You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'consciousness' category.
about…
10 years ago
i got a lil obsessed with collecting audio of alan watts
had to catalog all the media to cd-r about 3-4 yrs ago
and have really not visited since
practicality stfu!
Based on Karen Armstrong’s book, this film examines the concept of God in the three major monotheistic religions from the days of Abraham to modern times. Through analysis of historic and holy texts and incorporation of ancient art and artifacts, the program explores the deity written about in the Bible and the Quran. The evolution and intertwining of various Christian, Jewish and Islamic interpretations of God are also addressed.
lifted from the wiki
In the history of science, Laplace’s demon is a thought experiment described by Pierre-Simon Laplace in a paper published in 1814 involving a hypothetical entity envisioned such that if it knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe then it could use deterministic principles to reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and future.[1]
Laplace strongly believed in causal determinism, which is expressed in the following quotation from the introduction to the Essai:
| “ | We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. | ” |
This intellect is often referred to as Laplace’s demon. Note, however, that the description of the hypothetical intellect described above by Laplace as a demon does not come from Laplace, but from later biographers: Laplace saw himself as a scientist; and while hoping that humanity would progress to a better scientific understanding of the world, he recognized that such a complete level of understanding would always be beyond the grasp of human knowledge, as a tremendous calculating power would be needed to take into account every precondition in a given instant. While Laplace considered this to be a mere practical problem, later interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were adopted by philosophers defending the existence of free will, also leave the theoretical possibility of such an “intellect” contested.
n a quantum mechanical world, Laplace’s demon becomes a clear impossibility. Chance is an essential part of the world’s unfolding, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids exact measurements of positions and velocities simultaneously. But even within a hypothetical classical universe, there are reasons to doubt that Laplace’s Demon is a meaningful concept.
John Polkinghorne argues that nature is cloud-like rather than clock-like and points out that, apart from any other problems, uncertainty about the exact position of an electron on the other side of the universe would be sufficient to invalidate a calculation about the position of an O2 molecule in air after 50 collisions with its neighbours (i.e. in about 0.1 ns), even if they were solely influenced by Newton’s laws.[2]
According to chemical engineer Robert Ulanowicz, in his 1986 book Growth and Development, Laplace’s demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, Laplace’s demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics; thermodynamics, i.e. real processes, however, are, under current theory, thought to be irreversible.
Additionally, the existence of Laplace’s demon is impossible because such an algorithm could predict the future state of a billiard-ball computer and effectively solve the halting problem.
In 2008, David Wolpert used Cantor diagonalization to disprove Laplace’s demon. He did this by assuming that the demon is a computational device and showing that no two such devices can completely predict each other.[3]
There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, i.e. the ability of Laplace’s Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure was shown to be about 10120 bits[4]. Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has elapsed so far in the universe.
Another theory suggests that if Laplace’s demon were to occupy a parallel universe or alternate dimension from which it could determine the implied data and do the necessary calculations on an alternate and greater time line the aforementioned time limitation would not apply. This is, in fact, mandatory since if a Laplace’s demon was in the reality that we occupy it would have to account for itself in addition to every other aspect of matter and energy, and the grand total cannot exceed the smaller portion.
can’t gt the vid to embed
check the link
http://staging.democracynow.org/2009/10/22/cia_invests_in_software_firm_monitoring
LISTEN
WATCH
JUAN GONZALEZ: “America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates—even check out your book reviews on Amazon.” That’s the lead sentence to a new article on the website of Wired magazine titled “US Spies Buy Stake in Firm that Monitors Blogs, Tweets.”
The article reveals how the investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency has invested in a software firm called Visible Technologies that specializes in monitoring social media sites, including blogs, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon.
AMY GOODMAN: Noah Shachtman joins us here in our firehouse studio. He broke the story. He’s a contributing editor at Wired and editor of “Danger Room,” the magazine’s national security blog.
OK, lay it out for us, Noah. What did you find?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: So, the CIA, in 1999, set up an investment arm called In-Q-Tel that sort of makes investments in technologies that the spy agencies would like to see grow. And their latest investment is in this company called Visible, which basically takes blog posts and takes Twitter updates and takes comments on YouTube videos and sort of sorts them out and decides which people have the most weight in the blogosphere, which people are the most influential, and also filters out, you know, certain key words, decides whether certain posts are hostile or positive. And it’s basically a way for them to sort of keep track on what’s going on in Twitter, on the blogs, etc., etc.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And who does this firm normally supply this information to?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Usually to companies like Microsoft. Right now they’re tracking the buzz on their Windows 7 release. They also do the work for Hormel, the processed meat company. When PETA was going after Hormel for some of their business practices, they kept track on the sort of anti-processed food activists. So it’s usually corporate clients, although there’s sort of a political spin to some of the work they do, as well.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in essence, they’re sort of like an intelligence operation for the corporate world on a normal—
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Yeah. They would say they try to spot trends and keep tabs on things, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: But In-Q-Tel, you say, is the investment arm of the CIA. I think a lot of people would just be surprised by the CIA having an investment arm.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Yeah, that’s right. In 1999, the CIA set up this sort of separate agency that would make investments on behalf of the intelligence agencies. It was a way to sort of develop certain technologies without going through the formal contracting process. Remember, back in 1999, that was like sort of the height of the dotcom boom. And there were a lot of these business incubators that were growing small businesses into something bigger. And In-Q-Tel was the CIA’s attempt to do the same thing.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Is it reporting it’s making money for the government?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: I don’t—it’s a not-for-profit—
JUAN GONZALEZ: Oh, not-for-profit, I see.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: —company, but I do believe that it has—many of its investments have panned out.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain how Visible works. You talk about how it crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Mm-hmm.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly. And then, how do people protect their privacy?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Well, first they protect their privacy by not tweeting or not blogging. I mean, that’s the way they would have to protect their privacy, or to do it within a closed password-protected system. If you leave it out there, not only is the government going to read it, but Microsoft and Google just signed deals with Twitter and Facebook yesterday, where all the—all your tweets and all your blog updates will be very easily searchable by either Microsoft’s Bing search engine or by Google.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s the deal?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: The deal is basically that all your Facebook updates will be sort of fed into Microsoft’s new search engine, and people will be able to see what you post on Facebook or Twitter, or what have you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, for the CIA, given the fact—the recent reports of how tweets and other social networking are used around the world sometimes to give advance notice on popular insurrections or—
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Mm-hmm.
JUAN GONZALEZ: For the CIA, this would be a sort of a normal direction for them to take, if they want to collect more intelligence.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: It would be. They’re probably already doing so, but just in a less elegant way. So this is probably—for them, they view it as a smarter way to get information they’re already interested in. The question is whether it’s aimed out at international audiences or whether it’s aimed in at domestic ones.
AMY GOODMAN: Noah Shachtman, you’ve also written about the US military using a fleet of unmanned spy blimps to keep tabs on would-be enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Mm-hmm.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Well, you know, the US military in Afghanistan—I just got back from there in September—is very interested in what’s called ISR—Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. The idea is to see as much of what’s going on in Afghanistan as possible and to hear as much of what’s going on in cell phone conversations, or what have you. And so, these blimps are another tool to do it. There’d be cameras and listening equipment installed in these blimps in Afghanistan. It’s another way to kind of keep tabs on what’s going on.
AMY GOODMAN: And tell us what’s going on in New Jersey. In New Jersey, you have written about the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Oh, oh, yeah, right, right, right. So, in New Jersey, there is a—the Navy’s got a sort of R&D arm, and they’re looking to upgrade what’s in those spy blimps and really kind of update the surveillance equipment, make it much more powerful.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to get back for a second to this—you just happened to mention that remark that depending on whether this is being done, the social networking intelligence is being mined, internationally or domestically. Can the CIA conduct surveillance of Americans at home here, in terms of their communications?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Well, they’re not supposed to. But, I mean, given the recent history of the US intelligence agencies looking inward as well as outward, it’s tough to imagine they wouldn’t. Also, remember, on the internet, it’s very tough to discern whether it’s a purely international conversation or whether a purely domestic conversation.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, you say, “In-Q-Tel says it wants Visible to keep track of foreign social media, and give spooks ‘early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally,’” but that tool can just be used inward?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: I mean, obviously, right? It’s the internet. There’s no—there’s no hard national borders, and all this stuff is already out in the public. So it’s a little hard to fathom that there wouldn’t at least be the temptation to use it domestically.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s the military’s policy on soldiers using Twitter?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: The policy right now is up for grabs, but there should be a declared policy in the next, I would say, two to three weeks. And surprisingly, the Pentagon looks to be having a fairly liberal policy when it comes to Twitter and Facebook and other social networks. There was a lot of confusion over the years about whether soldiers could use it or not. Some commands banned it, others allowed it to happen. But it looks like the Pentagon is actually going to come out with something that says, “Hey, look, use YouTube and use Twitter, but just do it smart.”
JUAN GONZALEZ: But that has, certainly during the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war now, opened up a whole new level of communication that didn’t exist before, of ordinary soldiers being able to get information out to their family or to people here in the United States that normally would not happened in previous wars.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Yeah, that’s absolutely true. And in this period of confusion where it wasn’t clear what the regulations were, a lot of times insecure commanders would sort of slap down their soldiers if they printed something that maybe was a little bit subversive or, you know, didn’t quite hew to the party line. But hopefully these new regulations are going to sort that out, and you really should be able to have those soldiers take to YouTube, take to Twitter, you know, with a great deal of freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: Back to what you said at the beginning, saying the uses for Visible before, Visible tracking animal rights activists’ online campaigns against the company that was Hormel?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Mm-hmm.
AMY GOODMAN: When it was working for Hormel. So, I see here you’ve got trillions of dollars being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, actually trillions. And it seems like it’s very ripe and open money that can’t be tracked. It can also develop the spy technology under the guise of just war.
NOAH SHACHTMAN: That’s true, although the Pentagon also has plenty of money to—independent of the war costs, to develop spy technology. And the intelligence agencies, remember, their budgets are largely a black box. We don’t know how much they spend. And so, you know, there’s plenty of places where money for spy technology can be funded out of.
AMY GOODMAN: And this issue of how Hormel used Visible, now In-Q-Tel buying into it?
NOAH SHACHTMAN: Mm-hmm. Well, I mean, I don’t know too much more than the fact that they used it. I don’t have a lot of details. But, you know, the way Visible works is it kind of grabs all the blogs and all the tweets out there, then it sorts for certain key words, it sorts for a sentiment about whether things are positive or negative, and then it also sorts based on which bloggers and which tweeters are really important or not. And you can sort of see over time how a conversation develops. Technology then allows companies or the government to respond directly within a blog or within a Facebook page to those people. So, who knows? The commenter—the next commenter on your blog might be the CIA.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we will leave it there. Noah Shachtman, I want to thank you for being with us. Noah Shachtman is a contributing editor at Wired magazine, and he’s editor of “Danger Room,” the magazine’s national security blog.
“We Are All Connected” was made from sampling The History Channel’s Universe series, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, Richard Feynman’s 1983 interviews, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s cosmic sermon, and Bill Nye’s Eyes of Nye Series, plus added visuals from The Elegant Universe (NOVA), Stephen Hawking’s Universe, Cosmos and more.
[deGrasse Tyson]
We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically
[Feynman]
I think nature’s imagination
Is so much greater than man’s
She’s never going to let us relax
[Sagan]
We live in an in-between universe
Where things change all right
But according to patterns, rules,
Or as we call them, laws of nature
[Nye]
I’m this guy standing on a planet
Really I’m just a speck
Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck
To think about all of this
To think about the vast emptiness of space
There’s billions and billions of stars
Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan]
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
But the way those atoms are put together
The cosmos is also within us
We’re made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space
The stars are other suns
We have traveled this way before
And there is much to be learned
I find it elevating and exhilarating
To discover that we live in a universe
Which permits the evolution of molecular machines
As intricate and subtle as we
[deGrasse Tyson]
I know that the molecules in my body are traceable
To phenomena in the cosmos
That makes me want to grab people in the street
And say, have you heard this??
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[Feynman]
There’s this tremendous mess
Of waves all over in space
Which is the light bouncing around the room
And going from one thing to the other
And it’s all really there
But you gotta stop and think about it
About the complexity to really get the pleasure
And it’s all really there
The inconceivable nature of nature
-
and of course
another excuse to post this
“A Glorious Dawn” is crafted from sampling Carl Sagan’s 1980 PBS Documentary Cosmos and Stephen Hawking’s 1997 PBS cosmology documentary series Stephen Hawking’s Universe. Cosmos is available to watch for free on Hulu, and many parts of Stephen Hawking’s Universe can be found on Youtube and various other video sites online.
[Sagan]
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch
You must first invent the universe
Space is filled with a network of wormholes
You might emerge somewhere else in space
Some when-else in time
The sky calls to us
If we do not destroy ourselves
We will one day venture to the stars
A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way
The Cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths
Of exquisite interrelationships
Of the awesome machinery of nature
I believe our future depends powerfully
On how well we understand this cosmos
In which we float like a mote of dust
In the morning sky
But the brain does much more than just recollect
It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes
it generates abstractions
The simplest thought like the concept of the number one
Has an elaborate logical underpinning
The brain has it’s own language
For testing the structure and consistency of the world
[Hawking]
For thousands of years
People have wondered about the universe
Did it stretch out forever
Or was there a limit
From the big bang to black holes
From dark matter to a possible big crunch
Our image of the universe today
Is full of strange sounding ideas
[Sagan]
How lucky we are to live in this time
The first moment in human history
When we are in fact visiting other worlds
The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean
Recently we’ve waded a little way out
And the water seems inviting
nice
i mean NICE doc on “this subject”
angles
ideas
perspectives
vid will mostlikely not play here
but will open to the tudou page proper
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/W6Rjkr3Olvk
Interest in the Mayan Long Count Calendar and 2012 end-of-the-world prophecies is increasing rapidly with about four years left to the target date of December 21, 2012 (or thereabouts).
A significant number of new books, as well as reprints of older ones, on the topic of 2012 are being published, some becoming legitimate bestsellers, including: Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation into Civilization’s End by Lawrence E. Joseph; Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 by John Major Jenkins; and 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl by Daniel Pinchbeck.
On the fiction front, Whitley Strieber’s latest novel, 2012: The War for Souls, is slated to be a Michael Bay-produced (and possibly directed) film at Warner Bros. Pictures.
An increasing number of mainstream publications are writing about 2012. The New York Times Magazine ran a feature on the topic, focusing on John Major Jenkins, in its July 1, 2007 edition; USA Today published an article entitled “Does Maya calendar predict 2012 apocalypse?” on March 28, 2007; and Publishers Weekly ran a story about the large number of new books on the topic on March 26, 2007. A second PW story ran in the September 3, 2007 edition with a quote from a well-known editor saying that 2012 “has practically become its own category” of books; and proving that the trend is only strengthening, a year later the September 22, 2008 issue of PW in its cover story stated “publishers agree that New Age readers can’t get enough prophetic 2012 literature,” and “sales on this topic have been through the roof.”
Perhaps most significantly from a mainstream awareness perspective, Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, 10,000 BC) is directing a new tent-pole film for Sony Pictures entitled 2012. It is set for wide theatrical release in July, 2009.
The Disinformation Company specializes in publishing articles on topics surfacing in the culture on its popular website at www.disinfo.com and publishes books by authors writing in this and related fields. (For instance, Disinformation author Graham Hancock’s bestselling book Fingerprints of the Gods was one of the first to focus on the Mayan calendar and its end date in 2012, and will be one of the bases for the Roland Emmerich movie.) Of course, in addition to its publishing division, The Disinformation Company also produces and distributes documentary films.
Producer Gary Baddeley recognized that interest in 2012 was on a fast track into the zeitgeist in 2007 and initiated the process of planning and producing 2012: Science Or Superstition with director Nimrod Erez. The Disinformation team, including co-producer Ralph Bernardo, contacted and arranged interviews with multiple experts, often obtaining speedy access due to more than ten years of working with them or colleagues in their fields.
Interviews were conducted in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Palenque and also shot on location in Mexico and Egypt. Co-producer Bernardo worked with NASA to obtain illuminating footage of our solar system and galaxy and was able to locate leading astronomy professor Anthony Aveni, a cornerstone of the film’s balanced approach. Director Nimrod Erez worked closely with animators to illustrate the sometimes complicated concepts discussed in the film, allowing the viewer to see visually, the hard to grasp phenomenon of precession.
In accord with the Disinformation style of documentary filmmaking and publishing, the producers attempted to highlight multiple views of the subject matter and to interview experts who address the issues from varying and sometimes conflicting perspectives. The goal was to present the viewer with a balanced look at the 2012 phenomenon, allowing him or her to form an independent opinion on the debate about what the December 21, 2012 date means to all of us.
We promote critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship. Our sites present controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, primarily pro-con format.
ProCon.org is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity.
Please contemplate the following ten questions as they relate to your relationships with others and, perhaps more importantly, with yourself.
- Do you know what values, standards, or guidelines control your thinking and feelings in your relationships?
- What principles or beliefs determine your ‘world view’?
- Do you know how to improve yourself in whatever you do?
- Do you think/feel you could learn to use your intelligence more intelligently, and your creativity more creatively?
- What do you know for sure?
- How do you know what you know, and how do you know what you know is so?
- Do you judge yourself based on the high standards by which you judge others?
- Do you know how to go about creating more satisfying relationships with yourself, others, and your environment?
- Are you aware of times when you acted as if what you knew – or thought you knew – was all there was to know; when you were certain beyond a doubt … and later proved wrong?
- Do you take responsibility for the meanings you give to what you see, hear, read and experience?
I wrote these articles based on my interpretation of what I have read of Alfred Korzybski and others. My intent is to help others — and myself — apply the principles of general semantics and modify our habitual ways of thinking-behaving to improve our human understanding and relationships.
A Story About Stories From a Story-telling Form of Life
One way we could describe our species is that we are, among other characteristics, a story-telling form of life. Other life forms, in their own way, “tell stories”, but few of us believe these to be anywhere near as extensive, as varied and as fanciful as the stories we tell. We tell ourselves stories about ourselves – sometimes distressing ourselves with our own stories. We tell others stories about our children, our marriage, our pets, our fears, hopes, beliefs, vacations, and so on. We also make up and tell each other stories about other story-tellers. We repeat others’ stories, sometimes in an admiring way, sometimes to discredit them.
Politicians tell stories they think we want to hear, hoping that we will believe their stories and elect them to office. Advertisers use words, images, music, etc., to tell us stories extolling the virtues of their clients’ products and services. Revolutionaries tell stories about the good life to come after present leaders are removed. Scientists tell us stories about their discoveries of some relationships they have explored. Theologians and religious leaders tell us stories purportedly about God and His/Her relationship with the world, and about how we shoud behave toward each other. Philosophers tell us stories, purportedly about the nature of reality, values, meanings, and so on. Authors, playwrights, poets, and others, tell us stories which we sometimes fail to perceive as stories about ourselves.
Now, all these story-tellers do not usually introduce their stories by saying “This is my story …” Could it be that they/we suspect that we/others would ‘listen’ differently? In my story, I visualize a society with an evolved education system, where teachers at all levels would recognize their roles as “story-tellers”. They would help students evaluate what they read and hear in terms of “degrees of fantasy” and “degrees of accurate representation”. They would advise students to become more aware of the stories they tell themselves, and the stories they tell to others. They would also remind students that there are times to reserve judgment on a story.
When we hear the word “story”, among the images that might pop up are those of a parent telling a child a story; children listening attentively to stories in a classroom; stories we read in books; myths, and so on. We also tend to think of stories as fictional – not factual – but fanciful and made up. It is part of my story that we all make up stuff. Our everyday conversations, news reports, books and articles we write, documentaries, etc., are all made up – and as such, they also qualify as stories. In my story, I suggest that we would greatly improve our understanding of ourselves, others, situations we find ourselves in, and the world around us, if we considered the following:
- Anything we read, hear, think, feel, believe, say, write, etc., qualifies as a story. The stories we make up about someone else’s story is not their story – it is our story, about their story. Stories are not objective reports. Stories will unavoidably be slanted in terms of an individual’s age, experiences, state of mind, beliefs, concerns, motives, world view, values, social standing, and so on.
- Whatever else a story is about, it is also a story about the story-teller. It reflects his/her thoughts, feelings, experiences, understanding, etc.
- Individuals in the ’same’ situation will have different stories to tell.
- There are unavoidable gaps in our awareness. Therefore no story tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No story is ever the whole ’story’.
- Since we depend on light waves, sound waves, electrochemical impulses etc., for information about ourselves and about the outside world, our stories will always be out of synch with their referents.
- Things were going on before our arrival. In a sense we are always ‘late’ on the scene.
- Stories constituted of relatively static words will necessarily be more or less inaccurate as an account of a world of change, process and multi-interactions.
- As maps are not the territories they represent, as words are not the processes they stand for, stories made up of words and images are not their referents. Stories are about referents, both inside and outside one’s head.
- Stories are sometimes presented to us as opinions, facts, truths, insights, intuitions, gut feelings, revelations, news, etc.
- Our stories have endings. We end our stories. But that’s not the end of the ’story’. Happenings do not start or end exactly where our stories start and end.
- In terms of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the observer-observed interaction, we sometimes affect, to some degree, the situations our stories are about. (Listen carefully to what we call ” news”).
- Metaphors and similes embellish our stories. For clearer understanding, it helps if we don’t confuse metaphors and similes with descriptions and facts.
- We benefit a great deal when we take responsibility for the meanings we give to the stories that we read and hear.
Story behind this clip:
This clip was recorded about ten years ago from a real program on a italian local television.
Through a myspage page (http://www.myspace.com/annamariagalanti ) and some extensive research we managed to get in touch both with Fausto and Anna Maria Galanti. The former is still in good health, and mostly ALIVE. The latter was immediatly fired after this transmission and found herself without a job or a home. In addition, she’s currently fighting with a impostor giving herselfout to be the ‘real’ Countess Anna Maria Galanti. If you understand italian, you can hear Anna Maria yell about the impostor here:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEMvi-…
Finally, thanks a lot to Funda and Jordan for giving me a hand with the translation.-Statues03
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-signstealing100109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
By Jeff Passan
DETROIT – Tony Faust does not play baseball, nor is he a scout. He is a 28-year-old graphic designer who loves the Minnesota Twins. So when he saw video that he believed shows Twins catcher Joe Mauer(notes) stealing signs from the Detroit Tigers, Faust decided to annotate it, upload it and let the world witness just how slick his favorite player really is.
One problem: The Twins say it’s a bunch of malarkey.
As they prepared for the finale of a pivotal four-game series against the Detroit Tigers on Thursday, the Twins had to confront something positively 2009: a fan, one with a minimal baseball background at that, accusing the likely American League MVP of standing on second base and blatantly relaying signals to home plate to give batter Jason Kubel(notes) an idea of the next pitch.
Kubel laughed at the implication that Mauer was tugging at his helmet as a means of subterfuge. Twins manager Ron Gardenhire denied it, saying with such obvious sign-stealing “somebody would get killed.” First baseman Justin Morneau(notes) insisted on talking to the media to underscore the ludicrousness of the allegations.
And yet across the field, in the Tigers’ clubhouse, Gerald Laird(notes) – the catcher for the game in question, a 6-5 Detroit victory Tuesday night – said the Twins’ reputation for stealing signs is no secret.
“They’re known for it over there,” Laird said. “I know they’ve done it in the past. I don’t know if it’s signs or location. They’re really good at stealing signs. It’s a skill. There’s nothing bad about it; they’re just well prepared.”
Sign-stealing is nothing new in baseball. The most famous hit in history, Bobby Thomson’s Shot Heard ‘Round the World in 1951, came off a Ralph Branca fastball he knew was coming. Players, coaches and managers consider it part of the game rather than cheating. If a catcher can’t deceive the opponents, he’s not trying hard enough. Because every team – Twins included – attempts to decode signals.
“I’m not saying we’re out there trying to steal signs, but I hope we are,” Gardenhire said. “I hope that they’re out there trying to steal signs. Because that’s the game. Everybody does it.”
It’s just … well, there’s an elegance to it that perhaps Faust didn’t capture in his breakdown of the 4-minute, 23-second clip, which Major League Baseball may soon take down for copyright violation. The theft of signs takes a keen ability to decode indicators, secondary signals and all of the other tricks catchers use. Relaying them is generally a subtle trick – an exaggerated lean that looks natural, or a hand tap that is familiar between only two players. They generally indicate pitch location instead of pitch type.
Something as remedial as putting a finger in the earhole for a breaking ball and touching the face for a fastball, as Faust interpreted, would be mighty dim of Mauer, generally regarded among the brightest players in baseball. Getting caught stealing signs invites the opponent to throw at the hitter. It’s like a public-urination rap. The cops aren’t chasing leads on a random puddle, but if you do it in front of them, they’re going to arrest you.
“It’s absolutely what they were doing,” Faust said. “It was such an urgent situation, they had to do something. There’s no question that was it.”
Actually, the entire Twins clubhouse questioned it. The video spread virally throughout the morning. At one point, a half-dozen Twins surrounded the locker of pitcher Kevin Slowey(notes), who sat in his chair with a computer on his lap. The video played, and the Twins critiqued it like a group at Cannes watching the worst film of the year.
“What an idiot,” one player said.
“Can we write notes to this guy?” another said. “And tell him that his explanation of tipping the signs was atrocious?”
Their biggest beef came from the first pitch. Faust said that Laird put down two fingers, signaling a curveball, and that Mauer touched his helmet to indicate the pitch to Kubel. The pitch was actually a changeup. Mauer, who was unavailable for comment before the game, often tugs at his helmet, according to teammates.
“What else are they gonna say?” Faust said. “I don’t know. That was the one weird thing. It was a changeup. Maybe he was just tipping offspeed overall.
“I’m just a fan who noticed it.”
Whether it was legitimate thievery, only the Twins know. Their denial was quick and vehement. They were perturbed that hours before the biggest game of their season, they had to address something manufactured – literally, and perhaps in his head as well – by a graphic designer from Maple Grove, Minn., about 20 miles northwest of Minneapolis, and simultaneously amused that it had taken on life so quickly with such sparse underpinnings.
“I wish we could steal signs,” Gardenhire said.
“We don’t do it around here,” Kubel said.
“I’ve been hitting behind Joe for five years and haven’t gotten a sign from him yet,” Morneau said.
That’s fine, Faust said. He still loves the Twins even if he doesn’t believe them.
“I know what I saw,” Faust said.
And he won’t be convinced otherwise.
m pretty close to obsessed with my pair of KSO
i only get giddy and idolatrous over very few products and objects
Tabasco
Parmigiano-Reggiano
Sativa strains
Am Appy
idk
i feel like im doin it right in these
The typical human foot is an anatomical marvel of evolution with 26 bones, 33 joints, 20 muscles, and hundreds of sensory receptors, tendons and ligaments. Like the rest of the body, to keep our feet healthy, they need to be stimulated and exercised.
That’s why we recommend wearing FiveFingers for exercise, play, and for fun. Stimulating the muscles in your feet and lower legs will not only make you stronger and healthier, it improves your balance, agility and proprioception.
When we first introduced Vibram FiveFingers® to the world, it was the beginning of a revolution.
For the first time, active outdoor athletes and fitness professionals were able to experience the sensation and freedom of going barefoot with the protection and sure-footed grip of a Vibram sole. Their response exceeded our wildest expectations.
Some customers told us they felt more connected to the earth and more in tune with their bodies. Others discovered an increased sense of balance and greater agility. And many reported health benefits like improved posture and less back pain. All were generous with their praise and their ideas, often suggesting new and creative uses for FiveFingers.
With the new 2009 Vibram FiveFingers collection, our patented barefooting concept continues to evolve.
Now you can choose from a variety of designs to cover the wide range of activities you would rather do barefoot; everything from fitness training and yoga, to running and trekking, to kayaking and sailing. Clearly, the barefooting revolution is alive and well.
When you go barefoot, your movements become the movements of a child—playful and sensitive, yet purposeful and confident. You experience the unbound joy of stepping, hopping, and running across any surface on earth, simply to get from here to there.
Vibram FiveFingers® allow you to relive that sensation. Unlike conventional shoes that insulate you from your surroundings, FiveFingers footwear deepens your connection to the earth and your surroundings. FiveFingers enhance your sense of touch and feel, while improving foot strength, balance, agility, and range of motion. Because wearing Vibram FiveFingers is so close to going barefoot, you’ll enjoy the health and performance benefits of barefooting without some of the risks.
Outdoor enthusiasts have found FiveFingers to be the ideal crossover shoe for multiple sports and activities—from ChiRunning and bouldering to kayaking and windsurfing. Fitness enthusiasts use FiveFingers for core strength training, yoga and Pilates. Our customers continually discover new and creative uses for our alternative performance footwear.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com
-
Vibram FiveFingers is perfect for people who want the benefits of barefoot walking or running without the consequences of going barefoot in modern urban society. There are 4 different product lines that Vibram offer which accommodate a variety of activities and users.
FiveFingers Classic – no frills simple version of the FiveFingers design. Dries quickly and perfect for Running, Fitness Training, Martial Arts, Yoga, Pilates, Travel.
FiveFingers Sprint – extra loop and hook enclosures add additional fit and snugness making it great for a variety of activities like Light Trekking, Climbing, Canyoneering, Running, Fitness Training, Martial Arts, Yoga, Pilates, Sailing, Boating, Kayaking, Canoeing, Surfing, Flats Fishing, Travel.
FiveFingers FLOW – extra covering on top of shoe provides additional insulation for cold weather envrionments which makes it great for Cold Weather Running, Light Trekking, Climbing, Canyoneering, Sailing, Boating, Kayaking, Canoeing, Surfing, Flats Fishing.
FiveFingers KSO – the KSO stands for “keep stuff out” and that’s what it was intended to do. The extra mesh on the top of the shoe keep out dirt, gravel, and other nasties and make it good for Light Trekking, Climbing, Canyoneering, Running, Fitness Training, Martial Arts, Yoga, Pilates, Sailing, Boating, Kayaking, Canoeing, Surfing, Flats Fishing, Travel.
-
-
Plastic Gorilla Feet Give You Twinkle Toes
Minutes after wiggling my feet into these five-toed monstrosities I was creeping across a coworker’s desk like Spider-man. Sadly, Vibram FiveFingers don’t actually let you stick to walls and ceilings, but they are wickedly fun to wear.
Vibram FiveFingers are little more than flexible plastic soles with just enough cloth to hold them snugly on your feet. They have little individual pockets for each toe, making the FiveFingers into a sort of foot glove. The resulting footwear feel less like shoes and more like tougher, more invulnerable versions of your feet.
Traction is incredibly good, due to the grippy material, the separation of the toes, and the addition of siping, or tiny zigzag cuts etched into the soles that expand into little treads as the sole flexes.
The VFFs are also surprisingly comfortable. Each toe is snuggled inside its own little pocket, which is not only cozy, it also gives your feet a surprising amount of feedback about the ground you’re standing on. Your toes, freed from their typical leather prisons, act like a tiny topography sensor array.
Running in FiveFingers is much like running barefoot, except without the mincing “Ow-ow-ow!” moments as you hit a patch of gravel or sun-baked asphalt. You have to use the same stride (and the same, probably atrophied, calf and arch muscles) as you do when running with naked feet. The end result is good: By forcing me into a more efficient stride, the VFFs helped subtract nearly a minute from my admittedly slow per-mile pace. Also, a growing body of research suggests that minimal or no footwear will result in fewer running injuries. But it takes some getting used to if you’ve never run barefoot before. Start with very short runs, and work up gradually.
Vibram offers four different models of its FiveFingers line; I tested two. The Classic offers as clean a line as you’re going to get from such freaky footwear, but the KSO (short for “Keep Stuff Out”) is more practical for running, with webbing on the top to keep debris from sneaking in and a single strap for snugging the shoes more firmly onto your feet.
Vibram FiveFingers will make you look like you have plastic gorilla feet. They’ll draw curious, often appalled stares from strangers and mockery from your family. But by making you run as if barefoot, Vibram FiveFingers might just make you a stronger, faster and less-injured runner.
WIRED Just like going barefoot, except without the cuts, abrasions and icky stuff between your toes. Excellent traction on a variety of surfaces. Surprisingly comfortable.
TIRED Ugly as a bucket of vomit. Just looking at the shoes is a one way ticket to the uncanny valley. Slightly time-consuming to put on. Sizing is extremely fickle. -http://www.wired.com/reviews/product/pr_vibram_fivefingers_kso
-
-
10 part high quality film piece
U.S. News & World Report
——————————————————————–
The Secret Mind -
How Your Unconscious Really Shapes Your Decisions
Mysteries of the Mind – Your Unconscious is Making Your Everyday Decisions
by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak
The snap judgment. The song that constantly runs through your head whenever you close your
office door. The desire to drink Coke rather than Pepsi or to drive a Mustang rather than a
Prius. The expression on your spouse’s face that inexplicably makes you feel either amorous or
enraged. Or how about the now incomprehensible reasons you married your spouse in the first
place?
Welcome to evidence of your robust unconscious at work.
While these events are all superficially unrelated, each reveals an aspect of a rich inner life
that is not a part of conscious, much less rational, thought. Today, long after Sigmund Freud
introduced the world to the fact that much of what we do is determined by mysterious memories
and emotional forces, the depths of the mind and the brain are being explored anew. “Most of
what we do every minute of every day is unconscious,” says University of Wisconsin
neuroscientist Paul Whelan. “Life would be chaos if everything were on the forefront of our
consciousness.”
Fueled by powerful neuroimaging technology, questions about how we make snap decisions, why we
feel uncomfortable without any obvious causes, what motivates us, and what satisfies us are
being answered not through lying on a couch and exploring individual childhood miseries but by
looking at neurons firing in particular parts of our brains. Hardly a week passes without the
release of the results of a new study on these kinds of processes. And popular culture is so
fascinated by neuroscience that Blink, journalist Malcolm Gladwell’s exploration of “thinking
without thinking,” has remained on the bestseller lists for four weeks.
Most of us can appreciate the fact that we make up our minds about things based on thinking that
takes place somewhere just out of our reach. But today, scientists are finding neural correlates
to those processes, parts of the brain that we never gave their due, communicating with other
parts, triggering neurotransmitters, and driving our actions. Says Clinton Kilts, a professor in
the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory, “There is nothing that you do,
there is no thought that you have, there is no awareness, there is no lack of awareness, there
is nothing that marks your daily existence that doesn’t have a neural code. The greatest
challenge for us is to figure out how to design the study that will reveal these codes.
Burgeoning understanding of our unconscious has deeply personal and also fascinating medical
implications. The realization that our actions may not be the pristine results of our high-level
reasoning can shake our faith in the strength of such cherished values as free will, a capacity
to choose, and a sense of responsibility over those choices. We will never be able to control
the rhythm of our heartbeats or the choreography of our limbic system. And yet, Gladwell writes
that “our snap judgments and first impressions can be educated and controlled… [and] the task
of making sense of ourselves and our behavior requires that we acknowledge there can be as much
value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis.”
Mental Health
But unconscious procession is not just the stuff of compelling personal insight. For those with
emotional disorders like anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, and others who suffer
from traumatic brain injuries either from a stroke or an accident, peeling away the behavioral
layers of their dysfunction has revealed fascinating activity out of conscious awareness that
may eventually provide clues to more effective treatments. Recent research on minimally
conscious patients, for example, shows language centers on fire when they hear personal stories
recounted by a family member. Research on schizophrenia reveals that most who are afflicted have
an impaired ability to smell, which researchers think may provide some clue to understanding why
they have such difficulty perceiving social cues. Or consider the case of Sarah Scantlin, who
was hit by a drunk driver and lay mute at the Golden Plains Health Care Center in Hutchinson,
Kansas, for twenty years. After the September 22, 1984, crash, the doctor told her parents that
it was a miracle she was even alive but that she would never talk or move again on her own. Last
month she began to speak – a simple “OK” at first, then more words, even short sentences.
How does this happen? What was going on all that time? How do we get some access to this thing
called the unconscious?
According to cognitive neuroscientists, we are conscious of only about five percent of our
cognitive activity, so most of our decisions, actions, emotions, and behavior depend on the
ninety-five percent of brain activity that goes beyond our conscious awareness. From the beating
of our hearts to pushing the grocery cart and not smashing into the kitty litter, we rely on
something that is called the adaptive unconscious, which is all the ways that our brains
understand the world that the mind and the body must negotiate. The adaptive unconscious makes
it possible for us to, say, turn a corner in our car without having to go through elaborate
calculations to determine the precise angle of the turn, the velocity of the automobile, the
steering radius of the car. It is hat can make us understand the correct meaning of statements
like “prostitutes appeal to pope” or “children make nourishing snacks” without believing that
they mean that the pope has an illicit life and cannibals are munching on children.
Consuming Thoughts
Gerald Zaltman uses examples like these in many of his conversations. He may be an emeritus
professor from the Harvard Business School, but he thinks about layers of consciousness like a
neuroscientist. He is also a founding partner in Olson Zaltman Associates, a consulting firm
that provides guidance to businesses seeking to better understand the minds – and in this case
it is quite literally the minds – of consumers. As a professor of marketing, Zaltman obviously
was very interested in figuring out what made people buy one thing and not the other. In the
world of neuroscience, this goes to the heart of the profound questions of motivation. In the
world of business, this goes to the bottom line.
When trying to probe the minds of consumers, Zaltman wondered if there was a way to move beyond
the often unreliable focus group to get at the true desires of consumers, unencumbered by the
noise, which would finally result in more effective sales and marketing.
His solution became U.S. Patent No. 5,436,830, also known as Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation
Technique, which is, according to the patent, “a technique for eliciting interconnected
constructs that influence thought and behavior.” From Hallmark cards to Broadway plays, from
Nestle’s Crunch bars to the design for the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, ZMET has been used
to figure out how to craft a message so that consumers will respond with the important
ninety-five percent of their brains that motivates many of their choices. How? Through accessing
the deep metaphors that people, even without knowing it, associate with a particular product or
feeling or place.
Language is limited, Zaltman says, “and it can’t be confused with the thought itself.” Images,
however, move a bit closer to capturing fragments of the rich and contradictory areas of
unconscious feelings. Participants in his studies cut out pictures that represent their thoughts
and feelings about a particular subject, even if they can’t explain why. He discovered that when
people do this, they often discover a core, a deep metaphor simultaneously embedded in a unique
setting.” They are drawn to seasonal or heroic myths, for example, or images like blood and fire
and mother. They are also drawn into deep concepts like journey and transformation. His work
around the world has convinced him that the menu of these unconscious metaphors is limited and
universal, in the manner of human emotions like hope and grief.
And Zaltman has found that even grand metaphors have their practical applications. The
architectural firm Astorino and the design firm Fathom asked Zaltman for help in designing a new
children’s hospital that would make a difficult experience somehow easier for children, their
parents, and the people who work there. With the classic ZMET technique, children, parents, and
staff members cut pictures they somehow associated with the hospital and were then interviewed
for nearly two hours about these pictures, exploring the thoughts, feelings, and associations
that they triggered. A stream of metaphors emerged in the conversations. A child brought in a
picture of a mournful-looking pug, which she colored blue because he’s kind of sad, and that’s
the way I feel when I’m in the ICU or just can’t get out of my room.”
After each picture was thoroughly analyzed by the participants, the images were scanned, and
another interviewer with a computer and a talent for the Photoshop program sat with the parent,
child, or staff member and created a collage, a personal Rorschach test of the images. This
snapshot of the participants’ unconscious associations with the hospital was then enlarged to
include personal narratives using the collage. The process is painstaking, but after the
transcripts of these sessions are reviewed, even in all the enormous variety of human
expressions and emotion, core themes emerge. In the case of Children’s Hospital, says Christine
Astorino Del Sole of the Fathom firm, “the main metaphor was transformation, and the supporting
metaphors were control, connection, and energy.”
So how does that translate into the physical space? When patients and their families walk into
the new hospital, which will be completed in 2008, they will be surrounded by images of
butterflies, the ultimate symbol of transformation. Patient rooms will be more like home, and
children will be able to exercise some control over their personal space. A huge garden,
embodying transformation as well as energy and connection, will be visible from all rooms and
accessible to children and their families. “Before, design was a guessing game: it was hit or
miss,” says Del Sole. “But we know now that at the deepest level this hospital has to be about
transformation.” So when a sick child, or a worried parent, or a harassed nurse walks into this
hospital, a deep and reassuring recognition of the potential beauties of transformation will
resonate unconsciously.
Saves of Cola
Zaltman, obviously, is not the only person peering into the mind of the consumer. In a
neruroscientific take on time-honored blind taste test, Coke and Pepsi once again squared off.
In Blink, Gladwell describes how the Coca-Cola Co. made a costly mistake in using data from
blind taste tests between Coke and Pepsi – in which Pepsi was emphatically preferred by most
cola drinkers – to change the recipe and create her marketing debacle that was New Coke. Still,
even with a less preferred taste, Coke remains No. 1 in the soft drink world. More recent
research that was published after Gladwell’s book was finished may explain why.
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine offered 67 committed Coke and Pepsi drinkers a choice,
and in blind testing, they preferred Pepsi. When they were shown the company logos before they
drank, however, 3 out of 4 preferred Coke. The researchers scanned the brains of the
participants during the test and discovered that the Coke label created wild activity in the
part of the brain associated with memories and self-image, while Pepsi, though tasting better to
most, did little to these feel-good centers in the brain. P. Reed Montague director of the Brown
Foundation Human Neuroimaging laboratory at Baylor, explained when the study was released last
October: “There’s a huge effect of the Coke label on brain activity related to the control of
actions, the dredging up of memories and self-image.” The mere red-and-white image of Coke made
the hippocampus, our brain’s vault of memories, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is
responsible form any of our higher human brain functions like working memory and what is called
executive function or control of behavior, light up. The point, says Montague, is that “there is
a response in the brain which leads to a behavioral effect.” And curiously, it has nothing to do
with conscious preference.
The dog comes up and begins to sniff. If it remembers you and you were a nice person, then
instantly it wags its tail, perhaps even deigns to lick your wrist. It may avoid you. I may
associate you with food or with a swift kick. And all those images, all those associations are
evoked by one healthy whiff.
Aside from the basic inhibition against walking up to someone and sniffing, humans are no
different. An odor is not just a name – it is a whole context,” says psychiatrist Dolores
Malaspina of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Columbia University Medical
Center. Olfactory information is “privileged,” Malaspina explains, since it is the only one of
our five senses that does not make a brief stop at the brain’s relay station the thalamus,
before going to the ever so intellectual prefrontal cortex. Smell is unmediated, unfiltered, and
it hits the prefrontal cortex with a wallop of intensity. Researchers have found that smell
plays a strong role in our motion choices, even without our knowing it. And when the female
roommates synchronize their menstrual cycles, it I because the unconscious perception of odor
sets off the endocrine system. Our brains, says Malaspina, “beginning with fetal development,
are laid out to give precedence to olfactory perception.”
But what happens if olfactory perception doesn’t work properly? Malaspina and other researchers
are looking at the olfactory sense in emotional disorders and have found some intriguing
results. While schizophrenia is seen as s disorder of hallucinations and delusions, a more
compelling and disruptive element of the disorder is social impairment. Some people with
schizophrenia can’t seem to read social cues, or manage social relationships, or summon a social
context for whatever encounter they are experiencing. And while hallucinations and delusions can
be controlled often through medication, these basic social impairments cause far more difficulty
in dealing with the daily demands of life.
Research has shown that many people with schizophrenia can also suffer from “clinically
meaningful olfactory impairment,” which includes dysfunction in higher brain centers such as the
parietal lobes – the part of the brain that’s responsible for integrating sensory output so as
to understand something like reading social cues or contextualizing these cues. Just as a smell
can elicit an immediate image of a particular time and place, lacking that ability can deprive
someone of a basic social and emotional anchor in life. “What we are learning is that smell is a
good window into the unconscious basis for sociability and social interest,” says Malaspina.
“There is a tremendous explosion of interest in this forgotten sense. And it was under our noses
all the time.”
The scenario occurs in hospital rooms throughout the world, thousands of times every day. A
brain-damaged father or mother or child lies in bed, not completely unconscious, not in a coma,
but demonstrating only flickering consciousness, small behaviors that show there is some
evidence of the person who once was there, some evidence that this person perhaps knows friends
and family members are near by. Medically, these patients are categorized as existing in a
minimally conscious state of awareness; it is estimated that there are 100,000 to 300,000
Americans in such a state right now. Sometimes these patients are able to actually utter the
name of an object or to follow a very simple command. But for friends and family, they are no
longer themselves. And because they find language so difficult, it is also assumed that they are
unlikely to follow conversations.
The Eye Of The Mind?
But in a stunning study published this month in the journal Neurology, researchers used
functional magnetic resonance imaging to study the brains of two minimally conscious patients
and compared them with the brains of seven healthy men and woman. The scans revealed that the
minimally conscious patients had less than half of the brain activity of the others. But then
all the subjects were played a tape made by a family member or friend, recounting happy memories
and shared experiences. One minimally conscious man listened to his sister reminiscing about her
wedding and about the toast that he made. The result was astonishing; All those who were
scanned, including the minimally conscious patients, shared similar brain activity, some with
activation in the visual cortex. “This shows hat there is life of the mind beyond what is
apparent,” says Joseph Fins, chief of he medical ethics division of New York-Presbyterian
Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center. But Fins, who was not involved in the study, pints out
that philosophical questions also emerge. “Does this mean that they are seeing words:
visualizing semantic concepts? Does this in some way conceptualize consciousness?” As Zaltman
pints out, language is only the narrowest determination of our thoughts. This study shows that
our brains, even damaged brains, are exquisitely attuned to that fact.
For the brain damaged and for the healthy, despite the evidence of the prevalence of the
unconscious in our daily lives, even as fervent a believer as Zaltman urges a bit of caution. “I
don’t think we know what the batting average is for purely rational reasons or reasons dressed
up that way, or reasons dressed up as purely intuition. Both can get us into trouble – often do.
And both serve us well.” It is that great tension between the two, the intermingling of the
known and the unknown, the conscious and the unconscious, the 5 percent and the 95 percent, that
the pioneers exploring this vast and intricate universe of our minds will continue to probe. But
there will most likely never be a complete understanding. After all, the enigmas of the mind,
and the mechanics of the brain, will forever define the ultimate mystery of simply being human.
Making Those Choices About Right and Wrong
If asked if it would ever be OK to kill your own child, you don’t have to think very hard before
answering, “No.” And no matter what arguments someone offered, you would probably wince at the
idea that even consensual, safe sex between siblings is anything but bad.
Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, believes these initial
reactions are based on five intuitions, deep-wired in the brain by eons of evolution. Cultural
norms and practices re based on these instincts, he says, much as cuisines are built on the five
taste receptors.
Haidt believes that moral judgment begins with these intuitions and that only later do we search
for a reason to justify our reactions. That doesn’t mean we can’t change our minds or that we’re
trapped by our primitive instincts: reasons given by other people and unspoken social pressure
can change our minds. “It’s just very hard for people to challenge their gut feelings by
themselves,” he says. “Once they have a feeling about an issue, people are bad at looking for
reasons to oppose it. And when feelings are strong, it almost hurts to think about things from
your opponent’s point of view.”
Haidt isn’t saying you ought to follow your gut – only that people generally do. What happens
when we try to decide? Go back to the idea that you should never kill your child. A group of
researchers at Princeton University gave research subjects this dilemma: Enemy soldiers have
taken over your village and will kill civilians they find. You are hiding in the cellar of a
house with a group of townspeople, and you hear the soldiers enter the house. Your baby starts
to cry, and the only way to quiet him is to hold your hand over his mouth and, eventually,
smother him. But if the baby keeps crying, the soldiers will discover your group and kill
everyone, the baby included. What should you do?
Emotional Brain
The subjects were about equally divided on whether to kill the baby. More interesting was what
their brains were doing – measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging, or FMRI, during the
decision process. Obviously, this scenario appeals to emotion, so it’s not surprising that parts
of the brain involving emotion showed activity. But so did an area involved in monitoring
conflict and another involved with abstract reasoning and cognitive control. In research
published last fall in Neuron, the researchers hypothesized that these findings suggest a
conflict between the emotional responses and higher cognitive processing. When a tough moral
question is posed, the reasoning processes of the brain conflicts with the more automatic
emotional response, and the decision takes longer (as opposed to a faster response to a more
straight forward question, like “Is murder wrong?).
Like Haidt, the authors speculate that this conflict has evolutionary roots. The more abstract
reasoning goes on in the more recently evolved parts of the brain. The “gut” response isn’t
always the wrong one, but it’s not automatically right because it “feels good” either.
Conditions have changed since we automatically followed our more primitive brains. Perhaps we
were hard-wired to feel this genetic sympathy for close relatives but not for people living
thousands of miles away (our ancestors didn’t even know they existed).
Joshua Greene of the Princeton team proposes that a moral judgment is ultimately a balance of
several different considerations – the initial, primal reaction; empathy; cultural or religious
norms; and individual reasoning. Sometimes these will all be in line and make the decision an
easy one, but often they will conflict. It makes for exciting science (and philosophy), even if
it doesn’t offer easy answers to the toughest questions of how to live.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20jung-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=magazine
This is a story about a nearly 100-year-old book, bound in red leather, which has spent the last quarter century secreted away in a bank vault in Switzerland. The book is big and heavy and its spine is etched with gold letters that say “Liber Novus,” which is Latin for “New Book.” Its pages are made from thick cream-colored parchment and filled with paintings of otherworldly creatures and handwritten dialogues with gods and devils. If you didn’t know the book’s vintage, you might confuse it for a lost medieval tome.
And yet between the book’s heavy covers, a very modern story unfolds. It goes as follows: Man skids into midlife and loses his soul. Man goes looking for soul. After a lot of instructive hardship and adventure — taking place entirely in his head — he finds it again.
Some people feel that nobody should read the book, and some feel that everybody should read it. The truth is, nobody really knows. Most of what has been said about the book — what it is, what it means — is the product of guesswork, because from the time it was begun in 1914 in a smallish town in Switzerland, it seems that only about two dozen people have managed to read or even have much of a look at it.
Of those who did see it, at least one person, an educated Englishwoman who was allowed to read some of the book in the 1920s, thought it held infinite wisdom — “There are people in my country who would read it from cover to cover without stopping to breathe scarcely,” she wrote — while another, a well-known literary type who glimpsed it shortly after, deemed it both fascinating and worrisome, concluding that it was the work of a psychotic.
So for the better part of the past century, despite the fact that it is thought to be the pivotal work of one of the era’s great thinkers, the book has existed mostly just as a rumor, cosseted behind the skeins of its own legend — revered and puzzled over only from a great distance.
Which is why one rainy November night in 2007, I boarded a flight in Boston and rode the clouds until I woke up in Zurich, pulling up to the airport gate at about the same hour that the main branch of the United Bank of Switzerland, located on the city’s swanky Bahnhofstrasse, across from Tommy Hilfiger and close to Cartier, was opening its doors for the day. A change was under way: the book, which had spent the past 23 years locked inside a safe deposit box in one of the bank’s underground vaults, was just then being wrapped in black cloth and loaded into a discreet-looking padded suitcase on wheels. It was then rolled past the guards, out into the sunlight and clear, cold air, where it was loaded into a waiting car and whisked away.
THIS COULD SOUND, I realize, like the start of a spy novel or a Hollywood bank caper, but it is rather a story about genius and madness, as well as possession and obsession, with one object — this old, unusual book — skating among those things. Also, there are a lot of Jungians involved, a species of thinkers who subscribe to the theories of Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and author of the big red leather book. And Jungians, almost by definition, tend to get enthused anytime something previously hidden reveals itself, when whatever’s been underground finally makes it to the surface.
Carl Jung founded the field of analytical psychology and, along with Sigmund Freud, was responsible for popularizing the idea that a person’s interior life merited not just attention but dedicated exploration — a notion that has since propelled tens of millions of people into psychotherapy. Freud, who started as Jung’s mentor and later became his rival, generally viewed the unconscious mind as a warehouse for repressed desires, which could then be codified and pathologized and treated. Jung, over time, came to see the psyche as an inherently more spiritual and fluid place, an ocean that could be fished for enlightenment and healing.
Whether or not he would have wanted it this way, Jung — who regarded himself as a scientist — is today remembered more as a countercultural icon, a proponent of spirituality outside religion and the ultimate champion of dreamers and seekers everywhere, which has earned him both posthumous respect and posthumous ridicule. Jung’s ideas laid the foundation for the widely used Myers-Briggs personality test and influenced the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. His central tenets — the existence of a collective unconscious and the power of archetypes — have seeped into the larger domain of New Age thinking while remaining more at the fringes of mainstream psychology.
A big man with wire-rimmed glasses, a booming laugh and a penchant for the experimental, Jung was interested in the psychological aspects of séances, of astrology, of witchcraft. He could be jocular and also impatient. He was a dynamic speaker, an empathic listener. He had a famously magnetic appeal with women. Working at Zurich’s Burghölzli psychiatric hospital, Jung listened intently to the ravings of schizophrenics, believing they held clues to both personal and universal truths. At home, in his spare time, he pored over Dante, Goethe, Swedenborg and Nietzsche. He began to study mythology and world cultures, applying what he learned to the live feed from the unconscious — claiming that dreams offered a rich and symbolic narrative coming from the depths of the psyche. Somewhere along the way, he started to view the human soul — not just the mind and the body — as requiring specific care and development, an idea that pushed him into a province long occupied by poets and priests but not so much by medical doctors and empirical scientists.
Jung soon found himself in opposition not just to Freud but also to most of his field, the psychiatrists who constituted the dominant culture at the time, speaking the clinical language of symptom and diagnosis behind the deadbolts of asylum wards. Separation was not easy. As his convictions began to crystallize, Jung, who was at that point an outwardly successful and ambitious man with a young family, a thriving private practice and a big, elegant house on the shores of Lake Zurich, felt his own psyche starting to teeter and slide, until finally he was dumped into what would become a life-altering crisis.
What happened next to Carl Jung has become, among Jungians and other scholars, the topic of enduring legend and controversy. It has been characterized variously as a creative illness, a descent into the underworld, a bout with insanity, a narcissistic self-deification, a transcendence, a midlife breakdown and an inner disturbance mirroring the upheaval of World War I. Whatever the case, in 1913, Jung, who was then 38, got lost in the soup of his own psyche. He was haunted by troubling visions and heard inner voices. Grappling with the horror of some of what he saw, he worried in moments that he was, in his own words, “menaced by a psychosis” or “doing a schizophrenia.”
He later would compare this period of his life — this “confrontation with the unconscious,” as he called it — to a mescaline experiment. He described his visions as coming in an “incessant stream.” He likened them to rocks falling on his head, to thunderstorms, to molten lava. “I often had to cling to the table,” he recalled, “so as not to fall apart.”
Had he been a psychiatric patient, Jung might well have been told he had a nervous disorder and encouraged to ignore the circus going on in his head. But as a psychiatrist, and one with a decidedly maverick streak, he tried instead to tear down the wall between his rational self and his psyche. For about six years, Jung worked to prevent his conscious mind from blocking out what his unconscious mind wanted to show him. Between appointments with patients, after dinner with his wife and children, whenever there was a spare hour or two, Jung sat in a book-lined office on the second floor of his home and actually induced hallucinations — what he called “active imaginations.” “In order to grasp the fantasies which were stirring in me ‘underground,’ ” Jung wrote later in his book “Memories, Dreams, Reflections,” “I knew that I had to let myself plummet down into them.” He found himself in a liminal place, as full of creative abundance as it was of potential ruin, believing it to be the same borderlands traveled by both lunatics and great artists.
Jung recorded it all. First taking notes in a series of small, black journals, he then expounded upon and analyzed his fantasies, writing in a regal, prophetic tone in the big red-leather book. The book detailed an unabashedly psychedelic voyage through his own mind, a vaguely Homeric progression of encounters with strange people taking place in a curious, shifting dreamscape. Writing in German, he filled 205 oversize pages with elaborate calligraphy and with richly hued, staggeringly detailed paintings.
What he wrote did not belong to his previous canon of dispassionate, academic essays on psychiatry. Nor was it a straightforward diary. It did not mention his wife, or his children, or his colleagues, nor for that matter did it use any psychiatric language at all. Instead, the book was a kind of phantasmagoric morality play, driven by Jung’s own wish not just to chart a course out of the mangrove swamp of his inner world but also to take some of its riches with him. It was this last part — the idea that a person might move beneficially between the poles of the rational and irrational, the light and the dark, the conscious and the unconscious — that provided the germ for his later work and for what analytical psychology would become.
The book tells the story of Jung trying to face down his own demons as they emerged from the shadows. The results are humiliating, sometimes unsavory. In it, Jung travels the land of the dead, falls in love with a woman he later realizes is his sister, gets squeezed by a giant serpent and, in one terrifying moment, eats the liver of a little child. (“I swallow with desperate efforts — it is impossible — once again and once again — I almost faint — it is done.”) At one point, even the devil criticizes Jung as hateful.
He worked on his red book — and he called it just that, the Red Book — on and off for about 16 years, long after his personal crisis had passed, but he never managed to finish it. He actively fretted over it, wondering whether to have it published and face ridicule from his scientifically oriented peers or to put it in a drawer and forget it. Regarding the significance of what the book contained, however, Jung was unequivocal. “All my works, all my creative activity,” he would recall later, “has come from those initial fantasies and dreams.”
Jung evidently kept the Red Book locked in a cupboard in his house in the Zurich suburb of Küsnacht. When he died in 1961, he left no specific instructions about what to do with it. His son, Franz, an architect and the third of Jung’s five children, took over running the house and chose to leave the book, with its strange musings and elaborate paintings, where it was. Later, in 1984, the family transferred it to the bank, where since then it has fulminated as both an asset and a liability.
Anytime someone did ask to see the Red Book, family members said, without hesitation and sometimes without decorum, no. The book was private, they asserted, an intensely personal work. In 1989, an American analyst named Stephen Martin, who was then the editor of a Jungian journal and now directs a Jungian nonprofit foundation, visited Jung’s son (his other four children were daughters) and inquired about the Red Book. The question was met with a vehemence that surprised him. “Franz Jung, an otherwise genial and gracious man, reacted sharply, nearly with anger,” Martin later wrote in his foundation’s newsletter, saying “in no uncertain terms” that Martin could not “see the Red Book, nor could he ever imagine that it would be published.”
And yet, Carl Jung’s secret Red Book — scanned, translated and footnoted — will be in stores early next month, published by W. W. Norton and billed as the “most influential unpublished work in the history of psychology.” Surely it is a victory for someone, but it is too early yet to say for whom.
STEPHEN MARTIN IS a compact, bearded man of 57. He has a buoyant, irreverent wit and what feels like a fully intact sense of wonder. If you happen to have a conversation with him anytime before, say, 10 a.m., he will ask his first question — “How did you sleep?” — and likely follow it with a second one — “Did you dream?” Because for Martin, as it is for all Jungian analysts, dreaming offers a barometric reading of the psyche. At his house in a leafy suburb of Philadelphia, Martin keeps five thick books filled with notations on and interpretations of all the dreams he had while studying to be an analyst 30 years ago in Zurich, under the tutelage of a Swiss analyst then in her 70s named Liliane Frey-Rohn. These days, Martin stores his dreams on his computer, but his dream life is — as he says everybody’s dream life should be — as involving as ever.
Even as some of his peers in the Jungian world are cautious about regarding Carl Jung as a sage — a history of anti-Semitic remarks and his sometimes patriarchal views of women have caused some to distance themselves — Martin is unapologetically reverential. He keeps Jung’s 20 volumes of collected works on a shelf at home. He rereads “Memories, Dreams, Reflections” at least twice a year. Many years ago, when one of his daughters interviewed him as part of a school project and asked what his religion was, Martin, a nonobservant Jew, answered, “Oh, honey, I’m a Jungian.”
The first time I met him, at the train station in Ardmore, Pa., Martin shook my hand and thoughtfully took my suitcase. “Come,” he said. “I’ll take you to see the holy hankie.” We then walked several blocks to the office where Martin sees clients. The room was cozy and cavelike, with a thick rug and walls painted a deep, handsome shade of blue. There was a Mission-style sofa and two upholstered chairs and an espresso machine in one corner.
Several mounted vintage posters of Zurich hung on the walls, along with framed photographs of Carl Jung, looking wise and white-haired, and Liliane Frey-Rohn, a round-faced woman smiling maternally from behind a pair of severe glasses.
Martin tenderly lifted several first-edition books by Jung from a shelf, opening them so I could see how they had been inscribed to Frey-Rohn, who later bequeathed them to Martin. Finally, we found ourselves standing in front of a square frame hung on the room’s far wall, another gift from his former analyst and the centerpiece of Martin’s Jung arcana. Inside the frame was a delicate linen square, its crispness worn away by age — a folded handkerchief with the letters “CGJ” embroidered neatly in one corner in gray. Martin pointed. “There you have it,” he said with exaggerated pomp, “the holy hankie, the sacred nasal shroud of C. G. Jung.”
In addition to practicing as an analyst, Martin is the director of the Philemon Foundation, which focuses on preparing the unpublished works of Carl Jung for publication, with the Red Book as its central project. He has spent the last several years aggressively, sometimes evangelistically, raising money in the Jungian community to support his foundation. The foundation, in turn, helped pay for the translating of the book and the addition of a scholarly apparatus — a lengthy introduction and vast network of footnotes — written by a London-based historian named Sonu Shamdasani, who serves as the foundation’s general editor and who spent about three years persuading the family to endorse the publication of the book and to allow him access to it.
Given the Philemon Foundation’s aim to excavate and make public C. G. Jung’s old papers — lectures he delivered at Zurich’s Psychological Club or unpublished letters, for example — both Martin and Shamdasani, who started the foundation in 2003, have worked to develop a relationship with the Jung family, the owners and notoriously protective gatekeepers of Jung’s works. Martin echoed what nearly everybody I met subsequently would tell me about working with Jung’s descendants. “It’s sometimes delicate,” he said, adding by way of explanation, “They are very Swiss.”
What he likely meant by this was that the members of the Jung family who work most actively on maintaining Jung’s estate tend to do things carefully and with an emphasis on privacy and decorum and are on occasion taken aback by the relatively brazen and totally informal way that American Jungians — who it is safe to say are the most ardent of all Jungians — inject themselves into the family’s business. There are Americans knocking unannounced on the door of the family home in Küsnacht; Americans scaling the fence at Bollingen, the stone tower Jung built as a summer residence farther south on the shore of Lake Zurich. Americans pepper Ulrich Hoerni, one of Jung’s grandsons who manages Jung’s editorial and archival matters through a family foundation, almost weekly with requests for various permissions. The relationship between the Jungs and the people who are inspired by Jung is, almost by necessity, a complex symbiosis. The Red Book — which on one hand described Jung’s self-analysis and became the genesis for the Jungian method and on the other was just strange enough to possibly embarrass the family — held a certain electrical charge. Martin recognized the descendants’ quandary. “They own it, but they haven’t lived it,” he said, describing Jung’s legacy. “It’s very consternating for them because we all feel like we own it.” Even the old psychiatrist himself seemed to recognize the tension. “Thank God I am Jung,” he is rumored once to have said, “and not a Jungian.”
“This guy, he was a bodhisattva,” Martin said to me that day. “This is the greatest psychic explorer of the 20th century, and this book tells the story of his inner life.” He added, “It gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.” He had at that point yet to lay eyes on the book, but for him that made it all the more tantalizing. His hope was that the Red Book would “reinvigorate” Jungian psychology, or at the very least bring himself personally closer to Jung. “Will I understand it?” he said. “Probably not. Will it disappoint? Probably. Will it inspire? How could it not?” He paused a moment, seeming to think it through. “I want to be transformed by it,” he said finally. “That’s all there is.”
IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND and decode the Red Book — a process he says required more than five years of concentrated work — Sonu Shamdasani took long, rambling walks on London’s Hampstead Heath. He would translate the book in the morning, then walk miles in the park in the afternoon, his mind trying to follow the rabbit’s path Jung had forged through his own mind.
Shamdasani is 46. He has thick black hair, a punctilious eye for detail and an understated, even somnolent, way of speaking. He is friendly but not particularly given to small talk. If Stephen Martin is — in Jungian terms — a “feeling type,” then Shamdasani, who teaches at the University College London’s Wellcome Trust Center for the History of Medicine and keeps a book by the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus by his sofa for light reading, is a “thinking type.” He has studied Jungian psychology for more than 15 years and is particularly drawn to the breadth of Jung’s psychology and his knowledge of Eastern thought, as well as the historical richness of his era, a period when visionary writing was more common, when science and art were more entwined and when Europe was slipping into the psychic upheaval of war. He tends to be suspicious of interpretive thinking that’s not anchored by hard fact — and has, in fact, made a habit of attacking anybody he deems guilty of sloppy scholarship — and also maintains a generally unsentimental attitude toward Jung. Both of these qualities make him, at times, awkward company among both Jungians and Jungs.
The relationship between historians and the families of history’s luminaries is, almost by nature, one of mutual disenchantment. One side works to extract; the other to protect. One pushes; one pulls. Stephen Joyce, James Joyce’s literary executor and last living heir, has compared scholars and biographers to “rats and lice.” Vladimir Nabokov’s son Dmitri recently told an interviewer that he considered destroying his father’s last known novel in order to rescue it from the “monstrous nincompoops” who had already picked over his father’s life and works. T. S. Eliot’s widow, Valerie Fletcher, has actively kept his papers out of the hands of biographers, and Anna Freud was, during her lifetime, notoriously selective about who was allowed to read and quote from her father’s archives.
Even against this backdrop, the Jungs, led by Ulrich Hoerni, the chief literary administrator, have distinguished themselves with their custodial vigor. Over the years, they have tried to interfere with the publication of books perceived to be negative or inaccurate (including one by the award-winning biographer Deirdre Bair), engaged in legal standoffs with Jungians and other academics over rights to Jung’s work and maintained a state of high agitation concerning the way C. G. Jung is portrayed. Shamdasani was initially cautious with Jung’s heirs. “They had a retinue of people coming to them and asking to see the crown jewels,” he told me in London this summer. “And the standard reply was, ‘Get lost.’ ”
Shamdasani first approached the family with a proposal to edit and eventually publish the Red Book in 1997, which turned out to be an opportune moment. Franz Jung, a vehement opponent of exposing Jung’s private side, had recently died, and the family was reeling from the publication of two controversial and widely discussed books by an American psychologist named Richard Noll, who proposed that Jung was a philandering, self-appointed prophet of a sun-worshiping Aryan cult and that several of his central ideas were either plagiarized or based upon falsified research.
While the attacks by Noll might have normally propelled the family to more vociferously guard the Red Book, Shamdasani showed up with the right bargaining chips — two partial typed draft manuscripts (without illustrations) of the Red Book he had dug up elsewhere. One was sitting on a bookshelf in a house in southern Switzerland, at the home of the elderly daughter of a woman who once worked as a transcriptionist and translator for Jung. The second he found at Yale University’s Beinecke Library, in an uncataloged box of papers belonging to a well-known German publisher. The fact that there were partial copies of the Red Book signified two things — one, that Jung had distributed it to at least a few friends, presumably soliciting feedback for publication; and two, that the book, so long considered private and inaccessible, was in fact findable. The specter of Richard Noll and anybody else who, they feared, might want to taint Jung by quoting selectively from the book loomed large. With or without the family’s blessing, the Red Book — or at least parts of it — would likely become public at some point soon, “probably,” Shamdasani wrote ominously in a report to the family, “in sensationalistic form.”
For about two years, Shamdasani flew back and forth to Zurich, making his case to Jung’s heirs. He had lunches and coffees and delivered a lecture. Finally, after what were by all accounts tense deliberations inside the family, Shamdasani was given a small salary and a color copy of the original book and was granted permission to proceed in preparing it for publication, though he was bound by a strict confidentiality agreement. When money ran short in 2003, the Philemon Foundation was created to finance Shamdasani’s research.
Having lived more or less alone with the book for almost a decade, Shamdasani — who is a lover of fine wine and the intricacies of jazz — these days has the slightly stunned aspect of someone who has only very recently found his way out of an enormous maze. When I visited him this summer in the book-stuffed duplex overlooking the heath, he was just adding his 1,051st footnote to the Red Book.
The footnotes map both Shamdasani’s journey and Jung’s. They include references to Faust, Keats, Ovid, the Norse gods Odin and Thor, the Egyptian deities Isis and Osiris, the Greek goddess Hecate, ancient Gnostic texts, Greek Hyperboreans, King Herod, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, astrology, the artist Giacometti and the alchemical formulation of gold. And that’s just naming a few. The central premise of the book, Shamdasani told me, was that Jung had become disillusioned with scientific rationalism — what he called “the spirit of the times” — and over the course of many quixotic encounters with his own soul and with other inner figures, he comes to know and appreciate “the spirit of the depths,” a field that makes room for magic, coincidence and the mythological metaphors delivered by dreams.
“It is the nuclear reactor for all his works,” Shamdasani said, noting that Jung’s more well-known concepts — including his belief that humanity shares a pool of ancient wisdom that he called the collective unconscious and the thought that personalities have both male and female components (animus and anima) — have their roots in the Red Book. Creating the book also led Jung to reformulate how he worked with clients, as evidenced by an entry Shamdasani found in a self-published book written by a former client, in which she recalls Jung’s advice for processing what went on in the deeper and sometimes frightening parts of her mind.
“I should advise you to put it all down as beautifully as you can — in some beautifully bound book,” Jung instructed. “It will seem as if you were making the visions banal — but then you need to do that — then you are freed from the power of them. . . . Then when these things are in some precious book you can go to the book & turn over the pages & for you it will be your church — your cathedral — the silent places of your spirit where you will find renewal. If anyone tells you that it is morbid or neurotic and you listen to them — then you will lose your soul — for in that book is your soul.”
ZURICH IS, IF NOTHING ELSE, one of Europe’s more purposeful cities. Its church bells clang precisely; its trains glide in and out on a flawless schedule. There are crowded fondue restaurants and chocolatiers and rosy-cheeked natives breezily pedaling their bicycles over the stone bridges that span the Limmat River. In summer, white-sailed yachts puff around Lake Zurich; in winter, the Alps glitter on the horizon. And during the lunch hour year-round, squads of young bankers stride the Bahnhofstrasse in their power suits and high-end watches, appearing eternally mindful of the fact that beneath everyone’s feet lie labyrinthine vaults stuffed with a dazzling and disproportionate amount of the world’s wealth.
But there, too, ventilating the city’s material splendor with their devotion to dreams, are the Jungians. Some 100 Jungian analysts practice in and around Zurich, examining their clients’ dreams in sessions held in small offices tucked inside buildings around the city. Another few hundred analysts in training can be found studying at one of the two Jungian institutes in the area. More than once, I have been told that, in addition to being a fantastic tourist destination and a good place to hide money, Zurich is an excellent city for dreaming.
Jungians are accustomed to being in the minority pretty much everywhere they go, but here, inside a city of 370,000, they have found a certain quiet purchase. Zurich, for Jungians, is spiritually loaded. It’s a kind of Jerusalem, the place where C. G. Jung began his career, held seminars, cultivated an inner circle of disciples, developed his theories of the psyche and eventually grew old. Many of the people who enroll in the institutes are Swiss, American, British or German, but some are from places like Japan and South Africa and Brazil. Though there are other Jungian institutes in other cities around the world offering diploma programs, learning the techniques of dream analysis in Zurich is a little bit like learning to hit a baseball in Yankee Stadium. For a believer, the place alone conveys a talismanic grace.
Just as I had, Stephen Martin flew to Zurich the week the Red Book was taken from its bank-vault home and moved to a small photo studio near the opera house to be scanned, page by page, for publication. (A separate English translation along with Shamdasani’s introduction and footnotes will be included at the back of the book.) Martin already made a habit of visiting Zurich a few times a year for “bratwurst and renewal” and to attend to Philemon Foundation business. My first morning there, we walked around the older parts of Zurich, before going to see the book. Zurich made Martin nostalgic. It was here that he met his wife, Charlotte, and here that he developed the almost equally important relationship with his analyst, Frey-Rohn, carrying himself and his dreams to her office two or three times weekly for several years.
Undergoing analysis is a central, learn-by-doing part of Jungian training, which usually takes about five years and also involves taking courses in folklore, mythology, comparative religion and psychopathology, among others. It is, Martin says, very much a “mentor-based discipline.” He is fond of pointing out his own conferred pedigree, because Frey-Rohn was herself analyzed by C. G. Jung. Most analysts seem to know their bloodlines. That morning, Martin and I were passing a cafe when he spotted another American analyst, someone he knew in school and who has since settled in Switzerland. “Oh, there’s Bob,” Martin said merrily, making his way toward the man. “Bob trained with Liliane,” he explained to me, “and that makes us kind of like brothers.”
Jungian analysis revolves largely around writing down your dreams (or drawing them) and bringing them to the analyst — someone who is patently good with both symbols and people — to be scoured for personal and archetypal meaning. Borrowing from Jung’s own experiences, analysts often encourage clients to experiment on their own with active imagination, to summon a waking dreamscape and to interact with whatever, or whoever, surfaces there. Analysis is considered to be a form of psychotherapy, and many analysts are in fact trained also as psychotherapists, but in its purist form, a Jungian analyst eschews clinical talk of diagnoses and recovery in favor of broader (and some might say fuzzier) goals of self-discovery and wholeness — a maturation process Jung himself referred to as “individuation.” Perhaps as a result, Jungian analysis has a distinct appeal to people in midlife. “The purpose of analysis is not treatment,” Martin explained to me. “That’s the purpose of psychotherapy. The purpose of analysis,” he added, a touch grandly, “is to give life back to someone who’s lost it.”
Later that day, we went to the photo studio where the work on the book was already under way. The room was a charmless space with concrete floors and black walls. Its hushed atmosphere and glaring lights added a slightly surgical aspect. There was the editor from Norton in a tweedy sport coat. There was an art director hired by Norton and two technicians from a company called DigitalFusion, who had flown to Zurich from Southern California with what looked to be a half-ton of computer and camera equipment.
Shamdasani arrived ahead of us. And so did Ulrich Hoerni, who, along with his cousin Peter Jung, had become a cautious supporter of Shamdasani, working to build consensus inside the family to allow the book out into the world. Hoerni was the one to fetch the book from the bank and was now standing by, his brow furrowed, appearing somewhat tortured. To talk to Jung’s heirs is to understand that nearly four decades after his death, they continue to reel inside the psychic tornado Jung created during his lifetime, caught between the opposing forces of his admirers and critics and between their own filial loyalties and history’s pressing tendency to judge and rejudge its own playmakers. Hoerni would later tell me that Shamdasani’s discovery of the stray copies of the Red Book surprised him, that even today he’s not entirely clear about whether Carl Jung ever intended for the Red Book to be published. “He left it an open question,” he said. “One might think he would have taken some of his children aside and said, ‘This is what it is and what I want done with it,’ but he didn’t.” It was a burden Hoerni seemed to wear heavily. He had shown up at the photo studio not just with the Red Book in its special padded suitcase but also with a bedroll and a toothbrush, since after the day’s work was wrapped, he would be spending the night curled up near the book — “a necessary insurance measure,” he would explain.
And finally, there sunbathing under the lights, sat Carl Jung’s Red Book, splayed open to Page 37. One side of the open page showed an intricate mosaic painting of a giant holding an ax, surrounded by winged serpents and crocodiles. The other side was filled with a cramped German calligraphy that seemed at once controlled and also, just given the number of words on the page, created the impression of something written feverishly, cathartically. Above the book a 10,200-pixel scanner suspended on a dolly clicked and whirred, capturing the book one-tenth of a millimeter at a time and uploading the images into a computer.
The Red Book had an undeniable beauty. Its colors seemed almost to pulse, its writing almost to crawl. Shamdasani’s relief was palpable, as was Hoerni’s anxiety. Everyone in the room seemed frozen in a kind of awe, especially Stephen Martin, who stood about eight feet away from the book but then finally, after a few minutes, began to inch closer to it. When the art director called for a break, Martin leaned in, tilting his head to read some of the German on the page. Whether he understood it or not, he didn’t say. He only looked up and smiled.
ONE AFTERNOON I took a break from the scanning and visited Andreas Jung, who lives with his wife, Vreni, in C. G. Jung’s old house at 228 Seestrasse in the town of Küsnacht. The house — a 5,000-square-foot, 1908 baroque-style home, designed by the psychiatrist and financed largely with his wife, Emma’s, inheritance — sits on an expanse between the road and the lake. Two rows of trimmed, towering topiary trees create a narrow passage to the entrance. The house faces the white-capped lake, a set of manicured gardens and, in one corner, an anomalous, unruly patch of bamboo.
Andreas is a tall man with a quiet demeanor and a gentlemanly way of dressing. At 64, he resembles a thinner, milder version of his famous grandfather, whom he refers to as “C. G.” Among Jung’s five children (all but one are dead) and 19 grandchildren (all but five are still living), he is one of the youngest and also known as the most accommodating to curious outsiders. It is an uneasy kind of celebrity. He and Vreni make tea and politely serve cookies and dispense little anecdotes about Jung to those courteous enough to make an advance appointment. “People want to talk to me and sometimes even touch me,” Andreas told me, seeming both amused and a little sheepish. “But it is not at all because of me, of course. It is because of my grandfather.” He mentioned that the gardeners who trim the trees are often perplexed when they encounter strangers — usually foreigners — snapping pictures of the house. “In Switzerland, C. G. Jung is not thought to be so important,” he said. “They don’t see the point of it.”
Jung, who was born in the mountain village of Kesswil, was a lifelong outsider in Zurich, even as in his adult years he seeded the city with his followers and became — along with Paul Klee and Karl Barth — one of the best-known Swissmen of his era. Perhaps his marginalization stemmed in part from the offbeat nature of his ideas. (He was mocked, for example, for publishing a book in the late 1950s that examined the psychological phenomenon of flying saucers.) Maybe it was his well-documented abrasiveness toward people he found uninteresting. Or maybe it was connected to the fact that he broke with the established ranks of his profession. (During the troubled period when he began writing the Red Book, Jung resigned from his position at Burghölzli, never to return.) Most likely, too, it had something to do with the unconventional, unhidden, 40-something-year affair he conducted with a shy but intellectually forbidding woman named Toni Wolff, one of Jung’s former analysands who went on to become an analyst as well as Jung’s close professional collaborator and a frequent, if not fully welcome, fixture at the Jung family dinner table.
“The life of C. G. Jung was not easy,” Andreas said. “For the family, it was not easy at all.” As a young man, Andreas had sometimes gone and found his grandfather’s Red Book in the cupboard and paged through it, just for fun. Knowing its author personally, he said, “It was not strange to me at all.”
For the family, C. G. Jung became more of a puzzle after his death, having left behind a large amount of unpublished work and an audience eager to get its hands on it. “There were big fights,” Andreas told me when I visited him again this summer. Andreas, who was 19 when his grandfather died, recalled family debates over whether or not to allow some of Jung’s private letters to be published. When the extended family gathered for the annual Christmas party in Küsnacht, Jung’s children would disappear into a room and have heated discussions about what to do with what he had left behind while his grandchildren played in another room. “My cousins and brothers and I, we thought they were silly to argue over these things,” Andreas said, with a light laugh. “But later when our parents died, we found ourselves having those same arguments.”
Even Jung’s great-grandchildren felt his presence. “He was omnipresent,” Daniel Baumann, whose grandmother was Jung’s daughter Gret, would tell me when I met him later. He described his own childhood with a mix of bitterness and sympathy directed at the older generations. “It was, ‘Jung said this,’ and ‘Jung did that,’ and ‘Jung thought that.’ When you did something, he was always present somehow. He just continued to live on. He was with us. He is still with us,” Baumann said. Baumann is an architect and also the president of the board of the C. G. Jung Institute in Küsnacht. He deals with Jungians all the time, and for them, he said, it was the same. Jung was both there and not there. “It’s sort of like a hologram,” he said. “Everyone projects something in the space, and Jung begins to be a real person again.”
ONE NIGHT DURING the week of the scanning in Zurich, I had a big dream. A big dream, the Jungians tell me, is a departure from all your regular dreams, which in my case meant this dream was not about falling off a cliff or missing an exam. This dream was about an elephant — a dead elephant with its head cut off. The head was on a grill at a suburban-style barbecue, and I was holding the spatula. Everybody milled around with cocktails; the head sizzled over the flames. I was angry at my daughter’s kindergarten teacher because she was supposed to be grilling the elephant head at the barbecue, but she hadn’t bothered to show up. And so the job fell to me. Then I woke up.
At the hotel breakfast buffet, I bumped into Stephen Martin and a Californian analyst named Nancy Furlotti, who is the vice president on the board of the Philemon Foundation and was at that moment having tea and muesli.
“How are you?” Martin said.
“Did you dream?” Furlotti asked
“What do elephants mean to you?” Martin asked after I relayed my dream.
“I like elephants,” I said. “I admire elephants.”
“There’s Ganesha,” Furlotti said, more to Martin than to me. “Ganesha is an Indian god of wisdom.”
“Elephants are maternal,” Martin offered, “very caring.”
They spent a few minutes puzzling over the archetypal role of the kindergarten teacher. “How do you feel about her?” “Would you say she is more like a mother figure or more like a witch?”
Giving a dream to a Jungian analyst is a little bit like feeding a complex quadratic equation to someone who really enjoys math. It takes time. The process itself is to be savored. The solution is not always immediately evident. In the following months, I told my dream to several more analysts, and each one circled around similar symbolic concepts about femininity and wisdom. One day I was in the office of Murray Stein, an American analyst who lives in Switzerland and serves as the president of the International School of Analytical Psychology, talking about the Red Book. Stein was telling me about how some Jungian analysts he knew were worried about the publication — worried specifically that it was a private document and would be apprehended as the work of a crazy person, which then reminded me of my crazy dream. I related it to him, saying that the very thought of eating an elephant’s head struck me as grotesque and embarrassing and possibly a sign there was something deeply wrong with my psyche. Stein assured me that eating is a symbol for integration. “Don’t worry,” he said soothingly. “It’s horrifying on a naturalistic level, but symbolically it is good.”
It turned out that nearly everybody around the Red Book was dreaming that week. Nancy Furlotti dreamed that we were all sitting at a table drinking amber liquid from glass globes and talking about death. (Was the scanning of the book a death? Wasn’t death followed by rebirth?) Sonu Shamdasani dreamed that he came upon Hoerni sleeping in the garden of a museum. Stephen Martin was sure that he had felt some invisible hand patting him on the back while he slept. And Hugh Milstein, one of the digital techs scanning the book, passed a tormented night watching a ghostly, white-faced child flash on a computer screen. (Furlotti and Martin debated: could that be Mercurius? The god of travelers at a crossroads?)
Early one morning we were standing around the photo studio discussing our various dreams when Ulrich Hoerni trudged through the door, having deputized his nephew Felix to spend the previous night next to the Red Book. Felix had done his job; the Red Book lay sleeping with its cover closed on the table. But Hoerni, appearing weary, seemed to be taking an extra hard look at the book. The Jungians greeted him. “How are you? Did you dream last night?”
“Yes,” Hoerni said quietly, not moving his gaze from the table. “I dreamed the book was on fire.”
ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH the Red Book — after he has traversed a desert, scrambled up mountains, carried God on his back, committed murder, visited hell; and after he has had long and inconclusive talks with his guru, Philemon, a man with bullhorns and a long beard who flaps around on kingfisher wings — Jung is feeling understandably tired and insane. This is when his soul, a female figure who surfaces periodically throughout the book, shows up again. She tells him not to fear madness but to accept it, even to tap into it as a source of creativity. “If you want to find paths, you should also not spurn madness, since it makes up such a great part of your nature.”
The Red Book is not an easy journey — it wasn’t for Jung, it wasn’t for his family, nor for Shamdasani, and neither will it be for readers. The book is bombastic, baroque and like so much else about Carl Jung, a willful oddity, synched with an antediluvian and mystical reality. The text is dense, often poetic, always strange. The art is arresting and also strange. Even today, its publication feels risky, like an exposure. But then again, it is possible Jung intended it as such. In 1959, after having left the book more or less untouched for 30 or so years, he penned a brief epilogue, acknowledging the central dilemma in considering the book’s fate. “To the superficial observer,” he wrote, “it will appear like madness.” Yet the very fact he wrote an epilogue seems to indicate that he trusted his words would someday find the right audience.
Shamdasani figures that the Red Book’s contents will ignite both Jung’s fans and his critics. Already there are Jungians planning conferences and lectures devoted to the Red Book, something that Shamdasani finds amusing. Recalling that it took him years to feel as if he understood anything about the book, he’s curious to know what people will be saying about it just months after it is published. As far as he is concerned, once the book sees daylight, it will become a major and unignorable piece of Jung’s history, the gateway into Carl Jung’s most inner of inner experiences. “Once it’s published, there will be a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in Jungian scholarship,” he told me, adding, “it will wipe out all the biographies, just for starters.” What about the rest of us, the people who aren’t Jungians, I wondered. Was there something in the Red Book for us? “Absolutely, there is a human story here,” Shamdasani said. “The basic message he’s sending is ‘Value your inner life.’ ”
After it was scanned, the book went back to its bank-vault home, but it will move again — this time to New York, accompanied by a number of Jung’s descendents. For the next few months it will be on display at the Rubin Museum of Art. Ulrich Hoerni told me this summer that he assumed the book would generate “criticism and gossip,” but by bringing it out they were potentially rescuing future generations of Jungs from some of the struggles of the past. If another generation inherited the Red Book, he said, “the question would again have to be asked, ‘What do we do with it?’ ”
Stephen Martin too will be on hand for the book’s arrival in New York. He is already sensing that it will shed positive light on Jung — this thanks to a dream he had recently about an “inexpressively sublime” dawn breaking over the Swiss Alps — even as others are not so certain.
In the Red Book, after Jung’s soul urges him to embrace the madness, Jung is still doubtful. Then suddenly, as happens in dreams, his soul turns into “a fat, little professor,” who expresses a kind of paternal concern for Jung.
Jung says: “I too believe that I’ve completely lost myself. Am I really crazy? It’s all terribly confusing.”
The professor responds: “Have patience, everything will work out. Anyway, sleep well.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 20, 2009
An article on Page 34 this weekend about Carl Jung and a book he wrote about struggling with his own demons misspells the name of a street in Zurich where, before it was published, the book was held for years in a bank safe-deposit box, and a correction in this space on Saturday also misspelled the name. It is Bahnhofstrasse, not Banhofstrasse or Banhoffstrasse. The article also misstates the location of Bollingen, the town where Jung built a stone tower as a summer residence. While it is on the north shore of Lake Zurich, it is south of the Jung family home in Küsnacht.
Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) Chief of Staff: ‘All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography’
By David Weigel 9/20/09 1:54 PM
One of the final events of the Values Voter Summit was a Saturday breakout session on “the new masculinity,” a wide-ranging topic that one speaker used to explain how any and all pornography could lead young people into homosexual lifestyles. That speaker was Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) chief of staff Michael Schwartz, a longtime conservative activist who has worked for the senator since 2005.
“Pornography is a blight,” Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. “It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it’s been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.”
Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. “One of the things he said to me,” said Schwartz, “that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark… he said ‘All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”
There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. “Now, think about that,” said Schwartz. “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”
Here’s the final portion of Schwartz’s remarks.
so…
basically internalized or introverted sexuality equals homosexuality
same thing
?
oh
and that’s a bad thing
!Luh ah ah Jik!
the first vid in a 17 part series made by AronRa
check out his youtube page for the series and more of his work
http://www.youtube.com/AronRa
http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html
The U.S. population seems pretty evenly divided over whether the human species is biologically related to other animals or whether we were “specially-created” as part of a flurry of miracles. Even our collective politicians -seemingly all of them- are wrapped up in this controversy. Yet its hard to find even one of them who knows what its about. Why is it that there is such concern in so many grade schools (K thru 12) about teaching evolution, yet there is still a complete consensus among scientists all over America and the rest of the world -that evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and a demonstrable reality historically as well?
Most people really don’t understand science; what it is, how it works, what hypotheses and theories are, or even the purpose behind it. Sadly even those on your school faculty or state Board of Education often need an education themselves before they can be trusted to govern how or what our kids will be taught, and that’s why I thought I should speak up and do what I can to help.
To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, (which is the real trick for most people) but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy, which most people don’t know squat about at all. Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.
But to believe in creationism, you don’t have to know anything about anything, and its better if you don’t! Because creationism relies on ignorance. It is not honest research! It is a scam, a con job exploiting the common folk, and preying on their deepest beliefs and fears. Creationist apologetics depends on misrepresented data and misquoted authorities, out-of-date and out-of-context, and uses distorted definitions if it uses definitions at all.
There are basically two types of creationists; the professional or political creationists; these are the activists who lead the movement and who will regularly deliberately lie to promote their propaganda; and the second type which are the innocently-deceived followers commonly known as “sheep”. I know lots of intellectual Christians, but I can’t get any of them to actually watch the tele-evangelists, because they either already know how phony they are, or they don’t want to find out. But that only allows a radical fringe to claim support from they masses they now also claim to represent. So there’s nothing to stop them. Professional creationists are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books and videos at their circus-like seminars where they have undeserved respect as powerful leaders. All of them feign knowledge they can’t really possess, and some of them claim degrees they’ve never actually earned.
“You are a scientist, correct?”
“That’s right; I have a PhD in truthology from Christian Tech.”
Were it not for this con, they’d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else. So it is obviously the “sheep” whom I’m attempting to reach with this speech –so that they might not be sheep anymore, and will stop feeding fuel into that manipulative movement. Because its one thing to believe in something that might be true (like God in general or Christianity specifically) even though neither can be substantiated or tested in any objective way. But it is a whole other matter to willfully deceive others into believing things which are definitely not true -like creationism, especially when we can also prove that those doing this know their assorted arguments are bogus, and know they’re lying to our children, and that they hope to continue doing so under the guise of “education”.
Creationism extorts support through peer-pressure, prejudice, and paranoid propaganda, and sells itself with short, simplistic slogans which appeal to those who don’t want to think too much, or are afraid to question their own beliefs. Worst of all, it actually forbids critical inquiry, and promotes anti-intellectualism, and it is based on at least a dozen foundational falsehoods. First and foremost among them is the idea that accepting evolution requires the rejection of theism, if not all other religious or spiritual beliefs as well.
For decades those behind the creationism movement have tried very hard to portray the illusion that one cannot accept evolution and still believe in God. They know better, but they still want you to believe that evolution is atheist, and that it is either evolution without God, or God creating without evolution. That’s been their central claim since the creationism movement began. But this supposed controversy never was about whether or not there is a god. Most people believe there is a god, and they believe he is in control of all the seemingly-random events of our lives. This is true of most of the people who accept evolution also. Most of them believe in God as well, and they believe that God is in control of evolution; that evolution, like every other system in nature, is part of God’s design.
Of the couple hundred different, and often violently-conflicting denominations of Christianity, the largest of them by far is Catholicism followed by Orthodoxy. Both of these have stated support of evolution and denounced creationism. Pope Benedict recently described evolution as an “enriching reality” and described creationist contests against it as “absurd”. Both of the popes before him advised Christians ‘round the world to consider evolution to be “more than an hypothesis” and not to fear acceptance of that as being any challenge to their faith in Christ.
The early pioneers of evolutionary science were all initially Christian, (including Darwin) and many leading proponents of modern evolutionary science are still Christian today. For example, microbiologist Dr. Ken Miller, (who testified against intelligent design creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover) -is a Catholic. Another outspoken proponent of evolution, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and Yale) is not only one of the leading, and most recognizable paleontologists in the world today, but he also happens to be a Bible-believing Pentecostal preacher; though he interprets Genesis differently than literalists would. In his book, Bones, Bibles and Creation, he says that to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning. One of the earliest geneticists, Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian who many times professed his belief that life was created by God, but that nothing in biology made sense except in light of evolution. All these men agree that even if there really is a god, and even if that god is the Christian god, and even if that god created the universe and everything in it, =which they all believe- evolution would still be at least mostly true, and creationism would still be completely wrong.
Of all the developed nations throughout Christendom, only the United States has a significant number of creationists, and they’re the minority even here! Every other predominantly-Christian country tends to regard creationism as an incredulous, (if not insane) radical fringe movement which is an almost exclusively American phenomenon, and not taken seriously anywhere else. Poll after poll continues to reveal that, around the world, most “evolutionists” are Christian, and most Christians are evolutionists. So evolution is not synonymous with atheism, and creationism isn’t synonymous with Christianity either. Most creationists aren’t even Christians! There are millions more Muslim and Hindu creationists than Christian ones.
Regardless which religion they claim, creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence. These people rely instead on blind faith in the assumed authority of their favored fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally poofed out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else –despite all indications to the contrary.
Creationists may side with western Abrahamic religions, (being the Judeo-Christian/Islamic mythos) in which there are conflicting versions of the same tales. Or creationists may belong to one of many eastern religions where the sacred stories of creation are much older, completely different, and dedicated to other gods and pantheons. But in every case, the proposed “creator” is supernatural, meaning that it is not a part of perceptible reality. Therefore it is undetectable by any testable means, and can only be assumed to exist for subjective emotional reasons, or as a result of cultural indoctrination, rather than because of any measurable evidence or logical rationale. In other words, there’s no way to say if its really there. Worst of all, there’s also no way to distinguish anyone’s gods or ghosts from the imaginary beings some primitive folks just made up either. This doesn’t mean no god exists. But it does mean that science can’t say anything about them. Because even if gods are real, they still don’t appear to be, and apparently don’t want to –since all the holy books demand they be believed on faith alone. As there is nothing anyone can verify and thus actually know to be correct about gods, then science is unable to make any comment about them at all. Because science can only ever investigate things with demonstrable evidence can be tested or measured.
From the creationist’s perspective, the method or mechanism of creation which these mystical beings use is nothing more than a golem spell where clay statues are animated with an enchantment. Or its an incantation in which complex modern plants and animals are “spoken” into being. That’s right, magic words which cause fully-developed adult animals to be conjured out of thin air. Or a god simply wishes them to exist; so they do. That’s it! There really is nothing more to it than that; pure freakin’ magic –by definition. Remember that the next time you hear anything from a creation “scientist”.
So for those who believe in God, the question really is how God created, and whether it was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said “abra-cadabera”.
The 1st Falsehood of creationism:
“evolution = atheism”
so i thought i would type along while watchin this vid
as i tend to do in a stream of consciousness tag along style
i seriously got a lil scared about 2mins in and decided to leave it alone
but here’s the vid and my type along
edit: and here is the intro he speaks of
http://c0122981.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/090917BananaManIntro.pdf
so he start’s off with the vague, open and loaded question
“are you concerned about what’s happening to our country?”
divisive but loaded to where pretty much anyone would say yes based upon their own ideals and paradigms
but as soon as you internally answer “yes”
he goes off to tag his issues and grievances like we held the same when the question was asked
“god-given liberties”
how does repressed responsibility projected as a space daddy give you liberties
liberty is the right and power to express oneself in a manner of one’s choosing
it is to be free of restriction or control
isn’t that what the religions of abraham do
don’t they have like 10 set-in-stone restrictions
and are you not allowed to choose and control yourself
but must be modeled after a misunderstood and misused palestinian shaman
don’t they have that “sin” shit
and the whole eden guilt trip
tha fuck is mike seaver talkin bout!
and i’m pretty sure kids can pray in public fella
they do it all the time
i think what folk don’t like is when you try to proselytize us in public
yes
they can freely open a bible in school
they can open any book of religion and fantasy they wish
so long as its appropriate and non interfering with school work
which is what you are there to do
don’t you go to school on the weekends for the bible?
in some public places the ten commandments are not wished for or wanted displayed by the public
they are tribal commandments from 15 centuries ago!
they are societal law and civil codes for a specific population
why would the public want such displayed?
to what ends?
what about every other tribe, group, cult, club, justice league or cabal
are we to be privy and reminded of their rules and regulations?
do you think so kirk?
and yeah
the gideons
nor any other religious sub sect are allowed to proselytize at schools
im down for lettin the gideons as long as e let the hare krishnas, pastafarians and ubermensch do the same
you with me there kirk?
yes kirk
most of the enlightened or educated folk in the country do not believe in space daddies or flying monkeys
that would tend to make quite a bit of sense ya
since they have the investigative and educated experience
and kirk
atheism has doubled because paradigms like yours and people like you are the alternative!
it’s really that simple
really
not due to proselytizing professors
um
see
what you’re doing there is projection
you are assuming others do what you do
i would surely say 61% of the students at such a high level of education as you speak of are already atheistic or agnostic
again it comes with being able to think your own thoughts or process information at such a high standard
the brainwashing thing is projection too man
dont worry its very normal and nobody really gets it yet
but like you said
the %’s are rising
so that should soon change
thank god the culture is changing!
are you at all familiar with american history
seriously man
thankfully we are evolving
and everyone is pretty much aware of your “alternative”
or the logic you present as the alternative
it’s not like the evil agnostic uni profs are the only voice in the wilderness
you yourself are already overexposed and hold the unique ability to outshine and actually help keep folk agnostic more than anyone who tries to parody you
you’re better than hal lindsey(p.b.u.h.)
im completely lost on that heart changing shit with the gospel
logic?
see…
in your world
folk thinking for themselves is sin
and
you imagine that is a good thing?
ah i think we’re past 61% now
ok
so now you feel threatened by some fellas theory of evolution
and have decided to hijack his work and add false propaganda
please tell me you get the irony of including hitler into that
right
c’mon now
right
wow
think of the intro we could write for the bible!
everyone who accepts and attends the origin theory over the creation theory has already heard all that about darwin
what with the upper education n all
hitler was also a christian there kirk
i’ll let you think your own thought on that for…
well
however long
as i’m only 2 mins in to this so far…
uh-oh
wait
oh your god!
you did not just use science to discredit your “opposition”
did you really just do that?
!wow!
yep
im out!
smile, dance and think about thought
-j
ol boy has a helmet that can…
yeah
just watch
the helmet is in the intro to the lecture itself
i like to listen to this guy speak
his voice
his logic
searchin out more of his work now
kinda curious as to why im ignorant of him given the work n all
“christians” or christ likin folk should pay attention to the 36:45 min mark up until 39:00
and the info presented on rauvolfia
then his remarks on synergism
this is one h.a.i.r.y. fella
47:45 is another buena vista!
this…
“thing”
IS ridiculous
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv
wow
there are even forums you can go to to seek help for your disorders!
tha fuck??!!
there are 14 yr old kids on there proclaiming fear and despair over being “diagnosed” by this test
oh wow
i cant even answer most of these loaded questions
shit
its structured to where if you have an emotion it has to place you in one of the categories lke “you’re doin it wrong”
so many of the forum post are about folk being afraid of the disorders and searchin for help
shit
psychology is either absolutely proper or disastrously wrong
sort of like reggae music
im kinda sick and tired
figuratively
literally
idk
values have shifted
self has become clearer
steal has rubbed steel to a sharpness
i’ve always been cognizant of this line of logic
but never felt or perceived a need to be or obtain such
not that im back into vamachara or that im gettin all left handed again
maybe so though
idk
LOGIC!
The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
we’ll see
The 48 Laws of Power
by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Cours…s_of_power.htm
Law 1
Never Outshine the Master
Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.
Law 2
Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies
Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.
Law 3
Conceal your Intentions
Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.
Law 4
Always Say Less than Necessary
When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.
Law 5
So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life
Reputation is the cornerstone of power. Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once you slip, however, you are vulnerable, and will be attacked on all sides. Make your reputation unassailable. Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations. Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.
Law 6
Court Attention at all Cost
Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious, than the bland and timid masses.
Law 7
Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit
Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.
Law 8
Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary
When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack. You hold the cards.
Law 9
Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Law 10
Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky
You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.
Law 11
Learn to Keep People Dependent on You
To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.
Law 12
Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim
One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.
Law 13
When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest,
Never to their Mercy or Gratitude
If you need to turn to an ally for help, do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead, uncover something in your request, or in your alliance with him, that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion. He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.
Law 14
Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy
Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters, learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.
Law 15
Crush your Enemy Totally
All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.
Law 16
Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor
Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from, the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group, temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about, even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.
Law 17
Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.
Law 18
Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous
The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.
Law 19
Know Who You’re Dealing with – Do Not Offend the Wrong Person
There are many different kinds of people in the world, and you can never assume that everyone will react to your strategies in the same way. Deceive or outmaneuver some people and they will spend the rest of their lives seeking revenge. They are wolves in lambs’ clothing. Choose your victims and opponents carefully, then – never offend or deceive the wrong person.
Law 20
Do Not Commit to Anyone
It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.
Law 21
Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker – Seem Dumber than your Mark
No one likes feeling stupider than the next persons. The trick, is to make your victims feel smart – and not just smart, but smarter than you are. Once convinced of this, they will never suspect that you may have ulterior motives.
Law 22
Use the Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power
When you are weaker, never fight for honor’s sake; choose surrender instead. Surrender gives you time to recover, time to torment and irritate your conqueror, time to wait for his power to wane. Do not give him the satisfaction of fighting and defeating you – surrender first. By turning the other check you infuriate and unsettle him. Make surrender a tool of power.
Law 23
Concentrate Your Forces
Conserve your forces and energies by keeping them concentrated at their strongest point. You gain more by finding a rich mine and mining it deeper, than by flitting from one shallow mine to another – intensity defeats extensity every time. When looking for sources of power to elevate you, find the one key patron, the fat cow who will give you milk for a long time to come.
Law 24
Play the Perfect Courtier
The perfect courtier thrives in a world where everything revolves around power and political dexterity. He has mastered the art of indirection; he flatters, yields to superiors, and asserts power over others in the mot oblique and graceful manner. Learn and apply the laws of courtiership and there will be no limit to how far you can rise in the court.
Law 25
Re-Create Yourself
Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define if for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions – your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.
Law 26
Keep Your Hands Clean
You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: Your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat’s-paws to disguise your involvement.
Law 27
Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following
People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.
Law 28
Enter Action with Boldness
If you are unsure of a course of action, do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: Better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honors the timid.
Law 29
Plan All the Way to the End
The ending is everything. Plan all the way to it, taking into account all the possible consequences, obstacles, and twists of fortune that might reverse your hard work and give the glory to others. By planning to the end you will not be overwhelmed by circumstances and you will know when to stop. Gently guide fortune and help determine the future by thinking far ahead.
Law 30
Make your Accomplishments Seem Effortless
Your actions must seem natural and executed with ease. All the toil and practice that go into them, and also all the clever tricks, must be concealed. When you act, act effortlessly, as if you could do much more. Avoid the temptation of revealing how hard you work – it only raises questions. Teach no one your tricks or they will be used against you.
Law 31
Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal
The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.
Law 32
Play to People’s Fantasies
The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes for disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.
Law 33
Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew
Everyone has a weakness, a gap in the castle wall. That weakness is usual y an insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure. Either way, once found, it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.
Law 34
Be Royal in your Own Fashion: Act like a King to be treated like one
The way you carry yourself will often determine how you are treated; In the long run, appearing vulgar or common will make people disrespect you. For a king respects himself and inspires the same sentiment in others. By acting regally and confident of your powers, you make yourself seem destined to wear a crown.
Law 35
Master the Art of Timing
Never seem to be in a hurry – hurrying betrays a lack of control over yourself, and over time. Always seem patient, as if you know that everything will come to you eventually. Become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times, the trends that will carry you to power. Learn to stand back when the time is not yet ripe, and to strike fiercely when it has reached fruition.
Law 36
Disdain Things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best Revenge
By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.
Law 37
Create Compelling Spectacles
Striking imagery and grand symbolic gestures create the aura of power – everyone responds to them. Stage spectacles for those around you, then full of arresting visuals and radiant symbols that heighten your presence. Dazzled by appearances, no one will notice what you are really doing.
Law 38
Think as you like but Behave like others
If you make a show of going against the times, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness.
Law 39
Stir up Waters to Catch Fish
Anger and emotion are strategically counterproductive. You must always stay calm and objective. But if you can make your enemies angry while staying calm yourself, you gain a decided advantage. Put your enemies off-balance: Find the chink in their vanity through which you can rattle them and you hold the strings.
Law 40
Despise the Free Lunch
What is offered for free is dangerous – it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit. It is also often wise to pay the full price – there is no cutting corners with excellence. Be lavish with your money and keep it circulating, for generosity is a sign and a magnet for power.
Law 41
Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes
What happens first always appears better and more original than what comes after. If you succeed a great man or have a famous parent, you will have to accomplish double their achievements to outshine them. Do not get lost in their shadow, or stuck in a past not of your own making: Establish your own name and identity by changing course. Slay the overbearing father, disparage his legacy, and gain power by shining in your own way.
Law 42
Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter
Trouble can often be traced to a single strong individual – the stirrer, the arrogant underling, the poisoned of goodwill. If you allow such people room to operate, others will succumb to their influence. Do not wait for the troubles they cause to multiply, do not try to negotiate with them – they are irredeemable. Neutralize their influence by isolating or banishing them. Strike at the source of the trouble and the sheep will scatter.
Law 43
Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others
Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions, playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.
Law 44
Disarm and Infuriate with the Mirror Effect
The mirror reflects reality, but it is also the perfect tool for deception: When you mirror your enemies, doing exactly as they do, they cannot figure out your strategy. The Mirror Effect mocks and humiliates them, making them overreact. By holding up a mirror to their psyches, you seduce them with the illusion that you share their values; by holding up a mirror to their actions, you teach them a lesson. Few can resist the power of Mirror Effect.
Law 45
Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once
Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.
Law 46
Never appear too Perfect
Appearing better than others is always dangerous, but most dangerous of all is to appear to have no faults or weaknesses. Envy creates silent enemies. It is smart to occasionally display defects, and admit to harmless vices, in order to deflect envy and appear more human and approachable. Only gods and the dead can seem perfect with impunity.
Law 47
Do not go Past the Mark you Aimed for; In Victory, Learn when to Stop
The moment of victory is often the moment of greatest peril. In the heat of victory, arrogance and overconfidence can push you past the goal you had aimed for, and by going too far, you make more enemies than you defeat. Do not allow success to go to your head. There is no substitute for strategy and careful planning. Set a goal, and when you reach it, stop.
Law 48
Assume Formlessness
By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp, keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.
LOGIC!
and thank you john
props
but folk will still repress and project
partisan party
oh well
holler about h.a.i.r. if ya wanna
well
yeah
when the show is irrelevant
of course
aint knockin the hustle ol boy
but yo
seriously
aint acorn some offficial gangsters?
jeez
idk
still would rather my taxes go to pimps than china
seriously
i mean
seriously
LOGIC!
anyways
yeah
reminds me of third grade
didn’t have as many laughs then though
crackers
negros
and sundry ochre shaded folk
and you know!!!
Weeding out marijuana: Researchers close in on engineering recognizable, drug-free Cannabis plant
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/uom-wom091509.php
U of Minnesota researchers identify genes producing THC
In a first step toward engineering a drug-free Cannabis plant for hemp fiber and oil, University of Minnesota researchers have identified genes producing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. Studying the genes could also lead to new and better drugs for pain, nausea and other conditions.
The finding is published in the September issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany. Lead author is David Marks, a professor of plant biology in the College of Biological Sciences.
The study revealed that the genes are active in tiny hairs covering the flowers of Cannabis plants. In marijuana, the hairs accumulate high amounts of THC, whereas in hemp the hairs have little. Hemp and marijuana are difficult to distinguish apart from differences in THC.
With the genes identified, finding a way to silence them—and thus produce a drug-free plant — comes a step closer to reality. Another desirable step is to make drug-free plants visually recognizable. Since the hairs can be seen with a magnifying glass, this could be accomplished by engineering a hairless Cannabis plant.
The researchers are currently using the methods of the latest study to identify genes that lead to hair growth in hopes of silencing them.
“We are beginning to understand which genes control hair growth in other plants, and the resources created in our study will allow us to look for similar genes in Cannabis sativa,” said Marks.
“Cannabis genetics can contribute to better agriculture, medicine, and drug enforcement,” said George Weiblen, an associate professor of plant biology and a co-author of the study.
As with Dobermans and Dachshunds, marijuana and hemp are different breeds of the same species (Cannabis sativa), but marijuana contains much more THC than hemp, which is a source of industrial fiber and nutritious oil.
Hemp was raised for its fiber — which is similar to cotton but more durable — in the United States until legislation outlawed all Cannabis plants because they contain THC. Today, marijuana contains as much as 25 percent THC, whereas hemp plants contain less than 0.3 percent.
Hemp was once a popular crop in the upper Midwest because it tolerates a cool climate and marginal soils that won’t support other crops but, after drug legislation, hemp fiber was replaced by plastic and other alternatives. Recent popular demand for hemp products has led some states to consider the economic and environmental benefits of hemp. North Dakota legislation aims to reintroduce it as a crop, and Minnesota is considering similar legislation. At the same time, California and other states permit the medicinal use of marijuana.
“I can’t think of a plant so regarded as a menace by some and a miracle by others,” says Weiblen, who is one of the few researchers in the United States permitted to study Cannabis genetics. In 2006, Weiblen and colleagues developed a DNA “fingerprinting” technique capable of distinguishing among Cannabis plants in criminal investigations.
“Why Are We Here?”
-
“Are We Real?”
-
“Are We Alone?”
-
REVOLVE!
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/JhaEc_4zuFI]
ha
although the delivery is simple and loaded
i found the ideas and avenues fun and curious
The Pharmacratic Inquisition DVD – Official Online Edition
1:51:19
How deep does the rabbit hole go? Gnostic Media is proud to present the official online edition of The Pharmacratic Inquisition 2007. If you enjoyed “Zeitgeist – The Movie”, you will love this video; the creators of this video are listed as one of the sources for the Zeitgeist Movie. The Pharmacratic Inquisition 2007 is a video version of the book, “Astrotheology & Shamanism” by Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit. The painstakingly detailed and heavily footnoted research in the book comes to life in this video and is now available to you for FREE! For further research of the claims made in this video, please read AstroTheology & Shamanism – this book is available to order as a combo with the DVD. Thousands of years ago, in the pre monarchic era, sacred plants and other entheogenic substances where politically correct and highly respected for their ability to bring forth the divine, Yahweh, God, The Great Spirit, etc., by the many cultures who used them. Often the entire tribe or community would partake in the entheogenic rites and rituals. These rites were often used in initiation into adulthood, for healing, to help guide the community in the decision process, and to bring the direct religious experience to anyone seeking it. In the pre literate world, the knowledge of psychedelic sacraments, as well as fertility rites and astronomical knowledge surrounding the sun, stars, and zodiac, known as astrotheology, were anthropomorphized into a character or a deity; consequently, their stories and practices could easily be passed down for generations. Weather changes over millenniums caused environmental changes that altered the available foods and plant sacraments available in the local vicinity. If a tribe lost its shamanic El-der (El – God), all of the tribe’s knowledge of their plant sacraments as well as astronomical knowledge would be lost. The Church’s inquisitions extracted this sacred knowledge from the local Shamans who were then exterminated…It is time to recognize the fact that this Pharmacratic Inquisition is still intact and destroy it.
In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing – whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
Renowned linguist Steven Pinker speaks at Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters about his book “The Stuff of Thought.” This event took place on September 24, 2007, as part of the Authors@Google series. For more information about Steven Pinker, please visit http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/s…
Inspired on the book, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND by G. Edward Griffin, FIAT EMPIRE discusses the effects of the Federal Reserve System on the U.S. economy and explains why the debt-backed “fiat” money it issues is no longer Constitutional. This 60-minute documentary is an excellent primer for the citizen or student who wants to get an understanding of how money is created and why the U.S. government has entered into a partnership with elite Wall Street banks. Featuring Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira, G. Edward Griffin and Ted Baehr, FIAT EMPIRE is a free public service film, however you can get the Director’s Cut (complete with 120-minutes of additional interviews) and/or quantities of DVDs (in the event you wish to disseminate this information to your family, friends and associates). Go to http://www.FiatEmpire.com for higher quality DVDs or go to http://www.FiatEmpire.tv to watch it for free. Lastly, follow the progress of our new documentary, ORIGINAL INTENT, at http://www.FiatEmpire.com/producers and get involved as a donor, crew member or associate producer.
http://e-cognitive-enhancers.blogspot.com/
Dopaminergics
Dopaminergics are substances that affect the neurotransmitter dopamine or the components of the nervous system that use dopamine. Dopamine is produced in the synthesis of all catecholamine neurotransmitters, and is the rate limiting step for this synthesis. Dopaminergic nootropics include dopamine precursors and cofactors (vitamin C and vitamin B6), and dopamine reuptake inhibitors:
* Mucuna pruriens – Seed powder which contains high concentrations of levodopa (L-dopa),[28] a direct precursor of the neurotransmitter dopamine.
* Tyrosine (requires Vitamin B6 and Vitamin C) – Amino acid. Precursor to dopamine, anti-depressant, sleep reducer.
* Lazabemide – a MAO-B inhibitor and has potent membrane lipid antioxidant activity. The antioxidant effects of lazabemide are attributed to its chemical structure and direct physicochemical interactions with the membrane lipid bilayer. It is a potent antioxidant, even more powerful than selegiline (deprenyl) or vitamin E, and is used to treat Alzheimer’s disease.[29]
* L-dopa – Prescription drug and dietary supplement. Precursor to the neurotransmitter dopamine, anti-depressant.
* Phenylalanine (requires Vitamin B6 and Vitamin C) – Essential amino acid. Precursor to dopamine, anti-depressant, sleep reducer.
* Selegiline – L-deprenyl is an irreversible MAO-B inhibitor, an enzyme that breaks down dopamine. Thus, it is used to treat Parkinson’s disease, and has been tested as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.[30] It protects against the genotoxin AraC, provides neuroprotection against growth factor withdrawal in PC12 cells, protects against oxidative stress in mesencephalatic neurons, and delays neuronal cell death in the hippocampus after global ischemia.[31]
* Tolcapone – Inhibits COMT (an enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitters dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine) and increases performance in tasks depending on working memory in individuals with the val/val and val/met genotype of the val158Met polymorphism of the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene, while decreasing it in presence of the met/met version. Tolcapone presents the risk of deadly side effects.
* Yohimbe – Bark. Aphrodisiac. Boosts dopamine levels,[citation needed] though how it does this is not yet understood. Supplements are likely to have no yohimbe in them.[32] Yohimbe poses some health risks through its side-effects: it is a neuro-paralytic which slows down breathing and induces acidosis, some symptoms of which are malaise, nausea, and vomiting. Contraindicated for users of megadoses of acidic vitamins or nutrients.
* Theanine – Found in tea. Increases serotonin and dopamine levels in the brain. Increases alpha-wave based alert relaxation.
Publicat de health victorro la 04:23 0 comentarii
Etichete: Dopaminergics
Cholinergics
Cholinergics are substances that affect the neurotransmitter acetylcholine or the components of the nervous system that use acetylcholine. Acetylcholine facilitates memory, concentration, focus, and high-order thought processes (abstract thought, calculation, innovation, etc.).[citation needed] Increasing the availability of this neurotransmitter in the brain may improve these functions and increase the duration in which they may be engaged without slowing down or stopping. Oversupplying the brain with acetylcholine may have the opposite effect, temporarily reducing rather than improving mental performance.[citation needed] Cholinergic nootropics include acetylcholine precursors and cofactors, and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors:
Piracetam
Main article: Piracetam
Piracetam (Nootropil) is the original[15] and most commonly taken[16][15] nootropic supplement. It is a cholinergic agent synergistic with DMAE, Centrophenoxine, choline, Alpha-GPC and Hydergine. It increases brain cell metabolism and energy levels,[17][15] and speeds up interhemispheric flow of information (left-right brain hemisphere communication). It increases alertness,[12] improves concentration, and enhances memory. Protects neurons from hypoxia,[15] and stimulates growth of acetylcholine receptors.[citation needed] It may also cause nerves to regenerate.[citation needed] Piracetam markedly decreases the formation of neuronal lipofuscin.[18] It improves posture in elderly people.[19] It is not regulated in the US.[citation needed] It is a pyrrolidone derivative.
Aniracetam
Main article: Aniracetam
Aniracetam is a pyrrolidone derivative drug, analogous of piracetam, and considered more potent[citation needed]. Like piracetam, aniracetam protects against some memory impairing chemicals, such as diethyldithiocarbamate and clonidine.[20] Also like piracetam, aniracetam may enhance memory in aging adults by increasing levels of brain biogenic monoamines, which are beneficial to learning and memory.[13] Both racetams have possible therapeutic use in treating fetal alcohol syndrome.[21] Aniracetam increases vigilance.[12] Aniracetam has shown to positively potentiate AMPA receptors.
Other cholinergics
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)
* Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALCAR) – Amino acid. Precursor of acetylcholine (donating the acetyl portion to the acetylcholine molecule). It is synergistic with lipoic acid.[22] Inhibits lipofuscin formation.
* Choline – precursor to acetylcholine (an essential component of the acetylcholine molecule).
o Alpha-GPC (L-alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine, Choline alfoscerate) – most effective choline precursor, readily crosses the blood-brain barrier.
o Citicoline – less expensive and similar in effect to Alpha GPC. Appears effective in rats.[23][24]
o Choline bitartrate – precursor of acetylcholine, anti-depressant.
o Choline citrate – precursor of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, anti-depressant.[citation needed]
* DMAE – approved treatment for ADD/ADHD[citation needed], precursor of acetylcholine, cholinergic agent, removes lipofuscin from the brain, anti-depressant.
* Galantamine – acetylcholinesterase inhibitor made from chemical synthesis or extract from plants such as Red Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata).
* Huperzine A – potent acetylcholinesterase inhibitor derived from Chinese club-moss. Recent Cochrane review concluded that it appears to have beneficial cognitive effects with limited side-effects, but more evidence is needed.[25]
* Ispronicline – recently developed selective α4β2 partial agonist
* Lecithin – contains phosphatidylcholine, precursor of acetylcholine.
* Other pyrrolidone derivatives:
o Etiracetam – It increases vigilance.[12]
o Nefiracetam – Drug. Analog of piracetam, and facilitates hippocampal neurotransmission.[26]
o Oxiracetam – Drug. Analog of piracetam, and 2 to 4 times stronger. Improves memory, concentration, and vigilance. When fed to pregnant rats, the offspring of those rats were more intelligent than the offspring of rats fed a saline solution placebo.
o Pramiracetam – Drug. Analog of piracetam.
o In animal studies, nootropics such as piracetam, oxiracetam and aniracetam are known to facilitate the formation of long term memory traces and to restore object recognition in aging rats.[27] There is evidence that the beneficial effect of racetams may result from an interaction with the central glutamatergic receptor function. [27]
* Vitamin B5 – cofactor in the conversion of choline into acetylcholine, cholinergic agent, increases stamina (including mental stamina).[citation needed]
Excess acetylcholine is considered by many to be potentially harmful; see acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors function by inhibiting the cholinesterase enzyme which breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. They exist in the form of poisons and have been used as weapons, but they are also used to treat Alzheimer’s patients. Donepezil, galantamine, and Huperzine A are notable among these.
Publicat de health victorro la 04:21 0 comentarii
Etichete: Cholinergics
Replenishing and increasing neurotransmitters
As the brain ages, its ability to produce and maintain youthful levels of neurotransmitters declines.[13] There are various reasons for such an insufficiency. For instance, there might be a lack of enzymes involved in the neurotransmitter synthesis. Nevertheless, in many cases, providing the brain with ample raw materials necessary to make neurotransmitters can restore them to more youthful levels and thus help maintain cognitive function at vigorous youthful levels.[citation needed] Furthermore, there are declines in immune and endocrine functioning.[14] Certain nootropics enhance immune and endocrine functioning.
Publicat de health victorro la 04:21 0 comentarii
Etichete: neurotransmitters
Stimulants
Stimulants are often seen as smart drugs. Their effects are non-specific with similar results seen in children and adults with and without ADHD. One finds improved concentration and behavior in all.[6][7][8][9] Due to their non-specific activity, stimulants have been used by writers to increase productivity,[10] as well as by the United States Air Force to improve effectiveness in combat.[11] Some scientists recommend wide spread use (of Ritalin and Adderall) by the general population to increase brain power.[4]
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)
* Adrafinil (Olmifon) – Drug.
* Caffeine – Drug. Improves concentration, idea production, but hinders memory encoding. Large amounts produce the jitters. Caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world, and may be susceptible to strong levels of tolerance.
* Coffee – Bean. Contains caffeine; brewed coffee is high in antioxidants.
* Nicergoline – Drug. Nicergoline is an ergoloid mesylate derivative used to treat senile dementia. It has also been found to increase mental agility and enhance clarity and perception. It increases vigilance.[12] Increases arterial flow and use of oxygen and glucose in the brain.
* Nicotine – stimulus barrier (aids in concentration). Stimulus barrier rebound effect (an unpleasant side effect).
* Cocaine – Drug. Schedule II. Increase extracellular dopamine and serotonin levels resulting in increased alertness and arousal.
* Methylphenidate (Ritalin) – aids in concentration, focus and stamina. Prescribed for ADHD.
* Dextroamphetamine – (Adderall, Dexedrine) – aids in concentration, focus and stamina. Prescribed for ADHD.
* Modafinil – (Provigil) – Drug.
* Phenibut -
* Theophylline -
* Amphetamines – aids in concentration, focus and stamina. Prescribed for ADHD.
* Carphedon (Phenotropil) -
Publicat de health victorro la 04:19 0 comentarii
Etichete: cognitive, enhancers, Stimulants
Availability
Currently there are several drugs on the market that improve memory, concentration, planning and reduce impulsive behavior. Many more are in different stages of development.[3] The most commonly used class of drug are the stimulants.[4]
These drugs are used primarily to treat people with cognitive difficulties: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ADHD. However, more widespread use is being recommended by some researchers.[5] These drugs have a variety of human enhancement applications as well and are marketed heavily on the World Wide Web. Nevertheless, intense marketing may not correlate with efficacy; while scientific studies support some of the claimed benefits, it is worth noting that many of the claims attributed to most nootropics have not been formally tested.
