Saturday, January 17, 2004
The Curse of Feminism
How can I refer to feminism as a curse, when it's achieved some inarguably valuable goals? The same way that I'd call the unions a curse, even though THEY originally achieved some inarguably valuable goals (although now they're mostly a way to chisel $ out of uneducated workers and use it for political clout).
It's been a LONG time since women haven't had equal access to education, jobs and legal rights, and in fact women are now often favored OVER men in these areas, so it's time for the feminist leaders to take a bow, accept gratitude for the good things they did, and the blame for the harm they've caused, and get lost.
But, aren't women still earning less than men? Sure, but not because of prejudice, but because, on the average, they bring less to the companies they work for. This is NOT due to anything innately wrong with women or superior about men, but because of the stupid choices so many women are still making: Women congregate in low-paying jobs like data entry and teaching, with no new skills being learned and no hope of advancement, while men choose jobs with upward mobility. Women are statistically FAR less likely to take jobs that will require them to travel, move, or work long or erratic hours, although those jobs pay better and lead to executive positions; men head directly for the jobs that fast-track them to the $. Women are now getting more college degrees than men are, but women are still wasting time with majors like art history that do NOT train for any actual job, while the science, computer and engineering majors, whose graduates will be aggressively recruited for big-$ jobs, are packed with men. Even when women DO enter a professional field, they go for the lowest-paid, lowest-prestige specialties; for example, in the field of psychology, that "lowest level" is child psychology, and it's nearly all women who specialize in that. Female doctors, lawyers, educators, etc all gravitate towards the bottom of the barrel as well, while men seek out and pursue the HIGHEST levels. And, it's women who take big chunks of time, often YEARS, off to have and raise kids, and, although that's best for the kids and admirable overall, if a MAN took all that time off, for ANY reason, he'd EXPECT to lag behind in $ and promotions, and rightfully so. Since companies pay people what they're actually worth, based on background and experience, what all that adds up to is that women ON THE AVERAGE are less valuable employees, and it's perfectly fair for those that are less valuable to be PAID less, just as it's fair for women in low-end jobs to be paid less than men in high-end jobs. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that if you adjust the earnings #'s for these and other factors so that you're comparing women and men with identical backgrounds doing identical jobs, you discover that women ARE being paid equally for doing the same jobs, and fairly overall for the jobs they choose... and the feminist claims otherwise are outright LIES.
If feminists were just yelling for equality in pay, instead of telling women to EARN it by doing what men do to get better-paying jobs, it wouldn't be so bad, but the REAL curse for the average woman has been the feminist idea of "get all your education, and get established in your career, before you get a man and children." Oh, it SOUNDS great on the surface, but the reality is that the older a woman gets, the fewer men are still single in her age group (and many of those men are looking for a younger woman in any case), and the less attractive she is for that 8-second analysis men do to decide who they'll bother to get to know better, AND the less desirable she has become overall just by virtue of her education and success (men in general are repelled by these things, NOT attracted by them, sad to say)... in other words, if a woman has used up her most physically attractive years achieving goals that men are put off by, she'll find it harder than she ever imagined to find a man.
When a woman can't get a man easily anymore, or at ALL for a while, she becomes desperate, and that desperation sends men running for the horizon, leaving the woman with increased desperation and no way to get a man to save her life.
If the woman is lucky and meets a man who IS attracted to her (often through work or friends), she has to fight past the fact that if a man reaches a certain age and is still single, he either is VERY unwilling to give up his endless childhood ("bachelorhood") and settle down, or else he DID settle down once and it ended badly, and so now he's burned and resistant... and the fact that feminism has ALSO told women to go ahead and give a man sex without commitment, and live with him and be his mommy/housekeeper without making him take wedding vows, means that he can get whatever he wants from a woman without binding himself to her in a way that allows her to feel like she's setting up a home and preparing a place for children.
The feminist focus on career as the priority for women ignores the fact that women are biologically programmed to make a "nest" and produce offspring, just like all the other female animals are; instead of providing women with a better life, all a career gives many women is a wake-up call from their biological clocks, or just plain loneliness, and then the miserable experience of having to scramble to try to get those things that are still basic to human happiness, male or female... home and family.
Yes, men DO want these things too, but THEY don't have any time pressure; they're generally NOT seen as less attractive as they age, AND they stay fertile pretty much forever, whereas women's fertility begins to decline at 22, is radically reduced by 30, makes pregnancy both difficult to achieve and risky by 35, and is usually gone by 40... 40, the age at which men are generally entering their prime and looking for young women to be arm candy and breeders of their children. Men in their 20's and 30's are in no hurry, and they know it; women past 30 are running out of time to have even ONE child safely, and THEY know it... it's too bad that the feminists DON'T know it, or won't admit it, and thus have doomed countless women who've followed their teachings to missing out on having the families that they wanted all along.
The REALLY cruel thing is that the overwhelming majority of women who work have discovered what men always knew; that most jobs are just that, JOBS, endless grinding work, NOT exciting careers. They gave up looking for men at the time when they had the most choices, and having kids when they were most fertile, to fritter their lives away with the unenjoyable tasks that make up most jobs... somehow, that just doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
Listen up, ladies: If you're really, REALLY sure that what you want is to live your life alone and focus on a career, more power to you. If you're really, REALLY sure that you never want kids even if you DO find a partner (which is what MY choice has been), do whatever floats your boat. If, however, you have the normal human drives and want kids at some point, take a look at your plans and ask yourself if you can actually wait for all your other goals to be met before looking for a man and procreating; don't end up just another victim of feminism, trying to get love and nurturing from your diplomas and cubicle furnishings instead of from a man and/or children. You have your entire life to continue your education and develop a career, but only a limited time frame to have a family; don't wake up one day and realize that your 20's are over and that if you don't magically find the man you can live with forever in the next few years, get him to marry you fast, and hopefully retain enough fertility to get pregnant fast, you're just out of luck... I've seen it happen to too many women already. Yes, it bites that we have that ticking biological clock and men don't, but ignoring it won't change it; give feminism the finger and make sure you get what YOU want out of life.
It's been a LONG time since women haven't had equal access to education, jobs and legal rights, and in fact women are now often favored OVER men in these areas, so it's time for the feminist leaders to take a bow, accept gratitude for the good things they did, and the blame for the harm they've caused, and get lost.
But, aren't women still earning less than men? Sure, but not because of prejudice, but because, on the average, they bring less to the companies they work for. This is NOT due to anything innately wrong with women or superior about men, but because of the stupid choices so many women are still making: Women congregate in low-paying jobs like data entry and teaching, with no new skills being learned and no hope of advancement, while men choose jobs with upward mobility. Women are statistically FAR less likely to take jobs that will require them to travel, move, or work long or erratic hours, although those jobs pay better and lead to executive positions; men head directly for the jobs that fast-track them to the $. Women are now getting more college degrees than men are, but women are still wasting time with majors like art history that do NOT train for any actual job, while the science, computer and engineering majors, whose graduates will be aggressively recruited for big-$ jobs, are packed with men. Even when women DO enter a professional field, they go for the lowest-paid, lowest-prestige specialties; for example, in the field of psychology, that "lowest level" is child psychology, and it's nearly all women who specialize in that. Female doctors, lawyers, educators, etc all gravitate towards the bottom of the barrel as well, while men seek out and pursue the HIGHEST levels. And, it's women who take big chunks of time, often YEARS, off to have and raise kids, and, although that's best for the kids and admirable overall, if a MAN took all that time off, for ANY reason, he'd EXPECT to lag behind in $ and promotions, and rightfully so. Since companies pay people what they're actually worth, based on background and experience, what all that adds up to is that women ON THE AVERAGE are less valuable employees, and it's perfectly fair for those that are less valuable to be PAID less, just as it's fair for women in low-end jobs to be paid less than men in high-end jobs. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that if you adjust the earnings #'s for these and other factors so that you're comparing women and men with identical backgrounds doing identical jobs, you discover that women ARE being paid equally for doing the same jobs, and fairly overall for the jobs they choose... and the feminist claims otherwise are outright LIES.
If feminists were just yelling for equality in pay, instead of telling women to EARN it by doing what men do to get better-paying jobs, it wouldn't be so bad, but the REAL curse for the average woman has been the feminist idea of "get all your education, and get established in your career, before you get a man and children." Oh, it SOUNDS great on the surface, but the reality is that the older a woman gets, the fewer men are still single in her age group (and many of those men are looking for a younger woman in any case), and the less attractive she is for that 8-second analysis men do to decide who they'll bother to get to know better, AND the less desirable she has become overall just by virtue of her education and success (men in general are repelled by these things, NOT attracted by them, sad to say)... in other words, if a woman has used up her most physically attractive years achieving goals that men are put off by, she'll find it harder than she ever imagined to find a man.
When a woman can't get a man easily anymore, or at ALL for a while, she becomes desperate, and that desperation sends men running for the horizon, leaving the woman with increased desperation and no way to get a man to save her life.
If the woman is lucky and meets a man who IS attracted to her (often through work or friends), she has to fight past the fact that if a man reaches a certain age and is still single, he either is VERY unwilling to give up his endless childhood ("bachelorhood") and settle down, or else he DID settle down once and it ended badly, and so now he's burned and resistant... and the fact that feminism has ALSO told women to go ahead and give a man sex without commitment, and live with him and be his mommy/housekeeper without making him take wedding vows, means that he can get whatever he wants from a woman without binding himself to her in a way that allows her to feel like she's setting up a home and preparing a place for children.
The feminist focus on career as the priority for women ignores the fact that women are biologically programmed to make a "nest" and produce offspring, just like all the other female animals are; instead of providing women with a better life, all a career gives many women is a wake-up call from their biological clocks, or just plain loneliness, and then the miserable experience of having to scramble to try to get those things that are still basic to human happiness, male or female... home and family.
Yes, men DO want these things too, but THEY don't have any time pressure; they're generally NOT seen as less attractive as they age, AND they stay fertile pretty much forever, whereas women's fertility begins to decline at 22, is radically reduced by 30, makes pregnancy both difficult to achieve and risky by 35, and is usually gone by 40... 40, the age at which men are generally entering their prime and looking for young women to be arm candy and breeders of their children. Men in their 20's and 30's are in no hurry, and they know it; women past 30 are running out of time to have even ONE child safely, and THEY know it... it's too bad that the feminists DON'T know it, or won't admit it, and thus have doomed countless women who've followed their teachings to missing out on having the families that they wanted all along.
The REALLY cruel thing is that the overwhelming majority of women who work have discovered what men always knew; that most jobs are just that, JOBS, endless grinding work, NOT exciting careers. They gave up looking for men at the time when they had the most choices, and having kids when they were most fertile, to fritter their lives away with the unenjoyable tasks that make up most jobs... somehow, that just doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
Listen up, ladies: If you're really, REALLY sure that what you want is to live your life alone and focus on a career, more power to you. If you're really, REALLY sure that you never want kids even if you DO find a partner (which is what MY choice has been), do whatever floats your boat. If, however, you have the normal human drives and want kids at some point, take a look at your plans and ask yourself if you can actually wait for all your other goals to be met before looking for a man and procreating; don't end up just another victim of feminism, trying to get love and nurturing from your diplomas and cubicle furnishings instead of from a man and/or children. You have your entire life to continue your education and develop a career, but only a limited time frame to have a family; don't wake up one day and realize that your 20's are over and that if you don't magically find the man you can live with forever in the next few years, get him to marry you fast, and hopefully retain enough fertility to get pregnant fast, you're just out of luck... I've seen it happen to too many women already. Yes, it bites that we have that ticking biological clock and men don't, but ignoring it won't change it; give feminism the finger and make sure you get what YOU want out of life.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Luck... or is it fate?
People don't normally see luck and fate as being the same thing, or as part of the same thing, but MY view is that they are both words to describe the workings of karma. "Luck" refers to events happening to you in a way that exceeds what your efforts and random chance can explain; that's just another way of saying "karma," although not everyone's karma will give them unusually good or bad luck, of course. "Fate" refers to the events in our lives having a predetermined course, shaped by some force... and karma is the force. The intricate tapestry of karma determines what sort of highway your life travels along (you DO get to pick your lane, your speed, and maybe the occasional offramp, though), and that highway is both your fate and the determiner of how your luck runs... which are essentially the same thing, in the long view.
Don't believe in luck as an actual force that can work for or against you? Granted, most of what we call luck just refers to isolated events happening in a very good, or very bad, way, due not to mystical forces but to the normal run of events; "You got a DVD player for you birthday? Wow, you're so LUCKY!!" "Gosh, your new DVD player broke already? Bad luck, man!!" Everyone has a birthday every year, and big gifts are fairly common these days, as is the lousy quality of most new electronic devices-there's nothing notable about those events. BUT, if DVD Guy takes the player to the repair shop, and a beautiful woman is there with the same DVD player with the same problem, and they recognize that, laugh, and head off to Starbucks to share lattes and life stories, we'd say that he was REALLY lucky, and this would be luck in the deepest sense... and, we'd say that the meeting was "fate"... and Jungians would say "synchronicity"... and *I* see karma at work, which includes all those concepts.
What about the idea that some people are particularly lucky or unlucky, not just on a given day but throughout their lives, either in certain areas or overall? For this to be true, there must be fate of some sort, guiding events so that they follow a consistent path that isn't altered by effort and is "immune" to the laws of chance; the proof of this is that there ARE people who have jaw-droppingly good, or bad, luck ALL THE TIME. As an example, I personally have a degree of bad luck with games, related to which cards I get, the roll of the dice, etc, that is simply beyond belief:
I've played thousands of games of poker, but I've NEVER gotten more than one pair. NEVER. This is statistically impossible, as I should have DRAWN better hands than that even if I didn't know how to play, but it's the simple truth; this was so mind-boggling to the group I used to play with that they kept assigning someone to look over my shoulder to correct the wrong choices they figured I MUST be making to get this appalling result, but it was never a matter of wrong choices... I simply never got the cards, and witnesses verified that. The exact same thing happened to me playing Scrabble with my family; I'd consistently draw batches of tiles that were all 1-pointers, leaving me each turn with the choice of drawing a new batch for zero points, or making "at" or "on" for 2 points; I've gone entire games, SERIES of games, with that being all I could ever do, and yes, I got stuck with people looking over my shoulder to verify that I WAS doing all I could do, not lying about it and dumping good tiles. Same thing with computer Scrabble; I've sat there drawing 50 and more starting batches of tiles in a row without getting ONE that was playable, while anyone ELSE using the game got normal draws. In college, there was a game in the campus arcade that accidentally got set to allow unlimited free play, and I played thousands of games of blackjack on it... and, when I hit on 12, I busted 100% of the time. No one could believe it; many others played that game, and NO ONE else EVER busted by hitting on 12. People used to stand there watching me with their jaws hanging open, wondering how it could be... especially since I was well-known to be the world record holder on a game that was just 8 feet away (a normal game with pre-defined levels that you mastered through skill, NOT a casino game).
Clearly, there IS a force at work, one that affects inanimate objects of certain types and that "knows" which choices/results are good and which are bad for ANY game; karma might be getting the knowledge about the values of the choices from my own head, which could I suppose be tested if someone involved me in a game where I didn't know the rules and couldn't guess at them... in any case, it's clearly karma at work here. WHY has karma done this to me my entire life? My best theory is that this is the thing that made it clear to me early on that there WAS a force at work beyond my efforts and random chance, and that this was how karma chose to teach me this crucial lesson.
Insanely GOOD luck exists, too, and most of us know someone who has it. To return to the college arcade again; pinball games "match" 1 time out of 10 if they're fair, somewhat less in reality... but one guy I knew matched about 90% of the time, with total consistency over thousands of games. People would pay attention when he finished a game, just WAITING to see him match. He had the same sort of luck in every sort of game; much as we all liked him, people didn't really want to play against him, because everyone knew that he'd win, and always through blind luck, not from skill. He cruised through ALL areas of his life on luck; it never failed him, and he was a totally laid-back guy as a result, because he KNEW things would always fall his way without him having to make an effort.
At some point, does your deep-down belief that your luck will be a certain way affect how things work out? Of course... but, the years of events that MADE you believe a certain way were part of your fate.
What IS fate? Why are some of us obviously predetermined in unusually good or bad paths? Some would say it was a function of reincarnation, and many believers of karma think just that; for me, the jury is out on reincarnation, but it COULD happen, and if you were carrying over rewards or punishments from past lives it would certainly explain some things. My current best guess is that your fate is an aspect of your soul, in the way that your hair is an aspect of your body, and predetermined by some spiritual equivalent of DNA. Luck DOES often seem to run in families, as, say, obesity does, and, although if you work hard enough you CAN overcome genetic obesity, or "genetic fate," it's HARD, and most people fail.
Your soul is energy, either the same kind as karma, or on the same "spectrum" (analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum), or of a kind that can affect the energy of karma. Each soul is different just as each person is different, and each soul would have different attributes just as each body does; some people are born with eyes that will see better than 20/20 (or far WORSE than 20/20) and some people are born with a soul, fate, luck, karma, that will allow them to always get the right cards at poker (or doom them to the WRONG cards).
For us to be able to see into the future, there MUST be some amount of predestination, which is another name for fate. Maybe fate just extends a few days or weeks, maybe the broad structure extends beyond that, maybe the big events are already in place, waiting to see if your road leads to them; there's no way to know. What we DO know is that the paths of our lives can be very different than what logic would dictate or science explain, and these more extreme cases demonstrate what is true for all; luck/fate DOES exist, and, like most aspects of karma, CAN be manipulated if you're paying attention.
Don't believe in luck as an actual force that can work for or against you? Granted, most of what we call luck just refers to isolated events happening in a very good, or very bad, way, due not to mystical forces but to the normal run of events; "You got a DVD player for you birthday? Wow, you're so LUCKY!!" "Gosh, your new DVD player broke already? Bad luck, man!!" Everyone has a birthday every year, and big gifts are fairly common these days, as is the lousy quality of most new electronic devices-there's nothing notable about those events. BUT, if DVD Guy takes the player to the repair shop, and a beautiful woman is there with the same DVD player with the same problem, and they recognize that, laugh, and head off to Starbucks to share lattes and life stories, we'd say that he was REALLY lucky, and this would be luck in the deepest sense... and, we'd say that the meeting was "fate"... and Jungians would say "synchronicity"... and *I* see karma at work, which includes all those concepts.
What about the idea that some people are particularly lucky or unlucky, not just on a given day but throughout their lives, either in certain areas or overall? For this to be true, there must be fate of some sort, guiding events so that they follow a consistent path that isn't altered by effort and is "immune" to the laws of chance; the proof of this is that there ARE people who have jaw-droppingly good, or bad, luck ALL THE TIME. As an example, I personally have a degree of bad luck with games, related to which cards I get, the roll of the dice, etc, that is simply beyond belief:
I've played thousands of games of poker, but I've NEVER gotten more than one pair. NEVER. This is statistically impossible, as I should have DRAWN better hands than that even if I didn't know how to play, but it's the simple truth; this was so mind-boggling to the group I used to play with that they kept assigning someone to look over my shoulder to correct the wrong choices they figured I MUST be making to get this appalling result, but it was never a matter of wrong choices... I simply never got the cards, and witnesses verified that. The exact same thing happened to me playing Scrabble with my family; I'd consistently draw batches of tiles that were all 1-pointers, leaving me each turn with the choice of drawing a new batch for zero points, or making "at" or "on" for 2 points; I've gone entire games, SERIES of games, with that being all I could ever do, and yes, I got stuck with people looking over my shoulder to verify that I WAS doing all I could do, not lying about it and dumping good tiles. Same thing with computer Scrabble; I've sat there drawing 50 and more starting batches of tiles in a row without getting ONE that was playable, while anyone ELSE using the game got normal draws. In college, there was a game in the campus arcade that accidentally got set to allow unlimited free play, and I played thousands of games of blackjack on it... and, when I hit on 12, I busted 100% of the time. No one could believe it; many others played that game, and NO ONE else EVER busted by hitting on 12. People used to stand there watching me with their jaws hanging open, wondering how it could be... especially since I was well-known to be the world record holder on a game that was just 8 feet away (a normal game with pre-defined levels that you mastered through skill, NOT a casino game).
Clearly, there IS a force at work, one that affects inanimate objects of certain types and that "knows" which choices/results are good and which are bad for ANY game; karma might be getting the knowledge about the values of the choices from my own head, which could I suppose be tested if someone involved me in a game where I didn't know the rules and couldn't guess at them... in any case, it's clearly karma at work here. WHY has karma done this to me my entire life? My best theory is that this is the thing that made it clear to me early on that there WAS a force at work beyond my efforts and random chance, and that this was how karma chose to teach me this crucial lesson.
Insanely GOOD luck exists, too, and most of us know someone who has it. To return to the college arcade again; pinball games "match" 1 time out of 10 if they're fair, somewhat less in reality... but one guy I knew matched about 90% of the time, with total consistency over thousands of games. People would pay attention when he finished a game, just WAITING to see him match. He had the same sort of luck in every sort of game; much as we all liked him, people didn't really want to play against him, because everyone knew that he'd win, and always through blind luck, not from skill. He cruised through ALL areas of his life on luck; it never failed him, and he was a totally laid-back guy as a result, because he KNEW things would always fall his way without him having to make an effort.
At some point, does your deep-down belief that your luck will be a certain way affect how things work out? Of course... but, the years of events that MADE you believe a certain way were part of your fate.
What IS fate? Why are some of us obviously predetermined in unusually good or bad paths? Some would say it was a function of reincarnation, and many believers of karma think just that; for me, the jury is out on reincarnation, but it COULD happen, and if you were carrying over rewards or punishments from past lives it would certainly explain some things. My current best guess is that your fate is an aspect of your soul, in the way that your hair is an aspect of your body, and predetermined by some spiritual equivalent of DNA. Luck DOES often seem to run in families, as, say, obesity does, and, although if you work hard enough you CAN overcome genetic obesity, or "genetic fate," it's HARD, and most people fail.
Your soul is energy, either the same kind as karma, or on the same "spectrum" (analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum), or of a kind that can affect the energy of karma. Each soul is different just as each person is different, and each soul would have different attributes just as each body does; some people are born with eyes that will see better than 20/20 (or far WORSE than 20/20) and some people are born with a soul, fate, luck, karma, that will allow them to always get the right cards at poker (or doom them to the WRONG cards).
For us to be able to see into the future, there MUST be some amount of predestination, which is another name for fate. Maybe fate just extends a few days or weeks, maybe the broad structure extends beyond that, maybe the big events are already in place, waiting to see if your road leads to them; there's no way to know. What we DO know is that the paths of our lives can be very different than what logic would dictate or science explain, and these more extreme cases demonstrate what is true for all; luck/fate DOES exist, and, like most aspects of karma, CAN be manipulated if you're paying attention.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
A few comments on religion
Although I know some VERY religious folks who see and believe in the workings of karma (generally seeing them as evidence of God's plans), most of us with a deep belief in karma are NOT religious, which is what you might expect; to allay any confusion on that point, the following post summarizes my views on religion. If there's ANY possibility that you might be offended by a post of this nature, please DON'T read it, rather than reading it and then being upset and offended.
I don't subscribe to any organized belief; I believe in what I've seen and experienced, and in what seems to me to logically have to be true based on those things and my knowledge of science. I believe that there are things in the universe beyond our knowledge and even our comprehension, because it just doesn't seem possible for there to NOT be in the vastness of space, but I don't see those things as making it necessary for me to "get religion."
What's my position on the existence of God, or Allah, or Buddha, separate from religious doctrines surrounding them? I don't think it's likely that they exist, but I can't PROVE that, so I can't say for CERTAIN that they don't, or I'd be guilty of the same lack of intellectual rigor as those who believe without proof. My line of reasoning is; if they're all-knowing, they know that I exist and am a non-believer, and, since they make no effort to convince me of their existence, either they don't care about me, in which case I see no need to care about THEM, or they do not in fact exist. Anyone, whether person or deity, that expects my belief in them without giving me proof that they exist (AND are worthy) is doomed to disappointment.
Christians point to Jesus as "proof" of the existence of God. How do they know JESUS exists? It's in the Bible, of course. Sorry, but the Bible is just a book, and a book is just paper, NOT a pipeline to the truth; yeah, I know, it's supposed to be a result of divine inspiration, but nothing that's divinely inspired could have as many errors and contradictions as the Bible contains, so that doesn't wash with me. Still, I can't prove that Jesus does NOT exist; the best I can do is use logic:
WAS there someone named Jesus born about 2000 years ago? Could be. There are no records to verify it, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, since it was so long ago. It's entirely possible that there WAS a man named Jesus who caused a stir 2 millennia ago; we'll never know for sure without a time machine.
If there WAS such a man, was he the son of God? Let's assume for a moment that there IS a God; He/She/It/They (as badly as the world runs, it makes you think that God must be a committee) would, I think, exist in a form that we've never even dreamed of, so how could we know what He would want to do-what's our frame of reference? Even if He WERE similar to humans in some ways, He should be too advanced to want to create a son to mingle with humans; it would be like US wanting to have children that would hang out with amoebas. Still, let's say for the sake of argument that He MIGHT amuse Himself by putting in the womb of a woman a child who'll grow into a man that'll dazzle some uneducated, superstitious dolts, suffer greatly and die a hideous death at a young age..... hmmmm, doesn't sound like what you'd call a sensitive deity, does He, to set such a thing in motion? He sounds like the omnipotent equivalent of the little boy who pulls the wings off of flies; things like that make me HOPE that He's not out there, gearing up for his next round of torturing innocents.
Even if it HAD been God's intention to have a son on Earth, how do we know that Jesus was this son? (Was the Savior born among straw and horse poop? What kind of sick sense of humor would God have to have to allow THAT?!!) The Jews, who believed in God for 4000 years before there WERE any Christians, do NOT believe that Jesus was the son of God, and they were the smartest, most educated and most worldly people around at that time, so why should *I* believe?
Lots of people throughout history have SAID that they have "divine connections," and not a one of them has ever proven it (nowadays, we automatically assume they're crazy); why should we believe the claims Jesus made to being the son of God any more than we believe any of the other wild claims people have made? If Jesus really HAD performed miracles, no one would have doubted who he was, and they wouldn't have ever dared to kill him. He may have had charisma, some sleight of hand, followers who were good actors, and other such things that could have fooled a few ignorant, insular peasants into believing that he was something holy; if he wants ME to believe, he can present himself and produce something that looks miraculous to ME. So far, there's no sign of him.
A few comments on Christianity as a whole: The writers of the Bible played fast and loose with many facts; consider the claim that Mary, a married woman, was a virgin, and so NOT having sex with her husband. Nubile young woman, man with sexual rights to her, and no sex? Yeah, that could happen, lol. Furthermore, the architects of Christianity stole alot of things from the Jews and even heathens and slapped a new coat of paint on them to make THEIR religion; to ME, this is NOT proof that they possessed THE TRUTH. For example, it says in the Bible that the shepherds were grazing their flocks by night when Jesus was born; the shepherds in that part of the world have in fact done just that for millennia, and do it still to this day..... in AUGUST, when it's hot, NOT in December, EVER. They made the birth officially in December because both Jewish and pagan holidays were at that time.
Another example? The familiar image of "Madonna and Child" didn't exist until they went to convert people in Egypt, for whom the image of 2 of their deities, Isis and Horus, portrayed as a mother and baby, had special meaning; the Christians took images of Isis and Horus, doctored them a little, and then said it was Mary and Jesus.... and the Egyptians converted, because it looked like what they were used to. (Oh, and, incidentally, Osiris, the father of Horus, is a much earlier example of the idea of a "god who died and was resurrected" than Jesus is... coincidence?)
Would the "one true religion" need to resort to such tactics? Not in MY mind.
None of the above means that I don't fully support everyone's right to have whatever beliefs they choose; on the contrary, I'd fight to my last breath for every American's rights in the spiritual arena. I know that religion is a powerful force in history and in today's world, and I have no doubts about the benefits that many people get from their faith. I find all sorts of spiritual beliefs, and their relationships to the cultures they arose from, to be very interesting, and I enjoy discussing this topic with people who honestly want to analyze it objectively.... I just don't believe in any deities, or that any one religious belief is "the truth." I think that there are truths in EVERY religion, but the real, whole truth is still well beyond our ability to see or comprehend.
I don't subscribe to any organized belief; I believe in what I've seen and experienced, and in what seems to me to logically have to be true based on those things and my knowledge of science. I believe that there are things in the universe beyond our knowledge and even our comprehension, because it just doesn't seem possible for there to NOT be in the vastness of space, but I don't see those things as making it necessary for me to "get religion."
What's my position on the existence of God, or Allah, or Buddha, separate from religious doctrines surrounding them? I don't think it's likely that they exist, but I can't PROVE that, so I can't say for CERTAIN that they don't, or I'd be guilty of the same lack of intellectual rigor as those who believe without proof. My line of reasoning is; if they're all-knowing, they know that I exist and am a non-believer, and, since they make no effort to convince me of their existence, either they don't care about me, in which case I see no need to care about THEM, or they do not in fact exist. Anyone, whether person or deity, that expects my belief in them without giving me proof that they exist (AND are worthy) is doomed to disappointment.
Christians point to Jesus as "proof" of the existence of God. How do they know JESUS exists? It's in the Bible, of course. Sorry, but the Bible is just a book, and a book is just paper, NOT a pipeline to the truth; yeah, I know, it's supposed to be a result of divine inspiration, but nothing that's divinely inspired could have as many errors and contradictions as the Bible contains, so that doesn't wash with me. Still, I can't prove that Jesus does NOT exist; the best I can do is use logic:
WAS there someone named Jesus born about 2000 years ago? Could be. There are no records to verify it, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, since it was so long ago. It's entirely possible that there WAS a man named Jesus who caused a stir 2 millennia ago; we'll never know for sure without a time machine.
If there WAS such a man, was he the son of God? Let's assume for a moment that there IS a God; He/She/It/They (as badly as the world runs, it makes you think that God must be a committee) would, I think, exist in a form that we've never even dreamed of, so how could we know what He would want to do-what's our frame of reference? Even if He WERE similar to humans in some ways, He should be too advanced to want to create a son to mingle with humans; it would be like US wanting to have children that would hang out with amoebas. Still, let's say for the sake of argument that He MIGHT amuse Himself by putting in the womb of a woman a child who'll grow into a man that'll dazzle some uneducated, superstitious dolts, suffer greatly and die a hideous death at a young age..... hmmmm, doesn't sound like what you'd call a sensitive deity, does He, to set such a thing in motion? He sounds like the omnipotent equivalent of the little boy who pulls the wings off of flies; things like that make me HOPE that He's not out there, gearing up for his next round of torturing innocents.
Even if it HAD been God's intention to have a son on Earth, how do we know that Jesus was this son? (Was the Savior born among straw and horse poop? What kind of sick sense of humor would God have to have to allow THAT?!!) The Jews, who believed in God for 4000 years before there WERE any Christians, do NOT believe that Jesus was the son of God, and they were the smartest, most educated and most worldly people around at that time, so why should *I* believe?
Lots of people throughout history have SAID that they have "divine connections," and not a one of them has ever proven it (nowadays, we automatically assume they're crazy); why should we believe the claims Jesus made to being the son of God any more than we believe any of the other wild claims people have made? If Jesus really HAD performed miracles, no one would have doubted who he was, and they wouldn't have ever dared to kill him. He may have had charisma, some sleight of hand, followers who were good actors, and other such things that could have fooled a few ignorant, insular peasants into believing that he was something holy; if he wants ME to believe, he can present himself and produce something that looks miraculous to ME. So far, there's no sign of him.
A few comments on Christianity as a whole: The writers of the Bible played fast and loose with many facts; consider the claim that Mary, a married woman, was a virgin, and so NOT having sex with her husband. Nubile young woman, man with sexual rights to her, and no sex? Yeah, that could happen, lol. Furthermore, the architects of Christianity stole alot of things from the Jews and even heathens and slapped a new coat of paint on them to make THEIR religion; to ME, this is NOT proof that they possessed THE TRUTH. For example, it says in the Bible that the shepherds were grazing their flocks by night when Jesus was born; the shepherds in that part of the world have in fact done just that for millennia, and do it still to this day..... in AUGUST, when it's hot, NOT in December, EVER. They made the birth officially in December because both Jewish and pagan holidays were at that time.
Another example? The familiar image of "Madonna and Child" didn't exist until they went to convert people in Egypt, for whom the image of 2 of their deities, Isis and Horus, portrayed as a mother and baby, had special meaning; the Christians took images of Isis and Horus, doctored them a little, and then said it was Mary and Jesus.... and the Egyptians converted, because it looked like what they were used to. (Oh, and, incidentally, Osiris, the father of Horus, is a much earlier example of the idea of a "god who died and was resurrected" than Jesus is... coincidence?)
Would the "one true religion" need to resort to such tactics? Not in MY mind.
None of the above means that I don't fully support everyone's right to have whatever beliefs they choose; on the contrary, I'd fight to my last breath for every American's rights in the spiritual arena. I know that religion is a powerful force in history and in today's world, and I have no doubts about the benefits that many people get from their faith. I find all sorts of spiritual beliefs, and their relationships to the cultures they arose from, to be very interesting, and I enjoy discussing this topic with people who honestly want to analyze it objectively.... I just don't believe in any deities, or that any one religious belief is "the truth." I think that there are truths in EVERY religion, but the real, whole truth is still well beyond our ability to see or comprehend.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
ESP aka Telepathy aka Psychic Powers
People have been trying to prove or disprove this one for years; what they usually get, at best, are claims that certain people might be guessing cards correctly more often than chance would allow... and then they argue that if more tests were performed, the numbers would drop down to the level predicted by chance. They may well be right; after all, why would Mother Nature have evolved within us the ability to see images on CARDS? What's the use of THAT in survival?
Every organ, every ability, we have has survival value for us, just as is the case with every other creature. Yes, mutations happen all the time, but only those that are favorable remain as generations pass, and ESP has been seen since the dawn of civilization, at LEAST, so any way you look at it, it has survival value... and THAT is how they should be approaching studies of it, NOT with tests that have nothing to do with how ESP actually works.
For example; they have discovered that if a mother looks at her sleeping baby, and, without moving or making a sound, thinks "Wake up!!" at it, it will almost always quickly wake up, but a stranger attempting the same thing will NOT have the same effect; doesn't that look like a useful survival ability? A mother can detect the scent of her baby, with 100% accuracy, from the scents of other babies, too, so we KNOW that Mother Nature wants a mother to have special perception about her infant, and it makes perfect sense, given how helpless human babies are for how long. Why don't they wire the mothers and babies up and see what's going on in their brains when they perform this seeming miracle? Beyond that, they need to find a way to perceive what the energy is that flows between them when this is going on, even if they have to use trial and error with 10 million things before they find one that reacts to this unseen force; can you imagine what a day it will be when they find a way to detect even ONE kind of telepathic force in action?
Another thing they've discovered they can do with perfect reproducibility is to have 2 people in proximity to each other who can't see or hear each other, and cause the heart rate of one to spike; at that exact instant, the brain waves of the other person will spike... and they have no idea why (but the survival value in knowing instantly when a nearby person is suddenly startled or frightened is obvious). This is extra-sensory perception in the broadest sense; a perception that is beyond the regular senses... and out of the control of either person, keep in mind. MOST ESP is out of our control, which makes it VERY hard to test it; if they can learn to detect the energy, though, perhaps we can have something like biofeedback training that will allow us to control ESP the way we can learn to control aspects of our body that are usually not controllable.
I've experienced ESP countless times throughout my life; my friends and family are used to me knowing things that I have no actual way of knowing. I've predicted events, predicted what total strangers would do, or what they would say word for word, and done so to witnesses IN ADVANCE, who later saw events unfold exactly as predicted; I've even been able to predict the exact times that things would happen, such that the objects of the prediction were freaked out and demanded to know if I was spying on them somehow. Well, yeah, in a way...
I've also been able to do weird things like put a puzzle together without looking at the puzzle or the pieces... but I can only do it "by accident," when I'm doing the puzzle with another person and get distracted enough talking to them that I don't even REALIZE that I've started rapidly putting the pieces together (FAR faster than I could do it when I'm TRYING to do the puzzle) without looking until THEY notice and speak up. Back in my youth, when I was obsessed with MTV and certain bands, I used to know when whatever my favorite video was at the time started playing; I'd jump up, change the channel, and it would just be starting-I was NEVER wrong. I even used to wake up from a dead sleep knowing that the video was coming on, run downstairs, put the TV on, and it would just be starting. Before the days of MTV, I did the same sort of thing with the radio and whatever my favorite song was at that time, and, again, I was NEVER wrong.
None of those things have ever been under my conscious control; I AM able to consciously do a certain degree of animal communication, though, and I don't mean like that twit on TV who allegedly does it, either... I have certain abilities with animals, including the ability to "see through their eyes" under certain circumstances, which I have done with such accuracy, and with seeing such astonishing things that I couldn't even have guessed about, that those who have asked for my help in this area absolutely swear by me. I've even been able to teach others how to do some of it; I think that nearly anyone can learn, because it's probably an extension of the ability mothers and babies show, but that's just my best guess. If you have a pet, give it a try; look right at them and "think to them" a very specific thing that you want them to do (something that they're already doing in their lives, not some new trick) ; if you're like many, within about 30 seconds you'll see the pet doing what you "asked."
Have you ever had a sudden certainty that a loved one was hurt, or even dead, and then later found out that you were right, and had the timing right too? It's easy to see the survival value in that sort of thing; Jung lumped it under his concept of synchronicity, though, and, while it might in fact be that, it makes more sense in my mind for us to be able to know these specific kinds of things as part of our innate abilities.
Telekinesis seems to only exist in movies, at least when we specifically mean by it the ability of a PERSON to move or act upon objects; I've seen SPIRITS use it, though, so I know that there IS a force that can act upon physical objects, although that force may not be able to act on objects beyond a certain size or weight (I say that because I've only seen them affect small things, and it seems as if they would do bigger things if they could-they were once human, after all)... we might as well refer to that as telekinesis, a we have no other term for it, but really there SHOULD be a different term, even if it's using the same form of energy as we use for ESP.
Actual mindreading, the detection of the exact thoughts of another person, which is the first form of ESP that many would think of, seems to also not exist outside of fiction. My feeling about this is that "reading" those super-specific, tiny details requires a great deal of focus and control, beyond what our natural abilities are; there would be no point in our having evolved the ability to detect specific thoughts at a time when we were too primitive to HAVE those sorts of thoughts, and being able to perceive broad emotional cues, such as danger, pain and death, are what would really benefit us, not to mention being FAR easier to "read." I've seen accounts of people being able to pick up IMAGES from the minds of others under fairly well controlled circumstances, but none that I recall of one person being able to tap into the flow of WORDS in the mind of another; that's probably just as well, not only from a privacy standpoint but because having to hear all the disjointed nonsense that flows through the minds of others would drive us CRAZY.
I see ESP as being part of the overarching workings of karma; everything, every action, thought, or feeling, creates energy that can only change form, not be destroyed, and these energies work together with other forces to create the present, the future, and even, according to quantum physics, sometimes the past as well. Through psychic powers we can tap into some of these energies; if we look at affirmations as a form of ESP (they might NOT be in the strictest meaning of the word, since after all we're not PERCEIVING anything), we can even CONTROL the energies to a certain extent. This direct perception and (maybe) control is only a tiny part of the workings of karma that we can see, predict, and even influence, though, so, although it fascinates me on a certain level, I don't actually devote much time to contemplating it; what I'm really I'm trying to see, and use, is the karmic "big picture," and it is THIS that has changed my life.
Every organ, every ability, we have has survival value for us, just as is the case with every other creature. Yes, mutations happen all the time, but only those that are favorable remain as generations pass, and ESP has been seen since the dawn of civilization, at LEAST, so any way you look at it, it has survival value... and THAT is how they should be approaching studies of it, NOT with tests that have nothing to do with how ESP actually works.
For example; they have discovered that if a mother looks at her sleeping baby, and, without moving or making a sound, thinks "Wake up!!" at it, it will almost always quickly wake up, but a stranger attempting the same thing will NOT have the same effect; doesn't that look like a useful survival ability? A mother can detect the scent of her baby, with 100% accuracy, from the scents of other babies, too, so we KNOW that Mother Nature wants a mother to have special perception about her infant, and it makes perfect sense, given how helpless human babies are for how long. Why don't they wire the mothers and babies up and see what's going on in their brains when they perform this seeming miracle? Beyond that, they need to find a way to perceive what the energy is that flows between them when this is going on, even if they have to use trial and error with 10 million things before they find one that reacts to this unseen force; can you imagine what a day it will be when they find a way to detect even ONE kind of telepathic force in action?
Another thing they've discovered they can do with perfect reproducibility is to have 2 people in proximity to each other who can't see or hear each other, and cause the heart rate of one to spike; at that exact instant, the brain waves of the other person will spike... and they have no idea why (but the survival value in knowing instantly when a nearby person is suddenly startled or frightened is obvious). This is extra-sensory perception in the broadest sense; a perception that is beyond the regular senses... and out of the control of either person, keep in mind. MOST ESP is out of our control, which makes it VERY hard to test it; if they can learn to detect the energy, though, perhaps we can have something like biofeedback training that will allow us to control ESP the way we can learn to control aspects of our body that are usually not controllable.
I've experienced ESP countless times throughout my life; my friends and family are used to me knowing things that I have no actual way of knowing. I've predicted events, predicted what total strangers would do, or what they would say word for word, and done so to witnesses IN ADVANCE, who later saw events unfold exactly as predicted; I've even been able to predict the exact times that things would happen, such that the objects of the prediction were freaked out and demanded to know if I was spying on them somehow. Well, yeah, in a way...
I've also been able to do weird things like put a puzzle together without looking at the puzzle or the pieces... but I can only do it "by accident," when I'm doing the puzzle with another person and get distracted enough talking to them that I don't even REALIZE that I've started rapidly putting the pieces together (FAR faster than I could do it when I'm TRYING to do the puzzle) without looking until THEY notice and speak up. Back in my youth, when I was obsessed with MTV and certain bands, I used to know when whatever my favorite video was at the time started playing; I'd jump up, change the channel, and it would just be starting-I was NEVER wrong. I even used to wake up from a dead sleep knowing that the video was coming on, run downstairs, put the TV on, and it would just be starting. Before the days of MTV, I did the same sort of thing with the radio and whatever my favorite song was at that time, and, again, I was NEVER wrong.
None of those things have ever been under my conscious control; I AM able to consciously do a certain degree of animal communication, though, and I don't mean like that twit on TV who allegedly does it, either... I have certain abilities with animals, including the ability to "see through their eyes" under certain circumstances, which I have done with such accuracy, and with seeing such astonishing things that I couldn't even have guessed about, that those who have asked for my help in this area absolutely swear by me. I've even been able to teach others how to do some of it; I think that nearly anyone can learn, because it's probably an extension of the ability mothers and babies show, but that's just my best guess. If you have a pet, give it a try; look right at them and "think to them" a very specific thing that you want them to do (something that they're already doing in their lives, not some new trick) ; if you're like many, within about 30 seconds you'll see the pet doing what you "asked."
Have you ever had a sudden certainty that a loved one was hurt, or even dead, and then later found out that you were right, and had the timing right too? It's easy to see the survival value in that sort of thing; Jung lumped it under his concept of synchronicity, though, and, while it might in fact be that, it makes more sense in my mind for us to be able to know these specific kinds of things as part of our innate abilities.
Telekinesis seems to only exist in movies, at least when we specifically mean by it the ability of a PERSON to move or act upon objects; I've seen SPIRITS use it, though, so I know that there IS a force that can act upon physical objects, although that force may not be able to act on objects beyond a certain size or weight (I say that because I've only seen them affect small things, and it seems as if they would do bigger things if they could-they were once human, after all)... we might as well refer to that as telekinesis, a we have no other term for it, but really there SHOULD be a different term, even if it's using the same form of energy as we use for ESP.
Actual mindreading, the detection of the exact thoughts of another person, which is the first form of ESP that many would think of, seems to also not exist outside of fiction. My feeling about this is that "reading" those super-specific, tiny details requires a great deal of focus and control, beyond what our natural abilities are; there would be no point in our having evolved the ability to detect specific thoughts at a time when we were too primitive to HAVE those sorts of thoughts, and being able to perceive broad emotional cues, such as danger, pain and death, are what would really benefit us, not to mention being FAR easier to "read." I've seen accounts of people being able to pick up IMAGES from the minds of others under fairly well controlled circumstances, but none that I recall of one person being able to tap into the flow of WORDS in the mind of another; that's probably just as well, not only from a privacy standpoint but because having to hear all the disjointed nonsense that flows through the minds of others would drive us CRAZY.
I see ESP as being part of the overarching workings of karma; everything, every action, thought, or feeling, creates energy that can only change form, not be destroyed, and these energies work together with other forces to create the present, the future, and even, according to quantum physics, sometimes the past as well. Through psychic powers we can tap into some of these energies; if we look at affirmations as a form of ESP (they might NOT be in the strictest meaning of the word, since after all we're not PERCEIVING anything), we can even CONTROL the energies to a certain extent. This direct perception and (maybe) control is only a tiny part of the workings of karma that we can see, predict, and even influence, though, so, although it fascinates me on a certain level, I don't actually devote much time to contemplating it; what I'm really I'm trying to see, and use, is the karmic "big picture," and it is THIS that has changed my life.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Food, glorious food
The most dysfunctional relationship most Americans have in their lives is with food. Hardly a week goes by without our hearing about a food, or type of food, that we shouldn't eat, or one (usually not very tasty) that we need to eat more of, or a nutrient that we're deficient in, or how food is giving us trouble with our blood pressure, cholesterol levels, etc, or, our favorite, how we can lose the weight we gained from ignoring all the advice and sucking down too many calories of "unhealthy" food.
The most important thing for the baffled eater to remember is this: they have been dead WRONG about food issues countless times in the past, so you shouldn't take what they're claiming NOW too seriously. Some examples:
About 20 years ago, they were talking about sugar as if it were barely one step removed from being cyanide; today, we know that it's a harmless substance, with no more calories than any other carb, no fewer nutrients (NO carb has built-in nutrients), is no more able to rot your teeth than any other carb (and in fact it's the "sticky" carbs found in wholesome foods like cereals and dried fruit that pose the highest risk to your teeth)... and, heck, it's TASTY!! We now know that there's no reason whatsoever to restrict or eliminate your sugar intake, except as part of an overall calorie reduction if you need to lose weight (or if you're a diabetic with uncontrolled blood sugar levels).
Salt has been demonized for a long time, primarily in reference to its alleged effects on blood pressure, despite the fact that, a decade or so ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association did a review of over 50 studies about the link between salt and blood pressure, and concluded... that there ISN'T one!! They found that if you don't already have high blood pressure, or even if you DO but are under 40, you can virtually BURY yourself in salt and it does you no harm whatsoever. They DID find that in people over 40 with high blood pressure, major salt intake made a slight, SLIGHT, difference, but that's it. The screaming about cutting back salt died down for a little while at that point, but revved back up and continues to this day, as if those studies and the JAMA review never took place; the medical profession just isn't ready to let go of this one. (If you find that you tend to get bloated, though, then DO cut back on salt-it IS responsible for that.)
Another one they aren't ready to let go of is the claim that a high intake of saturated fat (which leads to elevated cholesterol levels) causes heart disease; this one is so deeply ingrained that, unless you read science magazines, you've probably never even heard that there was any controversy on this issue (and the fact that the major drug companies make alot of $ from drugs used to treat these problems is a part of it too, sadly). The cold hard truth is that many studies show that there is absolutely NO connection between arteriosclerosis ("hardening of the arteries") and blood cholesterol level; what DOES seem to be the culprit is increased levels of homocysteine in the blood, said increase being linked to an increased consumption of processed foods that are low in the various B vitamins that the body uses to hold homocysteine in check. Yes, processed foods also tend to be high in saturated fats, but neither the fats nor the cholesterol the body produces from them are to blame; instead of cutting down on saturated fats, which can leave you eating less tasty foods, increase your consumption of B vitamins (pills work very well for this).
Cholesterol in food got an undeserved bad rap, causing people to stop eating one of the most nutritious foods there is, eggs, and to shy away from the best source of calcium, cheese; aside from the fact that a high cholesterol level doesn't seem to actually harm you, your body PRODUCES cholesterol from the fat in the foods you eat, so whether the food contains cholesterol or not is basically irrelevant.
Fat has also gotten a far worse rap than it deserves; granted, because each gram of fat has 9 calories, as opposed to only 4 per gram of carbs or protein, fat in food makes it much easier for YOU to become fat, and being fat is about the biggest health risk there is (smoking is still a little bit ahead... and many women who smoke do so to avoid being fat, sigh), but that does NOT mean that fat is BAD, or that you can or should just eliminate it from your diet. Fat is necessary for all sorts of bodily functions (such as keeping your hair and skin soft), it tells your body when you've had enough to eat and makes you feel full, it helps keep your insulin levels from shooting up (which is what leads people in high-carb, low-fat diets to keep feeling hungry), and, most important of all, there are a slew of nutrients that your body can't absorb without fat, with the scariest one being calcium... scary because one of the first things we do to avoid fat is switch to fat-free dairy, thus making it impossible to absorb the calcium that many of us eat dairy specifically to get (besides, fat-free dairy products taste AWFUL, while the natural ones are delicious). Eating the various greens that have (FAR lower levels of) calcium with fat-free dressing also prevents you from absorbing the tiny % of vegetable calcium that the body can access (vegans take note-the calcium AND iron found in vegetable foods are in forms that are almost unabsorbable by the body).
You CAN absorb the calcium (and iron) found in nuts, but nuts have also been a no-no for ages, due to their high fat content; happily, they've finally figured out that they contain the "good fat," NOT the "bad fat," and now are saying that since nuts are so nutrient dense we SHOULD eat them, just be aware of the calories.
The latest thing is the insane insistence that CARBS should be avoided, as part of the endless weight-loss attempts that most Americans are bogged down with; carbs are the main component of the VITAL fruit, vegetable and grain/cereal groups, and any diet that tries to prevent you from eating these things, the very things that have been the basis for the human diet from the dawn of time, is CRAZY. All the medicos are BEGGING Americans to eat a mountain of these things each day, and little or none is supposed to somehow be a healthy goal?
The most jaw-dropping turnaround is about chocolate, which all have agreed is a "bad food" from the beginning... except now they've discovered that people who eat a certain # of ounces of chocolate a month live LONGER lives, HEALTHIER lives, than similar people who eat NO chocolate. They have NO idea why (they're making wild guesses about unknown antioxidants and so forth, lol); I think maybe it's just that we're living in something like the classic Woody Allen movie "Sleeper" (where everything that was previously thought to be harmful has turned out to be beneficial). ;-)
The most satisfying reversal has been about oat bran; they started out touting it as a miracle food, and suddenly it was EVERYWHERE... but it's so dry and nasty that they had to load the food items down with fat and sugar to make them edible, and thus they weren't really a part of a healthier eating plan. Even those who WERE gagging the stuff down in plainer versions found out that they were wasting their time and calories on something that was eventually shown to NOT have any special properties (other than the usual benefits of ALL fiber in food).
So, how do you know what to eat? Start out with the essential macronutrients: water, carbs, protein and fat... your body needs all of these things to function, build muscle, and give you energy. We should all try to drink more water, as we tend to be dehydrated, which makes us tired. Natural carb foods contain the fiber that's our best defense against colorectal cancers, and are full of essential vitamins and minerals; processed carb foods, like candy, do no actual harm, but you need to keep calories and your weight in mind, and so not overindulge. Protein is what all your flesh is built out of, and protein foods are your best sources of certain nutrients; specifically, ANIMAL foods are by far your best sources of calcium and iron, and the ONLY source of vitamin B12 (you know the jokes about vegetarians being weak? it's because B12 deficiency causes a sort of anemia). You need to watch how much fat you eat, because it'll go to your hips faster than anything else, but have enough to absorb nutrients, give you endurance, and get pleasure from the foods you eat. Eat enough variety of wholesome foods to make sure you're getting all your vitamins and minerals, because even slight deficiencies can bite you hard... and DO have some tasty foods too, because if you're not enjoying your food you're going to end up giving up the attempt to eat healthy, and life is just too damned short to make food a source of stress and unpleasantness instead of a source of well-being and enjoyment.
The most important thing for the baffled eater to remember is this: they have been dead WRONG about food issues countless times in the past, so you shouldn't take what they're claiming NOW too seriously. Some examples:
About 20 years ago, they were talking about sugar as if it were barely one step removed from being cyanide; today, we know that it's a harmless substance, with no more calories than any other carb, no fewer nutrients (NO carb has built-in nutrients), is no more able to rot your teeth than any other carb (and in fact it's the "sticky" carbs found in wholesome foods like cereals and dried fruit that pose the highest risk to your teeth)... and, heck, it's TASTY!! We now know that there's no reason whatsoever to restrict or eliminate your sugar intake, except as part of an overall calorie reduction if you need to lose weight (or if you're a diabetic with uncontrolled blood sugar levels).
Salt has been demonized for a long time, primarily in reference to its alleged effects on blood pressure, despite the fact that, a decade or so ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association did a review of over 50 studies about the link between salt and blood pressure, and concluded... that there ISN'T one!! They found that if you don't already have high blood pressure, or even if you DO but are under 40, you can virtually BURY yourself in salt and it does you no harm whatsoever. They DID find that in people over 40 with high blood pressure, major salt intake made a slight, SLIGHT, difference, but that's it. The screaming about cutting back salt died down for a little while at that point, but revved back up and continues to this day, as if those studies and the JAMA review never took place; the medical profession just isn't ready to let go of this one. (If you find that you tend to get bloated, though, then DO cut back on salt-it IS responsible for that.)
Another one they aren't ready to let go of is the claim that a high intake of saturated fat (which leads to elevated cholesterol levels) causes heart disease; this one is so deeply ingrained that, unless you read science magazines, you've probably never even heard that there was any controversy on this issue (and the fact that the major drug companies make alot of $ from drugs used to treat these problems is a part of it too, sadly). The cold hard truth is that many studies show that there is absolutely NO connection between arteriosclerosis ("hardening of the arteries") and blood cholesterol level; what DOES seem to be the culprit is increased levels of homocysteine in the blood, said increase being linked to an increased consumption of processed foods that are low in the various B vitamins that the body uses to hold homocysteine in check. Yes, processed foods also tend to be high in saturated fats, but neither the fats nor the cholesterol the body produces from them are to blame; instead of cutting down on saturated fats, which can leave you eating less tasty foods, increase your consumption of B vitamins (pills work very well for this).
Cholesterol in food got an undeserved bad rap, causing people to stop eating one of the most nutritious foods there is, eggs, and to shy away from the best source of calcium, cheese; aside from the fact that a high cholesterol level doesn't seem to actually harm you, your body PRODUCES cholesterol from the fat in the foods you eat, so whether the food contains cholesterol or not is basically irrelevant.
Fat has also gotten a far worse rap than it deserves; granted, because each gram of fat has 9 calories, as opposed to only 4 per gram of carbs or protein, fat in food makes it much easier for YOU to become fat, and being fat is about the biggest health risk there is (smoking is still a little bit ahead... and many women who smoke do so to avoid being fat, sigh), but that does NOT mean that fat is BAD, or that you can or should just eliminate it from your diet. Fat is necessary for all sorts of bodily functions (such as keeping your hair and skin soft), it tells your body when you've had enough to eat and makes you feel full, it helps keep your insulin levels from shooting up (which is what leads people in high-carb, low-fat diets to keep feeling hungry), and, most important of all, there are a slew of nutrients that your body can't absorb without fat, with the scariest one being calcium... scary because one of the first things we do to avoid fat is switch to fat-free dairy, thus making it impossible to absorb the calcium that many of us eat dairy specifically to get (besides, fat-free dairy products taste AWFUL, while the natural ones are delicious). Eating the various greens that have (FAR lower levels of) calcium with fat-free dressing also prevents you from absorbing the tiny % of vegetable calcium that the body can access (vegans take note-the calcium AND iron found in vegetable foods are in forms that are almost unabsorbable by the body).
You CAN absorb the calcium (and iron) found in nuts, but nuts have also been a no-no for ages, due to their high fat content; happily, they've finally figured out that they contain the "good fat," NOT the "bad fat," and now are saying that since nuts are so nutrient dense we SHOULD eat them, just be aware of the calories.
The latest thing is the insane insistence that CARBS should be avoided, as part of the endless weight-loss attempts that most Americans are bogged down with; carbs are the main component of the VITAL fruit, vegetable and grain/cereal groups, and any diet that tries to prevent you from eating these things, the very things that have been the basis for the human diet from the dawn of time, is CRAZY. All the medicos are BEGGING Americans to eat a mountain of these things each day, and little or none is supposed to somehow be a healthy goal?
The most jaw-dropping turnaround is about chocolate, which all have agreed is a "bad food" from the beginning... except now they've discovered that people who eat a certain # of ounces of chocolate a month live LONGER lives, HEALTHIER lives, than similar people who eat NO chocolate. They have NO idea why (they're making wild guesses about unknown antioxidants and so forth, lol); I think maybe it's just that we're living in something like the classic Woody Allen movie "Sleeper" (where everything that was previously thought to be harmful has turned out to be beneficial). ;-)
The most satisfying reversal has been about oat bran; they started out touting it as a miracle food, and suddenly it was EVERYWHERE... but it's so dry and nasty that they had to load the food items down with fat and sugar to make them edible, and thus they weren't really a part of a healthier eating plan. Even those who WERE gagging the stuff down in plainer versions found out that they were wasting their time and calories on something that was eventually shown to NOT have any special properties (other than the usual benefits of ALL fiber in food).
So, how do you know what to eat? Start out with the essential macronutrients: water, carbs, protein and fat... your body needs all of these things to function, build muscle, and give you energy. We should all try to drink more water, as we tend to be dehydrated, which makes us tired. Natural carb foods contain the fiber that's our best defense against colorectal cancers, and are full of essential vitamins and minerals; processed carb foods, like candy, do no actual harm, but you need to keep calories and your weight in mind, and so not overindulge. Protein is what all your flesh is built out of, and protein foods are your best sources of certain nutrients; specifically, ANIMAL foods are by far your best sources of calcium and iron, and the ONLY source of vitamin B12 (you know the jokes about vegetarians being weak? it's because B12 deficiency causes a sort of anemia). You need to watch how much fat you eat, because it'll go to your hips faster than anything else, but have enough to absorb nutrients, give you endurance, and get pleasure from the foods you eat. Eat enough variety of wholesome foods to make sure you're getting all your vitamins and minerals, because even slight deficiencies can bite you hard... and DO have some tasty foods too, because if you're not enjoying your food you're going to end up giving up the attempt to eat healthy, and life is just too damned short to make food a source of stress and unpleasantness instead of a source of well-being and enjoyment.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Affirmations
I don't know where this concept originated; *I* read about it in a book by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. No, I don't normally look to comic strip artists for guidance, but ANY intelligent person can provide you with insight, and he caught my interest by talking about one of the scientific experiments (specifically, "the double slit experiment") that has a different outcome based on whether you're watching what happens or not; he used the impossible-seeming result as an example of how the universe does NOT work the way we think it does. He makes the point that, like the folks in olden days who were certain that the sun revolved around the Earth because they SAW the sun moving across the sky, WE are certain about things being a particular way based on scientific analysis of what WE see or otherwise perceive... but, because things happen that we can NOT directly perceive or measure, and some things that we CAN perceive violate even basic "laws" like cause and effect, we need to accept that we STILL don't have anywhere near the full truth. He also made reference to one of the quantum physics experiments that seems to defy reality (take particles or atoms that started out together, separate them, change the spin on one and it changes the spin on the other), to how gravity isn't really what we think it is, and to ESP; no, he never makes the leap to seeing that these things and others like synchronicity (which he does NOT mention) are all part of the same thing, but he's made a VERY good start, so I paid close attention to the other things he said.
He has several pages in his book describing how using the process of "affirmations" benefited him (with events that he had no way to influence or create directly), and explained how to do it; just select a very specific goal that you can visualize, phrase it in clear terms, and write it down 15 times a day, with each iteration starting with "I, John Doe, will get/do/accomplish..." He believes that affirmations work because your thoughts can influence what happens, just by the process of thinking them in this focused manner; this dovetails with my "repeated emissions of energy" idea for how part of karma works, although I look at energy in general and not thoughts per se (emotions count too, in MY worldview).
A few weeks ago, I started using the affirmations process to attempt to remove a particularly unpleasant person from my social sphere; a few days ago, I lost my impetus to continue, so I let it lapse, since Adams thinks that it doesn't matter if you skip a little time, and *I* thought it might not work as well if you're not feeling the real desire to pursue the goal. Perhaps to compensate for my lapse, I was planning on writing about affirmations today... but, before I could, I discovered that, due to events outside of MY knowledge and control, the unpleasant person is going to be out of my social sphere indefinitely.
Is it a coincidence that I found out that my affirmations worked literally MINUTES before the time I'd set aside to write an essay on affirmations?
Is it a coincidence that I suddenly lost the desire to do the affirmations when (as it turns out) the events leading to my hoped-for result went into motion?
Is it a coincidence that I've had a major increase in "coincidences" since I started writing these essays about how "the unknown" might work?
As I said in an earlier post; when you focus on something, you're creating "slots" into which related events can fall. Try it and see.
He has several pages in his book describing how using the process of "affirmations" benefited him (with events that he had no way to influence or create directly), and explained how to do it; just select a very specific goal that you can visualize, phrase it in clear terms, and write it down 15 times a day, with each iteration starting with "I, John Doe, will get/do/accomplish..." He believes that affirmations work because your thoughts can influence what happens, just by the process of thinking them in this focused manner; this dovetails with my "repeated emissions of energy" idea for how part of karma works, although I look at energy in general and not thoughts per se (emotions count too, in MY worldview).
A few weeks ago, I started using the affirmations process to attempt to remove a particularly unpleasant person from my social sphere; a few days ago, I lost my impetus to continue, so I let it lapse, since Adams thinks that it doesn't matter if you skip a little time, and *I* thought it might not work as well if you're not feeling the real desire to pursue the goal. Perhaps to compensate for my lapse, I was planning on writing about affirmations today... but, before I could, I discovered that, due to events outside of MY knowledge and control, the unpleasant person is going to be out of my social sphere indefinitely.
Is it a coincidence that I found out that my affirmations worked literally MINUTES before the time I'd set aside to write an essay on affirmations?
Is it a coincidence that I suddenly lost the desire to do the affirmations when (as it turns out) the events leading to my hoped-for result went into motion?
Is it a coincidence that I've had a major increase in "coincidences" since I started writing these essays about how "the unknown" might work?
As I said in an earlier post; when you focus on something, you're creating "slots" into which related events can fall. Try it and see.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
What comes around goes around
That familiar phrase, which is used interchangeably with "What goes around comes around" (everyone has a different argument as to which one came first and why, lol), is the most basic definition of the traditional meaning of karma; that what you send out into the universe is what the universe gives you back.
Saying that doesn't make it so, though, does it? I fully grant that some of what could be labeled "karma" is cause and effect, common sense, and the power of your subconscious mind to make you act in a way that gets you what you think you deserve.
Much of "good karma" comes from doing and being good; it gets you the maximum possible benefit out of whatever life you've got, because your goodness wins you friends and earns you favors, AND because your goodness causes you to believe that you're worthy of having the best possible life, and to act accordingly.
As for "BAD karma": If you're always doing bad things, especially to good people who can't remotely be said to deserve it, you'll feel guilt, shame, and like a rotten person on a variety of levels... and we all know how it's possible to sabotage our lives when we feel that way; it's sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthermore, if you send evil OUT (by bad behavior), it's reasonable to expect evil BACK; bad people might achieve wealth, and certain kinds of success, by being clever and working hard, "aided" by a lack of conscience, but they can't have real, close, loving human relationships, or even acquaintances who are willing to do them a favor "for free" when they need it, because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, and word gets around. An evil person always has folks lining up to do them an ill turn if they get a chance, and has no one willing to help them unless they themselves stand to gain from it.
None of that requires any mystical forces to be at work, right? It's for that very reason that *I* didn't believe in karma... that is, UNTIL I started paying attention to how things seem to work, and saw that the explanations I've given are NOT sufficient to explain the countless instances I've seen where nothing the "recipient" could have done could have influenced what happened, directly or indirectly, and yet there seem to be "rewards" for good behavior and wise choices made, and "penalties" for bad behavior and foolish choices made, not just as a result but right away from seemingly unrelated sources.... FAR beyond what could be explained by "coincidence" (and I'm no big believer in coincidence in any case, as I've said). This is part of why I believe in karma as a "force" that exists in its own right (it's a BIG topic, but I'll cover it all eventually).
It seems to me that this segment of karma is just a matter of energy; every action you take, every word you say, every thought and feeling you have, generates energy-that much can be measured through science. Karma explains what happens to that energy once you've generated it; nothing much, most of the time, because those bits of energy are sort of like puzzle pieces, and have to find and join with one or more other "pieces" that fit so they form something bigger before anything "happens".... but, strong energy, repeated emissions of energy, energy released in important areas and times, all of these can be VERY powerful, because they are so likely to "find other pieces" and lead to a significant result.
Every day, you have countless opportunities to send out positive energy, from smiling at people you pass on the street to giving to people to helping people to sacrificing for people. You also have countless opportunities to make wise choices, to fight injustice, to right wrongs, to make things better in your home or office, to create, to love.... all sorts of positive things that lead to positive energy. Even the nicest people generally miss alot of these chances; some of them DO take a great deal of time and effort, I grant you. Still, I've seen over and over that the more I make myself take as many of these chances as I can, the more rewards I get, and that these rewards happen so soon after the actions, with such regularity, that it'd be foolish to not see SOMETHING going on.
There are countless chances each day to send out negative energy, too, and that doesn't just mean committing crimes or hurting people; it also means making bad decisions, being selfish, choosing to not get involved, lying, being disloyal.... and, in general, just BEING negative. When you send out negative energy, even if it's as a reaction to being angry or in pain, the universe responds by sending negative energy back to you, and this is a big part of why such a ridiculous # of terrible things (that are BEYOND personal control or influence) always happen to negative people, sick people, grieving people and depressives.
There's quite a bit more for me to say about karma, but that at least covers why I think the comes around/goes around part of it happens like it does.
Saying that doesn't make it so, though, does it? I fully grant that some of what could be labeled "karma" is cause and effect, common sense, and the power of your subconscious mind to make you act in a way that gets you what you think you deserve.
Much of "good karma" comes from doing and being good; it gets you the maximum possible benefit out of whatever life you've got, because your goodness wins you friends and earns you favors, AND because your goodness causes you to believe that you're worthy of having the best possible life, and to act accordingly.
As for "BAD karma": If you're always doing bad things, especially to good people who can't remotely be said to deserve it, you'll feel guilt, shame, and like a rotten person on a variety of levels... and we all know how it's possible to sabotage our lives when we feel that way; it's sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthermore, if you send evil OUT (by bad behavior), it's reasonable to expect evil BACK; bad people might achieve wealth, and certain kinds of success, by being clever and working hard, "aided" by a lack of conscience, but they can't have real, close, loving human relationships, or even acquaintances who are willing to do them a favor "for free" when they need it, because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, and word gets around. An evil person always has folks lining up to do them an ill turn if they get a chance, and has no one willing to help them unless they themselves stand to gain from it.
None of that requires any mystical forces to be at work, right? It's for that very reason that *I* didn't believe in karma... that is, UNTIL I started paying attention to how things seem to work, and saw that the explanations I've given are NOT sufficient to explain the countless instances I've seen where nothing the "recipient" could have done could have influenced what happened, directly or indirectly, and yet there seem to be "rewards" for good behavior and wise choices made, and "penalties" for bad behavior and foolish choices made, not just as a result but right away from seemingly unrelated sources.... FAR beyond what could be explained by "coincidence" (and I'm no big believer in coincidence in any case, as I've said). This is part of why I believe in karma as a "force" that exists in its own right (it's a BIG topic, but I'll cover it all eventually).
It seems to me that this segment of karma is just a matter of energy; every action you take, every word you say, every thought and feeling you have, generates energy-that much can be measured through science. Karma explains what happens to that energy once you've generated it; nothing much, most of the time, because those bits of energy are sort of like puzzle pieces, and have to find and join with one or more other "pieces" that fit so they form something bigger before anything "happens".... but, strong energy, repeated emissions of energy, energy released in important areas and times, all of these can be VERY powerful, because they are so likely to "find other pieces" and lead to a significant result.
Every day, you have countless opportunities to send out positive energy, from smiling at people you pass on the street to giving to people to helping people to sacrificing for people. You also have countless opportunities to make wise choices, to fight injustice, to right wrongs, to make things better in your home or office, to create, to love.... all sorts of positive things that lead to positive energy. Even the nicest people generally miss alot of these chances; some of them DO take a great deal of time and effort, I grant you. Still, I've seen over and over that the more I make myself take as many of these chances as I can, the more rewards I get, and that these rewards happen so soon after the actions, with such regularity, that it'd be foolish to not see SOMETHING going on.
There are countless chances each day to send out negative energy, too, and that doesn't just mean committing crimes or hurting people; it also means making bad decisions, being selfish, choosing to not get involved, lying, being disloyal.... and, in general, just BEING negative. When you send out negative energy, even if it's as a reaction to being angry or in pain, the universe responds by sending negative energy back to you, and this is a big part of why such a ridiculous # of terrible things (that are BEYOND personal control or influence) always happen to negative people, sick people, grieving people and depressives.
There's quite a bit more for me to say about karma, but that at least covers why I think the comes around/goes around part of it happens like it does.
