It is pretty common for philosophers to be drunks. Hence the Monty Python song. Which probably has to do with their trying to dominate reality through their intellect. Although many of them penetrates the depths of self-hood, they couldn't give up the juice. I can certainly understand this, vice is not easy to get out of, if it were, it wouldn't be called vice.

Alcohol is easily the most socially-destructive habit enjoyed by the most people. And when a vice has such a large following, it is very hard to discourage. But I do know some who overcame the glorification of alcholism.

Too bad everything in that picture is fake. That is a completely unnatural looking lawn.

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold...
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees
And the voices of those who stand looking...
And it's whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to *reason*
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forest will echo with laughter
Yes, there are *two paths* you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know
The piper's calling you to join him
Dear lady, can't you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your stairway lies on the *whispering wind*
And as we wind on down the road
Our *shadows taller than our soul*
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How *everything still turns to gold*
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When *all is one and one is all*, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll.

The brain habituates to all stimuli, whereas this would have been racey 50 years ago or in Afghanistan today, our brains have habituated to visual-sexual stimuli so that we need more exposure to get our juices going. It works the same way as drug addiction. Hence the sentiment of humanity after over 3500 years of cultural development and up to 50 years ago, to restrain the consumptive habit of the brain.

Actually all it would take is for Miss Cellenia or another Neatorama staff to politely ask me to refrain from posting comments. I do it all the time for my family. Keep my mouth shut. I was just at a party over the weekend in which a gentleman asked his grand-daughter what her favorite color is, she said "blue". I was standing near-by and said "You know I don't have a favorite color, I like them all just the same." her grand-father then corrected me "It doesn't really apply to colors." Moments later the grand-daughter was playing with smooth grey stones and remarked on one of them "This one is special!" to which her mother said "God created them all special." and moments later she found another stone which she claimed was special, this time the grand-father said "They are all special!"

I see a contradiction here, you are teaching the little girl to pick favorites when it comes to colors, but then maintaining that all stones are created equal. Another party-goer spoke as well "Actually, you want to know how those stones are made? Water and sand!" (referring to weathering effects). Which was clearly a veiled jab at their religious beliefs. Later that night we left to another party with the party-goer who had remarked on weathering causes of stone shapes. While there we were presented with a audio-clip which was highly critical of Christianity and satirically depicted God as the Flying Spaghetti monster. One of the most memorable lines was "If this offends you, then f-k you!" and this I thought was incredibly shallow-minded. But when I tried to explain to the host that I thought it was offensive, not because it challenged my beliefs, but because they clearly didn't care if they did offend anyone and appeared to be trying to offend, she didn't want to discuss it. At best the clip is something like-minded individuals can listen to and get a gleeful sense of intellectual superiority, but they are missing the true theological meaning of Christianity as given by the church or the high priests, they are only really making fun of the idyllic mythology of childish Christianity. But they don't want to know! They don't want to know what the truth is, neither Christians or Atheists or anyone wants the truth. They want to feel superior, like they have the right stuff, and they can turn around and point the finger, and say I'm innocent, they are to blame.

Of course, I didn't say much, I know how stubborn people are especially when it comes to these ridiculous beliefs. But you can't teach a child to pick favorites and then expect it will only apply that mechanism to colors and not stones or people. Of course I've studied Christianity at least as much as them and frequently cite passages they are unawares of, and when it comes to science... well I know and understand quite a lot. Like I said to my GF, your dad's hobby is RC helicopters and Harley motorcycles, and because that is his interest he can talk about it and share it with others, but because my interest is psychology, philosophy, and religion, and more particularly depth psychology, I can't share, everything I have to share is offensive to someone.

I get it, so it doesn't take much and I'll be gone. I will just look at the neat pictures and perpetually bite my tongue. So as not to hurt your feelings. I already do it in every other aspect of my life; I can't lecture my boss on his managerial skills or organizational policies, it doesn't matter how much I enjoy behavioral economics.

Visual illusions are great pieces of artwork because they penetrate the depths of the psyche. However it is much harder to see other forms of illusion. Like when someone demands an apology, and perhaps because this is so common-place, we fail to see that it amounts to a kind of atonement, a lowering of oneself before the other person. It would be sufficient to say "I made a mistake, I now see the truth, it shouldn't happen again." This would be congruent with the real condition of humanity, but instead we want an apology like "I'm terribly sorry, I beg of you, please forgive me! I don't want to lose you, I am nothing without you, please have mercy on my soul!" What erroneous aggrandizement of the one accepting the apology, but how are they to see through the illusion of their own desire when they themselves are carried along by it? Most, if not all of these sorts of illusions hinge on a central delusion of the free autonomy of the homunculus self. If we could see past the delusion of a self-within controlling us as if from a command-center in our brain. This belief is completely false, and so are it's children; pride, envy, etc.. Yet we cannot see it, someone can walk over it to try to show it is an illusion, but it is still very hard to see.

It's also unusual that people are willing to accept that they can be visually deceived, but no further, and even at that there is a sense of "I knew it all along". I think this is why people fail to read and comprehend web-based articles, they already know what you are trying to say. Or at least, they think they do. A clear pointer to the illusory homunculus is the fundamental attribution error which facilitates the delusion in contradictory ways. It attributes pride and shame, praise and blame in ways that are self-aggrandizing.

I try not to imagine whether I can win or make a name for myself, but for me it is entirely a question of what is right? What should I do to honor the truth in myself and in others? And I come up with some difficult answers like; Tell them, they will hate you, but tell them anyway. And I think; but what if I'm wrong? To which I answer; nobody is perfect but if we can't stand in the light of inquiry, how can we stand in the fire of truth? At least in inquiry there is some hope for delusion. I get a vision of how it ought to be and that includes each of us striving for truth, alone and together, and frequently something is uncovered which bears a resemblance to someone's behavior and that person somewhat shamefully admits they had been decieved, but no more! And the project continues. Sometimes the deceived one is me, and I think; then won't they hate me? Won't they feel I'm a hypocrite for pushing this hard and also being deluded? But I resolve to the knowledge that this question is derived from the idea of a homunculus, they would be making such statements about a presumed soul-controller that doesn't really exist, and so why should I fear criticism of something that doesn't exist? If a bad light or even a good light is cast on this controller, I know it is fundamentally deluded and what really exists is a Kluge, haphazardly constructed organic computer that is prone to all kinds of error, and none should expect such a system to be controlled from the top by some nebulous soul or homunculus. That is the primary illusion of which our whole societies are victims, the illusion which we cannot accept because of the demotion. None of us are any better on the base of things, though we may have different strengths and weaknesses, so it is said the difference between the one who is enlightened and the one who is not, is that the one who is enlightened knows there IS NO DIFFERENCE. Such apparently contradictory paradoxes are common at this depth, which is what signifies the actual depth of inquiry, it is only in the shallows that things take on a strictly dichotomous form. For example with respect to Neatorama staff, they are clearly superior to me at web-design, but no different in the ultimate sense, without their being a top-down controller, they must be controlled from the bottom-up which means, by the laws of nature. And this starts to draw an image similar to a "divine plan" if one traces the progress of these laws.

Plato was doing it right when he formulated the allegory of the cave. If you drop the homunculus (ego) and try to move through this world without it, you will find you are at odds with the world. Though you can see a much brighter world outside the cave, the people in the cave cannot and are afraid to venture outside. Indeed, in Plato's allegory the man who did escape and returned to free his brethren was promptly banished from the cave by his very cave-mates because they did not want to see the light, but preferred the shadows.

And on that note, I wonder if it isn't best sometimes to abandon the people in the cave, it is after-all what they want.

@Timothy P

I have some more lyrics for you, these are even better:

"Well I don't want to be in your hospitality
And I don't want to live in false reality
See I'm the one obsessed with truth and honesty
I just want to scream" - Scream, Collective Soul

"Pardon me while I burst
into flames.
I've had enough of the world
and its people's mindless games.
So pardon me while I burn
and rise above the flame.
Pardon me, pardon me..." - Pardon Me, Incubus

Yes, yes, pardon me, sorry to ruin your fun, I didn't mean to offend your sensibilities.

@Timothy P

Good catch! It is something of a philosophical dilemma for the adept to resolve the use of classifications in the face of the arbitrariness of those classifications, and for all appearances they may be identical. This paradox is illustrated in the Buddhist story of a young monk, who saw an enlightened master trodding down a path carrying a bundle of wood and pale of water. The young monk asks "Master, tell me what is enlightenment like?" at this the old master unhinged the bundle of wood from his shoulder, set it on the ground and placed the bucket of water next to it. "I see" said the young monk, "and what is it like after enlightenment?" To this the old master picked up the wood and water and continued trodding down the path.

A difference of utility perhaps, but not of appearances. My classification of persons is a highly arbitrary classification with no exclusion principle and it is available to anyone. It is the difference of a classification to draw some arbitrary boundary for the purpose of distinction and to make a point, and the classification as concretely meaningful and exclusionary. If you want to experience that state and thus be 'classified' as such, you can, the only thing stopping you is you. There is no committee taking applications for this 'club'.

Correction: 32 KPH

In my city the counsel just past a bylaw that requires drivers to grant a minimum of 6 feet clearance for cyclists. The development began a few years ago when the province introduced new e-bike laws which allow people to operate e-bikes without a license or registration, granted the e-bikes do not exceed 32 mph. After one year the complaints from drivers of e-bike users clogging roads became common-place and the counsel had to rethink it's bike laws. Originally they had institute a ban from riding them on the sidewalks, but because we are a Canadian city that sees a lot of cold-weather in the winter, come spring the roads and especially the bike lanes are generally riddled with pot-holes. The sheer danger presented by these pot-holes demands that cyclists and e-bikers stray from the bike-lane quite frequently, hence the need for 6 feet of clearance. I remember taking my e-bike to work one day and just about riding into a hole that was 3 feet in diameter and whose bottom was too deep to see.

@Jeff

Clearly the same couldn't be said of any semite, a term which encompasses Palestinian Arabs. In the case of the E1 land-area east of Jerusalem near Maaleh Adumim, a disputed land-area which ostensibly belongs to the West Bank. The land area is designated as Palestinian land according to any and all treaties including the 1967 border's which Jews disaffectionately call the "Auschwitz Line" with the full intent of expanding beyond it. Currently the IsraelLandFund.com website is offering land in the E1 Area with the following statement of intent: "As part of the battle to settle E1, it is important to purchase this property so that it can become a base for settlement and agriculture in the E1 area."

In other words, it is important to settle on it now so that when it comes down to crass facts we can say "We are already here." Meanwhile, Palestinians, Americans and other nationalities, including some Israeli Jews ahve tried establishing Palestinian settlements on E1 Land only to be forcefull removed by the IDF.

This is the behavior of a nation of "semites" which to my mind is morally reprehensible and clearly in this case "anti-semitism" isn't the betraying factor. To my mind the betraying factor is always a personal exceptionalism or elitism or specialism or something which rends the human race in two and provides the basis for both conflicts and treaties. There would be no need of a treaty if there were never any separation.

Isn't it neat how we can make up any kind of degree we want and then claim specialist or elite knowledge of the subject? Finally someone will say "What do you know, do you have a degree in Manga?"

This is particularly interesting to me at this time as the content of this book I'm reading deals with this form of society (The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul). For example I have found my points of view largely ignored and cast aside because I'm not a tenured neuroscientist, never-the-less, I have this acquaintance who I occasionally correspond with who is a practicing neurophysicist of sorts working on neuroimaging techniques in Germany, he has no such prejudice toward me. In one email correspondance he lamented his position and expressed some envy for mine:

"you seem to be better educated than me physics methodologist.
I am not kidding! When you try to get to this field of research it's tough to do something as a career changer who wants to apply stuff and just bring in ideas... one of the weaknesses of the field or of the educational system, I think.
Because I seem to not get any further in getting into neuroscience and only read about this in my free time. I just finished writing something for a conference (deadline is at 23:59est) and it's pure technical stuff not even really useful at the moment, because nobody here seems to care about using the tech, -just developing something without a deeper research interest behind it. (This is the most annoying thing here!)
Oh well but enough of this sh- for now.
We should just educate ourselves, because sometimes working in a lab will only keep one from thinking about the interesting stuff."

In case you are wondering, no I will not tell you his name. You either believe it or you don't.

Overlooking the circularity of the title "The Brain that Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge is a good source of information regarding Taub's CIT, other forms of therapy and neuroplasticity in general.

There is a double-bind when it comes to treating the disabled. There are several treatment methods which should be assigned according to their specific conditions. A co-worker of mine is married to a woman who does this job of designing programs for the disabled and a lot of it revolves around expediency. Which may be the best we can achieve in cases where the spinal cord has been severed from the brain or other parts of the body, but if the person's disability is brought on by a neurological event like stroke, aneurysm or tumor then Constraint-Induced Therapy is the most effective means of reestablishing the lost function. With CIT therapy (originally developed by Dr. Taub) the subject is prevented from taking the easiest route to fulfilling a task and is forced, by constraint, to use their failed feature. If for example I have lost the use of my right arm due to stroke, CIT-therapy suggests my left arm should be incapacitated. This will force me to use my right arm which will gradually regain functionality with practice, but if I am left to recover on my own I will develop what Taub calls "Learned non-use" wherein I will learn not to use my right arm and instead choose to use my left arm because it is easier. Under these conditions I will never regain the use of my right arm. In-fact, whatever I have that makes doing things easier inhibits the recovery of my affected limb.

The well-known neuroscientist and author Jill Bolte-Taylor, author of "My Stroke of Insight" claims in her book that after losing the vast majority of her brain function she had to constantly challenge herself, never settling for the easy road. She lost half of her brain and the majority of her understanding of neuroscience along with it. After her stroke she couldn't even talk straight, let alone present a lecture, but after years of self-imposed CIT, she was able to right a book detailing in neuroscientific terms, her experience and her recovery.

I guess what that all boils down to is a recognition of the fact that there aren't really any intentionally evil people, rather there are people who see the world in all kind of screwed up ways which justifies their their actions in relation to their moral sense. Germany itself would have never backed the Nazis if they were not utterly convinced that they were doing the right and good thing; ridding the world of an evil menace. We never stop to think that the real evil in the world is this predilection to see others as evil and thus overlook their essential humanity and the real reasons for their thoughts and behavior.