/////////////////DTR HBE CARR CRSS=LONC CRSS-TICAPS
/////////////////CLOUD OF DRB CRSS/JLR CRSS/JB CUT CRSS=ARTBTKAT=140+
/////////////IS LANGUAUGE STUFF OF THOUGHT
/////////////////THINKING IS NEURAL ACTY IN SERVICE OF BEHAVIOUR-eg FLIGHT/FRIGHT
////////////////////UUHIN TEXAS LOANC CRSS
///////////////////EVEN FOR DISABLED/DMGED PRSN=JEWLEA=JUST ENJOY WHAT LF EXP AVAILABLE=PISTOL=PLSR IN SMALL THINGS OF LF
///////////////SPECTRUM OF DIARY-JRNL-EMAIL CDS -BLOG-WHICHEVER SUITS=DJEB-GREEN AND COST MATTERS-JPS-BBPS
///////////////////CDS REMAINS
//////////////////////////MIRROR NEURONES-SOURCE OF EMPATHY
/////////////////FASTING DELAYS DM,COR HD-LIBRARY FAST-MWF
//////////////////QNTUM-WAVE PACKET GIVES IMPRESION OF PARTICLES
/////////////////////HAVE TO BE PHILOSOPHICAL ABT RTAS-NDE=RTA NEURODISABY EQUIVALENT-MOST SUDDENLY EXPERIENCED GRIEF/LOSS/DTH=KITCHEN FMLY AXDENT,BOSTON-1997
/////////////////////RINGA=RELIGN IS NOT GOING AWAY=PANTHEISTIC CRF
///////////////////RELIGN EVOLVED HAS BEEN HARD WIRED IN OUR BRAIN
/////////////////////NATURAL UNIVERSE,NOTHING SUPERNATURAL
///////////////////////PRINCESS DIANA-RTA=PULM V TORN AWAY
/////////////////////Azithromycin: A new therapeutical strategy for acne in adolescents Bardazzi, F., et al. - To study the efficacy, safety, and compliance of 500 mg azithromycin thrice weekly for 8 weeks to treat acne vulgaris in adolescents...Azithromycin, 500 mg thrice weekly for 8 weeks, appears to be a safe and effective treatment for acne vulgaris in adolescents, with excellent patient compliance [more...]
Dermatology Online Journal, 11/14/07 Free Full Text
Dermatology Online Journal, 11/14/07 Free Full Text
//////////////////////NRT=VAGUE XRAY SHADOWS CRSS-NOT CONVINCING ENOUGH TO RUSH IN WITH ABX
//////////////////http://www.hiren.info/funstuff/funny-video-clips/crazy-traffic-in-india
///////////////////Chapter V: The Yoga of Renunciation of ActionV.28. YATENDRIYA MANOBUDDHIR MUNIR MOKSHAPARAAYANAH;VIGATECCHAABHAYA KRODHO YAH SADAA MUKTA EVA SAH.(Krishna speaking to Arjuna)With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled,having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fearand anger-the sage is verily liberated for ever.V.29. BHOKTAARAM YAJNATAPASAAM SARVALOKA MAHESHWARAM;SUHRIDAM SARVABHOOTAANAAM JNAATWAA MAAM SHAANTIM RICCHAti.He who knows Me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities,the great Lord of all the worlds and the friend of all beings,attains to peace.
/////////////////////US AND THEM=AMRA EBONG ORA
////////////////////.
On the Universe as divine
Posted by: "Thomas Schenk" http://in.f84.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=schen016@umn.edu&Subj=thomasschenk55116
Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:02 am (PST)
Paul writes: "But I really believe that it is the Universe that is "divine"." No spiritual "God" exists. The Universe has always been and always will."The belief that the Universe is divine is pretty much the definition of Pantheism, so I suspect most of us are in agreement on that. This belief, of course, entails the belief that there is no God separate from the Universe. Some of us, myself included, use the word "God" to refer to the divineness of the Universe, but that's more a semantic, than a metaphysic, quibble. (My formula is "Nature is the sensible aspect of God, and God is the supersensible aspect of Nature.") Paul's statement that the Universe is eternal, that is an interesting statement, which I would like to comment on.Although I accept big bang cosmology, it is pretty clear that that cosmology in itself does not give an adequate account of our universe. That a highly energetic event settles into a deeply organized structure demands an explanation. There are three major types of explanation: 1) it's a miracle; 2) there are an infinite number of big bang events and though the odds that a given big bang will produce structure and even living creatures is exceedingly tiny, they are not infinitely tiny, thus a Universe such as ours will inevitably arise; 3) the parameters that allow this Universe to have structure come about through some mechanism, such as cosmological nature selection. (Of course, a designing deity, such as fundamentalist Christians believe in, is another explanation; but since such a God exist by miracle, this falls into the first explanation. Indeed, an argument against design is that it explains nothing, since if we can accept that an omniscient God just exists, why not accept that a structured universe just exists?)Explanation by infinite big bang "universes" has problems, because it means that the Universe is infinitely potent. Further, you can justify any belief by positing infinite universes, because if there are infinite universes, than every possible universe would exist. (I'll use the capitalized Universe to refer to the mother of all the small case big bang universes.)The idea that there is a mechanism to explain the structure of our universe is much more attractive to me. As I have stated on this list several times, Lee Smolin's "cosmological natural selection" is to my mind the most plausible of of these mechanisms, and his is a genuine, falsifiable scientific theory. To the best of my understanding, no other theory positing mechanisms is so clearly falsifiable.But if Smolin's theory is correct, than the Universe was once totally simple. Indeed, the Universe for an eternity had no real being but only a potential to be. Then it exercised that potential. And what a potential it was -- the potential to become the universe we live in, to become living creatures able to contemplate that potential. Of course, it had to go through eons of evolution to realize that potential, but the potential must always have been there. All mechanistic explanation must ultimately come to some "first cause" that cannot be explained by mechanism. If the divine is that which is beyond mechanism, than this original potential is the divine, or perhaps better, the Tao (how different from the exalted God of the West is this shadowy first principle of the East).No matter how you cut it, a universe capable of creating creatures that can contemplate the Universe is beyond amazing. This is the cosmological pole of divinity. The other pole of divinity is that we creatures can not only contemplate the Universe, but can experience divineness within, in the deepest and widest extent of our subjectivity. But what connects these two poles -- the cosmological divine and the psychological divine? My answer to that question is "everything. ..the entire creation in all its particularity. " All Nature is God, God is all Natural.Thomas
On the Universe as divine
Posted by: "Thomas Schenk" http://in.f84.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=schen016@umn.edu&Subj=thomasschenk55116
Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:02 am (PST)
Paul writes: "But I really believe that it is the Universe that is "divine"." No spiritual "God" exists. The Universe has always been and always will."The belief that the Universe is divine is pretty much the definition of Pantheism, so I suspect most of us are in agreement on that. This belief, of course, entails the belief that there is no God separate from the Universe. Some of us, myself included, use the word "God" to refer to the divineness of the Universe, but that's more a semantic, than a metaphysic, quibble. (My formula is "Nature is the sensible aspect of God, and God is the supersensible aspect of Nature.") Paul's statement that the Universe is eternal, that is an interesting statement, which I would like to comment on.Although I accept big bang cosmology, it is pretty clear that that cosmology in itself does not give an adequate account of our universe. That a highly energetic event settles into a deeply organized structure demands an explanation. There are three major types of explanation: 1) it's a miracle; 2) there are an infinite number of big bang events and though the odds that a given big bang will produce structure and even living creatures is exceedingly tiny, they are not infinitely tiny, thus a Universe such as ours will inevitably arise; 3) the parameters that allow this Universe to have structure come about through some mechanism, such as cosmological nature selection. (Of course, a designing deity, such as fundamentalist Christians believe in, is another explanation; but since such a God exist by miracle, this falls into the first explanation. Indeed, an argument against design is that it explains nothing, since if we can accept that an omniscient God just exists, why not accept that a structured universe just exists?)Explanation by infinite big bang "universes" has problems, because it means that the Universe is infinitely potent. Further, you can justify any belief by positing infinite universes, because if there are infinite universes, than every possible universe would exist. (I'll use the capitalized Universe to refer to the mother of all the small case big bang universes.)The idea that there is a mechanism to explain the structure of our universe is much more attractive to me. As I have stated on this list several times, Lee Smolin's "cosmological natural selection" is to my mind the most plausible of of these mechanisms, and his is a genuine, falsifiable scientific theory. To the best of my understanding, no other theory positing mechanisms is so clearly falsifiable.But if Smolin's theory is correct, than the Universe was once totally simple. Indeed, the Universe for an eternity had no real being but only a potential to be. Then it exercised that potential. And what a potential it was -- the potential to become the universe we live in, to become living creatures able to contemplate that potential. Of course, it had to go through eons of evolution to realize that potential, but the potential must always have been there. All mechanistic explanation must ultimately come to some "first cause" that cannot be explained by mechanism. If the divine is that which is beyond mechanism, than this original potential is the divine, or perhaps better, the Tao (how different from the exalted God of the West is this shadowy first principle of the East).No matter how you cut it, a universe capable of creating creatures that can contemplate the Universe is beyond amazing. This is the cosmological pole of divinity. The other pole of divinity is that we creatures can not only contemplate the Universe, but can experience divineness within, in the deepest and widest extent of our subjectivity. But what connects these two poles -- the cosmological divine and the psychological divine? My answer to that question is "everything. ..the entire creation in all its particularity. " All Nature is God, God is all Natural.Thomas
//////////////////////PRNTS-NOW OLD FRAIL PPL-STRANGERS
////////////////////////////////November 13, 2007
The Consumer Paradox: Scientists Find that Low Self-Esteem and Materialism Goes Hand in Hand
“Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.”~From the movie Fight Club, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk
Researchers have found that low self-esteem and materialism are not just a correlation, but also a causal relationship where low self esteem increases materialism, and materialism can also create low self-esteem. The also found that as self esteem increases, materialism decreases. The study primarily focused on how this relationship affects children and adolescents. Lan Nguyen Chaplin (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) and Deborah Roedder John (University of Minnesota) found that even a simple gesture to raise self-esteem dramatically decreased materialism, which provides a way to cope with insecurity.
"By the time children reach early adolescence, and experience a decline in self-esteem, the stage is set for the use of material possessions as a coping strategy for feelings of low self-worth," they write in the study, which will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research.
The paradox that findings such as these bring up, is that consumerism is good for the economy but bad for the individual. In the short run, it’s good for the economy when young people believe they need to buy an entirely new wardrobe every year, for example. But the hidden cost is much higher than the dollar amount. There are costs in happiness when people believe that their value is extrinsic. There are also environmental costs associated with widespread materialism.
In the book “Happiness: Lessons From a New Science”, Richard Layard exposes a paradox at the heart of our lives. Most of us want more income so we can consume more. Yet as societies become richer, they do not become happier. In fact, the First World has more depression, more alcoholism and more crime than fifty years ago. This paradox is true of Britain, the United States, continental Europe and Japan.
Statistically people have more things than they did 50 years ago, but they are actually less happy in several key areas. There is also the considerable cost of what materialism does to the environment. We don’t yet know what final toll that could take in terms of quality of life and overall happiness. What many people don’t understand is that if we want to save the environment then at some level we have to buy and consume less. We don’t need to buy so much bottled water, for example. Studies have shown it’s usually not any purer than city tap water, which doesn’t leave mountains of plastic bottles strewn across the nations landfills. It also wastes energy and resources to make those plastic bottles and the many other unnecessary things that both youth and adults alike believe they need to have in order to enjoy life and feel good about themselves.
Mad Magazine summed it up with the statement, “The only reason a great many American families don't own an elephant is that they have never been offered an elephant for a dollar down and easy weekly payments.”
That funny statement, is only funny because it’s somewhat true. The reason people want whatever is currently “hot” is because they believe it will contribute towards their satisfaction and happiness in life. The word “believe” is the key here. People believe that buying more and more things will make them happy, when in fact research has shown time and time again that this simply isn’t the case. What we do know for sure is that buying more and more unnecessary things is damaging our planet and contributing to global warming.
Sure, one person being less materialistic isn’t going to make a noticeable impact on the environment, but it will make a positive impact in that one life. Once entire nations start to understand the myths about what really makes individuals happy, the world will stand a fighting chance.
“Be The Difference You Want. To See In The World.” ~Mahatma Gandi.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
The Consumer Paradox: Scientists Find that Low Self-Esteem and Materialism Goes Hand in Hand
“Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.”~From the movie Fight Club, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk
Researchers have found that low self-esteem and materialism are not just a correlation, but also a causal relationship where low self esteem increases materialism, and materialism can also create low self-esteem. The also found that as self esteem increases, materialism decreases. The study primarily focused on how this relationship affects children and adolescents. Lan Nguyen Chaplin (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) and Deborah Roedder John (University of Minnesota) found that even a simple gesture to raise self-esteem dramatically decreased materialism, which provides a way to cope with insecurity.
"By the time children reach early adolescence, and experience a decline in self-esteem, the stage is set for the use of material possessions as a coping strategy for feelings of low self-worth," they write in the study, which will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research.
The paradox that findings such as these bring up, is that consumerism is good for the economy but bad for the individual. In the short run, it’s good for the economy when young people believe they need to buy an entirely new wardrobe every year, for example. But the hidden cost is much higher than the dollar amount. There are costs in happiness when people believe that their value is extrinsic. There are also environmental costs associated with widespread materialism.
In the book “Happiness: Lessons From a New Science”, Richard Layard exposes a paradox at the heart of our lives. Most of us want more income so we can consume more. Yet as societies become richer, they do not become happier. In fact, the First World has more depression, more alcoholism and more crime than fifty years ago. This paradox is true of Britain, the United States, continental Europe and Japan.
Statistically people have more things than they did 50 years ago, but they are actually less happy in several key areas. There is also the considerable cost of what materialism does to the environment. We don’t yet know what final toll that could take in terms of quality of life and overall happiness. What many people don’t understand is that if we want to save the environment then at some level we have to buy and consume less. We don’t need to buy so much bottled water, for example. Studies have shown it’s usually not any purer than city tap water, which doesn’t leave mountains of plastic bottles strewn across the nations landfills. It also wastes energy and resources to make those plastic bottles and the many other unnecessary things that both youth and adults alike believe they need to have in order to enjoy life and feel good about themselves.
Mad Magazine summed it up with the statement, “The only reason a great many American families don't own an elephant is that they have never been offered an elephant for a dollar down and easy weekly payments.”
That funny statement, is only funny because it’s somewhat true. The reason people want whatever is currently “hot” is because they believe it will contribute towards their satisfaction and happiness in life. The word “believe” is the key here. People believe that buying more and more things will make them happy, when in fact research has shown time and time again that this simply isn’t the case. What we do know for sure is that buying more and more unnecessary things is damaging our planet and contributing to global warming.
Sure, one person being less materialistic isn’t going to make a noticeable impact on the environment, but it will make a positive impact in that one life. Once entire nations start to understand the myths about what really makes individuals happy, the world will stand a fighting chance.
“Be The Difference You Want. To See In The World.” ~Mahatma Gandi.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
///////////////////////
A Theory on the Deja Vu PhenomenonA physiological explanation of the deja vu phenomenon may exist. The optical and neural paths from the two eyes may be slightly different, or the processing of such signals might be delayed in one path due to some variant structure. Or, alternately, a "newer" and "older" brain processing method might be responsible.
For many years, psychologists have known of the phenomenon of Deja Vu, where a patient is absolutely convinced that a first visit to an area seemed like a place already familiar and known. (Deja vu is different from various similar phenomena such as Precognition [where a person has a premonition of some future event] or Clarivoyance [where a person comes to know about some simultaneous event a long distance away] or assorted other unusual phenomena. Modern science does not have adequate explanations for ANY of these apparent phenomena. I am only considering Deja vu here!
A Theory on the Deja Vu PhenomenonA physiological explanation of the deja vu phenomenon may exist. The optical and neural paths from the two eyes may be slightly different, or the processing of such signals might be delayed in one path due to some variant structure. Or, alternately, a "newer" and "older" brain processing method might be responsible.
For many years, psychologists have known of the phenomenon of Deja Vu, where a patient is absolutely convinced that a first visit to an area seemed like a place already familiar and known. (Deja vu is different from various similar phenomena such as Precognition [where a person has a premonition of some future event] or Clarivoyance [where a person comes to know about some simultaneous event a long distance away] or assorted other unusual phenomena. Modern science does not have adequate explanations for ANY of these apparent phenomena. I am only considering Deja vu here!
/////////////////////////http://shortpeeps.ytmnd.com/
////////////////////
///////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment