In my opinion, our justice system should not be abused by people who are just looking at to make a quick buck. However, there are times when people get injured and really deserve money for their injuries. I know because I was crippled on the job. I would be penniless today if not for my workers compensation settlement.
In my state, the worker's compensation commission is notoriously pro business. Those who are in charge of the commission avoid giving decent workers compensation settlements whenever they can. I was offered a pittance when a broken machine chopped off my hand. For my troubles, I was only offered $10,000 dollars and an early retirement.
The commission in charge of the settlement workers compensation in my state refused to even acknowledge the fact that my boss was negligent. After all, the factory I worked for did not have the necessary safety equipment. I had no choice but to hire a lawyer. I was a bit hesitant at first because I did not want the trouble of a lawsuit. However, it seemed like the only way that I had a chance of getting justice. Fortunately, it turned out that I was right. I never would have gotten a decent workers compensation settlement if I had not hired a job injury attorney.
It was a good thing that the juries tend to be pro-worker when I was trying to get a workers compensation settlement through the courts. The average members of a jury probably know what it is like to work under a negligent boss because they are usually taken from the working class. This means that they are more receptive to workers compensation settlement claims.
The opposing lawyers will usually try to scare you into settling out of court. They will argue that they are the best lawyers, which they are. Nevertheless, it is still possible to get a good workers compensation settlement through the courts, even if you are against very good lawyers.
You should not give in to whatever the industry bosses might say because you have a right to a workers compensation settlement for your injury. There is a good chance that you will get a settlement that is more generous than anything you would be offered if you have been wronged and you have a decent attorney. You have to make sure that you get a fair settlement if you choose to settle your claim outside of court.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/How-to-Obtain-a-Workers-Compensation-Settlement/139602
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Oppression
It is observed that this philosophy becomes so much a part of the oppressors’ ideologies, that in most cases they are not aware of their guilt. Only when the ideology of oppression has been installed and established from early childhood, the distress patterns of adult oppression are internalized as the norm. Under such circumstances alone is it possible for a person or group to get manipulated into the oppressor’s role, or can a person or group remain in the oppressed role.
Class oppression ensures exploitation of the economically weak by the system of divide and rule. The division may be along lines of gender, age, race, physical ability, physical handicap, etc. Exploitation can be stopped legally, to protect the weaker group. Though race is sometimes identified with skin colour, the circumstances of race are not confined to colour. Racial discrimination refers to deliberate methods by which people belonging to particular racial or ethnic groups are placed in an inferior position.
Conditions of life, resources and opportunities available to the others are denied to the disadvantaged group, making their life even worse. To combat racism, social workers need to correct social policies and institutional practices, so that equal advantages are available to all. Internalized form of oppression happens within a group or class of people, who habitually discourage each other due to hopelessness. Among a group of blacks a white man can speak clearly to rid the group of their self-inflicted oppression of internalized racism.
Oppression and domination are present in the relationships that exist between individuals, social groups, classes and societies. These relationships of oppression and domination are rooted in society’s values of separation, hierarchy and competition.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Oppression/140240
Class oppression ensures exploitation of the economically weak by the system of divide and rule. The division may be along lines of gender, age, race, physical ability, physical handicap, etc. Exploitation can be stopped legally, to protect the weaker group. Though race is sometimes identified with skin colour, the circumstances of race are not confined to colour. Racial discrimination refers to deliberate methods by which people belonging to particular racial or ethnic groups are placed in an inferior position.
Conditions of life, resources and opportunities available to the others are denied to the disadvantaged group, making their life even worse. To combat racism, social workers need to correct social policies and institutional practices, so that equal advantages are available to all. Internalized form of oppression happens within a group or class of people, who habitually discourage each other due to hopelessness. Among a group of blacks a white man can speak clearly to rid the group of their self-inflicted oppression of internalized racism.
Oppression and domination are present in the relationships that exist between individuals, social groups, classes and societies. These relationships of oppression and domination are rooted in society’s values of separation, hierarchy and competition.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Oppression/140240
Hegel
At Bern, for the first time, Hegel was left largely to himself to develop his ideas, without the hindrance of making his work acceptable to theology professors. Although scholars have noted that Hegel privately studied Kant while at Tübingen, Walter Kaufmann makes a persuasive argument that only at Bern did Hegel explore Kantian philosophy in any depth. His good friend Hölderlin was among those of Hegel’s generation swept away by the Kantian revolution. He doubtlessly expressed Hegel’s own sentiments when he wrote him in 1794, exclaiming that his free time was consumed by nothing else than Kant and the Greeks.
Hegel, too, spent the first two years at Bern mostly in scholarly seclusion, writing almost no letters, and traveling home not even once. During this incubation period, Hegel was concerned mostly with a critique of the religion he had spent five years studying. In his early manuscripts, he often compared it harshly with Greek civilization, and he began drawing on Kantian principles to strengthen his attack. In his early fragments on religion, he notes that “religion is the most important affair of our lives,” yet the natural religion of the ancients was far superior to the rigid formalism of Christianity in Germany.
Even at seventeen years old, Hegel was lamenting the pitiable fall of humanity from its previous splendor, praising the clarity and honesty of the Greeks’ investigation of the natural world, even as “in our day one predicts that a comet heralds the demise of a monarch, while the cry of an owl signifies the impending death of a man. During these two years, Hegel became increasingly hostile towards organized religion, his hostility perhaps intensified by the release of pent-up frustration following his years at the seminary.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Hegel/140633
Hegel, too, spent the first two years at Bern mostly in scholarly seclusion, writing almost no letters, and traveling home not even once. During this incubation period, Hegel was concerned mostly with a critique of the religion he had spent five years studying. In his early manuscripts, he often compared it harshly with Greek civilization, and he began drawing on Kantian principles to strengthen his attack. In his early fragments on religion, he notes that “religion is the most important affair of our lives,” yet the natural religion of the ancients was far superior to the rigid formalism of Christianity in Germany.
Even at seventeen years old, Hegel was lamenting the pitiable fall of humanity from its previous splendor, praising the clarity and honesty of the Greeks’ investigation of the natural world, even as “in our day one predicts that a comet heralds the demise of a monarch, while the cry of an owl signifies the impending death of a man. During these two years, Hegel became increasingly hostile towards organized religion, his hostility perhaps intensified by the release of pent-up frustration following his years at the seminary.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Hegel/140633
Existentialism
Existentialists believe that existence precedes essence. This premise not only applies how to humans define themselves, but also to the philosophy itself, which though believed a modern line of thought, found its foundation in the twenty-five hundred-year-old words of Heraclitus. Though only a small batch of aphoristic fragments remain of his work, the fragments on valuation from the ancient Ephesian philosopher influenced not only the Greek philosophers that followed him, but also the school of modern existentialism. Heraclitus logically explored a world of subjective values, a concept near to the core of existentialist philosophy, and his early humanist ideals echo in the works of many existentialists, especially 19th century German existentialist, Friedrich Nietzsche.
Like existentialism, Heraclitus is often misunderstood and mistaken for pessimistic by proclaiming a world without absolute authority. Heraclitus and existentialism provide a view of existence where the very value judgment that decries their pessimism comes from the subjectivity of critics lacking any guide or grounds for such thought. Key to understanding both Heraclitus and the views of existentialism, is the insistence that no objective values exist. Heraclitus incepts the sentiment of modern existentialist philosophers that God-given objective values do not exist and humans place worth without the aid of an absolute authority.
Heraclitus and Nietzsche both find admirable an individual who creates a personal set of values in favor of the subjective values of society, and does this with logic, reason, and society in mind. Nietzsche conceived of the “overman” to express this Heraclitian ideal of an individual that knowingly acts without the aid of societal values or God.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Existentialism/141644
Like existentialism, Heraclitus is often misunderstood and mistaken for pessimistic by proclaiming a world without absolute authority. Heraclitus and existentialism provide a view of existence where the very value judgment that decries their pessimism comes from the subjectivity of critics lacking any guide or grounds for such thought. Key to understanding both Heraclitus and the views of existentialism, is the insistence that no objective values exist. Heraclitus incepts the sentiment of modern existentialist philosophers that God-given objective values do not exist and humans place worth without the aid of an absolute authority.
Heraclitus and Nietzsche both find admirable an individual who creates a personal set of values in favor of the subjective values of society, and does this with logic, reason, and society in mind. Nietzsche conceived of the “overman” to express this Heraclitian ideal of an individual that knowingly acts without the aid of societal values or God.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Existentialism/141644
Kant And Religion
Kant had divided reality into radically distinct opposites of subjectivity and objectivity. The thinking subject may observe the world and study physical objects, but he will never get to an understanding of what the object is apart from human conception. All logical formulations to understand an object become themselves extensions of the observing subject; the subject merely finds that the harder he tries, the more he ends up investigating not the object itself, but his own conscious constructions of the object. The object as it is in-itself forever remains outside the realm of human knowledge and speculation. In other words, subjectivity and objectivity are essentially divorced, and can never be united.
Kant took this idea in many directions, particularly in the field of faith and morals. Kant argued that God as an object can never be known. Any argument for the proof of God would have to be drawn both from predicates not inherently contained in the idea of God, and principles established prior to sense experience—collectively, what Kant called synthetic and a priori judgments. Kant dismantled Anselm’s ontological proof, arguing that existence is not a predicate, and that positing pure existence does not ensure the actual existence of the object with any necessity. However, this opened the way to fuller freedom of the individual. Kant not only denied that any logical proof of God was possible, but he went further and asserted that no logical proof should be possible; if the human will is truly free and unfettered, than belief in God should never be a compulsion of logic.
Quite interestingly, the father of modern rationalism held that faith in God could only be a free, a-rational movement of the will.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Kant-And-Religion/142290
Kant took this idea in many directions, particularly in the field of faith and morals. Kant argued that God as an object can never be known. Any argument for the proof of God would have to be drawn both from predicates not inherently contained in the idea of God, and principles established prior to sense experience—collectively, what Kant called synthetic and a priori judgments. Kant dismantled Anselm’s ontological proof, arguing that existence is not a predicate, and that positing pure existence does not ensure the actual existence of the object with any necessity. However, this opened the way to fuller freedom of the individual. Kant not only denied that any logical proof of God was possible, but he went further and asserted that no logical proof should be possible; if the human will is truly free and unfettered, than belief in God should never be a compulsion of logic.
Quite interestingly, the father of modern rationalism held that faith in God could only be a free, a-rational movement of the will.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Kant-And-Religion/142290
Plato’s Philosophy
It is used to justify that knowledge is already present in human beings and there is only a need to stimulate in order to cultivate such. Such illustration is in line with the belief that the soul is immortal and knowledge in previous life is carried over to the new life a human being have. In a human being’s new life, he must cultivate such knowledge in order to remember them.
The belief that the soul is immortal in connection with the discussion of knowledge has a great sense of being a myth but it does not necessarily follow that we cannot derive a coherent philosophical sense from it. Going beyond its literal interpretation, we can obtain that knowledge can be brought about by cultivating our souls. Our souls entail our humanity, our being human. It is the very core of our beings. In the soul lies the very essence of our existence, the primordial reality of our existence that we ought to live. Such cultivation can be seen in the process of reflection where we, human beings, try to get answers regarding questions in our experiences. As most philosophers agree, via reflection, we can attain wisdom and knowledge. Truth can be brought about by the process of reflection. This kind of interpretation can be obtained from the Recollection Theory, a view that via the process of reflection that entails cultivating our souls, we can arrive to truth.
The Recollection Theory as being a myth does not entirely rule out its effectiveness of being a concrete explanation to a certain prominent philosophical view. It only suggests that philosophy is a very rich body of knowledge. Such richness entails that there are many methods in which philosophers used to preach and explain their philosophical views. Using a myth is an art that banners beauty in a philosophical discussion. It only encourages readers and students to go beyond what is obvious and what is apparent. Symbolisms and metaphors are only tools to facilitate critical thinking.
Thus, the recollection theory as a myth does not rule out its being a good philosophical explanation, rather it is only an avenue for a great process of philosophical inquiry.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Plato--8217-s-Philosophy/150381
The belief that the soul is immortal in connection with the discussion of knowledge has a great sense of being a myth but it does not necessarily follow that we cannot derive a coherent philosophical sense from it. Going beyond its literal interpretation, we can obtain that knowledge can be brought about by cultivating our souls. Our souls entail our humanity, our being human. It is the very core of our beings. In the soul lies the very essence of our existence, the primordial reality of our existence that we ought to live. Such cultivation can be seen in the process of reflection where we, human beings, try to get answers regarding questions in our experiences. As most philosophers agree, via reflection, we can attain wisdom and knowledge. Truth can be brought about by the process of reflection. This kind of interpretation can be obtained from the Recollection Theory, a view that via the process of reflection that entails cultivating our souls, we can arrive to truth.
The Recollection Theory as being a myth does not entirely rule out its effectiveness of being a concrete explanation to a certain prominent philosophical view. It only suggests that philosophy is a very rich body of knowledge. Such richness entails that there are many methods in which philosophers used to preach and explain their philosophical views. Using a myth is an art that banners beauty in a philosophical discussion. It only encourages readers and students to go beyond what is obvious and what is apparent. Symbolisms and metaphors are only tools to facilitate critical thinking.
Thus, the recollection theory as a myth does not rule out its being a good philosophical explanation, rather it is only an avenue for a great process of philosophical inquiry.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Plato--8217-s-Philosophy/150381
If I Was The Boss Of The World.....
The other day at work I was walking past a couple of young kids who were sitting on a couch and chatting. The first sentence I heard come from a little boys lips was:
"If I was the boss of the world, I would make everybody play together."
It made me smile.
'If only he was the boss of the world, the world would be a much better place', I thought to myself.
I told one of my friends about what the little boy had said and his comment was "Oh, only a kid would say something naive like that because they don't get how the world really works"
Mmm... what if he said that because he has seen how the world works... and he wants it to change?
We know that most intolerance comes from ignorance and fear.... and that kids only learn intolerance as they grow - there's some irony.
Of all the things we can teach those young hungry minds.... we teach them to be angry, bitter and fearful; we teach them to hate people who are not like 'us'.
Is it just my imagination or are we (and I mean the 'global we') becoming less tolerant?
Perhaps I'm just noticing it more?
Sure, we preach tolerance (outwardly) but scratch a little below the surface and it seems that we are a society who is fearful of, critical of and obsessed with anyone (or group) who doesn't align themselves with our thinking, beliefs or values.
Clearly, they're all wrong and we're right.
Maybe we need the six and seven year-olds teaching the stupid, insecure, fearful adults about love, acceptance and tolerance.
Left to figure it out for themselves, kids don't seem too concerned with their friend's skin colour, religious beliefs, political persuasions or country of origin.
When I was six years-old my friends could have been green and come from Mars; I didn't care.
They (kids) have this crazy system whereby they evaluate people based on how those people treat them.
If someone is nice, they like them.
If they're not nice, they don't like them... but tomorrow they probably will!
It's complex I know.
Lucky for those dumb kids, us clever, highly evolved, highly educated adults are always around to teach them about hatred, fear and how 'different' we all are.
Apparently the fact that we're all the same species, all have (essentially) the same needs, all look (pretty much) the same and all live on the same planet, isn't enough for us to say "hey, we're all in this together so... here's a wacky concept: let's not fight, let's not find more reasons to hate each other, let's stop trying to change everyone else and..... let's stop killing each other (we could be scaring the kids!).
The unspoken message that we teach our kids is that anyone who is different to us, anyone who doesn't look the same, talk the same or have the same values or beliefs as us should be feared.
I know that someone will probably write to me and tell me that I am over-simplifying an extremely complex issue but the seven year-old in me might suggest that perhaps we're complicating an extremely simple issue.
I believe the whole co-existing-without-killing-or-hating thing is hard because we have made it hard. Nobody needs to kill or hate... it's a choice. It's a culture, an ideology, a habit handed down from generation to generation.
What if we loved people (even tolerated would be a good start!) despite our differences? Do we all have to have the same beliefs, values, standards, customs, ideals and traditions to live harmoniously?
If we got down from our incredibly high horses we might actually learn something from those we fear.
We might learn they're just like us.
My best (female) friend is a married, Jewish, mother of three.
On the surface, we have virtually nothing in common.
She regularly thinks I'm weird and I think she's weird.
Well, she is kinda weird.
Our lives, cultures, religious beliefs and backgrounds couldn't be more different.
When I first met her I didn't get her... at all.
When I got to know her (and get her) I realised that, although we're different, we are really the same; same values, same beliefs (about many things), similar interests and similar philosophies and ideas on many significant issues.
So the most unlikely person ever.... became my best friend.
And she has taught me more than I could ever have imagined and my life is infinitely better for having her in it.
When I'm an idiot, she tells me.
I love that.
So perhaps we should replace (some of) our leaders with a bunch of kids for a year or two and see what happens....
Maybe we'd all have to play together because.... "that's the new rule."
If you were the "boss of the world" what would you do?
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/If-I-was-the-Boss-of-the-World-----/155159
"If I was the boss of the world, I would make everybody play together."
It made me smile.
'If only he was the boss of the world, the world would be a much better place', I thought to myself.
I told one of my friends about what the little boy had said and his comment was "Oh, only a kid would say something naive like that because they don't get how the world really works"
Mmm... what if he said that because he has seen how the world works... and he wants it to change?
We know that most intolerance comes from ignorance and fear.... and that kids only learn intolerance as they grow - there's some irony.
Of all the things we can teach those young hungry minds.... we teach them to be angry, bitter and fearful; we teach them to hate people who are not like 'us'.
Is it just my imagination or are we (and I mean the 'global we') becoming less tolerant?
Perhaps I'm just noticing it more?
Sure, we preach tolerance (outwardly) but scratch a little below the surface and it seems that we are a society who is fearful of, critical of and obsessed with anyone (or group) who doesn't align themselves with our thinking, beliefs or values.
Clearly, they're all wrong and we're right.
Maybe we need the six and seven year-olds teaching the stupid, insecure, fearful adults about love, acceptance and tolerance.
Left to figure it out for themselves, kids don't seem too concerned with their friend's skin colour, religious beliefs, political persuasions or country of origin.
When I was six years-old my friends could have been green and come from Mars; I didn't care.
They (kids) have this crazy system whereby they evaluate people based on how those people treat them.
If someone is nice, they like them.
If they're not nice, they don't like them... but tomorrow they probably will!
It's complex I know.
Lucky for those dumb kids, us clever, highly evolved, highly educated adults are always around to teach them about hatred, fear and how 'different' we all are.
Apparently the fact that we're all the same species, all have (essentially) the same needs, all look (pretty much) the same and all live on the same planet, isn't enough for us to say "hey, we're all in this together so... here's a wacky concept: let's not fight, let's not find more reasons to hate each other, let's stop trying to change everyone else and..... let's stop killing each other (we could be scaring the kids!).
The unspoken message that we teach our kids is that anyone who is different to us, anyone who doesn't look the same, talk the same or have the same values or beliefs as us should be feared.
I know that someone will probably write to me and tell me that I am over-simplifying an extremely complex issue but the seven year-old in me might suggest that perhaps we're complicating an extremely simple issue.
I believe the whole co-existing-without-killing-or-hating thing is hard because we have made it hard. Nobody needs to kill or hate... it's a choice. It's a culture, an ideology, a habit handed down from generation to generation.
What if we loved people (even tolerated would be a good start!) despite our differences? Do we all have to have the same beliefs, values, standards, customs, ideals and traditions to live harmoniously?
If we got down from our incredibly high horses we might actually learn something from those we fear.
We might learn they're just like us.
My best (female) friend is a married, Jewish, mother of three.
On the surface, we have virtually nothing in common.
She regularly thinks I'm weird and I think she's weird.
Well, she is kinda weird.
Our lives, cultures, religious beliefs and backgrounds couldn't be more different.
When I first met her I didn't get her... at all.
When I got to know her (and get her) I realised that, although we're different, we are really the same; same values, same beliefs (about many things), similar interests and similar philosophies and ideas on many significant issues.
So the most unlikely person ever.... became my best friend.
And she has taught me more than I could ever have imagined and my life is infinitely better for having her in it.
When I'm an idiot, she tells me.
I love that.
So perhaps we should replace (some of) our leaders with a bunch of kids for a year or two and see what happens....
Maybe we'd all have to play together because.... "that's the new rule."
If you were the "boss of the world" what would you do?
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/If-I-was-the-Boss-of-the-World-----/155159
The Incredible Relationship Between Our Mind And Our Body
Years ago when I was young(er) and dumb(er) I went to a Deepak Chopra seminar.
Someone had dragged me along to hear this bloke who, apparently, was some kind of doctor, philosopher, teacher, mystic and guru.
I'd never heard of him.
Ignorant Aussie.
It was a Saturday and I was missing the game on TV to listen to a weirdo.
That's all I cared about.
"He better be amazing", I told my friend.
He was.
He blew me away with his insight into the incredible relationship between our psychology and our physiology; the ability we have to influence our own physical health and wellness through our thinking and our emotions.
He was teaching me stuff that I'd never heard before but deep down, I somehow knew to be true.
On some level his message resonated within me; it made sense.
"Of course my thoughts and feelings will have a 'real' effect on my physical body", why didn't I think of that before?
We can simply think about something (something that scares us perhaps) and it will have an immediate effect on our physiology; our heart rate increases, our mouth becomes dry, we begin to perspire, our respiration changes, hormones are released, blood pressure increases and our pupils dilate.
Amazing, when we consider that nothing has actually happened, we've only thought about it... but the truth is, our mind often doesn't know the difference between a thought and an experience; imagination and reality.
Both of my parents suffer from hypertension (high blood pressure) and being the healthy little camper that I try to be, I have always done my best to live a lifestyle which would not lead to hypertension (and yes, I acknowledge there is a genetic role). Periodically I have worried about ending up with high blood pressure but generally, it's not something I have thought about too much.
A couple of years ago I went to the doctor (a bold step for the alpha-male, I know) because I wasn't feeling well. Anyway, she informed me that she was going to take my blood pressure. No sooner had those words left her lips than I could literally feel my blood pressure rising, my breathing get faster, my heart rate increasing and anxiety invading every cell of my being.
Clearly, I'm a big baby.
I didn't realise it, but on some level, I was so worried about having high blood pressure, that I was creating it.
I made my self anxious.
Sure enough, she took it and it was high.
"But I don't drink, smoke, eat bad food (okay cheesecake... but that's therapeutic) and I exercise every day of my life!"
"Well, Mr non-drinking, non-smoking, exercise-aholic... you've got high blood pressure."
She prescribed me some drug and I walked out of there feeling very sorry for myself.
I got in the car, headed back to work and considered what had just happened.
I arrived at the gym and went to our fitness assessment room (where I can test my own blood pressure). Deciding that I didn't really have high blood pressure, I figured would check myself just to be certain.
I sat down, put the cuff on my arm and instantly I felt my heart begin to pound in my chest; I was scared about the result.
What an amazing thing the mind is.
I merely thought about having my blood pressure read... and I became anxious.
How ridiculous is that?
I measured it; it was high.
I felt sick.
'Oh well', I thought.
'That's it; I'm resigned to a life of taking medication.'
I sat there for a few minutes wallowing in my own self-pity.
After a little while the anxiety was replaced by sadness and a level of reluctant acceptance.
I was just about to leave the room when, for some unknown, reason I decided to check it for one last time.
I was relaxed and didn't worry about the reading because I knew it would be high.
It was low.
What?!
I instantly felt happy and relaxed.
I tested it again.
It was low again.
I went and did some research and learned of a condition known as white-coat hypertension; the doctor simply mentions taking my blood pressure and up it goes!
I make it high.
Plenty of people suffer from the same condition.
One of the responses to stress and anxiety is an increase in blood pressure and if having your blood pressure measured stresses you, then there's every chance you can be mis-diagnosed.
Hey, that makes sense.
Okay, so back to my Deepak story.
You know when someone articulates something that you instinctively knew but could put into words or explain properly; that's what he did.
He talked about the undeniable relationship between mental and emotional stress and physical illness. For the first time I began to really understand that we have the ability to make ourselves sick.
Or well.
He told a story of two friends who went on a roller coaster ride together:
Sally loves scary rides.
Tom hates them.
Sally can't wait for the ride to begin.
Tom is petrified.
Sally has dragged Tom along and he is reluctantly strapped into the seat next to her.
The ride starts.
Sally is laughing and smiling; having a blast.
Tom is quiet, distressed, anxious and feeling nauseous.
His mouth is dry and his hands are sweating profusely.
The really interesting thing is what's happening on physiological level inside their respective bodies (as they both go through the same experience).
Both Sally and Tom experience chemical changes in their bodies.
Both of them are producing a whole bunch of hormones in response to their perception of what they are experiencing; their reality.
Sally, who's having the best time ever, is producing a truck load of endorphins (feel-good hormones) and life's good, while her off-sider in the seat next to her is stressed, anxious and petrified and releasing gallons (almost) of cortisol (a destructive hormone) around his body.
Isn't that amazing; they're both going through the same experience at the same time (riding a roller-coaster) and yet one of them (Sally) has got some great (health-promoting) hormones being pumped around her system while Tom's body is producing the 'Mr-make-you-sick-in-no-time' hormone; cortisol.
It's not about the situation, circumstance or event... it's about what it represents to us; it's about how we process it, rationalise it and deal with it.
How we let it affect us, physically.
Deepak also told us about a chemical that our body produces when we're having lots of fun.
It's called interleukin 2.
He then told us that interleukin 2 was being produced synthetically to treat some cancers.
Can you believe that.. when we're happy our body produces a chemical used to fight cancer!
Get happy I say.
I remember reading a book years ago by Andrew Weil (MD) who discussed at length the ability our body has to heal itself of many conditions. He explored the relationship between beliefs and reality (how we create our own reality) and the fascinating (but not fully understood) relationship between our mind and our body.
He spoke about a man who had suffered from cutaneous warts over most of his body for years.
No treatment had worked.
He visited a doctor who informed him that there was a new form of experimental radiation treatment available which was somewhat risky but was so powerful that it had a very high success rate.
The man who had been embarrassed by his warts for years jumped at the chance to have this 'revolutionary' treatment.
The doctor and a radiologist friend took the patient into a darkened X-ray room, had him remove his clothes and stand still for a couple of minutes while he had the 'treatment'. The 'treatment' had been to make an X-ray machine hum loudly without actually doing anything!
The next day all the warts were gone and never returned.
There was no treatment; his belief and expectation healed him.
He created a cure.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Incredible-Relationship-between-our-Mind-and-our-Body-/155800
Someone had dragged me along to hear this bloke who, apparently, was some kind of doctor, philosopher, teacher, mystic and guru.
I'd never heard of him.
Ignorant Aussie.
It was a Saturday and I was missing the game on TV to listen to a weirdo.
That's all I cared about.
"He better be amazing", I told my friend.
He was.
He blew me away with his insight into the incredible relationship between our psychology and our physiology; the ability we have to influence our own physical health and wellness through our thinking and our emotions.
He was teaching me stuff that I'd never heard before but deep down, I somehow knew to be true.
On some level his message resonated within me; it made sense.
"Of course my thoughts and feelings will have a 'real' effect on my physical body", why didn't I think of that before?
We can simply think about something (something that scares us perhaps) and it will have an immediate effect on our physiology; our heart rate increases, our mouth becomes dry, we begin to perspire, our respiration changes, hormones are released, blood pressure increases and our pupils dilate.
Amazing, when we consider that nothing has actually happened, we've only thought about it... but the truth is, our mind often doesn't know the difference between a thought and an experience; imagination and reality.
Both of my parents suffer from hypertension (high blood pressure) and being the healthy little camper that I try to be, I have always done my best to live a lifestyle which would not lead to hypertension (and yes, I acknowledge there is a genetic role). Periodically I have worried about ending up with high blood pressure but generally, it's not something I have thought about too much.
A couple of years ago I went to the doctor (a bold step for the alpha-male, I know) because I wasn't feeling well. Anyway, she informed me that she was going to take my blood pressure. No sooner had those words left her lips than I could literally feel my blood pressure rising, my breathing get faster, my heart rate increasing and anxiety invading every cell of my being.
Clearly, I'm a big baby.
I didn't realise it, but on some level, I was so worried about having high blood pressure, that I was creating it.
I made my self anxious.
Sure enough, she took it and it was high.
"But I don't drink, smoke, eat bad food (okay cheesecake... but that's therapeutic) and I exercise every day of my life!"
"Well, Mr non-drinking, non-smoking, exercise-aholic... you've got high blood pressure."
She prescribed me some drug and I walked out of there feeling very sorry for myself.
I got in the car, headed back to work and considered what had just happened.
I arrived at the gym and went to our fitness assessment room (where I can test my own blood pressure). Deciding that I didn't really have high blood pressure, I figured would check myself just to be certain.
I sat down, put the cuff on my arm and instantly I felt my heart begin to pound in my chest; I was scared about the result.
What an amazing thing the mind is.
I merely thought about having my blood pressure read... and I became anxious.
How ridiculous is that?
I measured it; it was high.
I felt sick.
'Oh well', I thought.
'That's it; I'm resigned to a life of taking medication.'
I sat there for a few minutes wallowing in my own self-pity.
After a little while the anxiety was replaced by sadness and a level of reluctant acceptance.
I was just about to leave the room when, for some unknown, reason I decided to check it for one last time.
I was relaxed and didn't worry about the reading because I knew it would be high.
It was low.
What?!
I instantly felt happy and relaxed.
I tested it again.
It was low again.
I went and did some research and learned of a condition known as white-coat hypertension; the doctor simply mentions taking my blood pressure and up it goes!
I make it high.
Plenty of people suffer from the same condition.
One of the responses to stress and anxiety is an increase in blood pressure and if having your blood pressure measured stresses you, then there's every chance you can be mis-diagnosed.
Hey, that makes sense.
Okay, so back to my Deepak story.
You know when someone articulates something that you instinctively knew but could put into words or explain properly; that's what he did.
He talked about the undeniable relationship between mental and emotional stress and physical illness. For the first time I began to really understand that we have the ability to make ourselves sick.
Or well.
He told a story of two friends who went on a roller coaster ride together:
Sally loves scary rides.
Tom hates them.
Sally can't wait for the ride to begin.
Tom is petrified.
Sally has dragged Tom along and he is reluctantly strapped into the seat next to her.
The ride starts.
Sally is laughing and smiling; having a blast.
Tom is quiet, distressed, anxious and feeling nauseous.
His mouth is dry and his hands are sweating profusely.
The really interesting thing is what's happening on physiological level inside their respective bodies (as they both go through the same experience).
Both Sally and Tom experience chemical changes in their bodies.
Both of them are producing a whole bunch of hormones in response to their perception of what they are experiencing; their reality.
Sally, who's having the best time ever, is producing a truck load of endorphins (feel-good hormones) and life's good, while her off-sider in the seat next to her is stressed, anxious and petrified and releasing gallons (almost) of cortisol (a destructive hormone) around his body.
Isn't that amazing; they're both going through the same experience at the same time (riding a roller-coaster) and yet one of them (Sally) has got some great (health-promoting) hormones being pumped around her system while Tom's body is producing the 'Mr-make-you-sick-in-no-time' hormone; cortisol.
It's not about the situation, circumstance or event... it's about what it represents to us; it's about how we process it, rationalise it and deal with it.
How we let it affect us, physically.
Deepak also told us about a chemical that our body produces when we're having lots of fun.
It's called interleukin 2.
He then told us that interleukin 2 was being produced synthetically to treat some cancers.
Can you believe that.. when we're happy our body produces a chemical used to fight cancer!
Get happy I say.
I remember reading a book years ago by Andrew Weil (MD) who discussed at length the ability our body has to heal itself of many conditions. He explored the relationship between beliefs and reality (how we create our own reality) and the fascinating (but not fully understood) relationship between our mind and our body.
He spoke about a man who had suffered from cutaneous warts over most of his body for years.
No treatment had worked.
He visited a doctor who informed him that there was a new form of experimental radiation treatment available which was somewhat risky but was so powerful that it had a very high success rate.
The man who had been embarrassed by his warts for years jumped at the chance to have this 'revolutionary' treatment.
The doctor and a radiologist friend took the patient into a darkened X-ray room, had him remove his clothes and stand still for a couple of minutes while he had the 'treatment'. The 'treatment' had been to make an X-ray machine hum loudly without actually doing anything!
The next day all the warts were gone and never returned.
There was no treatment; his belief and expectation healed him.
He created a cure.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Incredible-Relationship-between-our-Mind-and-our-Body-/155800
Utopia Is Not Good
This introduces us to Utopian laws, acting as a serious attack against the politics and social structure in Europe at the time More was writing. Again, as I have said though although some attacks made by More are obvious, for example the blatant attack against Royal Advisors, because Kings were only interested in using advisors for wrongful deeds (look at King Henry using Cardinal Wolsley and the saga that was created when he divorced his first wife, Catherine). Though a lot of the attacks are satirical and ironic.
Looking back at the example of female priests, one would not expect this suggestion from a devout Catholic, and it is ironic that in Utopia that women are priests. But again, this only contributes to the overall negative picture of Europe in the 1500s and Protestantism. More was saying that if Protestantism takes over this will happen and the results will mean that England will stray from it’s sound, upstanding values and chaos will follow. The beauty of being able to look back though means that we have a lot more to compare Utopia to than More. Although More wrote the book as a warning, we can look at it and see the text in a new light. The beauty of Utopia is that it has relevance today. Many see the book at not only a warning against threats in the 1500s, but as a book before its time. Many people see More’s texts as an early warning against communism. The fact that the community is given prevalence over the individual, that if a foreigner harms a Utopian they are viewed as insulting the country, not as having harmed and individual echoes recent days of Stalinist Russia, the rule of Lenin and even near recent times in China. The text itself shows what can happen in a society if individualism is lost, people become faceless and they suffer. Look back at the example of those forced into slavery if they commit adultery; it became easy in Utopia to see people as meat, as currency; ironic seeing as Utopians see money as the root of all evil and privatisation is prohibited.
Utopia has many issues within it that are relevant to many different times, but what do we think about the actual morals and issues within it as they stand alone? The emphasis on work and idleness shocks me most of all. It is almost as though More has created some sort of twisted marriage of a warped Utilitarian view of using people as ends with communism. Disregarding the warnings from history and looking at it from a moral and philosophical point of view, I believe that as I have just said, More has created some early form of Utilitarianism. People are not respected as free moral agents but are seen as a means of attaining happiness for the majority of people.
Even then it is questionable whether these people are happy. Perhaps they act happy out of fear? Heresy is the worst crime after all, so why should.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Utopia-Is-Not-Good/156442
Looking back at the example of female priests, one would not expect this suggestion from a devout Catholic, and it is ironic that in Utopia that women are priests. But again, this only contributes to the overall negative picture of Europe in the 1500s and Protestantism. More was saying that if Protestantism takes over this will happen and the results will mean that England will stray from it’s sound, upstanding values and chaos will follow. The beauty of being able to look back though means that we have a lot more to compare Utopia to than More. Although More wrote the book as a warning, we can look at it and see the text in a new light. The beauty of Utopia is that it has relevance today. Many see the book at not only a warning against threats in the 1500s, but as a book before its time. Many people see More’s texts as an early warning against communism. The fact that the community is given prevalence over the individual, that if a foreigner harms a Utopian they are viewed as insulting the country, not as having harmed and individual echoes recent days of Stalinist Russia, the rule of Lenin and even near recent times in China. The text itself shows what can happen in a society if individualism is lost, people become faceless and they suffer. Look back at the example of those forced into slavery if they commit adultery; it became easy in Utopia to see people as meat, as currency; ironic seeing as Utopians see money as the root of all evil and privatisation is prohibited.
Utopia has many issues within it that are relevant to many different times, but what do we think about the actual morals and issues within it as they stand alone? The emphasis on work and idleness shocks me most of all. It is almost as though More has created some sort of twisted marriage of a warped Utilitarian view of using people as ends with communism. Disregarding the warnings from history and looking at it from a moral and philosophical point of view, I believe that as I have just said, More has created some early form of Utilitarianism. People are not respected as free moral agents but are seen as a means of attaining happiness for the majority of people.
Even then it is questionable whether these people are happy. Perhaps they act happy out of fear? Heresy is the worst crime after all, so why should.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Utopia-Is-Not-Good/156442
Would You Like To Live In Utopia
There is a manifest rhetoric and repetition in the rules that seem to be active in negating, not creating, freedoms in order to construct a social system. For one to object to the lack of privacy would be a minor, reactionary, position. The more pertinent enquiry is into the complete absence of individuality and subjectivity in Utopian society.
Hythloday asserts that the Utopians are free of Europe’s (and particularly London’s) social and institutional failures. The Utopians are free of many of these grievances and inconveniences, but they are not free. To be free, and feel free, in Utopian society is to submit to the dominant ideology: to submit to the Syphogrants; Phylarchs; Princes; and the King. Since there is a hierarchy, there is a form of power. There is rule making, arbitration, and enforcement; hence there is room for abuse and inequality. Indeed, it is difficult to find an example of a contemporary Communist society that has not exploited its people to a terrible degree, with the ambiguous exception of Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
Thomas More’s Utopia portrays a society with no tenable position or allowance for the human as an individual, and for that individual to dissent. A Utopian citizen has, figuratively speaking, become commodified: they are part of the body politic, and Utopia owns and controls them as much as they own and control Utopia. They have been effectively reified and are, essentially, labour power.
The Phylarch, Princes and King appear to possess, by virtue of their involvement with lawmaking and arbitration, some modicum of power and control.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Would-You-Like-To-Live-In-Utopia-/156444
Hythloday asserts that the Utopians are free of Europe’s (and particularly London’s) social and institutional failures. The Utopians are free of many of these grievances and inconveniences, but they are not free. To be free, and feel free, in Utopian society is to submit to the dominant ideology: to submit to the Syphogrants; Phylarchs; Princes; and the King. Since there is a hierarchy, there is a form of power. There is rule making, arbitration, and enforcement; hence there is room for abuse and inequality. Indeed, it is difficult to find an example of a contemporary Communist society that has not exploited its people to a terrible degree, with the ambiguous exception of Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
Thomas More’s Utopia portrays a society with no tenable position or allowance for the human as an individual, and for that individual to dissent. A Utopian citizen has, figuratively speaking, become commodified: they are part of the body politic, and Utopia owns and controls them as much as they own and control Utopia. They have been effectively reified and are, essentially, labour power.
The Phylarch, Princes and King appear to possess, by virtue of their involvement with lawmaking and arbitration, some modicum of power and control.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Would-You-Like-To-Live-In-Utopia-/156444
The World Of Equality
Though many centuries have passed since the first publication of this profound philosophical treatise, it still remains active, at least in the minds of all those devoted and passionate philosophers and men--of--letters, by constantly triggering disturbing, and at times, painful debates and discussions, both with their own minds and hearts as well as with other fellow thinkers. Being a humble and young member of the aforesaid group of thinkers as part of my chosen vocation, and having attended many long-drawn-out and yet interesting lectures on More’s Utopian ideals, I find myself mulling over the topical question with extraordinary seriousness and soul-searching.
Needless to say, the many years that have elapsed since the publication of this ground-breaking treatise have ravaged the novelty and rapidness of More’s ideas, so much so that a devoted follower of More might even look like a sanctimonious and anachronistic prude to a modern observer, who always makes it a point to imbibe and exude the zeitgeist of his times. But even this ‘modern’ observer, as he casts a perspicacious eye on the events and people around him, might doubt whether he is not being too judgmental of our devoted More follower, and might also express some. Willingness to lend his ears to those who have perused Utopia, though he himself may not even go near it or lay his fingers on its leaves, which have been dyed yellow by Time.
Passing on to religion, More had his own unique take on religion. His Utopia, which is an embodiment of perfection, also supports perfect religion. Utopia is only a creation of an idealistic thinker fecund imagination, which, after finding the real world detestable, sets about on the daring and painful task of creating a world of perfection, a world which is too perfect to be real.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-World-Of-Equality/156957
Needless to say, the many years that have elapsed since the publication of this ground-breaking treatise have ravaged the novelty and rapidness of More’s ideas, so much so that a devoted follower of More might even look like a sanctimonious and anachronistic prude to a modern observer, who always makes it a point to imbibe and exude the zeitgeist of his times. But even this ‘modern’ observer, as he casts a perspicacious eye on the events and people around him, might doubt whether he is not being too judgmental of our devoted More follower, and might also express some. Willingness to lend his ears to those who have perused Utopia, though he himself may not even go near it or lay his fingers on its leaves, which have been dyed yellow by Time.
Passing on to religion, More had his own unique take on religion. His Utopia, which is an embodiment of perfection, also supports perfect religion. Utopia is only a creation of an idealistic thinker fecund imagination, which, after finding the real world detestable, sets about on the daring and painful task of creating a world of perfection, a world which is too perfect to be real.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-World-Of-Equality/156957
New World Eden
In it a wanderer, Raphael Hythloday, relates to More and his friend Peter Giles of Antwerp the topography, daily life, mores, religion and government of a far off island, a place in which society exists in harmony, gold is so abundant it is used for making chamber pots and no one starves or begs.
Whether this New World Eden reflected More’s political or religious convictions has for centuries been fodder for scholarly disputation. What cannot be disputed, however, is that Utopia is a beguiling Shaggy Dog Joke whose details ignore human instincts, behavior, history and reality. To live in the society More imagined would be an agony of sterile uniformity similar to the dystopia imagined by George Orwell in his novel 1984.
Several years after the first print of Utopia, Desiderius Erasmus wrote to Ulrich van Hutten that More “. . . was always so pleased with a joke, that it might seem that jesting was the main object of his life.” In fact, a sixteenth century biographer of More, Nicholas Harpsfield, considered Utopia a “iollye inuention,” while Erasmus spoke “of it as if it were primarily a comic book.” More himself tipped his humorous hand by naming his Eden-like isle Utopia. In Greek, ou and topos mean literally “no place,” inferring that this island society cannot be credible. Throughout the book similar puns occur.
Of course, puns alone do not insinuate glib motives on More’s part, just as contemporary reviewers’ dismissals of Utopia as an invention or comic book do not vitiate its significance. What exposes More’s joke clearly is his description of the society, one in which exist “no pretext for evading work; no taverns, or alehouses, or brothels; no chances for corruption; no hiding places . . . Because they live in full view of all . . .” This is high humor, indeed, but humor of the sort that pales upon reflection, and produces a response of bland bewilderment that a learned and well-traveled man could be so ignorant of reality and the human condition as to consider this imagined society beguiling to anyone.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/New-World-Eden/157487
Whether this New World Eden reflected More’s political or religious convictions has for centuries been fodder for scholarly disputation. What cannot be disputed, however, is that Utopia is a beguiling Shaggy Dog Joke whose details ignore human instincts, behavior, history and reality. To live in the society More imagined would be an agony of sterile uniformity similar to the dystopia imagined by George Orwell in his novel 1984.
Several years after the first print of Utopia, Desiderius Erasmus wrote to Ulrich van Hutten that More “. . . was always so pleased with a joke, that it might seem that jesting was the main object of his life.” In fact, a sixteenth century biographer of More, Nicholas Harpsfield, considered Utopia a “iollye inuention,” while Erasmus spoke “of it as if it were primarily a comic book.” More himself tipped his humorous hand by naming his Eden-like isle Utopia. In Greek, ou and topos mean literally “no place,” inferring that this island society cannot be credible. Throughout the book similar puns occur.
Of course, puns alone do not insinuate glib motives on More’s part, just as contemporary reviewers’ dismissals of Utopia as an invention or comic book do not vitiate its significance. What exposes More’s joke clearly is his description of the society, one in which exist “no pretext for evading work; no taverns, or alehouses, or brothels; no chances for corruption; no hiding places . . . Because they live in full view of all . . .” This is high humor, indeed, but humor of the sort that pales upon reflection, and produces a response of bland bewilderment that a learned and well-traveled man could be so ignorant of reality and the human condition as to consider this imagined society beguiling to anyone.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/New-World-Eden/157487
Understanding Comparative Philosophy
As a branch or subfield of philosophy, comparative philosophy is quite young and is still in its early stage of development. Its aim is to work on problems and compare various philosophies by taking into account all sources regardless of culture, language or philosophical stream. It differs from area studies philosophy in that area studies philosophy focuses its study on a single region or area. For instance, it may compare the various forms of Confucianism within China or compare Chinese Philosophy with Indian Philosophy. Comparative philosophy differs in that it goes beyond the boundaries of culture and language as it seeks to find a basis for comparing philosophical traditions.
In this sense, comparative philosophy can be regarded as an extension of world philosophy because world philosophy brings together philosophical writings and traditions that exist among all human cultures with the end in view of coming up with a unified global stand. It differs from comparative philosophy, however, in that the latter does not really strive to become a world philosophy but only to gain a better understanding of the differences in beliefs of one culture with another from a different region.
The Hurdles of Comparative Philosophy
Certain problems stand in the way of comparative philosophy that prevents it from totally achieving its goals. First of this is descriptive chauvinism or the tendency of philosophers to regard his own tradition as the only correct tradition and other traditions that differ from his as erroneous or false.
Another is skepticism or the tendency to narrate or discuss various traditions and attitudes of other philosophers while suspending belief or judgment of their adequacy and veracity.
Incommensurability is another obstacle of comparative philosophy that refers to the extreme diversity of traditions that may make it impossible to reach a common ground on which to base comparisons. Perennialism or the failure to recognize that traditions and beliefs evolve and thus the basis for a dialogue today may change tomorrow is another major obstacle that comparative philosophy needs to overcome.
And finally there's the lack of acceptance by other philosophers of comparative philosophy itself as a subfield of philosophy. There are those that contend that there is no such thing as comparative philosophy because all philosophical work is comparative. When you try and find the common ground among different versions of one religion, you are actually comparing them. When you study the principles that one philosopher espouses and test these principles with that of another, you are comparing them.
Truth be told, the strong tendency for incommensurability that results from the excessively diverse scope of subjects embraced by comparative philosophy results in the failure to create a synthesis of traditions. What comparative philosophy creates is not a new belief or understanding but a new method or process by which one can try to understand.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Understanding-Comparative-Philosophy/158682
In this sense, comparative philosophy can be regarded as an extension of world philosophy because world philosophy brings together philosophical writings and traditions that exist among all human cultures with the end in view of coming up with a unified global stand. It differs from comparative philosophy, however, in that the latter does not really strive to become a world philosophy but only to gain a better understanding of the differences in beliefs of one culture with another from a different region.
The Hurdles of Comparative Philosophy
Certain problems stand in the way of comparative philosophy that prevents it from totally achieving its goals. First of this is descriptive chauvinism or the tendency of philosophers to regard his own tradition as the only correct tradition and other traditions that differ from his as erroneous or false.
Another is skepticism or the tendency to narrate or discuss various traditions and attitudes of other philosophers while suspending belief or judgment of their adequacy and veracity.
Incommensurability is another obstacle of comparative philosophy that refers to the extreme diversity of traditions that may make it impossible to reach a common ground on which to base comparisons. Perennialism or the failure to recognize that traditions and beliefs evolve and thus the basis for a dialogue today may change tomorrow is another major obstacle that comparative philosophy needs to overcome.
And finally there's the lack of acceptance by other philosophers of comparative philosophy itself as a subfield of philosophy. There are those that contend that there is no such thing as comparative philosophy because all philosophical work is comparative. When you try and find the common ground among different versions of one religion, you are actually comparing them. When you study the principles that one philosopher espouses and test these principles with that of another, you are comparing them.
Truth be told, the strong tendency for incommensurability that results from the excessively diverse scope of subjects embraced by comparative philosophy results in the failure to create a synthesis of traditions. What comparative philosophy creates is not a new belief or understanding but a new method or process by which one can try to understand.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Understanding-Comparative-Philosophy/158682
Chasing Our Tails
Ever feel like you're doing a whole lot of nothing in particular?
Very busy achieving not much at all?
Going around in circles (professionally, emotionally, socially, financially, physically)?
Make a decision, don't follow through on it?
Lose weight, put it back on?
Save a bit of money, spend more?
Stand up for yourself, compromise yourself?
Two steps forward, three back?
Get motivated, get unmotivated?
One day you wake up, you're five years older, doing the same dumb things, making the same mistakes, still got the same issues (and a few more), got $9.70 in the bank, you're busier than ever and you're still unfulfilled, directionless and frustrated.
Still chasing your tail.
Other than that... things are great.
They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
That's what many of us do.
We know it's dumb.
But we do it anyway.
And while we intellectually understand the 'if we want to be different, we need to do different' concept, too many of us seem to be trapped in this perpetual cycle of frustration.
Tail chasing 101.
Yesterday morning I spoke with a bloke whose life is chaotic to say the least.
Chaotic and unfulfilling.
He works three jobs (two part-time), spends at least two hours a day travelling to and from those jobs, studies part time, has a girlfriend he hardly sees, is overweight, is perpetually starting and stopping weight-loss endeavours and fitness campaigns, constantly beats himself up because of his lack of will-power, doesn't eat... then eats too much, is frustrated, has got no money in the bank despite his three jobs, is still paying off a debt for a failed business venture and generally.... is one miserable, frustrated puppy.
He's got fifteen balls in the air... and he can't even juggle!
As I was chatting with him I began to see how hard he was doing life.
He was driven to get ahead.
But not in a productive, clever, this-is-fun-and-rewarding-kind of way, more in a... 'kill-yerself-by-the-time-yer-thirty-five' ... kind of way.
More in a... 'go-like-crazy-until-you- fall-down-from-exhaustion'.... kind of way.
If you looked up the word disorganised, you'd see a picture of him.
He had no (smart) plan.
He had chaos.
It got me to thinking about the amazing ability we all have to chase our tails.
I have gone through moments in my personal journey and with the evolution of my business where I have felt like I was constantly chasing my tail; investing way too much time and energy, for way too little return on my investment.
Here's what I've learned:
(1) We can't do ten things (well) at the same time (we think we can, we can't).
When we spread ourselves too thin (time, energy, resources) we tend to do ten things badly rather than a few things well. One of the biggest lessons I have learned in business is the importance of surrounding myself with great people who have the skills, abilities, time and knowledge that I don't.... and then letting them do what I can't.
If you don't have the luxury of helpers (as I haven't for most of my life) then it is crucial that you prioritise, do some things well and put other things on hold.
Don't do ten things badly.
(2) It is crucial that we get space, clarity, perspective and distance from our daily grind. It's impossible to be objective about it... when we're in it. Sometimes when we're away from our typical situation is when we're in the best head-space and make the best (big picture) decisions. Ever noticed how much clarity and perspective you get about your life / career / relationships when you're on holidays or away from your 'normal' situation.
(3) Be still.
And quiet.
Stop the rushing.
Stop the tail chasing.
For a moment... or several moments.
Step out of the chaos and the repetition, even for an hour.
Regularly.
Pray, read, meditate... explore the spiritual you.
Turn off the phone, the TV, the computer (you'll be okay), the noise and listen.
Listen to that still, small voice.
Stop drowning out the real you with mayhem.
Stop stunting your own growth and development with unproductive, un-rewarding busy-ness.
Find a place where you can turn the switch to 'off' and just be.
When I am quiet and still is when I really hear from.... me.
(4) Use a mentor, friend, coach to help you gain perspective amongst the chaos.
And find someone who won't tell you what you want to hear. Find someone like me who cares.. but is blunt, periodically offensive(!) and honest. Short term pain... for some long term gain. Too many people surround themselves with 'fans' who constantly tell them what they want they want to hear.
When you ask for feedback, don't ask with your fingers in your ears.
In a staff meeting a few years ago I asked my staff how I needed to change to become a better boss.
They told me.
Mmm, there's a reality check for you.
(5) An oldie but a goodie: work smarter not (necessarily) harder. Some of us have this dumb belief that we need to sweat, grind and suffer our way to the top. Some discomfort is necessary (as we've discussed) but hey, making it harder than it needs to be is just silly! For a long time I made my life harder than it needed to be because I didn't make the best use of my time or skills.
I created additional, unnecessary work and hardship for myself.
Ask yourself these three questions:
a) Am I doing this (whatever this is) the most effective way?
b) What can I do right now to change my situation (or at least start the wheels turning)?
c) How does my attitude (beliefs, perspective) contribute to the cycle of frustration?
(6) As boring and obvious as this piece of advice is... many of us still don't do it ( I hate sounding like a typical Personal Development type, so forgive me).
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Chasing-Our-Tails/159033
Very busy achieving not much at all?
Going around in circles (professionally, emotionally, socially, financially, physically)?
Make a decision, don't follow through on it?
Lose weight, put it back on?
Save a bit of money, spend more?
Stand up for yourself, compromise yourself?
Two steps forward, three back?
Get motivated, get unmotivated?
One day you wake up, you're five years older, doing the same dumb things, making the same mistakes, still got the same issues (and a few more), got $9.70 in the bank, you're busier than ever and you're still unfulfilled, directionless and frustrated.
Still chasing your tail.
Other than that... things are great.
They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
That's what many of us do.
We know it's dumb.
But we do it anyway.
And while we intellectually understand the 'if we want to be different, we need to do different' concept, too many of us seem to be trapped in this perpetual cycle of frustration.
Tail chasing 101.
Yesterday morning I spoke with a bloke whose life is chaotic to say the least.
Chaotic and unfulfilling.
He works three jobs (two part-time), spends at least two hours a day travelling to and from those jobs, studies part time, has a girlfriend he hardly sees, is overweight, is perpetually starting and stopping weight-loss endeavours and fitness campaigns, constantly beats himself up because of his lack of will-power, doesn't eat... then eats too much, is frustrated, has got no money in the bank despite his three jobs, is still paying off a debt for a failed business venture and generally.... is one miserable, frustrated puppy.
He's got fifteen balls in the air... and he can't even juggle!
As I was chatting with him I began to see how hard he was doing life.
He was driven to get ahead.
But not in a productive, clever, this-is-fun-and-rewarding-kind of way, more in a... 'kill-yerself-by-the-time-yer-thirty-five' ... kind of way.
More in a... 'go-like-crazy-until-you- fall-down-from-exhaustion'.... kind of way.
If you looked up the word disorganised, you'd see a picture of him.
He had no (smart) plan.
He had chaos.
It got me to thinking about the amazing ability we all have to chase our tails.
I have gone through moments in my personal journey and with the evolution of my business where I have felt like I was constantly chasing my tail; investing way too much time and energy, for way too little return on my investment.
Here's what I've learned:
(1) We can't do ten things (well) at the same time (we think we can, we can't).
When we spread ourselves too thin (time, energy, resources) we tend to do ten things badly rather than a few things well. One of the biggest lessons I have learned in business is the importance of surrounding myself with great people who have the skills, abilities, time and knowledge that I don't.... and then letting them do what I can't.
If you don't have the luxury of helpers (as I haven't for most of my life) then it is crucial that you prioritise, do some things well and put other things on hold.
Don't do ten things badly.
(2) It is crucial that we get space, clarity, perspective and distance from our daily grind. It's impossible to be objective about it... when we're in it. Sometimes when we're away from our typical situation is when we're in the best head-space and make the best (big picture) decisions. Ever noticed how much clarity and perspective you get about your life / career / relationships when you're on holidays or away from your 'normal' situation.
(3) Be still.
And quiet.
Stop the rushing.
Stop the tail chasing.
For a moment... or several moments.
Step out of the chaos and the repetition, even for an hour.
Regularly.
Pray, read, meditate... explore the spiritual you.
Turn off the phone, the TV, the computer (you'll be okay), the noise and listen.
Listen to that still, small voice.
Stop drowning out the real you with mayhem.
Stop stunting your own growth and development with unproductive, un-rewarding busy-ness.
Find a place where you can turn the switch to 'off' and just be.
When I am quiet and still is when I really hear from.... me.
(4) Use a mentor, friend, coach to help you gain perspective amongst the chaos.
And find someone who won't tell you what you want to hear. Find someone like me who cares.. but is blunt, periodically offensive(!) and honest. Short term pain... for some long term gain. Too many people surround themselves with 'fans' who constantly tell them what they want they want to hear.
When you ask for feedback, don't ask with your fingers in your ears.
In a staff meeting a few years ago I asked my staff how I needed to change to become a better boss.
They told me.
Mmm, there's a reality check for you.
(5) An oldie but a goodie: work smarter not (necessarily) harder. Some of us have this dumb belief that we need to sweat, grind and suffer our way to the top. Some discomfort is necessary (as we've discussed) but hey, making it harder than it needs to be is just silly! For a long time I made my life harder than it needed to be because I didn't make the best use of my time or skills.
I created additional, unnecessary work and hardship for myself.
Ask yourself these three questions:
a) Am I doing this (whatever this is) the most effective way?
b) What can I do right now to change my situation (or at least start the wheels turning)?
c) How does my attitude (beliefs, perspective) contribute to the cycle of frustration?
(6) As boring and obvious as this piece of advice is... many of us still don't do it ( I hate sounding like a typical Personal Development type, so forgive me).
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Chasing-Our-Tails/159033
What’s Is My Favourite Philosophy Books
As I am one of the most philosophy books addict and I would like to give some information about may favourite ones for any of you just in case looking for some guideline of buying a philosophy book. During almost 10 years of being addicted I have read hundreds of them but also there are quite number of them that I have never read. However, I still have heard some of good ones were cited hundreds of times.
Bateson in one of my favourite writer, his books had taken me from the real world and feel that I could not leave his books from my hand until I finish reading it. Both of his titles called Steps to an Ecology of Mind and Mind and Nature are my favourite books. Even though my friends told me that the first one is very good to read but I eventually come up with the second one, Mind and Nature and this title became my favourite just right away. Even though the physical shape, which was paperback edition made me a bit discouraging to read a first glance but when I started to open it and read so I found that it is no doubt why Bantam has defined this book as a new age book and was very well known as an interconnectedness of all things, then I have very clear idea about which definition that came from. Detail inside the book was the introduction of the basic principle of how we can understand both nature and social science deeply and learn about how they interconnect to each other.
The writer start the story by introducing very fundamental scientific terms that even young school boys should familiar with, which I love this starting point very much because this will make all level of readers feel comfortable and understand what the book trying to communicate and want to do further read. Then the later chapters followed by the epistemological foundations on the importance of combining different perspectives and some other different types of relationship between nature and scientific stuff. The major idea in the who book that I can make a summary for you here is the writer writing about three important element, which are: 1) explaining the reason and criteria of mind existence 2) study parallels between learning and evolution in random basis and 3) constructing a general purpose epistemological schematic.
Even though I am not totally agree with all the detail in the book which, sometime quite conflict to my basic of understanding but the writer used writing explanation which was really tackles subjects which have been largely ignored by traditional analytic philosophy, which considered is crucial importance to learn and understanding the fundamental of science.
As I have to say that even though there some difficult and complexities in the book, that is if you have very low background so you may be get lost and don’t know what the writer trying to communicate then you might get entirely the wrong idea, but I still insist that this book is worth reading so don't limit yourself by refusing to learn the details about philosophy. The more you know, the easier it will be to focus on what's important.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/What-s-is-my-favourite-philosophy-books-/162516
Bateson in one of my favourite writer, his books had taken me from the real world and feel that I could not leave his books from my hand until I finish reading it. Both of his titles called Steps to an Ecology of Mind and Mind and Nature are my favourite books. Even though my friends told me that the first one is very good to read but I eventually come up with the second one, Mind and Nature and this title became my favourite just right away. Even though the physical shape, which was paperback edition made me a bit discouraging to read a first glance but when I started to open it and read so I found that it is no doubt why Bantam has defined this book as a new age book and was very well known as an interconnectedness of all things, then I have very clear idea about which definition that came from. Detail inside the book was the introduction of the basic principle of how we can understand both nature and social science deeply and learn about how they interconnect to each other.
The writer start the story by introducing very fundamental scientific terms that even young school boys should familiar with, which I love this starting point very much because this will make all level of readers feel comfortable and understand what the book trying to communicate and want to do further read. Then the later chapters followed by the epistemological foundations on the importance of combining different perspectives and some other different types of relationship between nature and scientific stuff. The major idea in the who book that I can make a summary for you here is the writer writing about three important element, which are: 1) explaining the reason and criteria of mind existence 2) study parallels between learning and evolution in random basis and 3) constructing a general purpose epistemological schematic.
Even though I am not totally agree with all the detail in the book which, sometime quite conflict to my basic of understanding but the writer used writing explanation which was really tackles subjects which have been largely ignored by traditional analytic philosophy, which considered is crucial importance to learn and understanding the fundamental of science.
As I have to say that even though there some difficult and complexities in the book, that is if you have very low background so you may be get lost and don’t know what the writer trying to communicate then you might get entirely the wrong idea, but I still insist that this book is worth reading so don't limit yourself by refusing to learn the details about philosophy. The more you know, the easier it will be to focus on what's important.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/What-s-is-my-favourite-philosophy-books-/162516
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
We Live In A System Of Beliefs
The following article about beliefs is just an expression of my thoughts. It is certainly not definitive.
In my opinion, we live our life on the basis of beliefs. We, literally live in a huge belief system. So seamlessly integrated (into our world) are some beliefs that most people assume that they are natural and accepted them without questioning.
The very act of reading this article is belief-based, because the very construct that is formed in your head now is conceptual & of the thinking mind. Perhaps, what really is does not just exist as concepts, but also exists in the NOW as experience. Although one is able to describe or conceptualize a truth, the conceptualization is itself a thought.
Beliefs can be very powerful, especially when the majority of the population buys into it. Sometime a certain belief when set in motion, causes catalytic reactions, triggering the formation of yet other beliefs. Gradually, layers upon layers of beliefs mire directness and truth. So thickly laden with beliefs and far removed from the original spontaneity that life becomes unnecessarily complex and ritualized.
Major beliefs operating in our world are:
Identification of self with physical body.
When in actual fact, we are much more than that. This belief can be very difficult to un-ravel. And it takes many series of self-discovery to realize our true nature. The entire scope of this belief is beyond what can be expressed within this article. So I will leave it as that.
War.
War is borne out of beliefs that justify aggression to others that is participated by large groups. War itself is a belief, because nature and animals do not engage in it. Only humans do it, because it was conceived in the human mind, and it isn't natural or essential to human conditions. Military is an offshoot borne from War
Money buys happiness.
A belief that most thought of as true is that money gives one happiness. Happiness does not need money to fulfill, one merely made oneself believe so! The concept of Money set in motion the belief in status, status breeds competition, competition breeds the rat race, rat race cause one to slog a life time working and eventually few remembered the original purpose of life was for joy and fulfillment.
Status.
A person’s worth that is dictated by factors such as financial abundance and rank. This one creates much suffering in very hierarchical societies. This one is closely related to ‘money buys happiness.’
Perfectionism.
It is a most prevalent belief in our civilization. Everywhere in this world of ours, perfectionism is regarded as good while imperfection is bad. Everybody wants everybody else to be perfect. Is Perfection really an absolute value? I think not.
In my opinion, it is relative and is borne of human conception. Perfection is an idea. Things are the way they are. Perfection and imperfection are attached values.
Country.
The concept of country is just a belief in the ownership of land. Essentially, humans did not create land therefore nobody owns it. Patriotism is an offshoot belief borne from 'country'. When there are no countries and no wars, there are no needs for Patriotism.
Well, I think I have rambled enough. Thank you for reading.
http://www.articlejoe.com/Article/We-Live-In-A-System-Of-Beliefs/23182
In my opinion, we live our life on the basis of beliefs. We, literally live in a huge belief system. So seamlessly integrated (into our world) are some beliefs that most people assume that they are natural and accepted them without questioning.
The very act of reading this article is belief-based, because the very construct that is formed in your head now is conceptual & of the thinking mind. Perhaps, what really is does not just exist as concepts, but also exists in the NOW as experience. Although one is able to describe or conceptualize a truth, the conceptualization is itself a thought.
Beliefs can be very powerful, especially when the majority of the population buys into it. Sometime a certain belief when set in motion, causes catalytic reactions, triggering the formation of yet other beliefs. Gradually, layers upon layers of beliefs mire directness and truth. So thickly laden with beliefs and far removed from the original spontaneity that life becomes unnecessarily complex and ritualized.
Major beliefs operating in our world are:
Identification of self with physical body.
When in actual fact, we are much more than that. This belief can be very difficult to un-ravel. And it takes many series of self-discovery to realize our true nature. The entire scope of this belief is beyond what can be expressed within this article. So I will leave it as that.
War.
War is borne out of beliefs that justify aggression to others that is participated by large groups. War itself is a belief, because nature and animals do not engage in it. Only humans do it, because it was conceived in the human mind, and it isn't natural or essential to human conditions. Military is an offshoot borne from War
Money buys happiness.
A belief that most thought of as true is that money gives one happiness. Happiness does not need money to fulfill, one merely made oneself believe so! The concept of Money set in motion the belief in status, status breeds competition, competition breeds the rat race, rat race cause one to slog a life time working and eventually few remembered the original purpose of life was for joy and fulfillment.
Status.
A person’s worth that is dictated by factors such as financial abundance and rank. This one creates much suffering in very hierarchical societies. This one is closely related to ‘money buys happiness.’
Perfectionism.
It is a most prevalent belief in our civilization. Everywhere in this world of ours, perfectionism is regarded as good while imperfection is bad. Everybody wants everybody else to be perfect. Is Perfection really an absolute value? I think not.
In my opinion, it is relative and is borne of human conception. Perfection is an idea. Things are the way they are. Perfection and imperfection are attached values.
Country.
The concept of country is just a belief in the ownership of land. Essentially, humans did not create land therefore nobody owns it. Patriotism is an offshoot belief borne from 'country'. When there are no countries and no wars, there are no needs for Patriotism.
Well, I think I have rambled enough. Thank you for reading.
http://www.articlejoe.com/Article/We-Live-In-A-System-Of-Beliefs/23182
Compassion Sustains The World
The following is my opinion about this thing call Compassion. It is not a definitive article though.
Compassion, in my view, is a very crucial element for sustainability. This is even more relevant to the current volatile world of ours.
The very fabric of the Universe is infused with compassion. It is the binding force that harmonizes and sustains Existence. It prevents the self-destruction and implosion of the universe. It is the allowance and acceptance of aspects of Source toward other aspects of itself. Without it, part of All That Is will harm Itself.
Everything is a reflection of the Source and is the Source. The Source must love parts of Itself. This love serves to prevent the taking of advantage of others.
The universe and world at large cannot be sustained without compassion. The lack of compassion is the lack of the capacity to maintain ‘unity in separation.’ Without Unity, harmony can only be maintained in an unstable manner. This is because without kindness and compassion, there can be no assurance from bullying, harming and or any other forms of advantage taking.
Without compassion we will not understand the suffering of others. Without this understanding, one can inflict hurt without conscience. Therefore a lack of compassion is a form of great ignorance. This great ignorance has produced much harm and suffering. War is often the direct result of a lack of compassion on the part of the perpetuators. Why do I say so? Because the perpetuator has traded the pain of others for some other kind of goals. Unless one is without compassion, one can see just how must suffering this can cause. Without compassion, we will be indifferent and not feel sad for the suffering of others
So, let's be compassionate and make the world a better place.
http://www.articlejoe.com/Article/Compassion-Sustains-The-World/24052
Compassion, in my view, is a very crucial element for sustainability. This is even more relevant to the current volatile world of ours.
The very fabric of the Universe is infused with compassion. It is the binding force that harmonizes and sustains Existence. It prevents the self-destruction and implosion of the universe. It is the allowance and acceptance of aspects of Source toward other aspects of itself. Without it, part of All That Is will harm Itself.
Everything is a reflection of the Source and is the Source. The Source must love parts of Itself. This love serves to prevent the taking of advantage of others.
The universe and world at large cannot be sustained without compassion. The lack of compassion is the lack of the capacity to maintain ‘unity in separation.’ Without Unity, harmony can only be maintained in an unstable manner. This is because without kindness and compassion, there can be no assurance from bullying, harming and or any other forms of advantage taking.
Without compassion we will not understand the suffering of others. Without this understanding, one can inflict hurt without conscience. Therefore a lack of compassion is a form of great ignorance. This great ignorance has produced much harm and suffering. War is often the direct result of a lack of compassion on the part of the perpetuators. Why do I say so? Because the perpetuator has traded the pain of others for some other kind of goals. Unless one is without compassion, one can see just how must suffering this can cause. Without compassion, we will be indifferent and not feel sad for the suffering of others
So, let's be compassionate and make the world a better place.
http://www.articlejoe.com/Article/Compassion-Sustains-The-World/24052
Monday, February 19, 2007
Painting Philosophy of Peruvian Artist
I paint with an emphasis on expressing LIFE (the spirit and the soul) which is the expression of my love for the natural world and its creatures. From the heart of my Incan cultural comes my love and respect for nature. I honor my love of nature and man by painting with a balance of rhythm, harmony, and movement. This is the tradition of my people the Incans Indians of Peru, and the Chinese Philosophers which I studied at the Central Institute of Fine Arts of China. Thus, when I paint, the animals have a voice, the spirit of nature speaks, and man travels in harmony with nature and God.
Use of Color & Patterns
I render an emotional tone of the rhythm of the Incan Indian life through my vibrant use of color. I use bright and radiant combinations of reds, turquoises, purples, and oranges, which characterize the textiles and ceramics of the Peruvian Andean. It is believed that the colors appease the spirits so that they will be happy and will not bring forth darkness. I employ simple swirling patterns to transmit a sense of the peace and harmony that radiate from the Incan Indians close interrelation to the land. It is this sense of the sacredness in nature that comes from deep within my works.
Calligraphy
What has fascinated me about traditional Chinese painting when I studied it was the use of colors and lines from calligraphy. Calligraphy in Chinese tradition expresses feelings, harmony, rhythm, movement and balance. The Chinese say, “Let’s see how you write to see how you paint!” If you do not write calligraphy, you don’t paint. The Aztec, Mayans and Incans (symbolic writers) say the same in their philosophy, “to write is like painting and painting is like writing.” Thus from the writing come the discipline and precision of the trained artist, along with the rhythm, harmony, and movement that expresses the fragile side of human life and nature as they exist in a delicate harmonious balance.
Feng Shui
I stay true to the Chinese ancient philosophy of nature, Feng Shui in most of my paintings. Feng Shui is mainly concerned with understanding the relationships between nature and ourselves so that we might live in harmony within our environment. Feng Shui is related to the very sensible notion that living with rather than against nature benefits both humans and our environment. Most of my paintings honor the traditions of Feng Shui.
Materials Used
My western paintings demonstrate the themes, stripes, techniques and the use of natural colors and inks. I paint with natural inks, water colors, acrylics, and oils on rice paper, cotton paper and canvas.
My eastern paintings use techniques and materials that span several dynasties, such as the Song, Tang, Yuan, Ming, and Qing. They are painted on rice paper, different color silks using natural Chinese inks and colors.
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/self_improvement_and_motivation/article_1060.shtml
We Shouldn't Have Burnt The Witches: Philosophy And Cancer Treatment
1000 years ago in Europe pre-Christian tribes originally had a Goddess culture - a matriarchy where the earth and nature and their cycles and secrets were revered. In pre-industrial societies illness was not seen as a 'random assault from outside' but as a deeply significant life event integral to the sufferer's whole being - spiritual, moral, physical and life course - past, present and future. Dis-ease was interpreted as packed with moral, spiritual and religious messages as one of the many ways through which 'God revealed his will to mankind'. Other philosophies of medicine such as Ayurvedic or Tibetan think similarly, in these, dis-ease has a karmic aspect.
Around the tenth century in Europe - after the so called 'Dark Ages' - women, the original stewards of the land (men did ‘animal husbandry’), were dispossessed of it by the new patriarchies of the Church and State. This male hierarchy hid the things they were most afraid of, namely the fact that it is women who hold the key to the processes and powers of life. They took them as their own, decreeing laws about how we should behave to impose control and inventing 'original sin'. Allied to this there came a prolonged persecution of women, especially any of those involved in healing. Some sources estimate about 5 - 9 million women were destroyed across Europe during this persecution. Essentially the role of women as healers and midwives was discouraged and ‘home-making’ and its many associated skills is still regarded as a ‘worthless’ career according to our primarily fiscal values based on GDP.
When a patriarchy takes over a matriarchy as a fundamental paradigm shift, one of the main things that happens is that 'healing' and 'spirituality' are separated out as an instrument of control. The world of spirit and physic were separated and became even more so during the great male 'Age of Reason' that began with Descartes and continued with Newton, the tail-end of which many are presently clinging to in desperation and a degree of applied self-interest.
Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) was a central influence on the 17th century revolution that began modern science and philosophy. His ‘Method of Doubt’ was published in 1637:
"I resolved to reject as false everything in which I could imagine the least doubt, in order to see if there afterwards remained anything that was entirely indubitable".
The philosophy of ‘Cartesian dualism’ became part of our science, where the mind and the body are seen as essentially separate. The ‘self’, the conscious being that is ‘me’ was seen as essentially non-physical. Misguidedly (it was not Descartes intention) this philosophy contributed to the mechanistic and rational philosophy of the universe adopted by our culture. Descartes was one of the first people to suggest that phenomena could be understood by breaking them down into constituent parts and examining each minutely. His view of the human body as a machine functioning within a mechanistic universe took prevalence within the ‘Age of Reason’.
"Consider the human body as a machine. My thought compares a sick man and an ill-made clock with my idea of a healthy man and a well made clock".
This attention to analytical detail is still at the heart of our scientific research methodologies. As a result Western medicine has produced ‘World saving’ vaccines and antibiotics. It has created drugs and surgical techniques that do utterly amazing things. It has virtually eliminated all the serious communicable diseases (in the First World) such as leprosy, plague, tuberculosis, tetanus, syphilis, rheumatic fever, pneumonia, meningitis, polio, septicaemia. There are very few women dying in childbirth compared to the past. Western medicine has been, and is, a triumph in the face of these problems which worried us back then the way cancer and heart disease worry us today. Even the big medical problems of the of 1930’s and 40’s have literally vanished.
The age of infectious disease has given way to the age of chronic disorders. The major killers today are heart and vascular disease, chronic degenerative diseases and cancer, largely incurable and increasing in incidence. The strategies that worked so well for all but eliminating acute infectious diseases just don’t seem to work for chronic and degenerative conditions.
"The prevalence of asthma, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue, immune deficiency syndrome, HIV and a host of other debilitating conditions is increasing. Conventional biomedicine - so strikingly successful in the treatment of overwhelming infections, surgical and medical emergencies and congenital defects, has been unable to stem the tide of these conditions".
James Gordon M.D., Washington, D.C.
Even during the time of Sir Isaac Newton the human body was viewed as an intricate biological machine. The Universe was an orderly, predictable but divine mechanism, a ‘grand clockwork’. Although hundreds of years have passed, Western scientific medicine still holds the same basic philosophy, but are more sophisticated in studying biological mechanisms at a molecular level.
The first Newtonian approaches were essentially surgical. The body was seen as if it were a complex plumbing system. If it went wrong the offending piece was removed or bypassed. These days instead of using knives, drugs are often used to do more or less the same things.
Humans though are far more than walking sacks of chemicals. The animating life-force central to other medical systems is an energy that is not addressed by modern scientific methodology and there are no Western medical models that explain what it is and what it does. It is misguided by the concept that all illnesses are cured by physically repairing or eliminating abnormal cells. This is partly due to a conflict between ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ philosophies and has its roots in the division of science and religion along with the destruction of folk medicine in both U.S. and Europe.
Cancer cannot be treated effectively under a philosophy of reductionism. Scientific cancer research has failed to find a cure because it is looking in the wrong places with the wrong tools. Cancer needs to be understood as a ‘whole’ disease in relation to each individual’s experience and the culture of which they are part. It has multiple causes that vary with each patient. The strategies that worked so well for tackling acute infectious diseases are inappropriate for dealing with chronic and degenerative conditions. Cancer patients can be at best increasingly ‘patched up’ by orthodox treatments but at spiralling health care costs.
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/health/article_711.shtml
Ancient Philosophy on the Internet can Change How We Think
Here I am again sitting at my computer, my job is to write about the positive aspects of the Internet. I’d like to think of myself as a bit of a novice philosopher as well as writer. The other day in poetry class at university my lecturer mentioned a quote from a guy who I had already read and enjoyed, Baruch/Benedictus Spinoza. The quote mentioned was quite a simple one, and in my opinion simplicity is the best form of communication (and everything else for that matter). Spinoza once said, “Reality is perfection.” I feel this idea is quite a powerful one indeed, in relation to all aspects of life, including the Internet.
Where do you go these days when you want to find out about anything? Church? School? Parents? No, you go to the Internet. The Internet is the collective pool of unconscious, sub consciousness, and conscious ideas, beliefs, knowledge and wisdom of humanity from the past to the present. There has never been such a tool available for us. Of course there is a perfectly imperfect amount of crap out there to sift through as well, but that is intrinsic in this perfectly balanced reality that has always existed.
So, if reality has always been perfect, why is the existence of the Internet anything special? The truth is, it is only as special as anything else in life. Now, you have to ask yourself, “Is life special?” I think you know the answer to that one…then again there’s that perfect paradoxical balance. Why the Internet then? Well, my younger brother once said, and I don’t know where he pulled this little tidbit of wisdom, “The only constant in the Universe is that everything is in constant transition.” The Internet exists because of a natural progression in human thinking; it’s an evolution of our collective minds. It is a constructed idea formed through the process of eternal change.
Human beings have a huge history spanning at least half a million years. As well as the magic feeling of love there has always been the balancing emotion of fear. It seems that over time societies go through different stages where one of these feelings dominates and then permeates general actions by the community. At the moment many people would find it hard to disagree with the fact that we are in a period of fear. With war, hatred and segregation prevalent in reality as well as the ‘reality’ presented by the media news and TV/film, fear is reigning supreme in many of our daily interactions.
This relates to the use of the Internet because it looks as though people are afraid to get on the Web. I used to be afraid for Pete’s sake! To tell you the truth I still have some irrational fears when it comes to researching a paper for school. I often think, “Will I find the ‘right’ information?” The answer of course is that there is always a possibility of things going wrong, that’s this perfection of reality. Life would be stale, stagnant and sterile otherwise. The key lies in our belief in this perfection. The Internet has eliminated the need to go to libraries and carry around huge books just to read small sections of each. There is also less need to get to a science library and then sociology, mathematics etc. So much information is now available to people in our own homes.
Whether you are researching seventeenth century philosophers’ ways of thinking for personal or professional reasons, or even just looking up information on how to make your own chai tea, or on how to change the oil on your car; the Internet is a source for so many areas of interest it is simply mind boggling. It is truly the most perfect form of reality’s perfection in modern contemporary society. That’s why they call this the Information age right? The only problem has to deal with the perfectly imperfect amount of pornography that constitutes more than half of all websites on the Web. What does this say about our current moral disposition in our changing perception’s construct of reality? I’ll leave you with that one to ponder…
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/self_improvement_and_motivation/article_1118.shtml
Public Domain - The Philosophy Of Freedom
The philosophy behind the public domain is simple and very powerful. To elaborate we must first look at the traditional way in which Art and Intellectual property is governed. It is controlled by one thing, and that is money. People believe that to protect ones rights and to deter theft of their work, it (the work) must be protected by making it illegal to reproduce a work without authorization by the author. Any use other than use the author, “authorizes” will result in legal action against the person or corporation who infringes, by the person or corporation who originally created the work.
The law that makes it illegal to copy or reproduce a work is called fittingly “Copyright”.
The ideology behind copyright is sound, however, like other ideologies and theories it is inherently flawed. People will find ways to misuse the law for a profit. When someone creates something they are “entitled” to and have “rights” to the benefits of that creation whether it be an invention, or and “original work” of art.
Art can be a song, poem, story, or one of many forms of visual art. The rights that come with the creation of a work are, and should be, automatic and natural. No one besides the creator of the work should be allowed to profit from or use the work in any way without “authorization” from the works author.
However this idea flies in the face of the creation process, and poses a question. Why create the work in the first place? If no one, besides the original author has any rights to the work, and no one can publish the work without permission, why create it?
Culture.
Copyright law protects the author of the work and gives the creator the authority to sell the work for a profit without concern of theft of the work. The author can use the work as long as they own “all rights”. What I mean by this is that the author has the option of transferring “all rights” to whomever he or she chooses. The wonderful part about this area of law is that not only can the creator profit from the work itself, the rights to the work is fully transferable.
The author can transfer all rights or partial rights or set just about any limitations of usage they deem fit. This also poses another question.
How do you transfer rights and why?
Transferring rights to a work can get complicated and there are many ways to do it. The 3 most common are the temporary transfer, or what copyright law calls “licensing”. Here are the 3 I am referring to in order of commonality.
- Commercial
- Editorial
- Educational
These 3 types of licensing are “almost” all encompassing. They cover just about any use you can think of. There are many different variations of these three licenses, and most likely unlimited variations, it would take too long to go through all of them if in fact there is a limit. The main purpose of this example is simplification. The next obvious question is.
“How long does copyright last?”
This depends on where you are in the world. Different countries have different laws governing copyright laws. The one common factor here is “rights”. The owner of the work is the one who created it, and these rights continue on even after the authors death. Copyright can last as long as 120 years from the date of creation if created by a corporation, and life plus 70 years if created by an individual. This is according to current US Copyright Law 2004.
Now, since we have given you a brief overview of US copyright law, we will explain why we think that both the Public Domain and Copyright Law are extremely important.
Copyright Law protects the original authors rights to sell their work. The Public Domain is very important in preserving culture and providing a valuable resource for all kinds of great works. It is a resource, and the language that governs this area is negative in its connotation. Typically when a work is described as being public domain, it is described as having “fallen into” the public domain. This implies a negative state, and the public domain should not be considered as a catch all for unwanted, outdated material, or worse, an archive for the dispensable.
It should however, be considered as a vast natural resource, rich in culture, and fine works of art. It’s our history, it tells us where we have been and what we have done. It reminds us who we are, and possibly even where we are going. The public domain should be viewed as a Goldmine, chock full of free cultural riches. It belongs to everyone. No person can own it.
Anyone, anywhere, at any time should have access to this great treasure. That is what the Public Domain is all about.
A Crash Course on Graphic Philosophy 101
Novice and professional graphic designers, we are aware that you know the basic principles of graphic philosophy. But then, as workers of art – though digital and graphic art already borders in commercial arts, there’s no harm in continuously improving our craft through constant study and practice, is there? Really great graphic designers I know have come to their status because of painstaking application and study of their past works.
We’ll review the theoretical concepts of graphics and graphic forms as a foundation on how we have to go about our graphic designs. To begin with, a graphic form is the shape that embodies a certain idea. We can take a tree and use it as an example. How many ways can we depict a tree? We can depict by a photo of a tree, or the silhouette of a tree, or even its outline. By having these forms that represent a tree, we are therefore conveying the idea of a tree.
A word of caution, though, the effectiveness of which the idea is communicated depends upon many levels of context.
The abstraction of an idea into a flat space, to make it a graphic form, is an integral part of Graphic Design. Usually, the goal is to communicate the idea as clearly as possible. So why not depict the apple as close to reality as possible with a photo? This clearly depicts an apple and leaves no room for misinterpretation. So why not use photos of everything?
The idea is usually not as simple as just an apple. The graphic form is merely a component of an entire design. In a design of a poster for example, the existence of multiple forms and large amounts of text can compete with one another for the reader’s attention. To increase readability, graphic forms are usually simplified into basic shapes, and flattened into a limited amount of color. They are made to work with type more harmoniously and further refined to convey the layers of information with clarity.
The concept of contrast also defines the graphic form of an idea. In a field of 10 squares and 1 triangle, the form that will be noticed is the triangle. A design placed on a wall, on a billboard, or on the internet, are usually lost in a field of other designs. In order to help define your idea over the others, forms that contrast those around it are effective. Basic factors such as typeface, color, scale, and form are elements that can easily help get a design noticed.
The representation of an idea goes beyond its place on the page or its place on a wall. There is the larger context to consider the audience. The ability of the audience to interpret your design is based on the ability of the audience to understand the forms in which an idea is embodied. Preferences of form, and the ability to understand form, can change by age group, location, and through time. We all understand the representation of dollars by a symbol: $. Though symbols universally communicate, they are become ordinary by usage. As the audience becomes visually educated and aware of these forms, the visual language of graphic design expands. However, the evolution of forms must also take place in order to keep interest.
In the overall scheme of things, fresh ideas and interesting graphic forms have always been able to attract attention. New ways of representation strike curiosity. But the goal is to communicate and the form is part and parcel of visual communication.
FOREX Trading Philosophy
Keen on starting FOREX trading? Why would you not be… Many beginning FOREX traders are captivated by the allure of easy money. FOREX websites offer 'risk-free' trading, 'high returns' and 'low investment' – these claims have a grain of truth in them, but the reality of FOREX is a bit more complex. As with anything in life, what you put in will determine what you get out.
There are two common mistakes that many beginner traders make – trading without a strategy and letting emotions rule their decisions. After opening a FOREX account it may be tempting to dive right in and start trading. Watching the movements of EUR/USD for example, you may feel that you are letting an opportunity pass you by if you don't enter the market immediately. You buy and watch the market move against you. You panic and sell, only to see the market recover.
This kind of undisciplined approach to FOREX is guaranteed to lose you money, and have you waste your time. FOREX traders need to have a rational trading strategy and not allow emotions to rule their trading decisions.
The two emotions prevalent in the above example is greed (entering the market immediately) and fear (selling when the market temporarily moves against you). Investing and these two emotions do not gel at all. Keep them out of your trading and you will see results.
To make rational trading decisions the FOREX trader must be well-educated in market movements. He must be able to apply technical studies to charts and plot out entry and exit points. He must take advantage of the various types of orders to minimize his risk and maximize his profit.
The first step in becoming a successful FOREX trader is to understand the market and the forces behind it. Who trades FOREX and why? Who is successful and why are they successful? This knowledge will allow you to identify successful trading strategies and use them as models for your own.
There are 5 major groups of investors who participate in FOREX – Governments, Banks, Corporations, Investment Funds, and traders. Each group has varying objectives, but the one thing that all the groups (except traders) have in common is external control. Every organization has rules and guidelines for trading currencies and can be held accountable for their trading decisions. Individual traders, on the other hand, are accountable only to themselves.
If you do not keep yourself in check, nobody else will. Why should they worry if you aimlessly waste your money?
This means that the trader who lacks rules and guidelines is playing a losing game. Large organizations and educated traders approach the FOREX with strategies, and if you hope to succeed as a FOREX trader you must play by the same rules. That is studying these strategies and rules before starting to trade is so important.
FOREX Trading Philosophy - Money Management
Money management is part and parcel of any trading strategy. Besides knowing which currencies to trade and recognizing entry and exit signals, the successful trader has to manage his resources and integrate money management into his trading plan. Position size, margin, recent profits and losses, and contingency plans all need to be considered before entering the market.
This may sound like Greek now! If it does, you have more reason to get to know these terms. Knowledge will empower you on any investment market, including FOREX.
There are various strategies for approaching money management. Many of them rely on the calculation of core equity. Core equity is your starting balance minus the money used in open positions. If the starting balance is $10,000 and you have $1000 in open positions your core equity is $9000.
When entering a position try to limit risk to 1% to 3% of each trade. This means that if you are trading a standard FOREX lot of $100,000 you should limit your risk to $1000 to $3000 – preferably $1000. You do this by placing a stop loss order 100 pips (when 1 pip = $10) above or below your entry position.
As your core equity rises or falls you can adjust the dollar amount of your risk. With a starting balance of $10,000 and one open position your core equity is $9000. If you wish to add a second open position, your core equity would fall to $8000 and you should limit your risk to $900. Risk in a third position should be limited to $800.
By the same principal you can also raise your risk level as your core equity rises. If you have been trading successfully and made a $5000 profit, your core equity is now $15,000. You could raise your risk to $1500 per transaction. Alternatively, you could risk more from the profit than from the original starting balance. Some traders may risk up to 5% against their realized profits ($5,000 on a $100,000 lot) for greater profit potential.
Your FOREX Trading Philosophy
"Easy money" is the allure that captivates many beginning FOREX traders. FOREX websites offer "risk-free" trading, "high returns", "low investment." These claims have a grain of truth in them, but the reality of FOREX is a bit more complex.
Mistakes Of The Beginning Trader
There are 2 common mistakes that many beginner traders make: trading without a strategy and letting emotions rule their decisions. After opening a FOREX account it may be tempting to dive right in and start trading. Watching the movements of EUR/USD for example, you may feel that you are letting an opportunity pass you by if you don't enter the market immediately. You buy and watch the market move against you. You panic and sell, only to see the market recover.
This kind of undisciplined approach to FOREX is guaranteed to lose money. FOREX traders must have a rational trading strategy and not make trading decisions in the heat of the moment.
Understanding Market Movements
To make rational trading decisions, the FOREX trader must be well educated in market movements. He must be able to apply technical studies to charts and plot out entry and exit points. He must take advantage of the various types of orders to minimize his risk and maximize his profit.
The first step in becoming a successful FOREX trader is to understand the market and the forces behind it. Who trades FOREX and why? This will allow you to identify successful trading strategies and use them.
Accountability
There are 5 major groups of investors who participate in FOREX: governments, banks, corporations, investment funds, and traders. Each group has its own objectives, but 1 thing all groups except traders have in common is external control. Every organization has rules and guidelines for trading currencies and can be held accountable for their trading decisions. Individual traders, on the other hand, are accountable only to themselves.
Large organizations and educated traders approach the FOREX with strategies, and if you hope to succeed as a FOREX trader you must follow suit.
Money Management
Money management is an integral part of any trading strategy. Besides knowing which currencies to trade and how to recognize entry and exit signals, the successful trader has to manage his resources and integrate money management into his trading plan.
There are various strategies for money management. Many rely on the calculation of core equity -- your starting balance minus the money used in open positions.
Core Equity And Limited Risk
When entering a position try to limit your risk to 1% to 3% of each trade. This means that if you are trading a standard FOREX lot of $100,000 you should limit your risk to $1,000 to $3,000. You do this with a stop loss order 100 pips (1 pip = $10) above or below your entry position.
As your core equity rises or falls, adjust the dollar amount of your risk. With a starting balance of $10,000 and 1 open position, your core equity is $9000. If you wish to add a second open position, your core equity would fall to $8000 and you should limit your risk to $900. Risk in a third position should be limited to $800.
Greater Profit, Greater Risk
You should also raise your risk level as your core equity rises. After $5,000 profit, your core equity is now $15,000. You could raise your risk to $1,500 per transaction. Alternatively, you could risk more from the profit than from the original starting balance. Some traders may risk up to 5% against their realized profits ($5,000 on a $100,000 lot) for greater profit potential.
These are the kinds of strategic tactics that allow a beginner to get a foothold on profitable trading in FOREX.
Surround Sound Philosophy 101
There has been a long evolution in commercial movie theater sound. During the first two and a half decades of movie theater presentations, a piano, organ, orchestra, sound effects man, or actors reading the dialog comprised the sound of movies. Electronic sound appeared in 1926 with the coming of the "talkies." Theaters were wired for sound, and a big speaker perhaps set behind the center of the screen did it all. This was the monophonic sound era. Then stereo sound arrived in the 1940's with left and right channels. Additional sound channels were added in the 1950's. (Somewhere in there, a center channel was added to anchor the dialog to the center of the screen.) Finally surround sound came on the scene in the 1980's in various versions adapted to the acoustic challenges of the commercial movie theater. (The advent of DVD's brought affordable surround sound to our home theaters.)
Home theater sound can follow any of these commercial movie theater approaches, or it can move beyond to new levels of sonic realism and effects.
One important difference between movie theaters and home theaters is that movie theaters must present acceptable sound to a (hopefully) large group of people sitting at every location of a large room. In contrast, a home theater usually serves a much smaller group of people sitting in a much more limited part of the home theater space.
The limited size of the usual listening/viewing location in a home theater can work to the advantage of home theater owners due to the nature of sound reproduction.
To understand how sound reproduction bears on this discussion, let's start by considering stereo sound.
In stereo systems, if a listener is closer to the left speaker, all the sound apparently comes from the left speaker. If you have a stereo, turn it on and try this: sit in a location equidistant from the two speakers and listen to a good stereo recording with your eyes closed. Note the spread of locations the sound appears to come from. Now move a few feet to the left of and then to the right of center and notice how the sound which was spread across from left to right collapses into "all left" or "all right". This failure of the stereo illusion is unavoidable when you use just two speakers. This means there's always a "sweet spot" (where the stereo effect works best) located on a line centered between the two speakers in a stereo system.
By the way, purchasing more expensive speakers cannot overcome this effect, as the failure of the stereo effect ONLY has to do with both the differences in loudness between the two speakers (due to being closer to one than to the other) and the difference in the time when the sound arrives at your ears from each of the two speakers.
The center speaker in movie or home theaters is an attempt to override this problem by placing a speaker in the middle of the screen for dialogue and other sounds which the film maker wants to make sure comes from the center of the screen, no matter where you sit in the theater. The center channel solves the problem of stabilizing the dialogue but alas, any stereo sound being provided by the front left and front right speakers will still seem to collapse to one side or the other if a person sits well to the left side or the right side of the theater.
So, now let's consider the surround speakers. In movie theaters, the sound system designers are really stuck in a dilemma. Some audience members are often sitting right under or right next to one of the surround speakers, which means there's no hope of the person hearing the other surround speakers' output at the correct volume and at the right time to get any sort of stereo effect from the surround speakers. This is probably why the older Dolby Pro-Logic system rear surround was only monophonic.
Instead, sound system designers for movie theaters apparently threw up their hands and designed and arranged the surround speakers to:
1. Really lag in time, (so the surround sound wouldn't arrive BEFORE the sound from the main speakers, no matter where you sat, and)
2. Arranged for those speakers to smear their sound all over the back of the theater to mask the problems caused by the great variety of audience/surround speaker time and distance relationships.
Now, along comes home theater.
Most home theater users don't fill the room with audiences, but the philosophy of earlier commercial theater design is still being applied. You will observe how some home theater rear surround speakers are designed to project sound in multiple directions and how the set up manuals will often direct that the speakers be placed to project their sound away from the main viewing location.
Here's the thing - if you want to reproduce the movie theater listening experience, use the surround speakers which try to spread sound all over and position those speakers to aid that goal.
But, if you want to enjoy the more accurate sound source positioning (the sound appears to come from some exact location behind you, to your left, right, or even overhead!) made possible by Dolby Digital or DTS, a different approach should be used.
In this approach (labeled "Holosonic Sound" by Gary Reber and the gang at Widescreen Review magazine [www.widescreenreview.com]) the rear speakers are placed behind the viewers at about the same distance from the main listening position as the front speakers. They are usually somewhat further apart than the front speakers. These surround speakers should be:
1. Well matched to the sound quality (timbre) of the front and center speakers.
2. Direct radiating, and pointed at the prime listening position.
3. Capable of handling at least one-third to one-half the power that the front speakers can handle.
4. Located at a height at or slightly above the height of the ears of the audience.
(To prevent sound from the rear speakers from being blocked by seatbacks, they might have to go a bit higher. The viewer's ears must be able to directly "see" the surrounds.)
Home theater owners whose seats are right back against the wall will have to cope by placing the surrounds on the back wall facing the seating, but spaced well away from the viewers (same distance from the viewers as the distance from the front speakers to the viewers, if possible) to minimize the collapse of the rear stereo effect if an audience member is not sitting exactly between the two rear surround speakers.
Movie makers today are releasing films on DVD with sound that is designed so that home theaters arranged to produce accurate stereo sound from good rear surround speakers will really give you the feeling the you are inside the action, with actors sometimes speaking behind you, and sounds moving right out of the screen over your head.
How do you reliably adjust and test your home theater for the kind of performance we're talking about here?
Easy! Order the AVIA disk from Ovation Software's website. (www.ovationmultimedia.com)
Study the materials presented on the AVIA DVD, and then follow the instructions on the disk, or hire a pro to do the job after watching the DVD has helped you to understand the outline of what has to be done. The audio portions of this disk will assist you mightily in tuning up your system if you do it yourself. It contains "circulating" audio test signals that circle around the room and if you set up your theater for accurate surround sound, that test will show you how well surround sound can work in your home theater.
It can be very satisfying to have better surround sound than the commercial movie theaters.
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/music_and_movies/article_219.shtml
Fascinating Philosophy for Self-Growth
Self-growth, self-improvement, self-esteem, and motivation articles, books, videos, coaches, ebooks (including mine) inundate the Internet. They offer advice on how to live better than you are living now.
Good advice, but oh, so contemporary.
Sometimes it's more interesting to read philosophy.
One time a Korean medical doctor hired me to write an article explaining acupuncture for American magazine readers. He fed me the information but it took me three weeks to figure out how to start the article. Finally I realized I had to go all the way back to Plato and Confucius. Through them I could demonstrate how Western and Eastern philosophical contemplations led to two completely different branches of medicine.
So, let's consider the elements of the good life according to Aristotle. I bet you can relate-even if you don't know who he is.
1. The Contemplative Life. You know Plato's old line, "An unexamined life is not worth living." If you have read this far you carry his contemplative streak. You ask the big questions. You ask why. Good on ya, as they say down under.
2. The Active Life. A given. We can't think if we don't move and put some oxygen in our brains. Besides, life is meant to be lived.
3. The Fatalistic Life. We tend to think of fatalists as pessimists who assume they have no free will, no control over their lives. Everything is written in the stars--or someplace. But Aristotle has a different take. To him, a fatalist is resigned to the facts of life. He accepts the fact has he no control over the weather, his president, or his hard drive. This acceptance makes for a good life.
When the fatalist loses his job, his car, his key to the club, he doesn't mourn. He says, "I gave it back." He recognizes the transitory nature of everything. Some of us have to get really old to get to that point. I met a woman at a writers' conference who had just moved out of a fourteen room mansion into a two bedroom condo. "I gave it all back," she said.
It is a good life when we accept what is inevitable. You know your car is going to die someday, among other beloved flora and fauna.
4. The Hedonistic Life. Delicious sounding, isn't it? Slightly naughty. You thought a hedonist was an irresponsible, party-till-I-die kind of person, I bet. Not according to Aristotle.
Hedonism implies desire. Desire implies want--unsatisfied want. That's no fun. According to Aristotle, a true hedonist trods a narrow path between the pain of unsatisfied pleasure and pleasure. He's not going to pine over the Queen of Sheba when he can have the Queen of Next Door. He leads a peaceful life, getting his pleasure in protected context.
5. The heroic and saintly life. If you find joy in helping others you know you are no better than the sloths you grew up with. You know what sustains you and it is beautiful and you don't deserve the accolades people throw at you. It's your good life. You don't expect anyone else to get the same pleasure out of it that you do.
Sister Theresa never thought of herself as a saint. She just thought she was living a good life. The firefighters in every city do not think of themselves as heroes. When one dies trying to save a life, he probably thinks, "Damn, I goofed," not "They'll bury me a hero."
What we choose to do in life is programmed early. Our judgments of ourselves and others are hardwired, too. Personally, I measure my own self-growth by the wonderful decrease in my daily judgments of others..
I think Aristotle would say, if he knew the lingo, think about your life, live your life, expect bad weather and enjoy it, give up what you hang on to, seek pleasure safely, not excessively, and do what you do for its own sake, not for some ridiculous pat on the back.
Then again, I may be right.
I will now drink a toast to your good life with a safe amount of Hedonistic Port.http://www.articlecity.com/articles/self_improvement_and_motivation/article_4229.shtml
Lending Company Puts Forth A New Philosophy
An interesting concept is being put forward by a company called Global Equity Lending which, according to them,is rooted in the fact that building a secure financial future is more difficult than ever.The rules are changing and perhaps the old practices need to be revamped.GEL calls its new philosophy, "Harnessing The Power of Your Mortgage"
In 2004,credit card debt accounted for over half of the $2.1 trillion of consumer debt in the U.S., quadrupling over the last decade.Today,the average American household has $9,000 of credit card debt at 16% interest.To pay that average off,at that interest rate would take ten years,totaling over $8,000 in interest when all is said and done.The financial impact of this,which is virtually unrealized is devastating.GEL claims to have a better way.Their thinking is that since you must borrow money over the coarse of life,why not borrow it as inexpensively as possible.Credit cards,auto loans,and personal loans are all high interest and non deductable.So why not harness the power of your mortgage?
According to GEL,Americans operate under a mindset,when it comes to personal finance,that has been burned into our country's psyche from the days of the great depression.That philosophy is as such:First get the lowest rate mortgage,then,set up a bi-weekly payment plan,and,whenever possible send in additional payments.This way you pay off your mortgage as soon as possible. Sound good to me,right?Well,much to my suprise,this company claims that is exactly what we should NOT be doing!On the contrary,their idea is one which is echoed by New York Times Best Selling author of "The New Rules Of Money",Rick Edelman,who says,"You should get a big,30 year mortgage and never pay it off."Edelman and GEL put rules forth which read like this:
1.Never send extra money to your mortgage
2.Stay away from bi-weekly plans.
3.Make the smallest payment with the biggest tax break.
4.Putting extra money toward your mortgage is like putting it under the matress.
To back up his claim,Edelman offers five distinct reasons why you should carry a long loan:
1.Mortgages don't lower your homes value.Your home will grow in value whether or not you have a mortgage.
2.Your mortgage is the cheapest money you'll ever buy.Why pay credit card at 18%,when you can borrow at rates under 7%.
3.Your mortgage is the best way to lower your taxes.There aren't many tax breaks left. Mortage loans,unlike credit cards and car loans are fully tax deductable.
4.You should get cash out of you house while you still can.You may find it difficult to get a loan if something like a loss of job comes up.
5.Mortgages become cheaper over time.Most times your payment will stay the same over the years while your income rises,making it easier to pay over time.
To further illustrate their beliefs,GEL presentations include a case study called,"The Tale of Two Brothers", where they do a financial comparison of two fictional brothers.In the story,Brother A,as he is called follows the "old" way of thinking,while his brother(yes,you guessed it,brother B)uses GEL and Edelman's theory.The results of the study find Brother B with almost a one million dollar advantage over Brother A.The full hypothetical can be viewed on http://yourbighouse.com, but the jist is that the second brother used the money he saved carrying an interest only loan,or GEL's famous "power option"loan to invest in other places.That,combined with the mortgage tax breaks lead to the million dollar separation after 30 years.
So,if you believe in this new way of thinking,and are ready to follow the model(in other words, REALLY, put that extra money to work for you),then I believe an interest only loan or GEL's power option loan is the way to go,but be careful.
For more info on this new philosophy,go to http://YourBigHouse.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)