Mastering Things

[Red Cat Jenny]

Don't we all choose our own realities and live within them?

While choosing our own realities aren't we always looking for the reality we feel may be missing?..or haven't found yet?

[Misson]

Mastering things... does that mean I place distinctions between myself and things... because... is there a difference?

I would actually consider the essence of ourselves to be in many ways separate from physical "things" including our body. If they are ever able to identify where the "self" or "consciousness" or "soul" or whatever you want to call it resides, then that theory will fly right out the window. But for now, it has proved to be a most vexing problem.

When we leave our bodies, where do we go? I have always liked the notion that on some level we chose to enter this lifetime for some reason and when we fulfill that reason, we leave. (There, I've effectively insulted the Deists and the agnostics in one fell swoop.) Now, do I actually believe that? Not necessarily, but I really like the idea. Must be a control thing.

All that aside, I like the title "Mastering Things" because it has multiple meanings in my mind. "Things" is one of those clever little words that is at once all encompassing and yet slyly dismissive. Kind of like the word "stuff." Maybe I should change the title to "Mastering Stuff?"

[Misson]

And with regards to pressure on the brain, if you mean physically, that makes a lot of sense. When I have migraines, all sorts of things happen, such as olfactory hallucinations or very blurry or grey peripheral vision. The blood vessels in the brain expand beyond what they should and press on certain parts. The pain is from the vessels and the side effects from the pressure. Some people say they see halos during migraines, which would explain A LOT of religious experiences.

There is actually a syndrome where people experience a clarity and and ability to "talk to god" that results from pressure in some area of the brain (not the area that causes migraines - he talks about that too.) I don't have the book, so I can't tell you where it is or what it's called. But it happens to some epileptics (which is caused by uncontrolled movement in the brain if I understand it correctly) and brain surgeons have sort of identified the region that causes this religious experience. People to whom it happens will sometimes completely change their lives and even their personalities and become hyper-spiritual. So it's not the halo thing.

Anything I've ever experienced during a migraine would make me more likely to believe in Satan than God. Curiously, when I started working with my dad and doing a job I enjoyed, I stopped having migraines altogether.

[Misson]

I think you can choose your reality.

But isn't that the nature of being human? Don't we all choose our own realities and live within them?

Yes, that is precisely what I think. This doesn't forbid us from changing our reality, though. Of course, now we come to what Jenny keeps talking about - can we see far enough outside our own reality to a ) realize that we can change it and b ) change it significantly from what we've already created? Are we creative enough to do that? (Some is and some ain't.) Even then, what could we change it to if we didn't have the limitations we aren't even aware of?

[Red-Handed Jill]

Yes, that is precisely what I think. This doesn't forbid us from changing our reality, though. Of course, now we come to what Jenny keeps talking about - can we see far enough outside our own reality to a ) realize that we can change it and b ) change it significantly from what we've already created? Are we creative enough to do that? (Some is and some ain't.) Even then, what could we change it to if we didn't have the limitations we aren't even aware of?

From what I've observed, some people have the wherewithal to do this, but a real capacity for introspection is needed and that's the pervue of introverts.

For example, I know a few people - all extroverts - who are always in the middle of some drama or another. And when things are going well, they will create some needless drama, because it just doesn't "feel" right if things are going smoothly. They always bemoan the fact that stuff always happens to THEM, never stopping to wonder why. It's always someone else or the universe or fate sticking it to them. If they were more introspective, they'd be looking within for the answer and then they'd be able to address it.

In contrast, my life was rather stressful for awhile when I was young and I took steps to make it run more smoothly. When I had accomplished this, I found myself having the most horrific dreams where stuff kept going horribly wrong. I realised that my subconscious was too used to being in "stress mode" and I had to do something about that. So I worked through it and it hasn't been an issue for some time. I have a couple of friends who have gone through similar things and worked through them. Surprise, surprise - we are all introverts. We were able to recognise that the real issues lay within and we were able to change our own realities.

I don't think it's impossible for extroverts to change their reality, but I think they need a lot more help to do so.

[PyratePhil]

From what I've observed, some people have the wherewithal to do this, but a real capacity for introspection is needed and that's the pervue of introverts.

I'm sure you realize that introspection and introversion are two different beasts, not necessarily hailing from the same family tree...

...even extroverts can be introspective...

[Red-Handed Jill]

Yes - my point was that from what I've read and observed, it comes a lot more easily to introverts. Seems mostly to do with the fact that an introvert's neurotransmitter is acetylcholine rather than dopamine, which is an extrovert's neurotransmitter. And extroverts need constant external stimulation to produce enough dopamine. So, by design, they must constantly look outwards. Not a character flaw, just physiology. And since this is the case, it's just tougher for them to be as introspective.

[PyratePhil]

Makes sense - thank you.

[Red Cat Jenny]

From what I've observed, some people have the wherewithal to do this, but a real capacity for introspection is needed and that's the pervue of introverts.

Not always...sometimes one is just Aquarius..in which case it's bult in

[Misson]

Based on the rolly eyes, I'm guessing this is a joke, but this is one of those silly myths I find irresistible. (Kind of like ghosts. My favorite argument: "You will only be able to see them if you believe in them." ) Because, unfortunately for the zodiac, they have done multiple studies that have more or less proven astrology to have no scientific validity. From Introduction to Psychology - Gateways to Mind and Behavior by Dennis Coon and John O. Mittner:

"If pseudo-psychologies have no scientific basis, how do they survive and why are they popular? There are several reasons, all of which can be demonstrated by a critique of astrology. Astrology is probably the most popular  pseudo-psychology. Astrology holds that the positions of the stars and planets at the time of one's birth determine personality traits and affect behavior. Like other pseudo-psychologies, astrology has repeatedly been shown to have no scientific validity (Kelly, 1998, 1999; Stewart, 1996). The objections to astrology are numerous and devastating:

1. The zodiac has shifted in the sky by one full constellation since astrology was first set up. However, most astrologers simply ignore this shift. (In other words, if astrology calls you a Scorpio, you are really a Libra and so forth.)

2. There is no connection between the "compatibility" of couples' astrological signs and their marriage and divorce rates.

3. Studies have found no connection between astrological signs and leadership, physical characteristics, career choices or personality traits.

4. Astrologers have failed to explain why the moment of birth should be more important than the moment of conception.

5. A study of more than 3000 predictions by famous astrologers found that only a small percentage were fulfilled. These "successful" predictions tended to be vague ("There will be a tragedy somewhere in the east in the spring") or easily guessed from current events.

6. If astrologers are asked to match people with their horoscopes, they do no better than would be expected by chance (Kelly, 1999).

7. A few astrologers have tried to test astrology. Their results have been just as negative as those obtained by critics (Kelly, 1998, 1999; Martens & Trachet, 1998; Stewart, 1996).

In short, astrology doesn't work.

They why does astrology seem to work? [They mean, why do people buy into it, not why is it correct - they already proved it isn't correct.]...

If you have ever had your astrological chart done, you may have been impressed with its apparent accuracy. However such perceptions are usually based on uncritical acceptance (the tendency to believe positive or flattering descriptions of yourself). Many astrological traits are made up of mostly flattering traits. Naturally when you personality is described in desirable terms, it is hard to deny that the description has the "ring of truth." How much acceptance would astrology receive if a birth sign read like this:

Virgo: You are the logical type and hate disorder. Your nitpicking is unbearable to your friends. You are cold, unemotional, and usually fall asleep while making love. Virgos make good doorstops.

For a look at one of the more famous researchers, check out the article on Michel Gauquelin at Wiki.

End result; I don't think Aquarianism has much to do with introversion or communication style.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Gracous! Thats a lot of response for a little comment! Which was for the most part tongue in cheek..

That said, your response is opinion. Which you are well entitled to, huzza for a well explained one at that. Interesting read.

Yes you quote research, however science itself is an inacurate science..when it comes to that which we do not have nor might not ever have the complete set of facts on. Any good scientist would admit there is always wiggle room in those instances.. "now we've really really honsetly found the oldest skeleton...really...so what we said before about stuff was wrong" or "We thought this was extinct for Centuries, but we found a living specimen in some remote area"

Ahhhh...we thought.......

As well we should think. Curiosity fosters science.

Now not being a tye dyed, tree hugging, um..well you know...I wasn't here in the 60's <Joke - don't get offended anyone..

I do enjoy factual science. I do accept much of it. Research, the quest for knowledge, the ability to be shown and understand things is for the most part an addiction. But the ability to look at things from the practical point of view of "I am not all knowing and therefore might be missing a few facts from my little bag of knowledge" fascinates me as well. Good God I hope we don't figure it all out. There's not enough on tv to fill in the empty spot

Yes many things are as they are. "Billy, this is a rock. It's round, it's made of this stuff, it came from a bigger rock, if you smash it..it makes lotsa little rocks." Visible, tangible, mostly one dimensional. Ok.

Though I will admit the habit of wondering about all the places the rock might have been, all the living things that might have trod on it, past it, picked it up, or kicked it..that it's been frozen, baked and soaked by the weather. That some one may have carried it in their pocket placing some great personal importance on it..until they passed on..and now it's just a rock on the ground again. But then again...maybe it isn't.

But thats me..I'm imaginitive..no it's not science...

However, that which we can not see, touch, break into small pieces..is distractingly fascinating. I don't buy completely into the "flattery description" It actually annoyes the practical side of my mind that Astrological traits seem to be so accurate. At least the core ones. Normally I would see such things as good solid guesses..but there is a strange spot on about them. (My opinion) Then again, why is it that there seem to be whole sets of people in the world who ethnicity aside seem to be near twins when nothing relates them? ..Why is it that some people with certain names seem often seem to be a type? What the hell is up with deja vu? I think if we were never open minded about our own ability to be wrong..we would have suffered greatly by stopping at our first perception of knowledge about anything. It's easy to say what you DO know...but wise to consider your book may still be missing a few chapters.

Hmmmm..ya just never know..

[Misson]

Ah, it's just me balloon popping...I love to find proof that things I find intuitively absurd are, in fact, actually absurd. (Catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is another such topic. But I digress...)

We now we enter that strange, fuzzy area of proof. OT1H, we cannot prove everything. (In fact, we can only disprove things - more on that later.) OTOH, we need to use some form of systematic way of proving things. Let's start with that.

As I love to say, we all live in our own little world. Your world isn't the same as mine, nor as anyone else's (including your spouse, best friend and/or dog). So we all live in our own little cognitive perception of what "is." And it's wrong. At least it's wrong in some ways and right in others. Which is which? The best we can do is arrive at a consensus (Which is damned near impossible). This further means we must define a tool upon which we agree to arrive at consensus. (Which is not quite as impossible.) Presently that tool is the scientific method.

To wit:

1. Notice Something (There is a cold spot in the floor for some reason)

2. Hypothesize (It must be a ghost!)

3. Make predictions (If I stand there unearthly spirits will take me over)

4. Experiment (Stand there every night)

5. Repeat Prediction/Experiment forever until you are sure there are no contradictions in your hypothesis

6. Publish papers and seek grant funding (The Propensity for Ectoplasmic Entities to Occupy Horizontal Level Surfaces through Frigid Representations)

This is the tool most people agree to use. The funny thing about it is, as I mentioned, it really is only good for disproving something rather than proving it. Proving that your Hypothesis is true only allows you to create a Theory - which can then be destroyed by anyone able to repeatedly prove that you're wrong. (Note: repeatedly. One occurrence could just be an mistake. (Or it could be a whole new scientific field waiting to be born...and funded.)) So that's how we generate consensus on what's going on around us.

Before that, we had a bunch of very unreliable methods - primarily narratives or stories we told ourselves. The problem here is what I mentioned at the beginning: we all live in our own little cognitive perception of what "is." (Unless the narrative is handed down by some outside, superior being. Even then, what the being says is can be corrupted by our understanding of what was said - creating a new perceptual error about what is.) Look into chaos theory or subatomic physics if you want proof that what you think is true based on your "experience" is sometimes not even close. These are areas where our perception and intuition completely fail us. The scientific method gives us a window into them. But back to the narrative...A convincing story-teller can generate consensus, although they basically skip the experimentation portion of the process in favor of pointing out elements that support their story. (This is how astrology works. Uncritical acceptance is a popular psychological issue with narratives.)

Not to say that science doesn't have it's shortcomings. First, it depends on rejection and can never really "prove" anything effectively. Second, many of the people practicing it tend to ignore important anomalies. (This isn't completely their fault - most anomalies turn out to be just that - some random thing happened that wasn't accounted for. As a result, the tendency is to dismiss anomalies as irrelevant. Sometimes to the peril of knowledge.) Third, scientists can become overspecialized and miss the forest for the trees. And so on.

I think there's a better method for discovery and proof out there, but, as I have said before, I don't know what it is. Going backwards and saying that the narrative is superior to a method isn't going to make your point, though. You have to move forward and devise a scheme that will satisfy the need for repeatable proof in all cases, not hold up a single perceived event as the model.

You and I aren't as far apart as you think. I cherish imagination. I was just reviewing a notebook I put together in an effort to explore my intuition. (Some of which, while I enjoyed it immensely, I also recognized as being ill-founded. It involved picking a bunch of pictures that appealed to me out of magazines, putting them in a box, randomly choosing one and then writing about how it intuitively related to some facet that the author of the guide for this exercise directed you to write about using the pic as an anchor. The theory was that you intuitively "chose" the right random picture from the box. I doubt that, but the exercise was quite enjoyable.) I realize that this needs to be tempered with reality. There's a line between intuitive understanding and absurd wish fulfillment. And everyone (even the black helicopter people) think they stand on the IU side of that line. You can't just accept things because you have uncritically experienced something and built a structure around it.

I think that's what fascinates me about that book I keep mentioning. The guy is looking for proper experimental ways and physical explanations for things we can't explain well like phantom limbs, spontaneous remission, the God part of the brain and so forth. He's published experimental data on this stuff. (At the same time, he embraces thought experiments - which I enjoy myself - although they are not technically scientific.)

[Jacky Tar]

Now not being a tye dyed, tree hugging, um..well you know...I wasn't here in the 60's   .

Bein' a member o' the tye dyed, tree huggin', granola eatin'... well ye get the idea... I was here in the 60's.

So, if Red CAt wasn't, that puts her in her thirties (Fer those born after the sixties, ye can take out yer calculators t' do the math).

[Red Cat Jenny]

Or.....that makes the CAt wily enuf t' hide her age.....might be...might not be...

[blackjohn]

Regarding astrology, I believe the time of year you were born has something to do with who you are. I don't know that I'd say it is because of the stars, but then again, I'm not ready to rule it out.

Science has shown birth date affects you... for instance...

Month of birth influences adult life expectancy at ages 50+. Why? In two countries of the Northern Hemisphere-Austria and Denmark-people born in autumn (October-December) live longer than those born in spring (April-June). Data for Australia show that, in the Southern Hemisphere, the pattern is shifted by half a year. The lifespan pattern of British immigrants to Australia is similar to that of Austrians and Danes and significantly different from that of Australians. These findings are based on population data with more than a million observations and little or no selectivity. The differences in lifespan are independent of the seasonal distribution of deaths and the social differences in the seasonal distribution of births. In the Northern Hemisphere, the excess mortality in the first year of life of infants born in spring does not support the explanation of selective infant survival. Instead, remaining life expectancy at age 50 appears to depend on factors that arise in utero or early in infancy and that increase susceptibility to diseases later in life. This result is consistent with the finding that, at the turn of the last century, infants born in autumn had higher birth weights than those born in other seasons. Furthermore, differences in adult lifespan by month of birth decrease over time and are significantly smaller in more recent cohorts, which benefited from substantial improvements in maternal and infant health.

Yadayada...

[Misson]

You didn't cite your source...

That's also a correlational study. The problem with them is that you can't specify the exact causal variable that produced the observed result. In other words, there could be another factor (or variable) at work other than period in which someone was born that the study wasn't considering. (I would guess that the conclusions section of this study says as much.)

[Red Cat Jenny]

Well I would hazard that at one time and even with the advent of artificial light..

That climate whether seasonally or not had some to do with it..

Studies have shown that the amount of sunlight one recieves does impact health as well as your body clock.

In certain lattitudes there are longer or shorter instances of daylight than those more centrally located. This would also affect available food and even perhaps the nutrient content of food (animal or vegetable) gathered in that area. Thus also affecting the regional health. To go a step further..less algae in the water be it fresh or salt and less green matter (Chlorophyl) would produce lower oxygen as well.

Just a thought..

Damn I miss the trees in the Winter..

[blackjohn]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...cgi?artid=30243

It has math, the kind with letters!

[Matusalem]

Studies have shown that the amount of sunlight one recieves does impact health as well as your body clock.

The same could be said for red wine.

Antioxidants, life-extending resveratrol....alcohol...works for me.

I have given up almost entirely on rum and other hard spirits. Unlike California or French wines, the South American and Australian reds don't give me that "headache". Rum is all sugar (sugar cane distillate) , and sugar = fat. ....Especially if one is mixing a "Cuba Libre" ( a.k.a Rum&Coke)

Red grapes grown in rugged, less hospitable places have mor resveratrol...the chemical that slows aging. Same can be said about blueberries and dark red grapes (I eatblack seedless ones)

Well, that's my health food rant for today.

[Red Cat Jenny]

"Ow!!" Red cat points at someone.. "BlackJohn added letters to numbers!" she whines "I can't do that! No fair!..too confusing" she stamp her feet "Now my head hurts..I'm going for a soda and spongebob squarepants!"

[Red Cat Jenny]

Ok...nature...masters things....

A crisp night, a big sky perfectly decorated with stars around the centerpiece of a nearly full moon.

.... masterful

[Misson]

"Music is the space between the notes." -Claude DeBussy

This seems very Taoist to me, but does it make sense? On the one hand, music without the spaces is just a monotonous tone at best or a cacophony at worst. So the spaces are required. (Resisting side discussion on quantum physics and space at the subatomic level.) On the other hand, space without the notes (or tones) is just nothingness. (That also sounds somewhat Taoist to me.) I think the two are interdependent. And if you put the wrong notes and wrong instruments in play at the wrong times (in between the spaces), you still end up with monotonous tones or a cacophony. So music must be more than the space between the notes.

[Red-Handed Jill]

Perhaps he means that the perception of music is what makes it music. You hear a note and ponder it and it's that experience which makes it music. Or maybe I'm just talking out of my behind...

[Red Cat Jenny]

I agree with Jill AND with Mission..yes Mission interdependant..as a musician, I agree.

and yes Jill, I think it is the space..the silence that allows you the chance to appreciate the note that was just occupying it.

Space also allows you to experience each note separately , for it's own unique beauty separate from the others. Just as you would each soul.

[Jacky Tar]

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my behind...

Saw yer behind, never saw ye talk out of it.

I've heard tell ye let yer flintlocks an swords do the talkin' fer ye.