cars fits well too. Though I've never had any desire to be a cop or fireman I do sometimes fantasize about being a super-hero vigilante. ;-) That goes along with the problem solving combined with the liking action and adventure, don't you think?

But in other personality tests I've been INFJ or "Counselor" type. Maybe in my writing I am much more analytical while in my in-person relations I am much more empathetic and "fuzzy". ;-) However, I can see some congruity of these different personality results. Probably the same active problem-solving tendency occurs whether I'm dealing with things or people.

The Tragic Religion of Rationality

Scientists (and some others) like to tell us that ours is a world that can be understood and experienced through rationality alone. Well, you know what? They are wrong. Our world is not purely rational and to expect it to be is some kind of delusion of grandeur and narcissism. Some scientists have discovered that our universe does not actually behave as they expect it too according to their "laws" and principles, and some therefore imply that the universe is somehow behaving "unnaturally" or something. Okay, maybe I really am that dumb, but I would think that if your laws and principles don't match your experience then it's not the experiences that are faulty. It is the expectations that are faulty. You see, human "rationality" is not infallible and it is not ever going to completely agree with the whole of reality. Okay, unless you decide to create strict little conditions, that is, which severely limit all the possibilities. But that is a very unnatural (and tragic) way of looking at big complexities in the same way as some tiny little speck of energy or whatever.

So where does the religion of rationality fail? It fails when the scientists' observations and experiences fail to match their expectations. Why doesn't the world unfold in the exact way that they demand? It's because their "rationality" is limited by its inability to account for irrationality, unexpectedness, and other surprises. They just cannot reconcile the "quantum" nature of life with their strict "standard model" of what is supposed to work and what they want to work. It's all about them and how they want the world to conform to their expectations. Guess what? It is irrational to expect the world to always look, feel, respond, or behave in the way you have decided is the only right way. And it will only lead one to a very lonely and unsatisfying life if one thinks he can reject all things that don't agree with his expectations and "rational" conclusions.

Why is this religion of rationality tragic? Well, because it causes people to limit their options and possibilities by defining something "irrational" which can mean anything from "unlikely" or "untenable" or "impossible." I do believe that anytime someone limits his experiences in life because something will probably require some extra effort and "faith" that it will work out it is a tragedy because there is no growth/progress/learning without trying new and possibly difficult things. Did the Wright Brothers stop trying to fly just because it was "irrational" for men to believe it was possible? Did John McCain give up when he was beaten, broken, and near death in a prison camp just because survival looked impossible and irrational? Do men and women stop falling in love and marrying just because the survival of a marriage is statistically unlikely and "irrational" because their biological makeup is designed for something other than lifelong monogamy? Fear is the rational response to many situations, but sometimes people don't rely on that rationality and instead decide to fight against the odds, even if the odds are very much against them.

I've seen a "proof" that equality is an irrational concept because it has no real physical basis. I find that a tragic conclusion because it does not allow that human beings can transcend their "purely physical" biology. It only looks at some discreet measurements of human bodies and brains but it does not look at the deeper value of life itself. Do we decide that some human lives are less valuable than some others just because of some somewhat artificially determined measurements of their biologies? I don't think that is really and truly a moral, or even rational, approach. Equality exists in the human mind that can actually see more than just the sum of the parts. Maybe some people just cannot conceive of something being greater than the sum of its parts, but thousands of years of human experience have illustrated very different conclusions. Does that thing that is greater than the sum of the parts actually exist? I think it does even though we haven't yet found a way to measure it in some "real physical" way. Is that irrational?

I think that the religion of rationality fails to account for the way that rationality isn't always exact and unchanging. What we see as rational options now might have been seen as crazy fantasies hundreds of years ago. How does that change? It changes because some people are willing to reject strict rules of "rationality" to imagine the "impossible" and to actually have the courage to try to make it possible. To borrow a phrase from Obama, et al, it is the "audacity of hope" that drives many instances of transcending the "rational."

Of course, some rational things can't be changed, just like the omnipotent God trying to convince the immovable object to move. That immovable object keeps telling the God that it is irrational to listen to an irrational God at all and that it is too difficult to try to move anyway. So the God just keeps on making circles around that object so that they are stuck in some swirling "singularity" of conflict between the known and unknown, the real and the imagined, the rational and the irrational, much like the Yin Yang symbol:

Free Photos

Well, of course, all of this is just a bunch of irrational mumbo-jumbo, but it is that irrational mumbo-jumbo that has really and truly propelled humanity to transcend its perceived physical limits, and I think it will be truly tragic if humanity forgets its "divine" nature and relies only on what it sees as "rational". Honestly, how many times has it changed the world for the better when people chose to limit themselves to what they believed were the only "rational" options?

Roll With the Changes

I knew it had to happen
Felt the tables turnin'
Got me through my darkest hour
I heard the thunder clappin'
Felt the desert burnin'
Until you poured on me
Like a sweet sunshower

"Roll With the Changes" by REO Speedwagon

Usually I do a year-end retrospective and review the major events of the year, but I think I'll skip it this year. Let's just say it's been a real roller coaster year, literally and figuratively. If I tried to go over all the losses and traumas of the year it might sound like I was trying to write a Book of Job Lite (50% less heavy than the original). ;-)

Of course, it all hasn't been bad. And focusing only on the hard times isn't a healthy perspective anyway. If I had to concentrate the lessons of it all into one word, I think that faith is it. I've learned a deeper meaning to faith than the one that its critics like to use (believing blindly or some such thing). Faith is an intellectual decision to be satisfied with knowing something without a physical sign of it. There are many physical things that are fleeting and ultimately unnecessary for us to know what they symbolize. The physical world is sometimes only a symbolic representation of our ideas and feelings, or even our very existence. If those symbols disappear it does not mean that our ideas and feelings never existed or don't continue to exist. This is what I mean by faith. A true knowing without the need for 'evidence'. I don't see this as a weakness or whatever else certain types of people call it. I see it as a strength and maturity and trust.

I know you're an emotional girl
It took a lot for you to not lose your faith in this world
I can't offer you proof
But you're going to face a moment of truth
It's hard when you're always afraid
You just recover when another belief is betrayed
So break my heart if you must
It's a matter of trust

"A Matter of Trust" by Billy Joel

Indeed, faith and trust go hand in hand. And without them we can't roll with the changes, which is essential to survival. So fasten your seat belts, make sure your lapbar is securely in the locked position, hang on, and enjoy the ride!

And Happy New Year 2008!

Where the Streets Have No Name

Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future

Fly Like An Eagle by Steve Miller Band

It's never been a big secret that I am somewhat certifiably insane. I'm not ashamed in the same way that anyone with any other chronic condition should not be ashamed. Is Stephen Hawking ashamed of his condition? I don't know. I doubt it because he, like me, probably realizes that shame is a total waste of valuable mental energy. Some people might not like that comparison of Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS) with mental illness, but in reality both are chronic conditions that affect the nerves and brain. And even with treatment, those with mental illness are never really "cured" just like they still have no cure for ALS. I find it a bit concerning that some illnesses gain a celebrity importance while others that are more prevalent and just as dangerous are left in the shadows, or where the streets have no name.

I could continue my rant about the history of mistreatment of mental illnesses and the continuing social disinterest and stigmas, but I'm not really up to giving a good enough rant at the moment. I've got some mental "house cleaning" to do.

It's been painfully apparent to me from my earliest social memories that I've not been like the "typical" females. Maybe it was an early sign of my later problems. I don't believe that it is a social conditioning problem. It must surely be some inherent, genetic trait. My sister is very much a "typical" female. We were raised in the same conditions so it doesn't follow that upbringing had anything to do with it. Incidentally, although we love each other very much, we do acknowledge that we are completely different and not always compatible. This has got to be because of my inability to "understand" typical female behaviors and thinking. Maybe it's a type of autism? ;-) After all, nowadays they say 1 in 166 kids are autistic, so why wouldn't that apply to adults too? (I don't "believe" in most of the new "epidemics" because the numbers of certain conditions aren't actually increasing. The rate of recognition and diagnosis is increasing.)

Well, anyway, there is one particular type of female that I've never been able to tolerate. That is the catty woman. (More modernly known as the female 'bully') My own definition of a catty woman is a woman who insults and picks on other women in ways that mostly only other women recognize. As you can read in some of the articles linked above, female bullies are often charming and clever so that they disguise their true natures, especially to males because they are so easily fooled by women. ;-) Well, I would consider it a somewhat "typical" female trait to consciously try to make oneself look better than she really is (especially to males). I think it is fair to say that one reason men aren't as perceptive of many female tactics is because their corpus callosum (not to be confused with Corpus Spongiosum or Cavernosum) are smaller which limits their ability to process social interactions.





Hey, maybe my corpus callosum is too small and that's why I have trouble with some women? I guess they don't make a magic pill for that since I don't ever get any spam emails offering some wonder drug or herbal supplement to "increase your corpus callosum by three inches!" If you ask me, that might be more beneficial to the world than a pill meant to increase the "corpus spongiosum (or cavernosum)" by three inches. ;-)

Where was I? It's hard to find your way when the streets have no name. (lol, yeah, that was pretty lame)

No really, what was I going to say? Was I finished about the catty women? I'm not sure, but I'll move along anyway. I am capable of engaging in catty behavior in response to someone being catty to me. Sometimes that is enough to stop them, but when it's not I'll just fight like a man. Life is too short to waste time verbally sparring with some catty bitch when really all it takes to shut her up is to "manhandle" her. Anyone of any gender who's ever been bullied knows that the only effective way of stopping a bully is to beat the crap out of them. That way you've taken all their power away. It might not be pretty, but if it works it's okay. And really, any bully who's dumb enough to pick another fight with someone who's beat them really needs to be beat again. ;-)

I'm aware that some people find this attitude distasteful and uncouth and offensive. Fine. Whatever works for you. But I'm betting that my approach is more effective. Oh, I just thought of something. You could compare female bully behavior to those who demand "political correctness" and other such totalitarian things. The "consensus" on global warming uses the same tactics as female bullies to try to discredit anyone who questions them. Maybe that will make it more understandable to men if I give examples like that. I would say, what's the difference in people doing that to each other's groups and individuals doing it to each other? It's all the same with the same end results. So it's despicable behavior regardless of how many people are involved.

Oh, yeah, and to some men, when a woman fights back like a man, they will mistakenly think that she is the bully and not the other one. They are the easily fooled and charmed guys with a really tiny corpus callosum. ;-) (As far as I know there is no correlation between callosum size and spongiosum/cavernosum size.)

You know, I really need to stop bringing up the spongiosum/cavernosum because it keeps making me lose my thoughts. ;-)

By the way, I'm fairly certain that perimenopause has begun and it feels exactly like being a teenager again. It's just like adolescence except in the other direction. Anyone who remembers a difficult adolescence should empathize.

I'm pretty sure I had more to say, but I'm getting hungry. Since my appetite has been bad lately I should eat. (was trying to think of some funny joke about sponge cake but ???)


Addendum: Very strange. Today must be "crazy movie day" on the cable movie channels. First I saw "Mad Love" (1995) with Drew Barrymore and then "Proof" (2005) with Gwyneth Paltrow. I hadn't seen either of them before and enjoyed both. "Proof" was especially interesting and it "hit home" in some non-trivial ways. One thing was that the sisters' relationship reflected much of what I wrote above about "typical" women and not "typical" ones. (Paltrow's sister character was the "typical" one.) But of course, no mathematical proofs are involved in my own personal issues, though if I had to pick something to try to prove it would be that God does exist. ;-)

SEX

How's that for an attention grabbing title? ;-)

Top 10 Reasons Why Men and Women Have Sex

Women

1. I was attracted to the person
2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure
3. It feels good
4. I wanted to show my affection to the person
5. I wanted to express my love for the person
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release
7. I was "horny"
8. It's fun
9. I realized I was in love
10. I was "in the heat of the moment"

Men

1. I was attracted to the person
2. It feels good
3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure
4. It's fun
5. I wanted to show my affection to the person
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release
7. I was "horny"
8. I wanted to express my love for the person
9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm
10. I wanted to please my partner

Source: "Why Humans Have Sex." (PDF) Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss. Archives of Sexual Behavior, August 2007.

The Joker

Some people call me the space cowboy
Yeah
Some call me the gangster of love

"The Joker" by Steve Miller Band

My oldest is very interested in card tricks and other illusionist/magic stuff and was opening a new pack of cards. He asked me why there were always Jokers in decks of cards. Since I don't really know much about card games I told him that it's probably because some games need them, but I don't know for sure.

In Tarot, the Fool card is somewhat related to the Joker somewhere back in their histories.


Please click picture to be able to read the meaning next to it, but "ancana" should be "arcana". Sorry for the error.

Along comes a Trickster.

About six months ago I solved the riddle of my clown phobia.

There is a basic psychological truth that says we most fear those things that reflect the parts of ourselves that we hate or reject. I'm only now, at 39 years old, beginning to accept my fate or role as the Holy Fool, Trickster, Jester, Clown.

This is probably why I was such a quiet and shy child. I refused to be the Clown or Trickster but had not yet learned how to be something else. It took me a long time to learn how to provide comic relief, at least that's how I remember it. ;-) God love her and this is not a serious criticism, but my mother seemed to be startled or puzzled by me most of the time until I became an adult. I think I interpreted her puzzlement as disapproval or some other subtle form of persuasion to subdue my "tricksterness." Well, maybe that's just a bunch of psychobabble. ;-)

Whatever the reasons, being the Joker isn't as bad as my mom or I worried it would be. Maybe it's because being a gangster of love is pretty fun. ;-)

Previous mention of the Trickster

Freedom of Religion and Thought

Article I (First Amendment)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We have to remember that our founding fathers were reacting to England's struggles with the establishment of an 'official' religion. There was tremendous persecution done on behalf of religious differences. This was one of the main reasons that the colonists came here. This is why this issue is put first in the First Amendment. It was that important. It still is.

Let's look at what it says exactly. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." What that means is that there will be no law that establishes a National Religion of any kind. What it does not mean is that there can't be laws that respect religious establishments. But to hear some people talk you'd think that's what they think it means. They are totally misreading it. They want to think it means that the government can't have any religious expressions. But that's NOT what it says. People who object to "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and any other phrase that mentions God or any other religious concept are actually VIOLATING the First Amendment. They want to conveniently forget that "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part. Hello? Free exercise thereof. That means that I have every right to say Christmas, and so does my kids' school and the courthouse and any other person or place that wants to. Calling a decorated tree in a government building a 'Christmas tree' is NOT establishing a religion. It is only the free exercise thereof.

I know some people will say, "Oh, but what about other religions? Why can't they have whatever to celebrate their holidays? If you have a Christmas tree then you should have a Hanukkah tree or whatever too." Well, no one is stopping someone from doing that if they really want it. If you have a town that is mostly Jewish then they would probably focus on their own traditions. If a Christian minority there felt left out then they could do something of their own. Big deal. With freedom comes the responsibility to respect other views. That's what the whole First Amendment is about anyway. And that applies equally to atheists, fundamentalists, and everyone else. If someone is offended by a Christmas tree then they need to reread their history and the Constitution.

Our founding fathers were very spiritual people. They believed in God, and they believed that Divine Providence guided them in creating our nation. People need to go back and reread the Declaration of Independence. For your convenience here are the first two and the last paragraphs:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

There is a lot of mention of God in there. In today's political environment if we were trying to establish our Independence from Britain it would never happen because of all the dumbasses who can't understand plain English and who refuse to try. That really scares me and bothers me.

The previous was copied from a December 2005 posting.

Today I'd like to extend the discussion a bit. In the months since that posting it seems this issue has only gotten bigger and more serious. It not only affects holiday expressions but everyday issues.

Recently I've gone 'round and 'round with some angry atheists. They insist that Religion is the source of all evil in the world. Is that not the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Of course, no one denies that wars have been fought with Religion closely related to the conflicts. But to say that Religion is evil and has done no good for humanity is just plain dumb. Many wars have been fought over other basic needs, so should we also condemn those needs as well?

Like it or not, Religion is one of the pillars of civilization. It is one of those things that truly separated/separates us from the lower primates. To call for Religion to be abolished is about as silly as calling for architecture to be abolished.

Architecture is another pillar of civilization that has separated us from lower primates. It varies by culture and location, but it is always necessary for humans to survive. Physical shelter is one of our most basic needs, and the architecture that humans have developed and evolved over our history is evidence of our creativity in fulfilling our basic needs.

Religion is a kind of shelter too. It is a shelter for humanity to help it survive the social, emotional, and spiritual hardships that life entails. Religion is involved with fulfilling the basic need for social security (not at all the same as the government program called "Social Security"). Religion has given order and purpose to our lives. It has also varied according to culture and location, and it is evolving as our human society continues to grow. Without Religion humans would still be acting like wild animals with no "higher" attributes. To deny this fact is the same as a child thinking that because a ball is out of his sight, then it must not exist anymore.

Of course, anyone is free to disagree with me, but he would be wrong. ;-) I know my history and my psychology and my sociology and all those other "inferior" aspects of existence. But without them there would be no universities for those high falutin atheists to occupy and exercise their own freedoms. It is so very disturbing to me that these same atheists who claim that Religion is evil are the first ones to turn hateful and vengeful when they are questioned or confronted. Do they really "believe" in Freedom or anything else? I think not. Or at least, I see no evidence of it.

Hey, if someone wants to be an atheist I don't give two shits about it as long as they leave me and my religion alone. Freedom of Speech does not guarantee that atheists have to right to relentlessly criticize, belittle, or otherwise verbally abuse others with whom they disagree. But even I am susceptible to returning fire when attacked. I realize that some religious people are just as guilty of condemning people with whom they disagree, and that is unfortunate and this message is intended for them too.

While Religion is an essential pillar of civilization and will continue to be even though some will always try to destroy it, we all must learn to accept differences in thought and belief if our civilization is to continue evolving in a positive direction. Destroying any of the pillars of our shelters (of whatever kind) will only weaken the entire construction of our human civilization.*

And that is this week's sermonette.


* A note about Science: I love science and generally take a 'scientific' view of the world, but I am also aware that Science cannot yet answer ALL questions and fulfill ALL needs. It could be argued that the atheists who place all of their faith and belief in Science are basically worshipping it, just like the religious people who place all of their faith and belief in God to provide the ultimate and final answers. On a certain level there is no distinction between these approaches. Science is as much a human creation as religion. Oh, I know that's really going to prickle the sensitivities of some, but if they could only remove their emotional attachments to certain thoughts then they would be able to see it that way too.

Telepathy Explained?

In an interesting 23 minute podcast called How Human Brains Are Wired To Connect, Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence (which I haven't read but have read about ;-) ) speaks about his new book, Social Intelligence. Much of what he discusses sounds kind of similar to The Four Agreements and Magic Words and Alchemy. ;-)

He begins by explaining that "social intelligence" is an aspect of "emotional intelligence." He briefly defines emotional intelligence as self-awareness, self-management, and "channeling" positive emotions leading to the social aspects of empathy and skilled interactions with others. It seems he is saying that social intelligence is a kind of subset of emotional intelligence, which makes sense enough and sounds kind of familiar. ;-) His ideas are based on the findings of an emerging field called "social neuroscience" that studies how social interactions affect neurology. He describes "mirror neurons" that act as "wifi" that connect the physiology of two or more brains. (though he doesn't explain how this happens, only that it does; maybe there's more of that in the book?)

Goleman suggests that anecdotes of "ESP" in long-term relationships could be explained by the brains of the people in close relationships forming the same cognitive associations due to their physiologies interacting over time. I think that this synchronicity is probably rather variable and that it doesn't necessarily take a long time to achieve.

Probably the main point of his talk is that physiologies/neurologies seem to interact in non-trivial ways that we haven't been scientifically aware of until recently. Of course, these ideas have been around for a long time, but it is pretty interesting that there is now scientific research looking at them.

Goleman also discusses what we can do to regulate our receptivity/projection of these neural signals. Sure, we've all known people who can either light up a room or suck all the energy out of it just by being there. Apparently, meditative practices strengthen the neural pathways or "circuitry" responsible for the ability to block negativity and project positivity, but Goleman seems to be moving away from the scientific and into the spiritual (or at least speculation) when he talks about the larger implications.

I can't say I am convinced about his application of these neurological insights to the broader issues of society such as social, political, and economic problems. When he starts talking about possible "altruism circuitry" that "wants" to improve relationships and social conditions and how modern life impedes positive interactions and world relations, blah, blah, blah, he kind of loses me. Let's get the science of the individual interactions figured out better before we go making big sweeping conclusions about society. He mentions "compassionate capitalism" and so on, but it sounds too much like sociological mumbo-jumbo to me. Not that I'm against such things, but I feel some resistance to this kind of mandating of morality in much the same way as I am resistant to most Political Correctness.

Another idea Goleman suggests is that prisons should do more to "reform the brains" of convicts. (Actually, that sounds a bit like A Clockwork Orange.) Well, I tend to think that the brains of convicts are probably less "reformable" and that is probably why they are convicts in the first place. ;-) However, it would be okay with me if they used prisoners for this kind of research, and if they got positive results then yay for them.

Despite these sociological problems I think I'd like to read this book just to see if it makes sense as it's presented. And I'd like to know more about the actual research because you can't always trust other people's interpretations of things. ;-)


For those who are interested in other podcasts check out Science and the City.

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. ;-)

I have "issues" LOL

Freudian Inventory Results

Oral (60%) you appear to have a good balance of independence and interdependence knowing when to accept help and when to do things on your own. Anal (40%) you appear to have a good balance of self control and spontaneity, order and chaos, variety and selectivity. Phallic (70%) you appear to have issues with controlling your sexual desires. Latency (50%) you appear to have a good balance of abstract knowledge seeking and practicality, dealing with real world responsibilities while still cultivating your abstract and creative faculties and interests. Genital (43%) you appear to be somewhere between a progressive/openminded and regressive/closeminded outlook on life.

Take Free Freudian Inventory Test
personality tests by similarminds.com