MLRN Discussion List
As I read the response below, I find myself thinking "the criteria for inclusion are very subjectively guided." We have to keep in mind that meditation in general is INCREDIBLY broad. Mindfulness is a bit more focused (no pun intended), but still, adherents of TM will vouch for empirically validating TM; adherents of mindfulness will go for mindfulness, etc., just as it happens with CBT being empirically validated first, even though theoretically, it's the new kid on the block. And the fact remains that exactly *what* mindfulness is is up for debate. Is it the posture? Is it the breathing? Is it the acceptance? Is it a synthesis of these and other things? I imagine as many of you read these components, you are thinking "oh, he left out ____." And that's my point exactly. Where we start is fairly subjective, and we must acknowledge that, whether we are in the empiricism-is-best camp or whether we are in the qualitative-is-more-clinically-relevant camp. As is often the case, how this lump of clay is sculpted into a meaningful body of research is as much a result of serendipity, political intrigue, and synchronicity more than intentional design.
As I frequently do on this list, I also feel compelled to draw attention to the false dichotomy between the sick, depraved nature of "western" society, versus the enlightened, spiritual "east". If anyone one of us wish to do serious academic or dharma work, we have to absolutely dispel such wrong views that perpetuate a eurocentric dichotomy that only insidiously perpetuates very colonial, imperialistic ideas. Where is the boundary between "west" and "east"? Is it in Jerusalem? Russia? Where is the center of this two-armed cosmology? (Europe). How do we explain the awful things that have gone on in the "east" that go against our romanticized notions of how perfect and evolved those cute little Asians are?
Clearly, I am being a gadfly, but my point is that any serious meditation practice or research cannot come from holding a group, a practice, or even a teacher up on an idealized pedestal. I can assure you the depravity and vice is just as rampant in Thailand, India, or China as it is in New York, and isn't there because these pristine societes were contaminated by the "west". I heard on NPR some months ago that Wahabbis in Baghdad were killing grocers whose produce might interpreted as pornographic-- eggplants and peaches assembled just so. So what depravity and vice are is clearly very, very subjective. I am also reminded of the bitter complaints Steven mentioned he recieved after his book was mentioned in a popular magazine. Obviously, some Buddhists somewhere were offended, and being "Buddhist" didn't mean they were civil.
Human beings are human beings everywhere. I can't vouch for what goes in every society, but thinking in terms of "east" and "west" only highilights differences, not our common flaws and potentials. My mind, being Indian, wanders as much as anyone elses, I imagine, who has been engaged in daily practice for over a decade. Is this more or less because I am Indian? Does it, or should it, matter? I don't think it does.
Sameet Kumar, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center
4306 Alton Road
Miami Beach, FL 33140
phone: (305) 535 3362
fax: (305) 535 3352
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Readers' Q & A with Wikipedia founder - opinion - 20 February 2007 - New Scientist
Readers' Q & A with Wikipedia founder - opinion - 20 February 2007 - New Scientist: "Wikipedia has opened - as New Scientist asserts - knowledge to the people. This is one of the benefits that the internet brings to the world. There remains one area where its impartial and basically incorruptible powers should be brought to bear - this is the area of politics. Can you think of methods by which the stupidity, misdeeds, hidden links and crimes of those who plan (and often succeed) to govern us, could be brought to the attention of the voting public? Such a system would prevent the emergence of the Hitlers, the Dubyas and the Mugabes. A sort of Whistleblowers International...
Jimmy Wales replies:
I don't think we need any special new system, but rather to simply continue to expand the use of the internet as a whole. Blogs are a fantastic tool, which allow anyone to publish anything quickly and at virtually no cost, and the blogosphere quickly spreads the word so that interesting voices are quickly amplified. And then wikis provide a fabulous tool for groups to come together to summarise and catalogue.
My own political project, Campaigns Wikia, is specifically focused on helping to make political campaigns more transparent and responsive to internet technologies. It is my belief that no one system is needed, but rather an explosion of free speech."
Jimmy Wales replies:
I don't think we need any special new system, but rather to simply continue to expand the use of the internet as a whole. Blogs are a fantastic tool, which allow anyone to publish anything quickly and at virtually no cost, and the blogosphere quickly spreads the word so that interesting voices are quickly amplified. And then wikis provide a fabulous tool for groups to come together to summarise and catalogue.
My own political project, Campaigns Wikia, is specifically focused on helping to make political campaigns more transparent and responsive to internet technologies. It is my belief that no one system is needed, but rather an explosion of free speech."
Monday, February 19, 2007
How Gov't Decided Lunch Box Lead Levels
How does any Government decided how to enforce regulations???
easy!
SHOW ME THE MONEY$$$$
How Gov't Decided Lunch Box Lead Levels - washingtonpost.com: "How Gov't Decided Lunch Box Lead Levels
By MARTHA MENDOZA
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 18, 2007; 11:19 PM
-- In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunch boxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe _ and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels.
But that's not what they told the public.
Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found "no instances of hazardous levels." And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.
That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.
The documents describe two types of tests. One involves cutting a chunk of vinyl off the bag, dissolving it and then analyzing how much lead is in the solution; the second test involves swiping the surface of a bag and then determining how much lead has rubbed off.
The results of the first type of test, looking for the actual lead content of the vinyl, showed that 20 percent of the bags had more than 600 parts per million of lead _ the federal safe level for paint and other products. The highest level was 9,600 ppm, more than 16 times the federal standard.
But the CPSC did not use those results.
"When it comes to a lunch box, it's carried. The food that you put in the lunch box may have an outer wrapping, a baggie, so there isn't direct exposure. The direct exposure would be if kids were putting their lunch boxes in their mouth, which isn't a common way for children to interact with their lunch box," said CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese.
Thus the CPSC focused exclusively on how much lead came off the surface of a lunch box when lab workers swiped them.
easy!
SHOW ME THE MONEY$$$$
How Gov't Decided Lunch Box Lead Levels - washingtonpost.com: "How Gov't Decided Lunch Box Lead Levels
By MARTHA MENDOZA
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 18, 2007; 11:19 PM
-- In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunch boxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe _ and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels.
But that's not what they told the public.
Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found "no instances of hazardous levels." And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.
That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.
The documents describe two types of tests. One involves cutting a chunk of vinyl off the bag, dissolving it and then analyzing how much lead is in the solution; the second test involves swiping the surface of a bag and then determining how much lead has rubbed off.
The results of the first type of test, looking for the actual lead content of the vinyl, showed that 20 percent of the bags had more than 600 parts per million of lead _ the federal safe level for paint and other products. The highest level was 9,600 ppm, more than 16 times the federal standard.
But the CPSC did not use those results.
"When it comes to a lunch box, it's carried. The food that you put in the lunch box may have an outer wrapping, a baggie, so there isn't direct exposure. The direct exposure would be if kids were putting their lunch boxes in their mouth, which isn't a common way for children to interact with their lunch box," said CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese.
Thus the CPSC focused exclusively on how much lead came off the surface of a lunch box when lab workers swiped them.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Google Groups
wow. . . have I done some SERIOUS research!!!
I googled "stars2man" again . . . eeek this is so freaky . . . like I can't find anything that I didn't write yet . . . or start . .
Google Groups: "HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms???
alt.healing.reiki Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.meditation.transcendental Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.philosophy.zen Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.meditation.shabda Jun 14 2001
Outlook Express 5.5 reinstall?? microsoft.public.win...tlookexpress Jun 12 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.philosophy.taoism Jun 8 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.meditation.qigong Jun 5 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.philosophy.taoism Jun 5 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.yoga Jun 1 2001"
I googled "stars2man" again . . . eeek this is so freaky . . . like I can't find anything that I didn't write yet . . . or start . .
Google Groups: "HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms???
alt.healing.reiki Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.meditation.transcendental Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.philosophy.zen Jun 14 2001
HELP Qigong/Reiki Standing forms??? alt.meditation.shabda Jun 14 2001
Outlook Express 5.5 reinstall?? microsoft.public.win...tlookexpress Jun 12 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.philosophy.taoism Jun 8 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.meditation.qigong Jun 5 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.philosophy.taoism Jun 5 2001
Chi Gong??? alt.yoga Jun 1 2001"
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Inside Bay Area - Scientists expose body toxin risks
Truth about all the pollution in our foods and environment is finally getting out...
Inside Bay Area - Scientists expose body toxin risks: "You scramble those reactions at your peril, in other words, and last week hundreds of researchers gathered at the University of California, San Francisco, warned society may be doing exactly that with synthetic chemicals.
The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, are found everywhere in our environment: food, lotions, shampoos, baby bottles, toys, appliances, even casings for medicines. They mimic hormones at levels scientists only recently have been able to measure, and some are active at concentrations of a part-per-trillion or less — a speck of dirt sullying 55 tons of clean laundry.
Most worrisome to scientists: In many cases, the effect of such pollution on our bodies remains as unknown and mysterious as the processes they potentially disrupt.
'In the absence of concrete data for many of these chemicals, the precautionary principle should be exercised,' said Dr. Linda Guidice, chairwoman of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF and the organizer of the reproductive health conference that brought 500 scientists, clinicians and community activists together."
Inside Bay Area - Scientists expose body toxin risks: "You scramble those reactions at your peril, in other words, and last week hundreds of researchers gathered at the University of California, San Francisco, warned society may be doing exactly that with synthetic chemicals.
The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, are found everywhere in our environment: food, lotions, shampoos, baby bottles, toys, appliances, even casings for medicines. They mimic hormones at levels scientists only recently have been able to measure, and some are active at concentrations of a part-per-trillion or less — a speck of dirt sullying 55 tons of clean laundry.
Most worrisome to scientists: In many cases, the effect of such pollution on our bodies remains as unknown and mysterious as the processes they potentially disrupt.
'In the absence of concrete data for many of these chemicals, the precautionary principle should be exercised,' said Dr. Linda Guidice, chairwoman of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF and the organizer of the reproductive health conference that brought 500 scientists, clinicians and community activists together."
THE INTENTION EXPERIMENT
THE INTENTION EXPERIMENT by Lynne McTaggart: "THE INTENTION EXPERIMENT
Lynne McTaggart
For the last forty years renegade scientists, experimenting with the limits of quantum physics, have made seemingly impossible discoveries. In 1966, for instance, a lie-detector expert accidentally discovered that plants can read thoughts; in 1982 Buddhist monks in the Himalayas were found to be able to turn their bodies into furnaces; and a psychologist’s experiments in 1992 revealed a stream of light flowing from healers during healing. All pointed towards one thing - evidence that a thought is a tangible thing, with the power to affect the physical world. In The Intention Experiment, Lynne McTaggart explores scientific evidence supporting the idea that the power of human intentions can actually change the world around us. She also shows you exactly how to ‘power up’ your own thoughts and intentions to change your life. And, joining forces with an international team of scientists, she also invites her readers to participate in the biggest intention experiment in history. Exciting eh?
Visit the website: www.theintentionexperiment.com"
Lynne McTaggart
For the last forty years renegade scientists, experimenting with the limits of quantum physics, have made seemingly impossible discoveries. In 1966, for instance, a lie-detector expert accidentally discovered that plants can read thoughts; in 1982 Buddhist monks in the Himalayas were found to be able to turn their bodies into furnaces; and a psychologist’s experiments in 1992 revealed a stream of light flowing from healers during healing. All pointed towards one thing - evidence that a thought is a tangible thing, with the power to affect the physical world. In The Intention Experiment, Lynne McTaggart explores scientific evidence supporting the idea that the power of human intentions can actually change the world around us. She also shows you exactly how to ‘power up’ your own thoughts and intentions to change your life. And, joining forces with an international team of scientists, she also invites her readers to participate in the biggest intention experiment in history. Exciting eh?
Visit the website: www.theintentionexperiment.com"
Monday, January 29, 2007
How to Always Win
How to Always Win
A stellar characteristic of Americans has always been their ability to compete, indeed to win. This zeal to achieve has accomplished many wonderful things for our country and its citizens, including major medical discoveries, unparalleled economic success, even liberty itself. But after the extremely negative campaigning of the recent elections, and the endless nightly debate about whether or not we are winning the war on terror and who's to blame for what's right or wrong in our country, I can't help but ask if our need to compete has gone awry. It doesn't seem to be enough any more to succeed. What worries me is people's need to take it a step further to prove they are right, and sometimes, to prove they're right no matter what. You can be sure that a win-at-all-costs attitude does not contribute to good relationships on a global scale or, as concerns me here, to personal relationships, which are, after all, the bedrock of a person's emotional and physical well being.
For insight on this painful problem, I talked with Lauren Zander and Meredith Haberfeld of Handel Group Private Coaching (www.handelgrouppc.com). Lauren points out that in every conversation, people have an agenda. It might be to inform, to amuse, to get to know each other better or just to pass the time -- there are lots of reasons for verbal exchanges. But when the agenda includes ensuring that you are right, by definition it means establishing that the other person is wrong. There isn't a conversation in the world that doesn't ultimately come to a screeching halt if one or both parties have the attitude that "I am right, you are wrong, now get used to it." This is incredibly destructive to any relationship -- in the Middle East, in the workplace, with your in-laws, or in the bedroom -- because it slams the door on any real possibility for a dialog. In fact, Lauren says the battle to be "right" is at the base of all dysfunction, be it wars between countries, conflicts at work or closer to home -- marital or parent-child conflicts.
WHAT IS FACT?
There is a simple truth at play here. It is possible to be right -- look out the window and if you see water falling from the clouds you can rightly announce it is raining... or that the sun is shining... or that it is night or day. While some philosophy students may debate this, obvious facts of this nature fall neatly into a right/wrong category. But just about everything else in the world is far more complex and dwells in the world not of black and white, but of gray. This is the realm of relativism, says Lauren, which means that what is right to me is shaped by my point of view and isn't necessarily right to the other person. Meredith explains that often our own point of view is shaped by misunderstandings or misinterpretations that we assume to be hard fact. If you want a relationship to work, she continues, the most important thing you can do is understand that virtually every thought and opinion you have is based on personal perception, not on fact.
Couples may argue that one spouse was being rude or unfair but the so-called offending spouse doesn't see it that way. In fact, that person no doubt thinks the other one was being unfair. Perspective is behind the difference and determines why you both think you are right.
It is crucial to understand and accept that your perspective is not fact and that both parties have a valid point of view. This is how contradictory opinions can exist in a relationship without causing disharmony. The problem is that most people are invested in their own interpretation and perspective and are disinterested in the other person's. Deep inside, people believe that by making themselves right and their "opponent" wrong they'll "win," but this form of winning is not necessarily the key to happiness or success. Once people are willing to accept the existence of contradictory "truths," it changes the dynamics of the discussion because no one is any longer trying to win. Lauren calls this insistence on being right a manipulation, which is a common human trick. People dress their opinion up in self-righteousness -- you have to accept what I am saying because I am right! I am reminded of a couple I know who have different religious beliefs. When he tries to open her thinking to even entertain the idea that others see things differently, she responds "but I know I am right." That ends the conversation -- and much to her frustration, ends her attempts to convert him and win.
SEEKING A NEW DEFINITION OF VICTORY
While the need to win creates continuous and deep-seated relationship dilemmas, it is possible for anyone to pull out of this emotional quagmire and, in so doing, immediately improve interactions with others -- including with those who are closest to you. It is no longer about having one person right and one wrong. Rather, Meredith explains, it is listening to each other's "truths" completely so you have all version(s) of the situation and accept that another person can have a different opinion. Here is what Lauren advises to make this important change...
- Accept that most discussions, including yours, are not based on fact but rather on a relative point of view.
- Always evaluate if you are discussing fact (weather, the time, the color of your new car, etc.).
- Ask yourself if you are treating your platform as fact when it is actually your opinion (and if your discussion has become a battle, you can be sure opinions are the subject).
- Frame your conversation in words that convey not "this is how it is," but rather, "when you said this, what I meant was... " or "this is how it seemed to me" -- in other words, that you accept that your "truth" may be based on important misunderstandings that you believed to be true, and that each view of the situation as it was or is, not as an absolute truth.
- After someone speaks and shares their point of view, before you give yours, first say theirs back to them so they feel heard and understood. And be open to correction, because if you say something that didn't accurately capture their perspective, they should make sure you get it correctly.
CHANGE ONLY TAKES ONE
You may now be thinking that this is great for you, but what about the other guy? If he won't change his position, what good will this do? Take heart -- Lauren observes that when one person assumes responsibility for accepting that his/her perspective is relative and understands that aiming to "win" leaves everyone as losers, it is sufficient to turn a discussion around. You have put one fact on the table and that is there are two different points of view going on. Who can argue with that? You allow the other his/her right to his view of the truth -- but you also claim the right to yours. This acceptance surpasses the need to win, allowing a peaceful negotiation of the situation -- if not immediately than in the near future... and that is truly winning in a far more constructive way.
Sources:
How to Always Win
- Meredith Haberfeld, co-founder and CEO, Handel Group Private Coaching (www.handelgrouppc.com) and Lauren Zander, principle, Handel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)