Saturday, July 30, 2005
Scientific explanation for some paranormal experiences
In the July, 2005 issue of Discover magazine is an article entitled "Extreme States," subtitled "Out-of-body experiences? Near-death experiences? Researchers are beginning to understand how they occur and how they may alter the brain." There's proof that some of the things people see as evidence of religious, spiritual or paranormal occurrences are just feelings caused by simple biological reactions in the brain (don't worry, there are still things they freely admit they don't know)... check it out:
"While out-of-body experiences are defined by a perceptual shift in consciousness, no more and no less, near-death experiences start with this shift and then proceed along a characteristic trajectory. People report entering a dark tunnel, heading into light, and feeling an all-encompassing sense of peace, warmth, love, and welcome. They recall being reassured along the way by dead friends, relatives, and a gamut of religious figures. Occasionally, there's a life review, followed by a decision of the 'should I stay or should I go?' variety."
I'd never made the connection between the 2 sorts of experiences, but once it's mentioned you can't NOT see it.
"discovering [in 1982] that the classic explanation [for near-death experiences]-delusion-had been recently upgraded to a hallucination provoked by a number of different factors, including fear, drugs, and a shortage of oxygen to the brain... might help explain the many reports of near-death experiences trickling out of emergency rooms."
Most people who have near-death experiences see them as very spiritually significant, but it looks like there's biology involved too... maybe not totally explaining these experiences, which might be made possible by the biological events but not limited to them, but at the very least showing a connection between the condition of the physical brain and its perceptions of the spiritual realm.
"23 out of 26 children who experienced apparent death-the cessation of heartbeat and breathing-reported a classic near-death experience, while none of the other 131 children in his control group reported anything of the kind."
They don't talk about similar studies on adults, if any even exist, so I don't know if kids are more susceptible or what... but doesn't this sound like a much higher % than adults report for similar circumstances?
"Morse [the physician running the study] later videotaped the children recalling their experiences, which included such standard fare as long tunnels, giant rainbows, dead relatives, and deities of all sorts. But many descriptions-augmented by crayon drawings-included memories of the medical procedures performed and details about doctors and nurses whose only contact with the child occurred while the child was apparently dead.
Other scientists have duplicated Morse's findings."
They give no explanation of how this could be, how a dead body could be recording that sort of data, or ANY data, especially since some of the kids were dead for as long as 45 minutes; of course, those of us who believe in souls can easily explain the perceptions, if not the exact mechanism by which the soul's "memories" get imparted to the brain when the 2 are reunited.
"Possible clues to the biological basis of these unusual states turned up in studies conducted in the late 1970s... James Whinnery, a specialist in aerospace medicine... working with a massive centrifuge at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, Pennsylvania, Whinnery spun fighter pilots into G-LOC [g-force-induced loss of consciousness]. He wanted to determine at what force tunnel vision occurred. More than 500 pilots accidentally blacked out during the study... at least 40 of the pilots reported some sort of out-of-body experience while they were unconscious. Not knowing anything about out-of-body experiences, Whinnery called these episodes dreamlets, kept detailed records of their contents, and began examining the literature on anomalous unconscious experiences. 'I was reading about sudden-death episodes in cardiology,' Whinnery says, 'and it led me right into near-death experiences. I realized that a smaller percentage of my pilots' dreamlets, about 10 to 15 percent, were much closer in content to a classic NDE.'
When Whinnery reviewed his data, he noted a correlation: The longer his pilots were knocked out, the closer they got to brain death. And the closer they got to brain death, the more likely it was that an out-of-body experience would turn into a near-death experience. This was the first hard evidence for what had been long suspected-that the two states are not two divergent phenomena, but two points on a continuum."
So, here's a way to create the supposedly-mystical experiences, in at least a small % of people; that doesn't mean that no spirituality is ever involved with these things, any more than being able to inject chemicals that tell the body it's hungry or full into rats to make hungry ones stop eating and full ones seek out food means that hunger and fullness don't exist... but it's something we need to start thinking about, because at least some of these experiences clearly ARE just biological in nature.
"Whinnery found that G-LOC, when gradually induced, produced tunnel vision. 'The progression went first to grayout (loss of peripheral vision) and then to blackout,' he explains, and the blindness occurred just before a person went unconscious... The transition from grayout to unconsciousness resembles floating peacefully within a dark tunnel, which is much like some of the defining characteristics of a near-death experience. The pilots also recalled a feeling of peace and serenity as they regained consciousness."
Sorry, folks, it looks like the often-reported tunnel does NOT exist, although people who say they experienced it are telling the truth; we're going to need to not focus on some of these sorts of details and look instead at those things that are truly inexplicable about these occurrences.
"Compression of the optic nerve could produce tunnel vision; neurochemicals such as serotonin, endorphins, and enkephalins could help explain the euphoria; and psychotropics like LSD and mescaline often produce vibrant hallucinations of past events. But no one has directly tested these hypotheses."
Why? Because, as I've always said, scientists fear the stigma attached to research in this area... and who could they get to fund it in any case?
"Nearly all of the people who had had a near-death experience-no matter if it was 10 years ago or 50-were still absolutely convinced their lives had meaning and that there was a universal, unifying thread of love which provided that meaning. Matched against a control group, they scored much higher on life-attitude tests, significantly lower on fear-of-death tests, gave more money to charity, and took fewer medications. There's no other way to look at the data. These people were just transformed by the experience."
Could all this have come from a merely biological event? Maybe... and maybe NOT.
"Willoughby Britton, a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Arizona... knew that most people who have a close brush with death tend to have some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, while people who get that close and have a near-death experience have none. In other words, people who have a near-death experience have an atypical response to life-threatening trauma. No one knows why."
Biological alteration of the brain, spiritual enhancement, or both?
"... in the 1950s. Penfield, one of the giants of modern neuroscience, discovered that stimulating the brain's right temporal lobe-located just above the ear-with a mild electric current produced out-of-body experiences, heavenly music, vivid hallucinations, and the kind of panoramic memories associated with the life review part of the near-death experience. This helped explain why right temporal lobe epilepsy was a condition long defined by its most prominent symptom: excessive religiosity characterized by an intense feeling of spirituality, mystical visions, and auditory hallucinations of the voice-of-God variety."
So, here's another physical way to cause supposedly mystical experiences; I've never been so glad that my own spiritual life has never included any of this sort of thing... and my heart goes out to any readers who are having to re-evaluate their own spiritualities because of this stuff.
"Two features distinguished the group with near-death experience from the controls: They needed far less sleep, and they went into REM (rapid eye movement) sleep far later in the sleep cycle than normal people."
It's not uncommon for deeply spiritual types to not need much sleep, hmmmmmmmmmm......
"'The point at which someone goes into REM sleep is a fantastic indicator of depressive tendencies,' says Britton. 'We've gotten very good at this kind of research. If you took 100 people and did a sleep study, we can look at the data and know, by looking at the time they entered REM, who's going to become depressed in the next year and who isn't.'"
That isn't related to the topic, but I included it because it's yet another bit of proof that depression is a PHYSICAL illness, and some people still refuse to accept that.
"Normal people enter REM at 90 minutes. Depressed people enter at 60 minutes or sooner. Britton found that the vast majority of her group with near-death experience entered REM sleep at 110 minutes. With that finding, she identified the first objective neurophysiological difference in people who have had a near-death experience... Britton thinks near-death experience somehow rewires the brain."
So... could an artificially-induced near-death experience cure, or at least improve, depression?
"The temporal lobe synchrony wasn't happening on the right side of the brain, the site that had been linked in Penfield's studies to religious feeling in temporal lobe epilepsy. Instead she found it on the left side of the brain. That finding made some people uncomfortable because it echoed studies that pinpointed... the exact locations in the brain that were most active and most inactive during periods of profound religious experience."
Still physical, but different, too; I bet they wish they could explain THAT.
"Over the past 10 years a number of different scientists... have done SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) scans of the brains of Buddhists during meditation and of Franciscan nuns during prayer. They found a marked decrease in activity in the parietal lobes, an area in the upper rear of the brain. This region helps us orient ourselves in space; it allows us to judge angles and curves and distances and to know where the self ends and the rest of the world begins... The SPECT scans indicated that meditation temporarily blocks the processing of sensory information within both parietal lobes.
When that happens, as Newberg and D'Aquili point out in their book 'Why God Won't Go Away,' 'the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real.' They use the brain-scan findings to explain the interconnected cosmic unity that the Buddhists experienced, but the results could also explain what Morse calls the 'universal, unifying thread of love' that people with near-death experience consistently reported.'"
Ouch; that's gonna hurt some folks to hear. For years I've been telling people that feelings are easily created and can be WRONG, particularly in the area of romantic judgment (there's an oxymoron if there ever was one), and now it seems as if at least some religious and spiritual feelings are created by prayer and meditation, by the effect they have on the brain... which makes me glad that I neither pray nor meditate, and thus have no cause to question my own beliefs because of this new knowledge.
"These brain scans show that when the parietal lobes go quiet, portions of the right temporal lobe-some of the same portions that Penfield showed produced feelings of excessive religiosity, out-of-body experiences, and vivid hallucinations-become more active. Newberg and D'Aquili also argue that activities often found in religious rituals-like repetitive chanting-activate (and deactivate) similar areas in the brain..."
Did early humans discover religious feelings accidentally through chanting, and perpetuate them the same way?
"... a finding that helps explain some of the more puzzling out-of-body experience reports, like those of the airplane pilots suddenly floating outside their planes. Those pilots were as intensely focused on their instrumentation as meditators focused on mantras. Meanwhile, the sound of the engine's spinning produces a repetitive, rhythmic drone much like tribal drumming. If conditions were right, says Newberg, these two things should be enough to produce the same temporal lobe activity to trigger an out-of-body experience."
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!! They've GOT to install a gadget that makes noises that counteract that drone... pilots can NOT be at risk for this to happen!!
"Neuropsychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario... built a helmet that produces weak, directed electromagnetic fields. He then asked over 900 volunteers, mostly college students, to wear the helmets while he monitored their brain activity and generated variations in the electromagnetic field. When he directed these fields toward the temporal lobes, Persinger's helmet induced the sort of mystical, free-of-the-body experiences common to right temporal lobe epileptics, meditators, and people who have had near-death experiences."
Yet another way that spiritual/religious feelings can be artificially induced; isn't it scary how MANY ways there are to fake the brain into feeling things? Then again, most people who are having these feelings aren't wearing one of those helmets, or under the influence of drugs, or in G-LOC, and can have those feelings when NOT praying, meditating, or listening to chants or drums... and how are THOSE people's feelings explained?
"an increasing number of scientists now think that our brains are wired for mystical experiences. The studies confirm that these experiences are as real as any others, because our involvement with the rest of the universe is mediated by our brains"
And we're biologically programmed to trust our feelings, even though our strongest feelings are often incorrect (eg don't lead us to true conclusions); I'm not quite willing to say that ALL spiritual thought/experience that comes with these sorts of easily-created feelings should be looked at with suspicion, but... whatever you see as the truth in the spiritual realm, if you've had these sorts of feelings it wouldn't hurt to re-analyze it without including their influence as part of the data, and see what you come up with.
"While out-of-body experiences are defined by a perceptual shift in consciousness, no more and no less, near-death experiences start with this shift and then proceed along a characteristic trajectory. People report entering a dark tunnel, heading into light, and feeling an all-encompassing sense of peace, warmth, love, and welcome. They recall being reassured along the way by dead friends, relatives, and a gamut of religious figures. Occasionally, there's a life review, followed by a decision of the 'should I stay or should I go?' variety."
I'd never made the connection between the 2 sorts of experiences, but once it's mentioned you can't NOT see it.
"discovering [in 1982] that the classic explanation [for near-death experiences]-delusion-had been recently upgraded to a hallucination provoked by a number of different factors, including fear, drugs, and a shortage of oxygen to the brain... might help explain the many reports of near-death experiences trickling out of emergency rooms."
Most people who have near-death experiences see them as very spiritually significant, but it looks like there's biology involved too... maybe not totally explaining these experiences, which might be made possible by the biological events but not limited to them, but at the very least showing a connection between the condition of the physical brain and its perceptions of the spiritual realm.
"23 out of 26 children who experienced apparent death-the cessation of heartbeat and breathing-reported a classic near-death experience, while none of the other 131 children in his control group reported anything of the kind."
They don't talk about similar studies on adults, if any even exist, so I don't know if kids are more susceptible or what... but doesn't this sound like a much higher % than adults report for similar circumstances?
"Morse [the physician running the study] later videotaped the children recalling their experiences, which included such standard fare as long tunnels, giant rainbows, dead relatives, and deities of all sorts. But many descriptions-augmented by crayon drawings-included memories of the medical procedures performed and details about doctors and nurses whose only contact with the child occurred while the child was apparently dead.
Other scientists have duplicated Morse's findings."
They give no explanation of how this could be, how a dead body could be recording that sort of data, or ANY data, especially since some of the kids were dead for as long as 45 minutes; of course, those of us who believe in souls can easily explain the perceptions, if not the exact mechanism by which the soul's "memories" get imparted to the brain when the 2 are reunited.
"Possible clues to the biological basis of these unusual states turned up in studies conducted in the late 1970s... James Whinnery, a specialist in aerospace medicine... working with a massive centrifuge at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, Pennsylvania, Whinnery spun fighter pilots into G-LOC [g-force-induced loss of consciousness]. He wanted to determine at what force tunnel vision occurred. More than 500 pilots accidentally blacked out during the study... at least 40 of the pilots reported some sort of out-of-body experience while they were unconscious. Not knowing anything about out-of-body experiences, Whinnery called these episodes dreamlets, kept detailed records of their contents, and began examining the literature on anomalous unconscious experiences. 'I was reading about sudden-death episodes in cardiology,' Whinnery says, 'and it led me right into near-death experiences. I realized that a smaller percentage of my pilots' dreamlets, about 10 to 15 percent, were much closer in content to a classic NDE.'
When Whinnery reviewed his data, he noted a correlation: The longer his pilots were knocked out, the closer they got to brain death. And the closer they got to brain death, the more likely it was that an out-of-body experience would turn into a near-death experience. This was the first hard evidence for what had been long suspected-that the two states are not two divergent phenomena, but two points on a continuum."
So, here's a way to create the supposedly-mystical experiences, in at least a small % of people; that doesn't mean that no spirituality is ever involved with these things, any more than being able to inject chemicals that tell the body it's hungry or full into rats to make hungry ones stop eating and full ones seek out food means that hunger and fullness don't exist... but it's something we need to start thinking about, because at least some of these experiences clearly ARE just biological in nature.
"Whinnery found that G-LOC, when gradually induced, produced tunnel vision. 'The progression went first to grayout (loss of peripheral vision) and then to blackout,' he explains, and the blindness occurred just before a person went unconscious... The transition from grayout to unconsciousness resembles floating peacefully within a dark tunnel, which is much like some of the defining characteristics of a near-death experience. The pilots also recalled a feeling of peace and serenity as they regained consciousness."
Sorry, folks, it looks like the often-reported tunnel does NOT exist, although people who say they experienced it are telling the truth; we're going to need to not focus on some of these sorts of details and look instead at those things that are truly inexplicable about these occurrences.
"Compression of the optic nerve could produce tunnel vision; neurochemicals such as serotonin, endorphins, and enkephalins could help explain the euphoria; and psychotropics like LSD and mescaline often produce vibrant hallucinations of past events. But no one has directly tested these hypotheses."
Why? Because, as I've always said, scientists fear the stigma attached to research in this area... and who could they get to fund it in any case?
"Nearly all of the people who had had a near-death experience-no matter if it was 10 years ago or 50-were still absolutely convinced their lives had meaning and that there was a universal, unifying thread of love which provided that meaning. Matched against a control group, they scored much higher on life-attitude tests, significantly lower on fear-of-death tests, gave more money to charity, and took fewer medications. There's no other way to look at the data. These people were just transformed by the experience."
Could all this have come from a merely biological event? Maybe... and maybe NOT.
"Willoughby Britton, a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Arizona... knew that most people who have a close brush with death tend to have some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, while people who get that close and have a near-death experience have none. In other words, people who have a near-death experience have an atypical response to life-threatening trauma. No one knows why."
Biological alteration of the brain, spiritual enhancement, or both?
"... in the 1950s. Penfield, one of the giants of modern neuroscience, discovered that stimulating the brain's right temporal lobe-located just above the ear-with a mild electric current produced out-of-body experiences, heavenly music, vivid hallucinations, and the kind of panoramic memories associated with the life review part of the near-death experience. This helped explain why right temporal lobe epilepsy was a condition long defined by its most prominent symptom: excessive religiosity characterized by an intense feeling of spirituality, mystical visions, and auditory hallucinations of the voice-of-God variety."
So, here's another physical way to cause supposedly mystical experiences; I've never been so glad that my own spiritual life has never included any of this sort of thing... and my heart goes out to any readers who are having to re-evaluate their own spiritualities because of this stuff.
"Two features distinguished the group with near-death experience from the controls: They needed far less sleep, and they went into REM (rapid eye movement) sleep far later in the sleep cycle than normal people."
It's not uncommon for deeply spiritual types to not need much sleep, hmmmmmmmmmm......
"'The point at which someone goes into REM sleep is a fantastic indicator of depressive tendencies,' says Britton. 'We've gotten very good at this kind of research. If you took 100 people and did a sleep study, we can look at the data and know, by looking at the time they entered REM, who's going to become depressed in the next year and who isn't.'"
That isn't related to the topic, but I included it because it's yet another bit of proof that depression is a PHYSICAL illness, and some people still refuse to accept that.
"Normal people enter REM at 90 minutes. Depressed people enter at 60 minutes or sooner. Britton found that the vast majority of her group with near-death experience entered REM sleep at 110 minutes. With that finding, she identified the first objective neurophysiological difference in people who have had a near-death experience... Britton thinks near-death experience somehow rewires the brain."
So... could an artificially-induced near-death experience cure, or at least improve, depression?
"The temporal lobe synchrony wasn't happening on the right side of the brain, the site that had been linked in Penfield's studies to religious feeling in temporal lobe epilepsy. Instead she found it on the left side of the brain. That finding made some people uncomfortable because it echoed studies that pinpointed... the exact locations in the brain that were most active and most inactive during periods of profound religious experience."
Still physical, but different, too; I bet they wish they could explain THAT.
"Over the past 10 years a number of different scientists... have done SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) scans of the brains of Buddhists during meditation and of Franciscan nuns during prayer. They found a marked decrease in activity in the parietal lobes, an area in the upper rear of the brain. This region helps us orient ourselves in space; it allows us to judge angles and curves and distances and to know where the self ends and the rest of the world begins... The SPECT scans indicated that meditation temporarily blocks the processing of sensory information within both parietal lobes.
When that happens, as Newberg and D'Aquili point out in their book 'Why God Won't Go Away,' 'the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real.' They use the brain-scan findings to explain the interconnected cosmic unity that the Buddhists experienced, but the results could also explain what Morse calls the 'universal, unifying thread of love' that people with near-death experience consistently reported.'"
Ouch; that's gonna hurt some folks to hear. For years I've been telling people that feelings are easily created and can be WRONG, particularly in the area of romantic judgment (there's an oxymoron if there ever was one), and now it seems as if at least some religious and spiritual feelings are created by prayer and meditation, by the effect they have on the brain... which makes me glad that I neither pray nor meditate, and thus have no cause to question my own beliefs because of this new knowledge.
"These brain scans show that when the parietal lobes go quiet, portions of the right temporal lobe-some of the same portions that Penfield showed produced feelings of excessive religiosity, out-of-body experiences, and vivid hallucinations-become more active. Newberg and D'Aquili also argue that activities often found in religious rituals-like repetitive chanting-activate (and deactivate) similar areas in the brain..."
Did early humans discover religious feelings accidentally through chanting, and perpetuate them the same way?
"... a finding that helps explain some of the more puzzling out-of-body experience reports, like those of the airplane pilots suddenly floating outside their planes. Those pilots were as intensely focused on their instrumentation as meditators focused on mantras. Meanwhile, the sound of the engine's spinning produces a repetitive, rhythmic drone much like tribal drumming. If conditions were right, says Newberg, these two things should be enough to produce the same temporal lobe activity to trigger an out-of-body experience."
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!! They've GOT to install a gadget that makes noises that counteract that drone... pilots can NOT be at risk for this to happen!!
"Neuropsychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario... built a helmet that produces weak, directed electromagnetic fields. He then asked over 900 volunteers, mostly college students, to wear the helmets while he monitored their brain activity and generated variations in the electromagnetic field. When he directed these fields toward the temporal lobes, Persinger's helmet induced the sort of mystical, free-of-the-body experiences common to right temporal lobe epileptics, meditators, and people who have had near-death experiences."
Yet another way that spiritual/religious feelings can be artificially induced; isn't it scary how MANY ways there are to fake the brain into feeling things? Then again, most people who are having these feelings aren't wearing one of those helmets, or under the influence of drugs, or in G-LOC, and can have those feelings when NOT praying, meditating, or listening to chants or drums... and how are THOSE people's feelings explained?
"an increasing number of scientists now think that our brains are wired for mystical experiences. The studies confirm that these experiences are as real as any others, because our involvement with the rest of the universe is mediated by our brains"
And we're biologically programmed to trust our feelings, even though our strongest feelings are often incorrect (eg don't lead us to true conclusions); I'm not quite willing to say that ALL spiritual thought/experience that comes with these sorts of easily-created feelings should be looked at with suspicion, but... whatever you see as the truth in the spiritual realm, if you've had these sorts of feelings it wouldn't hurt to re-analyze it without including their influence as part of the data, and see what you come up with.
Friday, July 29, 2005
A fascinating theory about when life begins
I came across an article
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/conception.html
called "Does a Person Exist at the Moment of Conception?", written by Farrell Till, who says he's "a former fundamentalist preacher and foreign missionary," that puts forth a theory that I've never seen before as to why life does NOT begin at conception... here's a summary of the main points:
1) The egg and sperm are alive, but anti-abortionists don't worry about them because "gametes or reproductive cells are only 'potential persons' but do not become actual persons until the two come together."
2) Regular readers will remember my essay on chimeras, people who are the result of the fusion of non-identical twins in the womb and thus have 2 different sets of DNA in their bodies (see my post of 5-20-05); Till asserts that, because in the earliest stage of pregnancy non-identical twins could fuse to form one person, they are at that point "simply the genetic materials that had the potential to develop into two persons"... on other words, no more human lives than eggs and sperm are.
3) Identical twins also present a contradiction for the idea that conception=life: "'Twinning' presents a similar problem for the pro-birth [Till's term for pro-life] movement. At the time of fertilization, one zygote exists, so if it is true that a 'person' exists at the 'moment of conception,' abortion [early enough on] would 'kill' only one 'person,' but if the aborted zygote happened to be one that would divide later to become twin zygotes that would eventually be born as two persons, did the abortion somehow kill two 'persons'? If so, what rationale is used to reach that conclusion?"
4) Because of those last 2 points, we get: "No single human being can divide him/herself into identical twin persons, and no two human beings can fuse their bodies into a single person. It must follow, then, that what is in the womb at the time of conception and even shortly thereafter is... only a potential person... not an actual person in the sense that I am a person and those of you reading this are persons."
While none of this alters my personal idea of when human life begins, which is that it's when enough thought and feeling has occurred to create at least a rudimentary soul (no, I don't know when that moment would be, but it's a sure thing that it's AFTER the brain has been fully developed a while), I wanted to post it so that some of the many people who want a scientific basis to decide when life begins can have a new angle to contemplate the issue from.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/conception.html
called "Does a Person Exist at the Moment of Conception?", written by Farrell Till, who says he's "a former fundamentalist preacher and foreign missionary," that puts forth a theory that I've never seen before as to why life does NOT begin at conception... here's a summary of the main points:
1) The egg and sperm are alive, but anti-abortionists don't worry about them because "gametes or reproductive cells are only 'potential persons' but do not become actual persons until the two come together."
2) Regular readers will remember my essay on chimeras, people who are the result of the fusion of non-identical twins in the womb and thus have 2 different sets of DNA in their bodies (see my post of 5-20-05); Till asserts that, because in the earliest stage of pregnancy non-identical twins could fuse to form one person, they are at that point "simply the genetic materials that had the potential to develop into two persons"... on other words, no more human lives than eggs and sperm are.
3) Identical twins also present a contradiction for the idea that conception=life: "'Twinning' presents a similar problem for the pro-birth [Till's term for pro-life] movement. At the time of fertilization, one zygote exists, so if it is true that a 'person' exists at the 'moment of conception,' abortion [early enough on] would 'kill' only one 'person,' but if the aborted zygote happened to be one that would divide later to become twin zygotes that would eventually be born as two persons, did the abortion somehow kill two 'persons'? If so, what rationale is used to reach that conclusion?"
4) Because of those last 2 points, we get: "No single human being can divide him/herself into identical twin persons, and no two human beings can fuse their bodies into a single person. It must follow, then, that what is in the womb at the time of conception and even shortly thereafter is... only a potential person... not an actual person in the sense that I am a person and those of you reading this are persons."
While none of this alters my personal idea of when human life begins, which is that it's when enough thought and feeling has occurred to create at least a rudimentary soul (no, I don't know when that moment would be, but it's a sure thing that it's AFTER the brain has been fully developed a while), I wanted to post it so that some of the many people who want a scientific basis to decide when life begins can have a new angle to contemplate the issue from.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Psychic urge and odds and ends
Do you remember Don the hot vampire from the "reality" series "Mad Mad House"? Today, out of the blue, I had the overwhelming urge to go look at his website, where I hadn't been since last fall; on the main page was the 1st new announcement that had been posted since the last time I'd been there, which said that Don would be appearing on a show on the Discovery Channel called "One Step Beyond"... and when I saw the date this show would be airing, my hair all stood on end... because it was, you guessed it, TODAY. :-O
Coincidence? Of course not. This is why I've tried to train myself to listen to the inexplicable, irrational-seeming urges that we get trained OUT of listening to as kids; although some of them ARE obviously self-destructive whims (which are easy to identify), the rest are usually trying to tell us something valuable. Sometimes they're the result of our unconscious minds reacting to subtle perceptions, and sometimes they're precognitive and other psychic flashes; either way, they should never be ignored.
They only had a little bit of Don in the show, but if you want to see him, this is the episode he's in, called "Fear"
http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=5&cpi=68259&gid=0&channel=DSC
It looks like it'll be shown again on Sunday afternoon, since the episode wrongly shown in the online TV listings as being the one on today at that time is on again then; if your listing shows the episode "Secrets" coming on, check it out, as that's what they said was on today when "Fear" was on.
Also on Don's site was an even more recent announcement; a channel I sadly don't get, Fox Reality Network, will supposedly be re-showing "Mad Mad House"; it's mentioned on their site here
http://www.foxreality.com/shows.php?storyid=54
but no dates are given yet. If you get this channel, keep an eye open for the series, as it's an interesting psychological study; you can check out my posts from last year on 3-11, 3-25, 4-1, 4-8, 4-15, 4-23 and 4-29 if you're interested in my commentary on the series, and of course on Don.
Another somewhat psychic event today; I came upon my husband about to, um, do something best done behind a closed door, lol, and, after he'd removed his, er, inspirational pictures from his screen, he demanded to know how I could always tell, from the other side of the house, when he was about to, ah, begin, and thus always showed up to put a damper on the festivities. I can only label this somewhat psychic, as it's possible that I'm picking up subliminal cues from him that're tipping me off; either way, it's amusing... to ME, anyways, hehehehehe.
I hope you saw "Criss Angel Mindfreak" on A&E tonight, as Criss was dazzling as always... oh, and his illusions were good too. The 2 new episodes shown will be on many more times, and the next new ones will be on next Wednesday at 10PM.
And finally, I learned something new today; Rudi Gernreich, the innovative 60's designer best known for the invention of the monokini, which, unlike what the word's used to mean today (a one-piece cut out to look like a bikini), was essentially a topless one-piece, as shown here on a mannequin
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/biki/hob_1986.517.13.htm
here on a model with bare boobs behind strategically placed hands
http://gernreich.steirischerbst.at/pics/kategorien/mono300_400.html
and here, with totally bare breasts
http://onunterhaltung.t-online.de/c/19/36/89/1936898,tid=d.jpg
also did the uniforms for the 1st season of the British scifi series "Space: 1999"... I caught his name in the credits, and yelped in amazement. Sadly, that was pretty much the only moment of excitement on this 1st DVD of the series I remember so fondly, but they don't have all the characters yet, so I know there are much better episodes to come. One of the best things about everything being out on DVD is that so many wonderful old series are available to be seen and enjoyed again; if you can't find them locally, try one of the online rental services... and relive the shows that were such a big deal to you when you were a kid. :-)
Coincidence? Of course not. This is why I've tried to train myself to listen to the inexplicable, irrational-seeming urges that we get trained OUT of listening to as kids; although some of them ARE obviously self-destructive whims (which are easy to identify), the rest are usually trying to tell us something valuable. Sometimes they're the result of our unconscious minds reacting to subtle perceptions, and sometimes they're precognitive and other psychic flashes; either way, they should never be ignored.
They only had a little bit of Don in the show, but if you want to see him, this is the episode he's in, called "Fear"
http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=5&cpi=68259&gid=0&channel=DSC
It looks like it'll be shown again on Sunday afternoon, since the episode wrongly shown in the online TV listings as being the one on today at that time is on again then; if your listing shows the episode "Secrets" coming on, check it out, as that's what they said was on today when "Fear" was on.
Also on Don's site was an even more recent announcement; a channel I sadly don't get, Fox Reality Network, will supposedly be re-showing "Mad Mad House"; it's mentioned on their site here
http://www.foxreality.com/shows.php?storyid=54
but no dates are given yet. If you get this channel, keep an eye open for the series, as it's an interesting psychological study; you can check out my posts from last year on 3-11, 3-25, 4-1, 4-8, 4-15, 4-23 and 4-29 if you're interested in my commentary on the series, and of course on Don.
Another somewhat psychic event today; I came upon my husband about to, um, do something best done behind a closed door, lol, and, after he'd removed his, er, inspirational pictures from his screen, he demanded to know how I could always tell, from the other side of the house, when he was about to, ah, begin, and thus always showed up to put a damper on the festivities. I can only label this somewhat psychic, as it's possible that I'm picking up subliminal cues from him that're tipping me off; either way, it's amusing... to ME, anyways, hehehehehe.
I hope you saw "Criss Angel Mindfreak" on A&E tonight, as Criss was dazzling as always... oh, and his illusions were good too. The 2 new episodes shown will be on many more times, and the next new ones will be on next Wednesday at 10PM.
And finally, I learned something new today; Rudi Gernreich, the innovative 60's designer best known for the invention of the monokini, which, unlike what the word's used to mean today (a one-piece cut out to look like a bikini), was essentially a topless one-piece, as shown here on a mannequin
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/biki/hob_1986.517.13.htm
here on a model with bare boobs behind strategically placed hands
http://gernreich.steirischerbst.at/pics/kategorien/mono300_400.html
and here, with totally bare breasts
http://onunterhaltung.t-online.de/c/19/36/89/1936898,tid=d.jpg
also did the uniforms for the 1st season of the British scifi series "Space: 1999"... I caught his name in the credits, and yelped in amazement. Sadly, that was pretty much the only moment of excitement on this 1st DVD of the series I remember so fondly, but they don't have all the characters yet, so I know there are much better episodes to come. One of the best things about everything being out on DVD is that so many wonderful old series are available to be seen and enjoyed again; if you can't find them locally, try one of the online rental services... and relive the shows that were such a big deal to you when you were a kid. :-)
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
File handling for dummies
The tips that appear below, that everyone except my husband already knows, are in reference to how you should deal with your computer files, as opposed to the writing of file handling software (I don't think many dummies can do the latter). They're uppermost in my mind right now because I've discovered that, contrary to his claims, my husband did NOT transfer all of my files over when I got my most recent desktop computer; this wouldn't necessarily be a big deal since he still has my old machine, with, he insists, everything that was on it when I gave it up, but enough time has passed that neither of us is still familiar with what used to be on the old machine in what organizational structure, my memory of what I used to have that I don't now is patchy, and he's not finding some of what should be on there because he refuses to do the following:
1) a) When you download or create a file, take an extra few seconds to give it a descriptive name, so that if you end up, for example, having to scan through a list of hundreds of files on an old hard drive, you'll know what it is when you see it. My husband stubbornly refuses to give files any names other than alphanumeric "codes" the meanings of which he never remembers, and as a result has many hours ahead of him of searching through files of his on my old machine to locate stuff of mine that he'd stuck in menus or behind icons for me to get easy access to, but now can't differentiate from the bulk of old files (the actual old desktop setup no longer exists for technical reasons that he claims to be unable to explain... which means he screwed something up and is trying to hide the fact).
b) Make sure that the words used in the file name are complete and spelled correctly; if you're using your search software to find a horse photo, for example, the file name "hrse12" will NOT come up in the search for "horse."
c) Don't EVER save or store a file that doesn't have the file extension, such as ".gif," on it; not only can that cause you problems with some programs, you're out of luck trying to look for, say, a particular mpg file if the one you want got saved without its extension and doesn't turn up in a search for "mpg."
2) If you've got a zillion similar files, such as if you've got a new puppy that you're taking 50 pics a day of, and thus can't really give unique and meaningful file names to all of them, have folders with intelligently chosen names to store the files in, and put them in right away, while you can still remember what's what... 6 months later, it'll be a nightmare to try to identify and categorize 1000 pics.
3) If you've got some sort of nifty software thing that you can use to store and display/use files, such as a slideshow setup, and you really want to use it, repeat after me; eventually, this program will no longer be supported by my current operating system, and if I don't have the files stored somewhere else, somewhere easily accessible, I'll REALLY regret it... and yes, that's another one of the problems we're currently facing, sigh.
4) Beware oddball file types; if you're recording something into a file, doing scans, etc, look at what file type will result, and, if it's not a standard one, try, TRY, to get your file translated into a more common format... or you risk eventually having something you value that you no longer have a working reader for and so can't open. This also goes for files you get from online; if it's an odd format, if at all possible get it into a more basic one that you'll still be able to use in 5 years.
5) Always, ALWAYS have everything backed up; most of the pics of my little squirrel are on a hard drive that died and hadn't been backed up (because it was with one of my husband's machines, as he's the one who processes photos), and we're paying a fortune to try to have them recovered... with no certainty of eventual success. :-(
6) a) If you're the tech person in your household, and thus are the one responsible for transferring files from old computers and hard drives to new ones, keep in mind that it's NOT a time-saver to just toss over the files you think the other people will need right away and leave the rest "for later."
b) If you fail to transfer all the files right away, and then, as is very likely, it never gets done, when the alarm goes out months later that something's missing, it's NOT acceptable to try to argue that the other person couldn't really have wanted or needed those files if they haven't used them in that long; a person's files are just like any other possessions of theirs, which means they're NOT for you to play fast and loose with.
While I've been writing, my husband has been gradually locating my missing files; he doesn't have them all yet, but with a little bit of luck I'll be reunited with everything eventually. It can be tough being the lesser geek in the family, but I don't need anything set up on the desktop for me to access it the way I did in the early days, so hopefully the next time I upgrade my computer I'll actually have all of my stuff right away; my life just isn't complete without all my obscure musical bootlegs and pics of hot guys being within easy reach.
1) a) When you download or create a file, take an extra few seconds to give it a descriptive name, so that if you end up, for example, having to scan through a list of hundreds of files on an old hard drive, you'll know what it is when you see it. My husband stubbornly refuses to give files any names other than alphanumeric "codes" the meanings of which he never remembers, and as a result has many hours ahead of him of searching through files of his on my old machine to locate stuff of mine that he'd stuck in menus or behind icons for me to get easy access to, but now can't differentiate from the bulk of old files (the actual old desktop setup no longer exists for technical reasons that he claims to be unable to explain... which means he screwed something up and is trying to hide the fact).
b) Make sure that the words used in the file name are complete and spelled correctly; if you're using your search software to find a horse photo, for example, the file name "hrse12" will NOT come up in the search for "horse."
c) Don't EVER save or store a file that doesn't have the file extension, such as ".gif," on it; not only can that cause you problems with some programs, you're out of luck trying to look for, say, a particular mpg file if the one you want got saved without its extension and doesn't turn up in a search for "mpg."
2) If you've got a zillion similar files, such as if you've got a new puppy that you're taking 50 pics a day of, and thus can't really give unique and meaningful file names to all of them, have folders with intelligently chosen names to store the files in, and put them in right away, while you can still remember what's what... 6 months later, it'll be a nightmare to try to identify and categorize 1000 pics.
3) If you've got some sort of nifty software thing that you can use to store and display/use files, such as a slideshow setup, and you really want to use it, repeat after me; eventually, this program will no longer be supported by my current operating system, and if I don't have the files stored somewhere else, somewhere easily accessible, I'll REALLY regret it... and yes, that's another one of the problems we're currently facing, sigh.
4) Beware oddball file types; if you're recording something into a file, doing scans, etc, look at what file type will result, and, if it's not a standard one, try, TRY, to get your file translated into a more common format... or you risk eventually having something you value that you no longer have a working reader for and so can't open. This also goes for files you get from online; if it's an odd format, if at all possible get it into a more basic one that you'll still be able to use in 5 years.
5) Always, ALWAYS have everything backed up; most of the pics of my little squirrel are on a hard drive that died and hadn't been backed up (because it was with one of my husband's machines, as he's the one who processes photos), and we're paying a fortune to try to have them recovered... with no certainty of eventual success. :-(
6) a) If you're the tech person in your household, and thus are the one responsible for transferring files from old computers and hard drives to new ones, keep in mind that it's NOT a time-saver to just toss over the files you think the other people will need right away and leave the rest "for later."
b) If you fail to transfer all the files right away, and then, as is very likely, it never gets done, when the alarm goes out months later that something's missing, it's NOT acceptable to try to argue that the other person couldn't really have wanted or needed those files if they haven't used them in that long; a person's files are just like any other possessions of theirs, which means they're NOT for you to play fast and loose with.
While I've been writing, my husband has been gradually locating my missing files; he doesn't have them all yet, but with a little bit of luck I'll be reunited with everything eventually. It can be tough being the lesser geek in the family, but I don't need anything set up on the desktop for me to access it the way I did in the early days, so hopefully the next time I upgrade my computer I'll actually have all of my stuff right away; my life just isn't complete without all my obscure musical bootlegs and pics of hot guys being within easy reach.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
A freaky day
Last night, I asked for evidence of the existence of a deity, if there is one... not having any preconceived notions of what form that proof would take, not expecting anything miraculous, not even expecting anything right away. Here are the unusual things that occurred within 4 hours of when I got going today:
1) I went online, brought up my blog, and was thrilled to see that someone from Kenya, KENYA, was here at the same time (according to the NeoCounter in the sidebar); it's not earth-shattering, no, but it's pretty rare to see anyone from other than North America in that timeframe... and it always makes my day when I see that someone from a far-away and exotic place is reading my rants, so that started me off on the right foot, as it were.
2) I discovered 3 weeks ago that my Bloglines account wasn't working, and, when they tried to fix it, they did something that made any attempt to subscribe to my blog in certain browsers lead to a non-functional search screen rather than a subscription or login screen. They swore they'd try to fix it, and I've been checking it daily; today, when I clicked the link, it was FIXED.
3) I checked my Blockbuster Online queue, and a DVD I've had on there for MONTHS, that had always said "long wait," and that I'd given up hope of ever seeing, was suddenly available; it's now on its way to me.
4) I've been trying to get a call through to my cable provider a bunch of times every business day for the last couple of weeks, and have been getting busy signals every time; today, I got right through, and was finally able to handle my business with them (it turns out that they'd installed a new phone system, with the standard new-technology result).
5) I discovered that someone that I've really wanted to boot out of the periphery of my life for quite a while, but had no way to prevent from being around, has taken themselves elsewhere... POOF, they were gone, with no warning and no reason for their departure that I can think of.
6) a) My mother, who I haven't spoken to in ages, and who I haven't had more then necessary informational-exchange conversations in longer than you'd believe (if you're a newcomer to my blog, I should point out that she and I have a hate/hate relationship), called out of the blue today for no other purpose that I could ascertain than to have a friendly chat for an hour and a half. (!!!!!!!)
b) She expressed a belated and inexplicable eagerness to have the get-together for Mother's Day that she spurned when it was offered back in early May, and, perhaps as an enticement, she listed some things she'd collected to give to me, including...
c) There's a $35 book that I'd've long liked to have had, but only for some special photos it contains, which aren't remotely worth paying that sort of $ to get; she got it for virtually nothing at a book sale (held by people with no idea of its value, clearly), after she chanced to see it and to remember that it was something I wanted.
That's a pretty impressive # of surprising things for one day; more than once today, I wondered if I was dreaming. I don't say that it all necessarily means anything, but given the timing and my lack of belief in coincidence, it's certainly got my attention. The thing is, there's nothing about these events that allows me to say if their source would definitively be karma or deity, so, if there's intention behind them, it hasn't made its source clear.
Not yet.
1) I went online, brought up my blog, and was thrilled to see that someone from Kenya, KENYA, was here at the same time (according to the NeoCounter in the sidebar); it's not earth-shattering, no, but it's pretty rare to see anyone from other than North America in that timeframe... and it always makes my day when I see that someone from a far-away and exotic place is reading my rants, so that started me off on the right foot, as it were.
2) I discovered 3 weeks ago that my Bloglines account wasn't working, and, when they tried to fix it, they did something that made any attempt to subscribe to my blog in certain browsers lead to a non-functional search screen rather than a subscription or login screen. They swore they'd try to fix it, and I've been checking it daily; today, when I clicked the link, it was FIXED.
3) I checked my Blockbuster Online queue, and a DVD I've had on there for MONTHS, that had always said "long wait," and that I'd given up hope of ever seeing, was suddenly available; it's now on its way to me.
4) I've been trying to get a call through to my cable provider a bunch of times every business day for the last couple of weeks, and have been getting busy signals every time; today, I got right through, and was finally able to handle my business with them (it turns out that they'd installed a new phone system, with the standard new-technology result).
5) I discovered that someone that I've really wanted to boot out of the periphery of my life for quite a while, but had no way to prevent from being around, has taken themselves elsewhere... POOF, they were gone, with no warning and no reason for their departure that I can think of.
6) a) My mother, who I haven't spoken to in ages, and who I haven't had more then necessary informational-exchange conversations in longer than you'd believe (if you're a newcomer to my blog, I should point out that she and I have a hate/hate relationship), called out of the blue today for no other purpose that I could ascertain than to have a friendly chat for an hour and a half. (!!!!!!!)
b) She expressed a belated and inexplicable eagerness to have the get-together for Mother's Day that she spurned when it was offered back in early May, and, perhaps as an enticement, she listed some things she'd collected to give to me, including...
c) There's a $35 book that I'd've long liked to have had, but only for some special photos it contains, which aren't remotely worth paying that sort of $ to get; she got it for virtually nothing at a book sale (held by people with no idea of its value, clearly), after she chanced to see it and to remember that it was something I wanted.
That's a pretty impressive # of surprising things for one day; more than once today, I wondered if I was dreaming. I don't say that it all necessarily means anything, but given the timing and my lack of belief in coincidence, it's certainly got my attention. The thing is, there's nothing about these events that allows me to say if their source would definitively be karma or deity, so, if there's intention behind them, it hasn't made its source clear.
Not yet.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Joel Osteen describes karma again
In tonight's sermon, Osteen explained that to get something you really wanted, something important, something big, you had to 1st "plant the seed" in your mind that it really could happen, WOULD happen, and then you had to, guess what... think about it over and over. Sound familiar? It's exactly how I've always described how you can get karma to bring you the things you want; I've posted about it many times, as recently as a couple of days ago. It's astounding to hear a Christian pastor saying, not that you should pray to God all the time to get what you want, but that you should think about it all the time... a crucial difference, and an amazing one considering the source.
As usual, he illustrated his point with a story; there was a couple who were desperate to have a baby, and had failed for a long while, so they bought a little baby outfit and put it in the kitchen where they could see it all the time and thus keep the baby thoughts uppermost in their minds all the time... and naturally the wife got pregnant, and the baby did wear the outfit that Osteen credited for making the pregnancy happen. He of course always says or implies that God has done whatever it is that got done, but his point is that you have to do certain things in order for God to be able to give you the stuff you want; interesting mindset from someone who should believe in an omnipotent deity, don't you think?
Osteen's father was also the pastor of his church, so he's been saturated in hard-core religion his entire life, but still he persists in describing, in sermon after sermon, exactly the same karmic concepts I post about here, with the only difference being that he says that God will deliver to you instead of karma. His broadcasts are the only religious programming I've ever watched, and I got drawn into them without knowing anything about him or his ideas about how the universe works, just because I had the urge to watch him; is my interest in this pastor who unexpectedly talks about karma a coincidence? Of course not. Is it the result of karma bringing me the information I'm constantly asking for in the spiritual realm... or is this, as some of my Christian friends would suggest, God's way of telling me that He is in fact the engine of karma, and of bringing me to Him in a way that I can accept?
There was a time that I'd have recoiled from that sort of thinking, but now I'm able to hold my mind open, and make every effort to do so, because if there IS any sort of deity out there, I HAVE TO KNOW. I honestly dislike the idea of the existence of a being who's monitoring me all the time, not to mention judging me by standards that aren't quite my own, but imagine how my life would change if I could believe that some loving force existed out there somewhere that cared enough about me to make all this effort to make itself known to me.
It was so much easier when I was an indifferent agnostic; being a mystic is a tough road to follow. I can see now that I need to push myself harder on the God issue, and not let it just sit there in the "neither proved nor disproved" category.
I ask that karma send me information to settle the question of the existence of any forces in the universe that would be considered deities by human beings.
As to those forces, if they exist, whether called God, or Allah, or Goddess, or perhaps all of these and many more; if you're out there, and have any interest in expanding my awareness, I'm ready. I don't promise worship, or reverence, or prayers, but I can manage acknowledgment... for now.
I don't ask for much, do I? I can't wait to find out what, if anything, answers my request...
As usual, he illustrated his point with a story; there was a couple who were desperate to have a baby, and had failed for a long while, so they bought a little baby outfit and put it in the kitchen where they could see it all the time and thus keep the baby thoughts uppermost in their minds all the time... and naturally the wife got pregnant, and the baby did wear the outfit that Osteen credited for making the pregnancy happen. He of course always says or implies that God has done whatever it is that got done, but his point is that you have to do certain things in order for God to be able to give you the stuff you want; interesting mindset from someone who should believe in an omnipotent deity, don't you think?
Osteen's father was also the pastor of his church, so he's been saturated in hard-core religion his entire life, but still he persists in describing, in sermon after sermon, exactly the same karmic concepts I post about here, with the only difference being that he says that God will deliver to you instead of karma. His broadcasts are the only religious programming I've ever watched, and I got drawn into them without knowing anything about him or his ideas about how the universe works, just because I had the urge to watch him; is my interest in this pastor who unexpectedly talks about karma a coincidence? Of course not. Is it the result of karma bringing me the information I'm constantly asking for in the spiritual realm... or is this, as some of my Christian friends would suggest, God's way of telling me that He is in fact the engine of karma, and of bringing me to Him in a way that I can accept?
There was a time that I'd have recoiled from that sort of thinking, but now I'm able to hold my mind open, and make every effort to do so, because if there IS any sort of deity out there, I HAVE TO KNOW. I honestly dislike the idea of the existence of a being who's monitoring me all the time, not to mention judging me by standards that aren't quite my own, but imagine how my life would change if I could believe that some loving force existed out there somewhere that cared enough about me to make all this effort to make itself known to me.
It was so much easier when I was an indifferent agnostic; being a mystic is a tough road to follow. I can see now that I need to push myself harder on the God issue, and not let it just sit there in the "neither proved nor disproved" category.
I ask that karma send me information to settle the question of the existence of any forces in the universe that would be considered deities by human beings.
As to those forces, if they exist, whether called God, or Allah, or Goddess, or perhaps all of these and many more; if you're out there, and have any interest in expanding my awareness, I'm ready. I don't promise worship, or reverence, or prayers, but I can manage acknowledgment... for now.
I don't ask for much, do I? I can't wait to find out what, if anything, answers my request...
Sunday, July 24, 2005
"But my mother said..."
The phrase in the title is often heard in sentences like, "I wanted to color my hair red, but my mother said it wouldn't look good," "I wanted to move to Georgia, but my mother said it gets too hot in the summer," "I was going to take my vacation in May, but my mother said June would be better"... and I mean from people who've been adults for 2 decades, not from kids. What's the deal with this? Once your mother stops having direct power over your life, why would you even consider her usually-random suggestions aka attempts to control you, much less make your decisions based on her whims rather than your own wants for your own life? This just makes me NUTS, doubly so when people claim that they "can't" stand up to their mothers, and "can't" do other than what their mothers say is best. If YOU know people like this, here are a couple of examples of how I got my own mother to release the stranglehold she'd had on me my entire young life and grasp that she had NO power, control or influence over my adult life that you can pass along:
1) The scene: my wedding plans are in full swing, and my mother is being brought up to date on what's been decided, including the members of the wedding party:
Her: You can't have "those people" in your wedding party.
Me: Of course we can.
Her: You can't have a best man in a wheelchair.
Me: Yes, we can.
Her: What's that going to look like?
Me: Like my husband's best friend happens to be in a wheelchair.
Her: Well, you can't do it that way.
Me: It's not up for discussion; that's who he wants as his best man, and that's who he's having.
Her: (realizing belatedly that nothing she can say to ME will alter my then-fiance's choice) That's bad enough, but you can't have HER as your matron of honor.
Me: Yes, I can.
Her: What will people think?
Me: That she's a lovely person, because she IS.
Her: What if they find out what she is?
Me: Everyone already knows that she's a post-operative transsexual, and nobody cares.
Her: That's what you think.
Me: That's what I KNOW; the only person of my acquaintance who has a problem with transsexuals is YOU.
Her: Well, you can't have someone like that as your matron of honor.
Me: Wanna bet?
Her: If you're expecting ME to contribute towards your wedding, then...
Me: (interrupting her with gales of laughter) Have I asked you for one penny, or one shred of effort towards this wedding? I was never expecting any $ from you, and I don't WANT any $ that comes with strings attached of control of MY wedding; my future mother-in-law has kindly offered to pay for the entire thing, and she's not asking for ANY say-so in our plans in return, so you can just take that $5 you were planning to buy decision-making power over this wedding with and put it back in your purse.
Her: (shifting gears after a stunned silence) You'd better not be expecting me to socialize with that sort of person.
Me: Yes, I do, since we're all going to be sitting at the head table and she's certainly going to want to talk to all of my family, including you.
Her: I'm not going to talk to anyone who's that way.
Me: Let me make this clear to you; SHE has a definite invitation to the wedding, but YOU do NOT; your place at my wedding is conditional upon your treating my friend with the respect, courtesy and kindness she deserves as someone who's a good person who's done no harm to you or anyone... and if you can't do that, you will NOT be at the wedding, and I'll explain to the family WHY you aren't going to be attending. Unless you want them all to know what a prejudiced, close-minded, unpleasant person you really are, you make up your mind to extend your usual fake-sweetness act to ALL of my friends, or you're staying home.
She huffed, and she puffed, but she eventually saw that I wasn't joking, and, although her performance as mother of the bride was an all-time low in the history of Western civilization (she stayed on the opposite side of the hall from me all night), my friend never had any hint that my mother saw her as sub-human... and being able to totally dictate to the woman who'd dictated to ME all those years was one of the great triumphs of my life.
2) The scene: shortly after my marriage, my mother is trying to get me to run my home the way she wants:
Me: No.
Her: But you have to...
Me: No.
Her: But it's stupid if you don't...
Me: No.
Her: That's enough of that!! I said you need to...
Me: And *I* said NO. Do you live here? Is your name on the lease? Do you pay the bills? No? Well guess what; that means you have NO say in how things are done in this house, so don't waste your time trying to badger me into doing things your way... the time when you had anything to hold over my head to force me into following your rules is OVER. This is MY home, and *I* decide how things are run here.
Believe it or not, I had to go through that scenario with her THREE times before she gave up... she was that desperate to maintain control over me.
Was any of that difficult to do? Not in the slightest; the only thing that was ever difficult was having to go along with her nonsense, and my father's as well before he left her, all those years when I was financially dependent on them and had to knuckle under or live in a cardboard box in an alley.
Why is this so difficult for people to do? How can anyone who can't cut the apron strings and make decisions without maternal input ever be satisfied with their lives, when they're not masters of their own destiny?
This must be another one of those human-nature things that I'll never understand; trust me, though, if you've got some backbone, you CAN make sure that your mother/parents respect your right as an adult to live your life your way... and the feeling that comes with the realization that you and only you decide how to live your life is second to none.
1) The scene: my wedding plans are in full swing, and my mother is being brought up to date on what's been decided, including the members of the wedding party:
Her: You can't have "those people" in your wedding party.
Me: Of course we can.
Her: You can't have a best man in a wheelchair.
Me: Yes, we can.
Her: What's that going to look like?
Me: Like my husband's best friend happens to be in a wheelchair.
Her: Well, you can't do it that way.
Me: It's not up for discussion; that's who he wants as his best man, and that's who he's having.
Her: (realizing belatedly that nothing she can say to ME will alter my then-fiance's choice) That's bad enough, but you can't have HER as your matron of honor.
Me: Yes, I can.
Her: What will people think?
Me: That she's a lovely person, because she IS.
Her: What if they find out what she is?
Me: Everyone already knows that she's a post-operative transsexual, and nobody cares.
Her: That's what you think.
Me: That's what I KNOW; the only person of my acquaintance who has a problem with transsexuals is YOU.
Her: Well, you can't have someone like that as your matron of honor.
Me: Wanna bet?
Her: If you're expecting ME to contribute towards your wedding, then...
Me: (interrupting her with gales of laughter) Have I asked you for one penny, or one shred of effort towards this wedding? I was never expecting any $ from you, and I don't WANT any $ that comes with strings attached of control of MY wedding; my future mother-in-law has kindly offered to pay for the entire thing, and she's not asking for ANY say-so in our plans in return, so you can just take that $5 you were planning to buy decision-making power over this wedding with and put it back in your purse.
Her: (shifting gears after a stunned silence) You'd better not be expecting me to socialize with that sort of person.
Me: Yes, I do, since we're all going to be sitting at the head table and she's certainly going to want to talk to all of my family, including you.
Her: I'm not going to talk to anyone who's that way.
Me: Let me make this clear to you; SHE has a definite invitation to the wedding, but YOU do NOT; your place at my wedding is conditional upon your treating my friend with the respect, courtesy and kindness she deserves as someone who's a good person who's done no harm to you or anyone... and if you can't do that, you will NOT be at the wedding, and I'll explain to the family WHY you aren't going to be attending. Unless you want them all to know what a prejudiced, close-minded, unpleasant person you really are, you make up your mind to extend your usual fake-sweetness act to ALL of my friends, or you're staying home.
She huffed, and she puffed, but she eventually saw that I wasn't joking, and, although her performance as mother of the bride was an all-time low in the history of Western civilization (she stayed on the opposite side of the hall from me all night), my friend never had any hint that my mother saw her as sub-human... and being able to totally dictate to the woman who'd dictated to ME all those years was one of the great triumphs of my life.
2) The scene: shortly after my marriage, my mother is trying to get me to run my home the way she wants:
Me: No.
Her: But you have to...
Me: No.
Her: But it's stupid if you don't...
Me: No.
Her: That's enough of that!! I said you need to...
Me: And *I* said NO. Do you live here? Is your name on the lease? Do you pay the bills? No? Well guess what; that means you have NO say in how things are done in this house, so don't waste your time trying to badger me into doing things your way... the time when you had anything to hold over my head to force me into following your rules is OVER. This is MY home, and *I* decide how things are run here.
Believe it or not, I had to go through that scenario with her THREE times before she gave up... she was that desperate to maintain control over me.
Was any of that difficult to do? Not in the slightest; the only thing that was ever difficult was having to go along with her nonsense, and my father's as well before he left her, all those years when I was financially dependent on them and had to knuckle under or live in a cardboard box in an alley.
Why is this so difficult for people to do? How can anyone who can't cut the apron strings and make decisions without maternal input ever be satisfied with their lives, when they're not masters of their own destiny?
This must be another one of those human-nature things that I'll never understand; trust me, though, if you've got some backbone, you CAN make sure that your mother/parents respect your right as an adult to live your life your way... and the feeling that comes with the realization that you and only you decide how to live your life is second to none.
