Ersatz Strength

          You’ll have to excuse this week’s blog which is more of a release of frustration through stream of consciousness than anything else.  After experiencing a bit of rudeness at the library, my brain went into tirade mode.

Let us begin with a quote from Edmund Burke:  “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.” 

Working on my laptop in the library, my research train of thought was interrupted by a cell phone broadcasting a Broadway tune.   The woman at the table next to mine proceeded to answer and carry on fifteen minutes of laughing and light-hearted conversation.  I add this last bit of information in the event you might be under the delusion that an emergency or near-emergency was the reason behind the conversation.   How on earth has engaging in a loud or otherwise phone conversation become acceptable library behavior? 

Movie theater owners and managers no doubt are fully aware why many of us avoid the movies these days.  Yes, of course, the ticket prices are ridiculous, but, over and above that, who wants to pay $10.00 and up to watch a movie that is intruded upon by those who are bound to the incus and stapes by their cells or androids.  Each perpetrator believes in their exceptionality; that their call and/or text message is the most important and good grief, it’s only for a minute so what’s the big deal.  Why this sense of entitlement and importance that whatever you want to say supersedes the enjoyment of the rest of the viewing audience?   

Rudeness resides not only in the realm of a cell phone user. 

Reams have already been written in blogs and online articles about that damned airline seat.  Reclining a bit is one thing; but reclining into another person’s lap is quite another.  Do not give me that hoo-haw about the airlines being at fault because of cramming the seats together to make more money per flight.  Yeah, be rude to the passenger behind you, and then blame your own rudeness on an entity that is not experiencing the effect of  your rudeness.   How on earth could anyone remotely believe that another human being would appreciate an accumulation of his or her dandruff flakes in their lap? 

Could also someone please explain to me why a person would walk in the door of a store, any store, and then stop; just stop dead.  If deciding upon which direction to go overtaxes ones brain so much that it leads to physical paralysis, before that paralysis completely sets in, move to the side until the phase passes.  Why stop at the front door, top or bottom of the escalator or stairs, and create a back-up of people who know where they want to go? 

Who among us has not encountered the shopper in a grocery store who insists on blocking the aisle with his cart.  I saw one shopper consistently do this as she walked her way down three aisles. Then when you try to get around the hogwart (my new use and definition of the word) by saying “Excuse me” they look at you as if amazed that they are not the only shopper in the store.   

While we are still at the grocery store, would someone explain to me the philosophy of waiting until your items are completely bagged before even pulling out your wallet or opening your purse?  Are these people somehow expecting the store to give them their groceries out of the goodness of its heart?  Are they surprised that they have to pay?  Yes, you want to watch the cashier as your selections are rung up, but what is the excuse after everything has been rung up and groceries are bagged?  THEN you first take out your wallet and look at the total? 

Since I wrote about bad driving a couple of months ago, we will not go there today.  I will say, however,  that if I ever see you park in a handicapped spot without displaying that handicap placard, you will experience my wrath. 

 

Are people really deaf to the cellophane rustling as they unwrap their pieces of candy at a concert or movie?  What on earth possesses a person to continually unwrap one piece after another after another after another?  If you know that you need to suck on cellophane-wrapped lemon drops the entire evening, then for heaven’s sake, unwrap the lemon drops before the program begins. 

Rudeness is defined as: lacking the graces and refinement of civilized life; uncouth.  The old Sid Caesar Show once had a skit in which Caesar played a gangster who was spurned by his girlfriend.  "You are so uncouth" she told him in her rejection.  He turned around to one of his minions to order "Couth.  Go out and buy me some couth."  Would that it were that simple!

Many words have already been written, many words have already been spoken, about the generations of parents who spawned a new generation of self-centered narcissistic can-do-no-wrong I’m-always-right children.  I do not blame the generation raised this way; I feel sorry for them that their parents did not love them enough to teach them the quality of empathy which shows itself in just plain civilized behavior.  

Perhaps the economic crises we have endured these last dozen years have contributed to the rudeness disease.  People are so caught up in their own serious financial difficulties that this is all they can see, their own financial problems.  Certainly, feeling that inner panic and the consequences of losing your home, losing your savings, losing your standard of living, can place one in such a different world that all you can think is “what am I going to do.” 

Yet, is this really a good excuse for the rudeness disease?  An elderly person pointed out to me once that the country has gone through economic crises before, speaking specifically of the Depression of the 1930s.  I responded that a major difference between the Depression of the 1930s and the Recession of the 21^st Century (no one wants to call it a Depression), is that back then, back in the 1930s, people really cared about each other; they cared about their neighbors; they shared the food on their tables with strangers.  Today, yes, people will give money in response to a natural or man-made disaster, but when was the last time any of us shared our own food with someone we knew, or even suspected, was in trouble.   

The rudeness, the disconnection, the self-centeredness are part of the same pollution of narcissism that seems to be sweeping most parts of this world.  Yes, of course, there are exceptions and without a doubt we all know more than one exception; but it is pretty pathetic that the exceptions are outnumbered by what has come to be accepted as normal every day behavior. 

So, what is the answer?  How can we tilt not merely our own society, but all of our fellow men and women, towards the practice of empathy?  How do we tilt our behavior to the civilized side of the line?  How do we stop the malaise of rudeness?   

All I can say is that nothing will change, and it will even get worse, until we start to look at each other, I mean really look, and see ourselves reflected in another being.  Of course, to see ourselves reflected in another being, and respect that other being, means that firstly we have to respect ourselves. 

Perhaps therein lies the problem.

 

 

Until next time, LLAP!

2012 DA14

          An asteroid formally known as 2012 DA14 will pass close to Earth on February 15, 2013. It will fly within the orbit of the moon and pass closer than many orbiting communications satellites.  Scientists opine that it is made of silicate rock, but they are not 100% sure.  Its shape and precise size also are mysteries, but it is estimated to be nearly 150 feet wide, about the size of an Olympic swimming pool, with an estimated mass of about 130,000 metric tons.  It is tilted slightly, an inclined ellipse, and, like Earth’s orbit, it is not circular but elliptical. Astronomers in Spain discovered 2012 DA14 on February 23, 2012.  Because its orbit is similar to Earth’s, it had until then eluded astronomers.

Our asteroid was given the name of “2012 DA14” as a “minor planet designation.”  Formal minor planet designations are number–name combinations overseen by the Minor Planet Center, a branch of the International Astronomical Union.  Designations are used for dwarf planets and small solar system bodies such as asteroids. 

2012 DA14’s approach will be the nearest known flyby for an object of this size.  Astronomers assure that it will not strike Earth, and also assure that nothing will happen when it passes, no alteration of tides, no volcanic eruptions.  "No Earth impact is possible," Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena CA, assures us.  Even the chance of an asteroid-satellite run-in is extremely remote. "No one has raised a red flag, nor will they," Yeomans told reporters. "I certainly don't anticipate any problems whatsoever." 

This also marks the first time such a close passage has been known about a year in advance.  We will not get another pass of 2012 DA14 until February 2046 when the asteroid misses us at twice the distance of the moon.  

The closest approach of 2012 DA14 will occur Friday afternoon over Indonesia.  The asteroid will be invisible to the naked eye, and even with binoculars and telescopes will appear as a small point of light.  The prime viewing locations will be in Asia, Australia and Eastern Europe.  It will approach Earth from “down under,” and be straight overhead for observers in the pre-dawn hours located in western Indonesia.  Australia and eastern Asia will have a shot at seeing the asteroid as it whizzes through the sky in the early morning hours. Observers in western Asia, Africa and Europe will see the asteroid lower to the east on the night of the 15^th.  In the United States, astronomers using NASA's deep-space antenna in California's Mojave Desert will have to wait eight hours after the closest approach to capture radar images. 

Now what is the basic nature of this object swinging so closely to our planet?  Asteroids are also known as "minor planets.”  The four largest asteroids known are spherical or ball-shaped, like the Earth, and have diameters of between 100 and 500 miles.  In comparison to Earth's moon, which has a diameter of about 2100 miles, even the largest asteroids are still small. The remaining asteroids range in diameter all the way down to less than five miles.  Asteroids with diameters of thirty miles or less no longer have a spherical shape.  Most asteroids orbit the Sun between Mars and Jupiter.  Although some asteroids have sizes comparable to some moons in our solar system, these are not moons because they only orbit the Sun, and not planets.  The largest asteroids are called planetoids. Most of our solar system's asteroids are located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and have remained there for billions of years.  Some occasionally visit Earth's neighborhood. 

The flyby of 2012 DA14 highlights the need to keep track of what is out there, if for no other reason than to protect the planet.  NASA's current count of near-Earth objects: just short of 10,000; and that figure is thought to represent less than ten percent of the objects out there.  No one has ruled out an eventual serious Earth impact, although the probability is said to be extremely low.    

What they do know with certainty:  "This object's orbit is so well known that there's no chance of a collision," Yeomans assures us. Its approach will alter its orbit around the sun in such a way as to keep it out of Earth's neighborhood, at least in the foreseeable future. (I personally find these “at least in the foreseeable future” assurances less than confidence building.)

"Space rocks hit the Earth's atmosphere on a daily basis. Basketball-size objects come in daily. Volkswagen-size objects come in every couple of weeks," Yeomans said.  The grand total of space stuff hitting the atmosphere every day?  "About 100 tons," according to Yeomans, though most of it arrives harmlessly as sand-sized particles. 

NASA has been on a mission to find and track all near-Earth objects that are .62 miles in diameter or larger.  The effort is intended to give scientists and engineers as much time as possible to learn if an asteroid or comet is on a collision course with Earth, in hopes sending up a spacecraft or taking other measures to avert catastrophe.  An object the size of DA14 can be expected to strike Earth about every 1,200 years. 

DA14 will soar through the sky at about eight miles per second.  At that speed, if it did hit the Earth, the energy equivalent of 2.4 million megatons of TNT would be released and wipe out 750 square miles.  In Siberia in 1908, forest land around the Tunguska River was flattened by a slightly smaller asteroid that exploded five miles above ground.  The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, leveling eighty million trees over 830 square miles.  The Tunguska event has been estimated at 3 to 20 megatons...2012 DA14 is in the same approximate realm. 

And let us not forget: approximately 66 million years ago, a six-mile diameter object smashed into what is now the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico leading to the demise of the dinosaurs as well as most plant and animal life on Earth. 

To all of this, to NASA and all the other planetary research agencies, I only ask the same question posed by Bruce Willis in Armageddon:  “What’s your contingency plan?”

 

Until next time, LLAP!

 

  

http://www.universetoday.com/99865/asteroid-2012-da14-observing-prospects-and-how-to-see-it/

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news174.html

http://www.emirates247.com/offbeat/this-is-life/asteroid-to-just-miss-the-earth-on-february-15-2013-02-10-1.494327

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/asteroid-flyby-february-15-how-close_n_2644960.html

http://earthsky.org/space/asteroid-2012-da14-will-pass-very-close-to-earth-in-2013

http://www.universetoday.com/60393/what-is-a-comet/

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/comets/background/

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-asteroid-planetiod-meteoroid.html

 

A Contagion

            The other day I was reminded of the concept that “consciousness is contagious” and started to wonder exactly what this might mean on a global level.  What effect could our collective state of mind have on our world, if any at all, if a collective state of mind could ever exist in the first place? 

Certainly, on an individual one-on-one basis we all know how our moods can affect others.  You find yourself in a bad mood, angry, upset, frustrated, and on some level have decided that if you are angry, upset and/or frustrated, everyone else should be as well.  (I do not buy the pseudo-innocent “Gosh I didn’t realize I was acting that way” excuse.)  On the opposite side of the coin, when we are in a good mood, the sun shines brighter, we smile more, we are more magnanimous in our dealings with others.  When we feel and act in such a way, others catch our mood and start to feel better themselves. 

Without question, we can all do our part individually in purposely elevating the consciousness of those within our surroundings.  Not to be a mindless Pollyanna, blind to the so-called realities in life, but to acknowledge that, you know, sometimes life just sucks and the joke is on us.  We are imperfect human beings living in an imperfect world, and imperfection in our lives is a natural offshoot of that imperfect status quo.  Once you understand that, emotionally and mentally dealing with that imperfect status quo develops its own natural flow.   (Let us not confuse such acceptance with inaction: a person with a serious illness can accept his or her illness while doing everything in his or her power to overcome it.  A person can accept a current state of financial need while doing everything in his or her power to improve it.)

We can all also do our part individually in purposely lowering the consciousness of those within our surroundings.  We can decide that the world owes us what we think we deserve and if we do not get what we think we deserve, well, if we are unhappy then we will pretty much make sure that everyone surrounding us is unhappy as well.

Then we can step into the realm of elevated consciousness which is, simply put, an awareness of how connected we all are.  One basic law of physics is, as explained in a previous blog, that each of us, each of our spirits you might say, through every iota of our energy, is required for the universe to exist and continue.  When you understand this, you cannot help but realize our connection to each other, our connection to all others.  A very simple way of experiencing this elevated consciousness for yourself, if you doubt that elevated consciousness exists, is to take one minute out of your day, only 60 seconds, and think about that connection that physics itself claims we have through the need of our collective energy for continuance.  Do this for a week, and I guarantee your global perspective will be altered.

What can this mean, how can this be applied to the world at large, and is it even feasible for it to be applied to the world at large?  I know that when most people hear any term related to “global” in the context of “global consciousness” or “cosmic consciousness” or “consciousness” in general, their minds immediately run to “oh, boy, there’s that California la-la again” or “that New Age stuff is a pile of  kumbaya.”  And, what is global consciousness? Is such a concept at all tied in with the so-called realities of our everyday life?

            How would these same people respond though if they discovered that actual scientific studies and experiments have been done which prove the existence of a global consciousness?

As it turns out, The Global Consciousness Project (GCP), with logistical support from the Institute of Noetic Sciences, is dedicated to studying the existence of and effects of global consciousness.  The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) is an international effort involving researchers from several institutions and countries, designed to explore whether the construct of interconnected consciousness can be scientifically validated through objective measurement.  According to the GCP, there is strong evidence for an effect of consciousness on events, and they are driven by that evidence to infer that a "consciousness field" exists, and that intentions or emotional states are conveyed as information.  I urge to you check out their website (URL given below) to read the details of this research.

Among common examples of this connected consciousness are the collective grief after Princess Diana’s death and the collective outrage and patriotism after 9/11.  When you think about it, you can find many examples from the past when a “group mentality” took over:  the Salem witch trials, the repression and persecutions of the Dark Ages (for which it can also be said that the bubonic plague was a physical manifestation), the cheering crowds at bloody executions, the hysteria supporting the guillotined executions during the French Revolution.

Wait a minute, though.  Why does it seem that this mass group consciousness only reveals itself through events that are violent, or miserable at best?  I guess you could say that the ecstasy that certain religious events create is positive.  Yes, you could also admit that the “feelings” after a concert, opera or play are positive.  However, why no mass positive events to create a mass positive reaction of good will, equanimity, peace . . .all that good stuff . . . on the level of, say,  9/11 and Princess Di?  Certainly, at the very least, the outpouring of support following natural disasters shows that people WANT to do good for others.  Again, though, this outpouring, this giving, this selflessness, only seems to arise out of disaster, either from nature or man-made.

            So, what do we have:  we do have evidence that consciousness IS in fact contagious even on a wide-spread level.

            I think we need a movement of some sort to direct this strength of consciousness to positive awareness, a positive awareness arising out of nothing other than the positive awareness itself, rather than any awareness arising out of a negative event.  The initial problem with such a movement would be the skepticism from the majority of the human beings on this planet.  I wonder though what would happen if somehow we could get the entire planet to smile and think the words (only think them) “take my hand” for a coordinated five minutes.  I mean everyone, from the U. S. Congress to the Taliban to Wall Street. 

            A contagion of such global consciousness would without question elevate our human species, moving us closer to our ultimate potential of recognized oneness.

            Yeah, it’s a dream, but as Oscar Hammerstein so wisely wrote “You got to have a dream, if you don’t have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true.”

 

            Until next time LLAP!

 

 

References:

http://www.innerspace.org.uk/blog/elevated-consciousness/

http://www.godsintellect.net/2012/12/an-elevated-consciousness-brings.html#!/2012/12/an-elevated-consciousness-brings.html

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

http://www.noetic.org/

 

Looking out for a hero . . .

          Poor Lance Armstrong.  Talk about the proverbial “from the thrill of victory to the agony of defeat.”  Talk about a crash and burn.  A man who was handed a cancer sentence, beat that cancer, and went on to become the top athlete in his sport.  Now he is eating humble pie in all the right places. 

            We sure do like to build up our heroes; but we enjoy, we savor, tearing them down even more.

Oh, you say it was Armstrong’s decision to take what are both illegal and unsanctioned drugs?  You say that no one coerced Lance Armstrong into doping?  I concede this much: he put the drug in his mouth and swallowed (or injected, whatever the case might be).

            What are these doping drugs?  What do they do, or promise to do, that is so great that an athlete would risk side effects, disqualification, and just plain bad publicity.

The performance-enhancing drug category includes anabolic steroids, androstenedione, human growth hormone, erythropoietin, diuretics, creatine and stimulants.

Anabolic steroids increase muscle mass and strength.  The prime anabolic steroid hormone naturally produced by the body is testosterone.  Anabolic steroids help an athlete recover from a hard workout more quickly by reducing the muscle damage that occurs during that workout.  A dangerous class of anabolic steroids are the synthetics that have been created to be undetectable by drug tests.

Androstenedione (aka: andro) is a hormone produced by the adrenal glands, ovaries and testes.  It is normally converted to testosterone and estradiol in both men and women, and is available legally in prescription form.  It is touted for its ability to allow athletes to train harder and recover quickly.  Scientific studies refute these claims and show that almost all of the andro is rapidly converted to estrogen, the primary hormone in women.

Human growth hormone has an anabolic effect and is taken to improve muscle mass and performance.  However, it has not been shown conclusively to improve either strength or endurance.  It is available only by prescription and is administered by injection.

Erythropoietin is a hormone used to treat anemia in people with severe kidney disease.  It increases production of red blood cells and hemoglobin, resulting in improved movement of oxygen to the muscles.  Erythropoietin use among competitive cyclists was common in the 1990s and allegedly contributed to at least eighteen deaths.  Inappropriate use of it may increase the risk of stroke, heart attack and pulmonary edema.

Diuretics change the body's natural balance of fluids and salts (electrolytes) and can lead to dehydration, which can decrease an athlete's weight, helping to compete in a lighter weight class.  Diuretics may also help athletes pass drug tests by diluting their urine and are sometimes referred to as a "masking" agent.  Diuretics taken at any dose predispose athletes to adverse effects such as dehydration, cramps, exhaustion, heart arrhythmia, blood pressure drop, loss of balance and coordination, heatstroke and even death.

Creatine monohydrate is the most popular nutritional supplement among athletes and is available over-the-counter.  Creatine is a naturally occurring compound, produced by the body, which helps  muscles release energy.  Supplements appear to help muscles make more ATP, which stores and transports energy in cells, and is used for quick bursts of activity, such as weightlifting or sprinting.  There is no evidence, however, that creatine enhances performance in aerobic or endurance sports.  Because our kidneys remove excess creatine, the value of supplements to someone who already has adequate muscle creatine content is questionable and high-dose creatine use may potentially damage kidneys and liver.

Stimulants are used to stimulate the central nervous system and increase heart rate and blood pressure, to improve endurance, reduce fatigue, suppress appetite, increase alertness and aggressiveness.  Common stimulants include caffeine and amphetamines.  Risks are nervousness and irritability, insomnia, dehydration, heatstroke, addiction or tolerance (which would result in the need to take great amounts to achieve the desired effect).

           Now we know a bit about doping drugs.

          Certainly, as we all realize, Lance Armstrong is not the first or the only athlete to be involved with doping.  To name only a very few:

Andre Agassi (tennis) admitted to the use of crystal meth.

The late Lyle Alzado (football) admitted to the use of anabolic steroids.  Alzado died of brain cancer in 1992.

 

After his career was over, Jose Canseco (baseball) admitted to taking anabolic steroids.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (baseball) were accused of taking anabolic steroids.

Marc McGwire (baseball) admitted to taking steroids when his career was over.

Michael Phelps (swimming) admitted to cannabis (after the publication of that photo I don’t think he had any other choice but to fess up).

Rashard Lewis (basketball) received a ten game suspension for his use of steroids.

Rodney Harrison (football) was suspended for his use of human growth hormone.

            Armstrong admitted to using EPO, testosterone, cortisone, human growth hormone, and blood transfusions.  However, he is not the only cyclist to either have been accused of or admitted to doping: Floyd Landis admitted to using a blood booster, testosterone, human growth hormone and blood transfusions; Tyler Hamilton tested positive for the steroid DHEA.

            Again, though, why would an athlete take these drugs and risk the loss of career and status, not to mention money?

            As I have written before, we live in a world of CGI quasi-reality.  What we watch on any screen is filled with supermen, superwomen, super animals even, who do more than leap buildings in one bound.  Just below superpeople, we have the semi super men and women who effortlessly run down alleys and streets after the bad guys, and manage to take being bounced around against buildings while swinging from ropes with barely a black and blue bruise (ala: Bruce Willis in the Die Hard movies and Tom Cruise in his Mission Impossible extravaganzas), among other "fabulous" exploits.  We watch Angelina Jolie as Laura Croft perform dazzling feats with barely a change in her breathing.  We LOVE these movies; we LOVE these characters.  Then we have our sophisticated video games where we actually, as avatar controllers, are performing in our own incredible action adventures.

            Extrapolate all of the above to expectations when watching sports events.  Subconsciously or not, we carry over and muddle up the reality of a live honest-to-goodness physical interaction with those of CGI, film and video superpeople.  We expect our athletes to perform perfectly; they must score; they must win . . . and they must win spectacularly.

            The average expectations for today’s athletes are so beyond human capabilities, what do we think they will do to at least approach those expectations?  Yes, they train hard; that is part of the life.  Yes, many get paid tons of money for their abilities so we expect them each time to perform up to their $10Million or so a year . . . but let’s get real.  There is the human fulfillment of that $10Million a year salary which leaves room for injuries and error.  Then there is the unreasonable presumption of perfection which leaves no room whatsoever for injuries and error.  The amateur athlete is subjected to the same unreasonable expectations as the professional.

Make no mistake:  I am not promoting nor do I condone the use of steroids.  I am, however, saying that we need to approach the use of these drugs with a better understanding of why they are used, and the role that sports fans all over the world play in their increased usage.

            There is nothing wrong with an amateur or professional athlete working and training to be the best.  There is nothing wrong with us as an audience expecting to see them perform or play their best.  But there is something wrong when the goal consists of a superhuman perfection that is impossible to fulfill.  There is something wrong when we criticize and deride that fallibility that makes a sporting event more exciting and meaningful, and which also is an integral part of the definition of a human being.

 

            Until next time, LLAP!

 

References:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/performance-enhancing-drugs/HQ01105/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/28/tennis.agassi.crystal.meth/index.html
http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Alzado_Lyle.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5244705
http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/8814011/barry-bonds-roger-clemens-do-not-belong-baseball-hall-fame
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3876804
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4381822
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2999994
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/cycling/21landis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=4075873
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/health/armstrong-ped-explainer/index.html

 

Sight vs Seeing

           Last Saturday evening I popped in my “Matrix” DVD for a bit of diversion.  Of course, viewing “The Matrix” as pure diversion is futile because of the obvious questions it raises about reality, how our brains work, the purpose of life, which life has the purpose (the one within the Matrix or the one pushing to emerge), and what one will do in order to dwell in reality rather than a dream.

Among the issues that kept me awake that night (as a result of this “diversion”) were:  (1) what is it that we see with our eyes; (2) why do we see what we see; and (3) why does our brain automatically accept what it sees as what is really there.

Vision itself is a complicated process requiring numerous components of the eye and brain to work together.  Light reflects off objects around us, enters the eye through the cornea, passes through the pupil, and is imaged onto the retina by the lens.  The retina has light-sensitive cells called rods and cones, and is responsible for detecting light from images and sending the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve.  Specifically, rods identify shapes and work best in dim light; cones identify color and work best in bright light.  When those light rays pass through the pupil, the iris (colored ring) makes the size of the pupil change depending on the amount of light available.  The brain decodes these images into information that we know as vision.

A fascinating piece of information discovered along the way:  Rene Descartes, who is more known as a philosopher than anything else, was also a physicist who made many advances regarding the understanding of sight in the Seventeenth Century.  Descartes surgically removed an eye from an ox and scraped the back of the eye to make it transparent.  He then placed the eye on a window ledge as if the ox were looking out the window.  He looked through the back of the eye and saw an inverted image of the scenery outside.  Descartes postulated that the image was inverted as a result of being focused onto the retina by the eye's lens.  Kind of makes you appreciate Descartes even more.

            There is also a field called the “psychology of sight” in which a study by Canadian researchers seemed to provide the first direct evidence that our mood affects the way we see things by modulating the activity of the visual cortex.  Putting on the proverbial rose-tinted glasses of a good mood is not so much about color, but about the broadness of the view.  Positive moods are associated with a tendency to perceive global components, and negative moods with the local components.  The neural mechanisms of these phenomena are unclear.  One possibility is that mood has a “top-down” effect on vision, such that higher order cognitive processes impinge on the visual areas of the brain.

          A negative mood, such as fear or sadness, causes one’s attention to be focused on specific details, at the expense of information in the periphery.  An example of this is that a person who witnesses a crime involving a weapon normally has an impaired memory for the appearance of the perpetrator because attention shifted to the weapon.  The negative emotional content of the event enhances the visual processes by which the specific details (the weapon) are perceived and later remembered.  This occurs at the expense of irrelevant peripheral information, which is suppressed, or filtered out.  Such mechanisms would serve to increase one’s vigilance in a possibly life-threatening situation.

On the other hand, positive emotions broaden the scope of the visual field, leading to increased breadth of attention.  Positive moods do so by directly modulating the visual system so that we can gain access to more information.  In psychology, the broaden-and-build theory holds that positive emotions enhance one’s awareness, and that this global perspective encourages novel thoughts and actions.  This broadened behavioral repertoire in turn leads to increased creativity and inventiveness.

Remember though that our eyes do not send images to our brains.  Images are constructed in our brains based on very simple signals sent from our eyes.  The nerve signals from our eyes mostly represent edges, shapes and motion; no images.  The images our brain forms are based on pattern recognition, which develops from infancy as we learn about the world around us.  I repeat: we do not see images; our eyes see line and motion, which our brains work to interpret and cause us to perceive whatever that object might be.

So what came first:  the properties of the object we see (the thing itself), or the perception of that object put together by lines and lights?

Now that we know about “patterning,” which develops from infancy, and that such patterning does not reflect what we are actually looking at, we now know also that we are not actually “seeing” anything we think we are seeing.  Since what we see is as a result of this patterning, what is it that we actually see?  Are we seeing what is really out there or merely a shared reality, a shared visioning?

And does it matter?

 

Until next time, LLAP!

 

References:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vision_background.php

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/06/08/how-we-feel-affects-what-we-see/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-we-see.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/3750/sight/sight.html

 

The Core

           All too frequently, when speaking of our goals and our ideals, we are admonished to get down to Earth and reminded that we need to be grounded in reality, "grounded” being the common metaphor for not putting on airs or acting superior and for associating with others as equals. Let us be honest; we tend to admire that every-day-grounded person as one who is somehow more real than the rest of us, that somehow that person has tapped into the secret of true honesty.

         In metaphysics, grounding is presented as a method of visualizing our centered energy as a stream going down into the earth to either provide a shield for protection against negative energies or as a method to connect ourselves with the energy of the planet.

But let us ask ourselves: what exactly is this ground that we are encouraged to seek, to bond with, to be allied with. In very real literal terms, what is it that we want to be associated with.  What are we truly asking for.  What are we admiring.  Remember, it is important that we use the right words and have the right thoughts to attain both our material and spiritual goals.  Who was is that said “Be careful what you pray for, you might get it”?

Let us take a simple look at a photograph of this Earth, this ground.

At the top level, we have the Crust, the outermost layer of our ground, running from zero to thirty-one miles deep, roughly the distance from Reno NV to Carson City NV.  The familiar landscape on which we live (rocks, soil, and seabed), it is composed of a variety of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.

The next level of our ground is the Mantle, which starts at about six miles deep and runs down another 1,806 miles.  This distance would roughly equal the mileage between Chicago IL and Las Vegas NV.  The boundary between the Crust and Mantle is conventionally defined by a contrast in seismic velocity, which is why we see the depth variation numbers.  The Mantle layer consists mainly of magnesium-iron silicate minerals, such as olivine and pyroxene.  It has an upper molten part and a lower solid part.  Many people think of molten part as lava, but it is actually rock so hot that it flows under pressure, like road tar.  This creates very slow-moving currents as hot rock rises from the depths and cooler rock descends.

The next level down in our ground is the Outer Core at a depth of 1,806 to 3,219 miles.  Starting from where your feet touch the surface of the planet, this would roughly be equivalent of getting in your car in San Francisco CA and driving to Key West FL.  It is believed to be liquid iron, nickel and sulfur, and very hot, perhaps 7,200 to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The final level of our ground is the Inner Core at a depth of 3,219 to 3,981 miles, which leads us down to the kernel of the Earth.  Get back into your car, this time in Vancouver, British Columbia, and drive all the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and you would have a pretty good idea of how deep 3,900 miles might be.  This deepest layer is a solid iron ball, about 1,500 miles in diameter, and is thought to be solid, primarily iron, with nickel and sulfur, plus small amounts of other elements.  Estimates of its temperature vary between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  Although this Inner Core is white hot, the highest temperature region in the Earth, the pressure is so high the iron cannot melt.  Interestingly, recent evidence has suggested that the Inner Core may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the planet.

Except at the Crust level of our ground, the interior of the Earth cannot be studied by drilling holes to take samples.  Scientists map the interior by watching how seismic waves from earthquakes are bent, reflected, sped up, or delayed by the various layers.  Each earthquake provides a glimpse of the Earth’s interior.

It is worth noting that it was from interpretation of the data from a 1929 earthquake in New Zealand that brought Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann to the theory that the Earth’s center consisted of a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core.  How many people out there are aware that a woman developed the most major theory in modern geology?

Okay, so why the science lesson?  This all falls under the aforementioned category of “Be careful for what you pray for, you might get it” and also Buddha’s admonition “With our thoughts we make the world.”

            In the everyday sense of grounding, being frozen paralyzed, unable to breathe or move. . all of this results from being trapped in a solid ball of iron (not to mention death!).  If we are grounding ourselves in the metaphysical and spiritual sense, visualizing those tree roots running deep deep deep into the planet’s center, do we really want to spiritually shackle ourselves to a ball of solid iron?

 

            You might say, “Oh, come on now; isn’t this all a bit of over-reaching?”  I say no.  Neurolinguistics tells us of the connection between our words and thoughts, and hence our actions.  We must become more aware of what we say, and how and what we think.  We must be more aware and sensitive of the words we use to process thoughts, ideas, desires and beliefs.  Out of these words, thought or spoken, our lives evolve. 
 

            Until next time, LLAP!

 

 

References:

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_lehmann.html

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/inside-the-earth/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC137819/

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2900/homepages/Marianne.Hogan/inside.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/crust_(geology).htm

http://science.yourdictionary.com/mantle

http://geography.geography-dictionary.org

Chang, Kenneth (2005-08-25). "Earth's Core Spins Faster Than the Rest of the Planet". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-24