Saturday, October 22, 2005
2 of my favorite things in 1 day
Cool tech stuff and cute animal behavior are among the things that make me happiest; they look sort of bizarre written down together, but there it is. The tech thing for today is a new Flash clock, the cleverest I've seen so far; when I found it on a blog, I got the URL from the source code and saw something new; the URL had parameters built into it, and when I altered one I found that I had in fact altered the appearance of the clock... WOW!! The version I saw of it on the blog was tiny and had muted colors; here's my version
http://moo-t.up.seesaa.net/swf/timeRain.swf?linecolor=0xff1493&numcolor=0xccff66&backcolor=0x000000&backalpha=84
Slick, isn't it? I was already planning where to put it in my sidebar, when I remembered to check how much of the CPU it was using; as you probably guessed since I mentioned it, it was using WAY too much to burden my blog with it, out of consideration for those with older or slower machines for whom my many scripts are probably already problematic, so I won't be able to add it in... but I saved both the URL and the file itself for possible future use, because you never know.
For those whose site users are all high-tech types with fast computers, here's the easy way to get whatever version of this clock you want for your own site, complete with the code to insert it
http://moo-t.up.seesaa.net/swf/tagMaker_timeRain_tag.html
The cute critter behavior today was with the possum boy and girl; she was eating on the patio, and he showed up and started sniffing all around her (with emphasis on her little bottom, of course) and cozying up to her... he scared her a little a couple of times, making her take a few steps away, but each time she came back and started eating nose to nose with him again. They looked sweet together, but there was more to it this time than just communal eating; at some signal between them that I didn't see, they took off TOGETHER... utterly amazing, since what I've read has said that possums are solitary creatures except for that short time during mating season where for obvious reasons they have to associate together, and mating season isn't until spring.
I'm hoping with every cell in my body that the little female hasn't gone into heat at this insane time of the year due to some hormone imbalance or something, because I can't imagine that babies could survive the cold weather; that doesn't seem likely, luckily, and that leaves me to conclude that the unusual situation of them coming to the same spot every night and eating unlimited food has allowed them to... fall in love? Whatever the right term to describe it is, it was wonderful to see; I feel privileged to be able to view wild animals interacting at such close range. :-)
http://moo-t.up.seesaa.net/swf/timeRain.swf?linecolor=0xff1493&numcolor=0xccff66&backcolor=0x000000&backalpha=84
Slick, isn't it? I was already planning where to put it in my sidebar, when I remembered to check how much of the CPU it was using; as you probably guessed since I mentioned it, it was using WAY too much to burden my blog with it, out of consideration for those with older or slower machines for whom my many scripts are probably already problematic, so I won't be able to add it in... but I saved both the URL and the file itself for possible future use, because you never know.
For those whose site users are all high-tech types with fast computers, here's the easy way to get whatever version of this clock you want for your own site, complete with the code to insert it
http://moo-t.up.seesaa.net/swf/tagMaker_timeRain_tag.html
The cute critter behavior today was with the possum boy and girl; she was eating on the patio, and he showed up and started sniffing all around her (with emphasis on her little bottom, of course) and cozying up to her... he scared her a little a couple of times, making her take a few steps away, but each time she came back and started eating nose to nose with him again. They looked sweet together, but there was more to it this time than just communal eating; at some signal between them that I didn't see, they took off TOGETHER... utterly amazing, since what I've read has said that possums are solitary creatures except for that short time during mating season where for obvious reasons they have to associate together, and mating season isn't until spring.
I'm hoping with every cell in my body that the little female hasn't gone into heat at this insane time of the year due to some hormone imbalance or something, because I can't imagine that babies could survive the cold weather; that doesn't seem likely, luckily, and that leaves me to conclude that the unusual situation of them coming to the same spot every night and eating unlimited food has allowed them to... fall in love? Whatever the right term to describe it is, it was wonderful to see; I feel privileged to be able to view wild animals interacting at such close range. :-)
Friday, October 21, 2005
What our thoughts about roses say about human nature
One of the recurring themes of this blog is how illogical much of human nature is, that I'm aware of it but don't understand it, and how many ways I differ from a "normal" person. There are 2 comments I've heard many times regarding roses, of all things, that illustrate this:
1) "We value roses so much because we know they'll die soon, and we only have their beauty for a short time."
To me, this is a reason to value roses LESS, verging on not at all; my husband, who to his everlasting credit buys me flowers regularly, is under strict orders to NEVER buy me roses, because they don't last worth a darn... why spend more for less, when there are far less pricey flowers that last for 5X as long? With me, the value of a thing with a limited lifespan is judged in part on how long it lasts; the flowers I like best are the ones that live the longest, like carnations, and roses are on the complete other end of the spectrum, under "worth it only if they came free from someone's bush."
2) "It's a good thing that roses have thorns, because it reminds us that there's pain as part of life, and that makes them more precious."
How STUPID would a person have to be to not be able to remember that there's pain in life except when a rose's thorn pricks them? I refuse to battle thorns, so if we're given roses by a neighbor I have my husband break all of them off before I arrange them; there are no life lessons waiting for ME if I puncture a finger.
This ties into the wider concept of how people generally prefer a thing to not be all sweetness and light, how whether it's a lover's personality, the decor of living room, or an outfit, if there's no "edge" it's seen as dull, boring, stodgy and bland; that's always seemed nuts to me, as I don't like "edges," inconsistencies or surprises... I place the highest value on things that are uniformly nice, and am put off by every element of "un-niceness" that to other people is interesting and exciting.
If this were a scifi movie instead of a blog, at this point I'd have some sort of accident that'd peel up a flap of my skin and reveal machinery underneath...
1) "We value roses so much because we know they'll die soon, and we only have their beauty for a short time."
To me, this is a reason to value roses LESS, verging on not at all; my husband, who to his everlasting credit buys me flowers regularly, is under strict orders to NEVER buy me roses, because they don't last worth a darn... why spend more for less, when there are far less pricey flowers that last for 5X as long? With me, the value of a thing with a limited lifespan is judged in part on how long it lasts; the flowers I like best are the ones that live the longest, like carnations, and roses are on the complete other end of the spectrum, under "worth it only if they came free from someone's bush."
2) "It's a good thing that roses have thorns, because it reminds us that there's pain as part of life, and that makes them more precious."
How STUPID would a person have to be to not be able to remember that there's pain in life except when a rose's thorn pricks them? I refuse to battle thorns, so if we're given roses by a neighbor I have my husband break all of them off before I arrange them; there are no life lessons waiting for ME if I puncture a finger.
This ties into the wider concept of how people generally prefer a thing to not be all sweetness and light, how whether it's a lover's personality, the decor of living room, or an outfit, if there's no "edge" it's seen as dull, boring, stodgy and bland; that's always seemed nuts to me, as I don't like "edges," inconsistencies or surprises... I place the highest value on things that are uniformly nice, and am put off by every element of "un-niceness" that to other people is interesting and exciting.
If this were a scifi movie instead of a blog, at this point I'd have some sort of accident that'd peel up a flap of my skin and reveal machinery underneath...
Thursday, October 20, 2005
I saved a bird!! :-)
I was still reeling from having failed in my attempts to save a baby bird last week, but I was triumphant today:
I heard a BANG against the kitchen window, and knew that a bird had flown into it; it happens alot, and normally they bounce right off and fly away, but this time, a few seconds after the bang, I heard a piercing avian shriek. Alarmed, I lunged for the blinds, yanked them open... and saw a little tweetie lying motionless on the air conditioner, with a HAWK standing over it!!
"Get away from him, you evil bird!!" I yelled, banging the glass; the arrogant creature flapped to the fence a few feet away and stared at me challengingly. I screamed for my husband, thinking that the victim might have to be euthanized if it wasn't already dead (that's HIS job-I could never do it), and frantically fumbled with the locks so that I could rip the door open and run to chase off the hawk and check out the tweetie. I looked him over anxiously; there was no sign of wounds, no blood, but his head was at enough of an angle that I was afraid his neck was broken. I carefully picked him up, and checked him over; his wings and legs were normal-looking, and he was able to move his head around, so I told my husband, who by that time was hovering in the doorway, that the bird was just stunned... what a relief!!
We speculated on what had happened; had the hawk showed up in the patio area and scared the bird into flying into the window in its panic, had he actually made some sort of effort to chase the bird (something that's not normal hunting behavior for a hawk), or had the bird just crashed into the window on its own and the hawk had been nearby and had come over to grab a free meal? However it occurred, it was lucky that the tweetie was laying there motionless, because landing next to an unmoving prey item and picking it up is NOT what a hawk's programmed to do, and that obviously made it hesitate; the hawk only needed an instant to grab the bird and fly away, but it was standing there looking at it instead, and because I just happened to be in that room at the right time to hear its call, that little bit of hesitation was all I needed to intervene.
When the bird shifted position in my hands a little, I figured it was ready to try to fly; I petted his little head (he could easily have pecked me, but didn't), opened my hands... and he flew swiftly and smoothly away.
HOORAY!! :-)
I heard a BANG against the kitchen window, and knew that a bird had flown into it; it happens alot, and normally they bounce right off and fly away, but this time, a few seconds after the bang, I heard a piercing avian shriek. Alarmed, I lunged for the blinds, yanked them open... and saw a little tweetie lying motionless on the air conditioner, with a HAWK standing over it!!
"Get away from him, you evil bird!!" I yelled, banging the glass; the arrogant creature flapped to the fence a few feet away and stared at me challengingly. I screamed for my husband, thinking that the victim might have to be euthanized if it wasn't already dead (that's HIS job-I could never do it), and frantically fumbled with the locks so that I could rip the door open and run to chase off the hawk and check out the tweetie. I looked him over anxiously; there was no sign of wounds, no blood, but his head was at enough of an angle that I was afraid his neck was broken. I carefully picked him up, and checked him over; his wings and legs were normal-looking, and he was able to move his head around, so I told my husband, who by that time was hovering in the doorway, that the bird was just stunned... what a relief!!
We speculated on what had happened; had the hawk showed up in the patio area and scared the bird into flying into the window in its panic, had he actually made some sort of effort to chase the bird (something that's not normal hunting behavior for a hawk), or had the bird just crashed into the window on its own and the hawk had been nearby and had come over to grab a free meal? However it occurred, it was lucky that the tweetie was laying there motionless, because landing next to an unmoving prey item and picking it up is NOT what a hawk's programmed to do, and that obviously made it hesitate; the hawk only needed an instant to grab the bird and fly away, but it was standing there looking at it instead, and because I just happened to be in that room at the right time to hear its call, that little bit of hesitation was all I needed to intervene.
When the bird shifted position in my hands a little, I figured it was ready to try to fly; I petted his little head (he could easily have pecked me, but didn't), opened my hands... and he flew swiftly and smoothly away.
HOORAY!! :-)
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
What makes a person "good"?
Three days ago, I posted the following:
"how can we truly have 'good' if we don't have 'evil' against which it battles? And if there's no actual good and evil... then what?"
Since then, I've mulled it over alot, and part of what I've come up with is that it's HARD to give a definition of a "good" person that stands up to merciless argument.
Let's start out with the idea, held by pretty much everyone, that an animal can't be morally good or bad/evil because it's not making choices as to its actions with an awareness of right and wrong; it seems reasonable to me to get from this concept that whatever animals DO can't be morally good or bad, and thus that anything that could be seen as a natural animal behavior couldn't be counted for or against the most advanced animal, US, from a moral standpoint. I know, we supposedly civilized people have decided that many natural behaviors are immoral and bad, but I'll save that for a post on what's wrong/bad; figuring out what's "good" is hard enough.
Do you refer to anyone who's pleasant most of the time as a good person? How about someone who's quiet and inoffensive? The former is part of getting along with the pack, which is instinctive animal behavior, and the latter applies to many serial killers and so has nothing whatsoever to do with being good; it's part of how we gain the approval of others, and even scumbags generally want approval, if only to make it easy for them to misbehave.
How about sweet, warm, loving people, the kind it's easiest to see as "good"? Conscious choice and effort have to be involved to make something "morally good," and there's no choice or effort involved in being sweet, warm and loving if that's your nature, so that does NOT qualify a person as "good."
Are those who work and sacrifice for their kids, partners and families "good"? That's basic animal behavior... and plenty of rotten people do it.
Does making donations to charity make a person good? Most of the politicians and cutthroat business types that you hold in contempt donate plenty to charity, and in general giving some of what you've got more than you need doesn't automatically prove goodness.
What about people who REALLY give of their time, energy and $ to help others and do virtuous deeds, are they "good"? I can imagine the howls of protest, but... they're doing it because they want to, and because it makes them FEEL good, and is that really objectively morally better than anything else we do because we want to, and that makes us feel good? (I know the OUTCOME is better, but that's a different thing entirely.)
What about those who dedicate themselves to serving their deity, or living in a totally spiritual way? Even excluding certain Catholic priests... again, we have people doing what they want, what feels best to them (and trust me when I say that sinking into spirituality can feel VERY good), so, although people of this sort generally adhere to a strict moral code, avoiding whatever one's culture sees as bad behavior doesn't mean a person is good, or else every prisoner serving a life sentence for heinous crimes who does their time without egregious misbehavior would get to be called "good."
If goodness exists as a distinct human quality, it'd have to be something beyond animal instinct, taking action to gain approval, doing what we want or not being too naughty... but WHAT?
How about heroes like police officers, firefighters, and our military; is being a hero the same as being good? As I know from personal experience (my father is a Vietnam vet), you can risk your life for your community or country, and still be a despicable creature once you get home to your family, so... no.
What about people whose total focus is to fight evil, just because it IS evil and so to them is worth any effort to eradicate, even if it makes their lives miserable, even if they get DISapproval for it (we all too often coddle and cherish charismatic evildoers in this country, after all), even if it turns them into grim loners who can't manage loving relationships or lighthearted moments, as can happen with, for example, those most passionately dedicated cops who live and breathe the hunt for child molesters and serial killers... in the movies, we see them as "the good guys," but are these individuals, who are so different than the warm, sweet types we normally think of as good people, actually GOOD?
I think we can say yes... but then we're back to the original concept, that if there's no evil, there's no good either, because it eliminates our only category of inarguably good people.
This line of thought freaks me out, because like you I was raised in a culture where everything is permeated with the ideas of good and evil, with the certainty that they exist and aren't just labels we slap onto what we do or don't like, that they can be recognized and described... but when you look hard at it, all of that melts away. The feeling that produces in me is the cold, empty, "hanging over the abyss" one that's familiar to many intense spiritual seekers; being actively spiritual is sometimes uncomfortable, because the very foundations of what we believe to be reality, that we subconsciously count on to feel secure, can end up being as insubstantial as mist... and the more we seek the more mist we find, which can be scary.
And yet, I'm compelled to take another step into that mist...
"how can we truly have 'good' if we don't have 'evil' against which it battles? And if there's no actual good and evil... then what?"
Since then, I've mulled it over alot, and part of what I've come up with is that it's HARD to give a definition of a "good" person that stands up to merciless argument.
Let's start out with the idea, held by pretty much everyone, that an animal can't be morally good or bad/evil because it's not making choices as to its actions with an awareness of right and wrong; it seems reasonable to me to get from this concept that whatever animals DO can't be morally good or bad, and thus that anything that could be seen as a natural animal behavior couldn't be counted for or against the most advanced animal, US, from a moral standpoint. I know, we supposedly civilized people have decided that many natural behaviors are immoral and bad, but I'll save that for a post on what's wrong/bad; figuring out what's "good" is hard enough.
Do you refer to anyone who's pleasant most of the time as a good person? How about someone who's quiet and inoffensive? The former is part of getting along with the pack, which is instinctive animal behavior, and the latter applies to many serial killers and so has nothing whatsoever to do with being good; it's part of how we gain the approval of others, and even scumbags generally want approval, if only to make it easy for them to misbehave.
How about sweet, warm, loving people, the kind it's easiest to see as "good"? Conscious choice and effort have to be involved to make something "morally good," and there's no choice or effort involved in being sweet, warm and loving if that's your nature, so that does NOT qualify a person as "good."
Are those who work and sacrifice for their kids, partners and families "good"? That's basic animal behavior... and plenty of rotten people do it.
Does making donations to charity make a person good? Most of the politicians and cutthroat business types that you hold in contempt donate plenty to charity, and in general giving some of what you've got more than you need doesn't automatically prove goodness.
What about people who REALLY give of their time, energy and $ to help others and do virtuous deeds, are they "good"? I can imagine the howls of protest, but... they're doing it because they want to, and because it makes them FEEL good, and is that really objectively morally better than anything else we do because we want to, and that makes us feel good? (I know the OUTCOME is better, but that's a different thing entirely.)
What about those who dedicate themselves to serving their deity, or living in a totally spiritual way? Even excluding certain Catholic priests... again, we have people doing what they want, what feels best to them (and trust me when I say that sinking into spirituality can feel VERY good), so, although people of this sort generally adhere to a strict moral code, avoiding whatever one's culture sees as bad behavior doesn't mean a person is good, or else every prisoner serving a life sentence for heinous crimes who does their time without egregious misbehavior would get to be called "good."
If goodness exists as a distinct human quality, it'd have to be something beyond animal instinct, taking action to gain approval, doing what we want or not being too naughty... but WHAT?
How about heroes like police officers, firefighters, and our military; is being a hero the same as being good? As I know from personal experience (my father is a Vietnam vet), you can risk your life for your community or country, and still be a despicable creature once you get home to your family, so... no.
What about people whose total focus is to fight evil, just because it IS evil and so to them is worth any effort to eradicate, even if it makes their lives miserable, even if they get DISapproval for it (we all too often coddle and cherish charismatic evildoers in this country, after all), even if it turns them into grim loners who can't manage loving relationships or lighthearted moments, as can happen with, for example, those most passionately dedicated cops who live and breathe the hunt for child molesters and serial killers... in the movies, we see them as "the good guys," but are these individuals, who are so different than the warm, sweet types we normally think of as good people, actually GOOD?
I think we can say yes... but then we're back to the original concept, that if there's no evil, there's no good either, because it eliminates our only category of inarguably good people.
This line of thought freaks me out, because like you I was raised in a culture where everything is permeated with the ideas of good and evil, with the certainty that they exist and aren't just labels we slap onto what we do or don't like, that they can be recognized and described... but when you look hard at it, all of that melts away. The feeling that produces in me is the cold, empty, "hanging over the abyss" one that's familiar to many intense spiritual seekers; being actively spiritual is sometimes uncomfortable, because the very foundations of what we believe to be reality, that we subconsciously count on to feel secure, can end up being as insubstantial as mist... and the more we seek the more mist we find, which can be scary.
And yet, I'm compelled to take another step into that mist...
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
A very happy day
Why? Because:
1) For the 1st time EVER, I saw 2 hummingbirds using the feeder at the same time; contrary to the pics on the packages of nectar, not only will they not normally share the feeder, but when 2 are anywhere near it there's either a chase or a fight.
2) My precious possum boy, who scared us out of our wits by not coming to eat last night for the 1st time in months, showed up tonight, and grinned toothily in at me as he ate, so we know he's not sick or hurt.
3) Check my sidebar. :-)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I love getting new sidebar doodads; technically, this was an alteration of an existing doodad, but it was still thoroughly enjoyable (I know, I'm easily amused). My blog surfing turned up a site with some funny stuff in their bottom margin; when I saw that the name of my city was part of it, I brought up the source code and found... a script calling the site whose code I was already using for my old welcome message. Eagerly, crossing my fingers that this wasn't a new PAY service, I went to that site, found where they had the free scripts
http://geoup.com/GeoPhrase.htm
and discovered that they'd added some new options since I'd been there last, including one that just generated the name of the city of the visitor, so that the user could choose their own phrasing for a message and have their reader's city incorporated into it (be aware that if you're in some parts of Africa or Asia you may get a wildly wrong city shown for you, and if you're using AOL it may show you as somewhere in Virginia no matter where you actually are). And then came the hard part; deciding what my new message should be.
I'll admit, I spent a little time envisioning how porn and sex sites could use this script to make messages that would titillate their visitors, like "I'd like to 'date' someone from (your city)," "I'd like to get nasty on my webcam for someone in (your city)," "I'd like to be beaten with a rubber chicken by someone who lives in (your city)," etc (I hope the rubber chicken fetishists won't all boycott me now). When I got serious, I floundered around trying to find a new way to welcome people that wouldn't sound as stilted as the old message; finally, I decided to say something other than a trite welcome, and immediately came up with several messages that I liked... "I'm sending good karma to you in (your city)," which is the tamest of them but well-suited to my blog, is the one I'm using as of now, and the other ones will take its place over time when I get into a wilder mood, or feel the need for a change.
Isn't technology FUN?
1) For the 1st time EVER, I saw 2 hummingbirds using the feeder at the same time; contrary to the pics on the packages of nectar, not only will they not normally share the feeder, but when 2 are anywhere near it there's either a chase or a fight.
2) My precious possum boy, who scared us out of our wits by not coming to eat last night for the 1st time in months, showed up tonight, and grinned toothily in at me as he ate, so we know he's not sick or hurt.
3) Check my sidebar. :-)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I love getting new sidebar doodads; technically, this was an alteration of an existing doodad, but it was still thoroughly enjoyable (I know, I'm easily amused). My blog surfing turned up a site with some funny stuff in their bottom margin; when I saw that the name of my city was part of it, I brought up the source code and found... a script calling the site whose code I was already using for my old welcome message. Eagerly, crossing my fingers that this wasn't a new PAY service, I went to that site, found where they had the free scripts
http://geoup.com/GeoPhrase.htm
and discovered that they'd added some new options since I'd been there last, including one that just generated the name of the city of the visitor, so that the user could choose their own phrasing for a message and have their reader's city incorporated into it (be aware that if you're in some parts of Africa or Asia you may get a wildly wrong city shown for you, and if you're using AOL it may show you as somewhere in Virginia no matter where you actually are). And then came the hard part; deciding what my new message should be.
I'll admit, I spent a little time envisioning how porn and sex sites could use this script to make messages that would titillate their visitors, like "I'd like to 'date' someone from (your city)," "I'd like to get nasty on my webcam for someone in (your city)," "I'd like to be beaten with a rubber chicken by someone who lives in (your city)," etc (I hope the rubber chicken fetishists won't all boycott me now). When I got serious, I floundered around trying to find a new way to welcome people that wouldn't sound as stilted as the old message; finally, I decided to say something other than a trite welcome, and immediately came up with several messages that I liked... "I'm sending good karma to you in (your city)," which is the tamest of them but well-suited to my blog, is the one I'm using as of now, and the other ones will take its place over time when I get into a wilder mood, or feel the need for a change.
Isn't technology FUN?
Monday, October 17, 2005
Are the spirit and the soul different things?
My buddy Gary Bourque put up a post on his terrific blog about just this topic
http://bothworlds.typepad.com/both_worlds/2005/10/the_difference_.html
and it was a real rush to have a new spiritual question handed to me for the 2nd day in a row after the long dry spell, especially since this was another concept that was totally new to me. Check this out:
"We have a body for contacting the physical world. We have a soul for contacting the psychological world and where our natural self originates. And we have a spirit for contacting God, who is a spirit, and where our spiritual life, our life which is 'hidden with Christ in God,' resides."
And here's a little more detail about what the soul would include:
"Soul in the Bible thus refers to our psychological being, our mind, emotion and will, our ego, our self."
Christian references aside, this had the ring of truth to me, which is important to pay attention to in spiritual matters as it's your subconscious mind trying to tell you what it knows. My view of the soul (I usually use "spirit" to refer to a ghost) has been that it's created by the energy of thought and feeling, aka the energy of karma; I hadn't tried to pin down exactly where the soul began, which is actually an important thing to do... and I'd have to say that it starts inside the brain where the thoughts and feelings are generated, as opposed to the more standard view of all of it floating outside our heads. Now here's the kicker; what part of this overlapping brain/soul deal is connected to the spiritual world (aka the tapestry of karma)? We know the brain can send out karmic energy, but can it perceive it? If not, that means that the soul must be taking in "mystical perceptions" (such as precognition and telepathy); the brain both sending and receiving would be the simplest setup, though, and thus satisfy Occam's Razor... but is simplicity the ultimate deciding factor in this case? After all, in the human body we tend to have multiple organs (and other bits and pieces) that work together in systems, and that suggests that, to be consistent, if we have a physical brain and a cloud of energy that are hooked into each other, that forms a system, and each part of a system does something... so maybe the brain sends and the soul receives? If that's the way it works, you could properly say that the energy cloud part of the soul is the "spiritual" part... and then you have essentially what Gary described, minus the involvement of God; a collection "personal energy," some of which is just your "self," and some of which is an extension of the self that's tied into karma.
Do those different portions of the soul need separate names, though? Could they be instead like hair, with an external part and a "root" that are distinct but seen as parts of the same thing rather than as 2 different things, because, as with the soul, the internal part produces the external part? There are important reasons from a Christian perspective to see the soul and spirit as totally distinct (Gary describes them in detail), but from a metaphysical standpoint I don't thing there's any real need to give different names to "soul in the brain as part of the self" and "soul floating around outside the brain/body"... but that doesn't reduce the importance of realizing that these 2 categories EXIST, and of making me contemplate how karma circulates in the "soul system," so a big thanks goes out to Gary for this new insight!! :-)
http://bothworlds.typepad.com/both_worlds/2005/10/the_difference_.html
and it was a real rush to have a new spiritual question handed to me for the 2nd day in a row after the long dry spell, especially since this was another concept that was totally new to me. Check this out:
"We have a body for contacting the physical world. We have a soul for contacting the psychological world and where our natural self originates. And we have a spirit for contacting God, who is a spirit, and where our spiritual life, our life which is 'hidden with Christ in God,' resides."
And here's a little more detail about what the soul would include:
"Soul in the Bible thus refers to our psychological being, our mind, emotion and will, our ego, our self."
Christian references aside, this had the ring of truth to me, which is important to pay attention to in spiritual matters as it's your subconscious mind trying to tell you what it knows. My view of the soul (I usually use "spirit" to refer to a ghost) has been that it's created by the energy of thought and feeling, aka the energy of karma; I hadn't tried to pin down exactly where the soul began, which is actually an important thing to do... and I'd have to say that it starts inside the brain where the thoughts and feelings are generated, as opposed to the more standard view of all of it floating outside our heads. Now here's the kicker; what part of this overlapping brain/soul deal is connected to the spiritual world (aka the tapestry of karma)? We know the brain can send out karmic energy, but can it perceive it? If not, that means that the soul must be taking in "mystical perceptions" (such as precognition and telepathy); the brain both sending and receiving would be the simplest setup, though, and thus satisfy Occam's Razor... but is simplicity the ultimate deciding factor in this case? After all, in the human body we tend to have multiple organs (and other bits and pieces) that work together in systems, and that suggests that, to be consistent, if we have a physical brain and a cloud of energy that are hooked into each other, that forms a system, and each part of a system does something... so maybe the brain sends and the soul receives? If that's the way it works, you could properly say that the energy cloud part of the soul is the "spiritual" part... and then you have essentially what Gary described, minus the involvement of God; a collection "personal energy," some of which is just your "self," and some of which is an extension of the self that's tied into karma.
Do those different portions of the soul need separate names, though? Could they be instead like hair, with an external part and a "root" that are distinct but seen as parts of the same thing rather than as 2 different things, because, as with the soul, the internal part produces the external part? There are important reasons from a Christian perspective to see the soul and spirit as totally distinct (Gary describes them in detail), but from a metaphysical standpoint I don't thing there's any real need to give different names to "soul in the brain as part of the self" and "soul floating around outside the brain/body"... but that doesn't reduce the importance of realizing that these 2 categories EXIST, and of making me contemplate how karma circulates in the "soul system," so a big thanks goes out to Gary for this new insight!! :-)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The truth about lying?
Have you ever wondered what the deal is with liars, why some folks apparently feel it necessary to stay as far from the truth as possible, not even because it's going to get them anything but because they just seem to enjoy doing it? My friend Fredette, whose excellent blog is here
http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/
posted a link to an article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293520.stm
that provided some astonishing insights:
"A University of Southern California team studied 49 people and found those known to be pathological liars had up to 26% more white matter than others.
White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying, the researchers said."
"The findings could not be explained by differences in age, ethnicity, IQ, head injury or substance misuse.
This is the first study to show a brain difference in people who lie, cheat and manipulate others, the researchers said."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Their brains are physically different? :-O
That really shocked me (could you tell, lol?), but it shouldn't have, as they've been discovering structural, chemical and electrical differences in the brains of people with all kinds of mental departures from the norm for years... why should this be any different? We think of lying as a choice, and in general it is, but there are many things that people with, for example, depression say and do that would be choices for most people but are truly beyond their ability to exert their will over... they're swept along by their natures just like the rest of us mostly are, it's just that their natures are different in unfortunate ways.
So, could lying be a person's nature too, right down in the physical part of the brain, so that we'd have to cut them a great deal of slack to be fair, just as we would for someone with a so-called "mental illness"? The very thought galls me right down to my soul, because I have nothing but contempt for liars, and for those who persist in enabling and supporting their dishonesty, but... if it truly ends up that some liars are compelled to lie, yes, we're going to have to start taking a step back when we encounter liars and try to sort out if there's actually evil intent or not. My next thought was something like, "Then again, we've known for a long time that we should be understanding and accepting of the behavior of depressives, and they're still universally looked down on and spurned, so good luck to the liars," but the sad reality is that people already treat liars better than they do depressives, so there's no real comparison possible. {sigh}
They can't tell us anything that allows us to judge the true culpability of liars yet, of course, but here's how it's summed up in the article:
"Dr Cosmo Hallstrom, a consultant psychiatrist in London, said: 'The issue is always how much of our behaviour is under voluntary control and how much is innate.
'The finding of brain abnormalities lends weight to the idea that a strong component of such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control at least in part.'"
In case you're a little dubious that cause and effect is actually going on here, it turns out that they've verified that people with the opposite proportions of white and gray matter provide a mirror-image result:
"The findings are in line with previous studies which showed children with autism are less capable of lying than other children.
Brain neurodevelopmental studies of autism show people with the condition have more grey matter than white matter - the opposite pattern to the liars in this study."
This topic ties into a bigger one; what is the nature of evil? Does evil even exist as a separate human quality, in other words in circumstances where there's no irregularity in the form or function of the brain that causes the sorts of behaviors that we call evil? If you eliminate those people who are crazy, amoral, unable to feel empathy (sociopaths and psychopaths), burdened with too much white matter, etc, who'd still be left doing evil acts, and what would those acts be? I don't mean would people still swipe a pack of gum at the grocery store, or be totally fake to get someone into bed, or cheat on their income taxes, I mean is there really any EVIL in the world, murder and mayhem being done by people who have normal brains but CHOOSE to do monstrous acts? It seems as if there might not be... but then how can we truly have "good" if we don't have "evil" against which it battles? And if there's no actual good and evil... then what?
At long last, a new spiritual concept to mull over; if I come up with anything good, I'll post it... wish me luck.
http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/
posted a link to an article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293520.stm
that provided some astonishing insights:
"A University of Southern California team studied 49 people and found those known to be pathological liars had up to 26% more white matter than others.
White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying, the researchers said."
"The findings could not be explained by differences in age, ethnicity, IQ, head injury or substance misuse.
This is the first study to show a brain difference in people who lie, cheat and manipulate others, the researchers said."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Their brains are physically different? :-O
That really shocked me (could you tell, lol?), but it shouldn't have, as they've been discovering structural, chemical and electrical differences in the brains of people with all kinds of mental departures from the norm for years... why should this be any different? We think of lying as a choice, and in general it is, but there are many things that people with, for example, depression say and do that would be choices for most people but are truly beyond their ability to exert their will over... they're swept along by their natures just like the rest of us mostly are, it's just that their natures are different in unfortunate ways.
So, could lying be a person's nature too, right down in the physical part of the brain, so that we'd have to cut them a great deal of slack to be fair, just as we would for someone with a so-called "mental illness"? The very thought galls me right down to my soul, because I have nothing but contempt for liars, and for those who persist in enabling and supporting their dishonesty, but... if it truly ends up that some liars are compelled to lie, yes, we're going to have to start taking a step back when we encounter liars and try to sort out if there's actually evil intent or not. My next thought was something like, "Then again, we've known for a long time that we should be understanding and accepting of the behavior of depressives, and they're still universally looked down on and spurned, so good luck to the liars," but the sad reality is that people already treat liars better than they do depressives, so there's no real comparison possible. {sigh}
They can't tell us anything that allows us to judge the true culpability of liars yet, of course, but here's how it's summed up in the article:
"Dr Cosmo Hallstrom, a consultant psychiatrist in London, said: 'The issue is always how much of our behaviour is under voluntary control and how much is innate.
'The finding of brain abnormalities lends weight to the idea that a strong component of such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control at least in part.'"
In case you're a little dubious that cause and effect is actually going on here, it turns out that they've verified that people with the opposite proportions of white and gray matter provide a mirror-image result:
"The findings are in line with previous studies which showed children with autism are less capable of lying than other children.
Brain neurodevelopmental studies of autism show people with the condition have more grey matter than white matter - the opposite pattern to the liars in this study."
This topic ties into a bigger one; what is the nature of evil? Does evil even exist as a separate human quality, in other words in circumstances where there's no irregularity in the form or function of the brain that causes the sorts of behaviors that we call evil? If you eliminate those people who are crazy, amoral, unable to feel empathy (sociopaths and psychopaths), burdened with too much white matter, etc, who'd still be left doing evil acts, and what would those acts be? I don't mean would people still swipe a pack of gum at the grocery store, or be totally fake to get someone into bed, or cheat on their income taxes, I mean is there really any EVIL in the world, murder and mayhem being done by people who have normal brains but CHOOSE to do monstrous acts? It seems as if there might not be... but then how can we truly have "good" if we don't have "evil" against which it battles? And if there's no actual good and evil... then what?
At long last, a new spiritual concept to mull over; if I come up with anything good, I'll post it... wish me luck.
