I found this recent study of canines treated for hypertension.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/10/1002

The authors comment, in the Clinical Perspective, "Thus, aortic size
should be monitored carefully in clinical trials of these agents."

The comment was in view of their findings that "A highly significant
effect of ALT to increase aortic dimension was observed. This
occurred despite lower BP over the course of the model and was
independent of distending pressure or body size".

I wonder if this is a significant cause for concern in those of us
taking ALT-711 on a chronic basis and would be interested to read any
comments.

Coincidentally, I have a heart scan scheduled for next week and will
make a point of asking the radiographer if he/she can detect any
significant change in the size of my aorta since the last scan seven
years ago.

I'll report my results back to the group in a couple of weeks, after
I receive the full report from the doctor who reviews my scan.


Dave Brett

What type of society will truly benefit all the members of it? This
subject has captured the attention of philosophers for centuries. The
recent financial debacle has motivated many writers on the Internet to
pose their solutions, one of which was headlined in late October at
OpEdNews.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I read Ann Kramer's article "The banking system is not the economy:
Painting a new picture" [http://tinyurl.com/67cj9o ] as a result of
being asked for my views by a commenter on the article, "The End of
Capitalism" [http://tinyurl.com/6jznpg ]. Ann's article contains a
number of ideas in a version that may appear new to many readers, and
which I wanted to address in full rather than with incomplete brevity.
This last is because the subject of what kind of society is best is a
very foundational one, which I think Ann understands. I am addressing
my review of what Ann wrote directly to her because I think of her as
a very ardent and caring person, and I too am one of those types of
people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are correct, Ann, when you write "money is a tool that can help us
facilitate the activities of life...but it isn't a situation of money
first, economy/activities of life second."

In addition you are mostly correct when you say that if the current
mediums of exchange along with the banking systems "vaporized", "[w]e
would create barter systems, local 'currency' options and other ways to
get our basic needs met."
. . . . . .

The rest can be read - and I hope many will do so - at OpEdNews.com -
http://tinyurl.com/5m9c4n

**Kitty

On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts and
> experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.

And I first want to express my thanks and high esteem for your candid
and fully identified expression of your thoughts on such personal matters.

>  First, I
> should point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free –
> How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from reaching
> your full adult potential".  This book as a whole was very
> interesting because a theme throughout the book was Branden's
> insistence that most parents, through action or inaction, do a great
> deal of psychological harm to their children in one way or another.
> This point was especially interesting to me because, while I consider
> my childhood to have been "mediocre" as an environment that is
> conducive for children to develop into independent, rational, well-
> adjusted adults, I hadn't realized that the lack of a good home
> environment was so prevalent.  Branden reiterates his conviction that
> most home environments lack what he would consider a "healthy
> environment".

My own view is that this, "healthy environment" relative to growing
children, is a deteriorating situation, in general even worse than when
I was a child (and I do not consider my own growing-up environment
particularly good but then neither was it highly negative). I think this
is entirely to be expected based on all other trends of society and is
one of the reasons why I am concerned about the course of current
civilization.

>  In the context of this "healthy environment", the book
> mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that environment, and
> how parental behavior can effect a child's (and the resulting
> adult's) behavior.  A very important aspect of this interaction
> between a parent's behavior and the child's behavior as an adult is
> that when the child becomes an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he
> is behaving in a manner that is harmful to hirself*.

What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives. Full
human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
are 30".

>  Studying this
> book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
> engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.

Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included. It
is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even though
one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that will
optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
*perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that I
don't get better at this much faster than I do.

> The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
> Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
> practicing psychologist).  This entire book is based of an epiphany
> Branden had during one of his group sessions.  He asked the group a
> series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
> were children.  He found that when he asked an appropriate question
> to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great deal
> of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
> questions about hirself.

This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
psychological development/growth.

>  As is likely the purpose of the book, I, as
> the reader, experienced a significant number of enlightening moments
> with respect to questions about myself and my personality.

That is an excellent sign that you have a healthy mind, still open and
capable of growth.

>  These
> experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.
>
> Below I describe my thoughts and experiences while reading this book
> as it relates to a given category.  The two categories of thoughts
> and experiences I will discuss are:  emotional withdrawal and sexual
> roles.
>
> Emotional withdrawal
>
> I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
> fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.

Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
called patient confidentially. If that patient wants it, while that is
still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
confidentially and even welcome their names being used and are fully
willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).

[It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of Branden's
clients rather than one single individual. A number of writer's, whether in the
health care fields or not, use this technique for examples, rather than obtain
permission to use that of a specific individual. These writers like this method
also to combine the characteristics of several of their clients into one
pseudo-person with the problems or situations they wish to discuss. **Kitty]

[However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the example is then
not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and, for any number of unforeseen
reasons, may not be able to even occur in the reality of any single human. This
is similar to using a unicorn or a truth machine within a philosophy example -
totally unacceptable for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]

> The chapter is called "The Unknowable".  The question posed
> to "Henry" in the book is as follows:
>
> "When you were a child, did your parents manner of behaving and
> dealing with you give you the impression that you were living in a
> world that was rational, predictable, intelligible?  Or a world that
> was bewildering, contradictory, incomprehensible, unknowable?"
>
> In this chapter, Henry responded to the question by giving a story
> about how his parents behaved toward him when he was a child.  Henry
> states that when he was a child he once used some matches to set a
> few leaves on fire in the back yard.  His father discovered him and
> told him that the police were going to take him to Juvenile Hall.
> Then his mother came running up to Henry, hugging him, telling him it
> was "OK", and telling him that he was her "darling angel".  Henry
> then remembers his father screaming at his mother and forgot all
> about Henry's careless burning of leaves.  Henry then states that
> later that night, his father gave him a gift and seemed quite
> cheerful.  Henry recalled that this experience was very bewildering
> to him and he didn't know what to think of it.
>
> Henry then describes how his parents were always shouting, his mother
> was often crying, holding Henry and saying that "everything will be
> okay when we're with Jesus".  I agree with Henry: this is a confusing
> situation for a child to grow up in.

I was certainly fortunate in that my parents, while often having
irrational ideas and actions that were negative for me and my
thinking/growth, nevertheless practiced those ideas and actions
reasonably consistently (even if such ideas and actions were not
self-consistent as a whole). Although my parents thought of themselves
and Christians, I also had none of this Jesus nonsense that is so
prevalent in the US.

[I on the other hand was raised in a home where my mother was a strongly
adherent Catholic and my father was mostly so, keeping disagreements he had on
the subject to himself, something I concluded when I was in my late 20s. When I
voiced my very different ideas at age 16, the reaction however was not anger but
rather more of confusion on their part. Also at that time, and even into my late
40s when they both died (less than a year apart), my ability to present my ideas
in a cogent fashion was far less than it is now or was even 7 years ago.
**Kitty]

> Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
> stopped trying to understand the world around him.  This random,
> unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
> a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
> world.  Henry had given up the hope of understanding.  When reading
> this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
> says to Henry:
>
> "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding.  You stopped
> caring to understand.  That's when you gave up your self-esteem".

Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
as efficacious with respect to reality. And the first step to being
efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
(particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).

> This is the point in the book when I began to laugh, and cry,
> simultaneously – both quite heartily. I think I became emotional at
> this particular statement in the book because I have never really
> understood the idea of self-esteem.  I am still struggling to
> understand it, and other parts of this book have helped me to
> understand it.  But Henry's story sounded very similar to parts of my
> childhood.  My parents could be quite random in their behavior,
> laughing one minute, quiet the next, shouting at one another the
> next, or drunk and loving the next.

I was fortunate that my childhood and parents behavior was far more
steady than what you have described.

>  It made a lot of sense to me
> that a child in this type of situation would "give up" trying to
> understand the behavior of others and would begin to "turn off",
> emotionally.  I think I have turned my own emotions off.

But at least you did not give up trying to understand other, not emotion
related things in life. That was your anchor to reality and what enabled
your mind to retain sufficient health that you could now finally begin
to examine emotions.

>  Since some
> things my parents did could be hurtful, or (in contrast) caring, or
> irrational, I began to tune them out and to stop emotionally
> responding to them.
>
> I still do this today.  For example, I don't like a number of traits
> about my mother and I am not very close to her, intellectually or
> emotionally.  However, on the rare occasions I see her or talk to her
> on the phone, she will try to hug me or tell me she loves me.  My
> first response to these expressions of "love" is to ignore them or
> tune them out.  I don't want to respond to her, probably because my
> response would be:  "no you don't Mom, or you would act differently
> than you do".

What this means is that she does not really know what love means. She
merely thinks of it as a duty that she owes to a son and can be
accomplished simply buy using the word and taking the standard actions.
She probably very deeply wants to love you but she does not know what
love really entails nor how to actually do it.

>  But, rather than say that (which, in fact, I have on
> occasion), I mute my emotional response.  So one might say that I'm
> emotionally withdrawn.  Rather than express my true emotions and
> thoughts and create conflict (since she will get angry with me and we
> will get into an argument – it's happened many times before), I
> ignore my feelings and even encourage myself to be non-responsive.
> This "ignoring of feelings just to get through the situation" seems
> exceedingly prevalent in my life.

Far better would be to greatly reduce the likelihood of encountering
such situations and instead seek emotional situations with people who
understand them and act consistently with that understanding. The fact
that she (and perhaps other people that are negative to your well-being)
are biologically related should have no bearing on this decision. I do
not have a single biologically related person to whom I am close, mainly
because none of them have any high regard for the ideas that I think are
most important of all. In fact, they all appear to regard me as an
impractical misfit and kook. But so what? There are lots of other people
in the world, some of whom have shown and will still show that they
appreciate my most cherished ideas.

[The description Paul gives for himself is near identical to mine. While he has
1 brother, 1 sister and 1 biological daughter (that he knows about - the others
were from sperm donations), I have 2 brothers, 2 sisters (all younger than me),
and 2 sons (the oldest was surrendered for adoption as an infant - see
http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton040528.html ) None of those
closest of biological relationships are ones in which I have any (let alone
close) contact with the other person because they do not verbalize or
demonstrate in anyway that they have esteem for me. In fact, I have had written
communication from 4 of them during the past 8 years (one of them just last
December) clearly stating their dislike for my ideas and actions.

So a biological relationship is no guarantee at all that two persons will have
esteem for each other, and less that they will be close friends. **Kitty]


>  I have a difficult time expressing
> my thoughts or feelings about a number of things, especially in my
> employment setting, because I'd rather not "rock the boat" by
> exclaiming, for example, that I really hate wearing a tie!

One solution is to clearly make that statement by the simple action of
acting differently ("actions speak louder than words"), and let the
other person "rock the boat" by raising the issue.

> While this "emotional muting" may not sound very harmful, Branden
> says another very interesting thing about emotional responses.  I am
> having difficulty finding the exact quote, but Branden states that
> emotional responses are value judgments.  When a person has an
> emotional response, the emotions are an automatic expression of how
> that person values a certain event.

Yes. Emotions are automatic, subconscious summations of your evaluation
of something or someone. If rational and consistent (and mentally
healthy) such evaluations are fully consistent with what you
consciously think and profess. It is only that it would likely take
you far longer (and would not likely even be as accurate) to
consciously go through the entire evaluation procedure that the
subconscious does for you. In this respect I have gone a little
further than Branden. I call emotions "tools of cognition" because if
they are made consistent with your consciously held principles, they
can be used to help you understand and react to given situations and
people much more quickly and accurately than can conscious thought.
More than once in my life I have found my emotions telling me
something that I did not at first agree with, but after a while came
to realize was more consistent with my fundamental principles of
behavior than the conscious choices and actions I was taking. However,
for one to be able use and rely on one's emotions in this fashion one
must deliberately and with great focus, and over time, go through a
process that I call "reprogramming one's emotions" in order to ensure
that they are consistent with one's most fundamental conscious
convictions and their implications.

>  To me, this means that if I fail
> to emotionally respond to events, I also fail to experience and
> *express* my value system.
>
> *And what do you know?  I've had problems with asserting my values
> and standing up for my convictions!  Wow!*

It is very enjoyable to see such insight!

> All of these relationships between ideas made a lot of sense to me
> and I'm still working on understanding their full implications.  I
> want to note here that taking the time to put these idea-
> relationships into words (typing it out) helps with this
> understanding.  The process of writing a coherent story with an
> audience in mind requires the author (me) to be able to clearly
> explain the ideas.  And being able to clearly explain anything
> requires the author (or speaker) to understand the material.
>

No question about that being true.

> Sexual roles
>
> A second, very important point in this book influenced my thinking
> very much.  Branden only briefly mentions the topic of sexual roles,
> and compares male and female sexual roles.  I will first briefly
> discuss my experience with sexual roles.
>
> When I was in high school, approximately 16 years old, I had a
> girlfriend who I dated for quite some time (18 months if I remember
> correctly).  During that time, being teenagers, we were both
> interested in sex and exploring sexual desires with one another.

Such a difference in 50 years. I was also interested in sex at that age,
but there was absolutely no thought of taking any related action to
explore sexual desires with a girl.

> However, during our relationship, my girlfriend was very reluctant to
> have sexual intercourse.  This did not bother me, but many of her
> peers learned of her preference for non-intercourse sexual
> activities.  Her peers proceeded to pressure her and mock her for not
> wanting to have sexual intercourse.
>
> After a year of dating this girl, I was visiting with her family at
> their cottage, and some of our friends came along.  One night I snuck
> into her room and we spent time together, talking, kissing, and
> holding one another.  I don't recall anything sexually-out-of-the-
> ordinary occurring that night, but at one point she began crying
> intensely.  After I coaxed her into explaining what it was she was
> upset about she described to me how her brother had sexually molested
> her several years prior.  She had been very reluctant about sexual
> situations because this experience with her brother still bothered
> her.  At this point I began to understand why she had been reluctant
> about sexual activities and *I resolved to not pressure her about
> sex* (emphasis placed because I will come back to this point again
> very soon).

What was needed was to explain to her that loving, caring sexual
activity is totally different and unrelated to molestation (although I
would need to have the actual actions described before I can accept the
word "molestation" as a correct naming of them). In that sense you should
never have pressured her, but merely described the possible joy of such
activities. But then you were far too young to fully understand this at
age 16.

> Within the next couple of months, the pressure she encountered from
> her peers intensified.  Finally she said that she was tired of the
> emotional grief from her peers regarding the context of sex in a long-
> term relationship and she decided to end the relationship.  I was
> very hurt.  I think I learned from this experience *not to pressure a
> woman about sex, even if I have sexual desires* (again, I will come
> back to this).

Actually one should never "pressure" anyone about anything. To be
effective and successful, all influencing should be done by means of
persuasion (reasoned argumentation) related to the lifetime happiness of
the other person.

> In this book, Breaking Free, Branden briefly describes sexual roles.
> I have taken the time to find the excerpt from the book where Branden
> describes this point.  It is on page 206 (in the Bantam edition first
> published December 1972):
>
> Branden:  "Masculinity or femininity entails an affirmative attitude
> towards one's sexual nature and one's sexual role." (Next on page
> 212):  Branden:  "Now here's something I regard as of prime
> importance.  [A man's sexual role is] not being afraid of the
> responsibility of masculine self-assertiveness.  If you're a woman,
> [it's] not being afraid or inhibited about responding to the man,
> about surrendering sexually."
>
> My first response to reading the above was that it was unfair of the
> man to be sexually assertive (phrased:  "masculine self-
> assertiveness") and expect the woman to "surrender sexually".


I had the same response and still do. I see the roles in romantic love
as almost completely equal, with which partner is doing the initiating
(not "asserting", that is far too forceful a word) alternating from time
to time depending on natural desires. So here is one place where I
disagree with Branden's rather old fashioned, almost patriarchal idea.

> However, I contemplated this point at length and realized that I
> likely have this response because of my experiences with women who
> had been sexually abused (I have dated one other woman who had also
> been sexually abused.)

I hate this much and often improperly used word "abuse". I simply will
not accept any usage of that word unless and until I am told the full
details of what is called an abusive action.

> I understand how such women can be afraid of
> sexual encounters and therefore I had resolved not to sexually assert
> myself.

If someone is still bothered so fundamentally by such an occurrence in
hir past then you are better to not get involved with hir in any way
related to sex, unless you first help hir get this "bother" resolved and
ended.

>  However, in deciding this, I also am denying my sexual role
> and sexual nature (if Branden's evaluation of these are accurate).
> And this contradiction seems likely to cause a fair amount of
> frustration, for both myself and any woman with whom I am in a sexual
> relationship.

There is no doubt that many women look for a man to always be the
assertive one, but I think that is irrational thinking on their part and
needs to be cleared up. IOW, do you really want a sexual relationship
with such a woman while she still thinks that way? To me such thinking
also puts a lot of pressure on the man to always be able to sense the
woman's desires and make the right assertiveness decision. I have never
liked that situation. Like you somewhat, I would always rather do
without than to make a mistake.

> I must consider these points more.  I am currently reading "The
> Psychology of Self-Esteem" by N. Branden and have been taking notes
> on my experiences while reading.  I will consider the possibility of
> also sharing these other experiences with the group.

That would be good for both you and the readers, I expect, although it
is a little dismaying that after all this time there has been no
response to your very frank, honest and friendly post.

> I hope some of the readers find my personal experiences above to be
> enlightening, encouraging, or at least, interesting.  I look forward
> to comments and discussion.
>

And why none have come, I simply do not understand.

> ---
> Steve Floyd

Again thanks for posting this.

--Paul

I agree with many of Paul's comments, including where he states:

  > One that I must point out here will make any knowledgeable person
  > shake hir head and immediately dismiss the intelligence of all
  > cryonicists. It is the following:
  >
  > "[Some cryonicists] are environmentalists who ... are happy that no
  > electricity is used to upkeep their preserved remains (only liquid
  > nitrogen), and that their carbon footprint is only pennies each year."

Upon reading the above, quoted statement of yours, Shannon, about
cryonicists being environmentalists I became a bit concerned. I don't
think that kind of generalization is appropriate. I think you may be
using this statement as a way to appeal to as wide of an audience as
possible (here, trying to appeal to environmentalists). Perhaps it is
useful to "cut environmentalists off at the pass" with the statement
about the upkeep of preservation being low. However, when I read it it
seemed like a desperate attempt to appeal to more people. Perhaps it
could be re-worded to show its benefits without sounding this way?
Another example: you use "pennies" to measure a carbon-footprint. I am
not familiar with industry terms, but are carbon-footprints measured
in pennies? Aren't they measured in CO2 or something similar?

However, I *have* signed this petition, and have sent an invitation to
several acquaintances urging them to do the same. Thanks for working on
this Shannon. Many of us may benefit from this someday.

---
Steve Floyd

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "shannonvyff" <shannonvyff@...> wrote:
  >
  > Here is a petition I created at Care2 to show support of cryonics --
  > definitely a possible chance at more life, even if it is a small chance,
  > I hope everyone will take a moment to sign and possibly give a comment:
  >
  >
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/preserve-the-right-of-those-who-are-dying-to-
  > choose-cryonics
  >
  > [Here is a tiny URL for those who have trouble with the above long URL.
  > http://tinyurl.com/6qorq6
  >
  > I am making the following immediate comments, because to not do so
  > would confuse the reader and suggest that I and Kitty are supportive
  > of Shannon's project *as it is*.
  >
  > What Shannon has written at the above URL is hardly a petition (an
  > earnest request; a formal written request addressed to an official
  > person or organized body), but rather a description of what cryonics
  > is, why people choose it, what value it can be and that it does others
  > no harm. However, it contains several errors of fact and implication,
  > which greatly lessen its value.
  >
  > One that I must point out here will make any knowledgeable person
  > shake hir head and immediately dismiss the intelligence of all
  > cryonicists. It is the following:
  >
  > "[Some cryonicists] are environmentalists who ... are happy that no
  > electricity is used to upkeep their preserved remains (only liquid
  > nitrogen), and that their carbon footprint is only pennies each year."
  >
  > Only in the very last paragraph is there any request that anyone do
  > anything (actually refrain from doing). A petition should always begin
  > with something like:
  >
  > "We, the undersigned, hereby request (list names or organizations) to
  > do or not do (list of requested actions)."
  >
  > After such a beginning there can be descriptions of the terms used in
  > the request and presentations of the reasons for granting the request.
  >
  > However, I disagree that a petition is the correct or best method for
  > communicating these ideas and gaining the desire effect.  Still I
  > suppose that it is somewhat beneficial for more information promoting
  > cryonics, of whatever form, to be on the Internet in various places.
--Paul]
  >
  >
  > I will be at Convergence08 this weekend http://www.convergence08.org/ .
  > I hope to see any of you in the San Francisco area there :-) I'll be
  > passing out information for the Venturists, CI, Alcor and Immortality
  > Institute (as well as have some of my books for any of you with young
  > children you'd like to teach transhumanist ideas to ;-) ).  But I always
  > love to chat about Calorie Restriction, supplements and my views of
  > exercise as well :-).
  >
  > Take care,
  >
  > Health, Happiness, Wisdom & Longevity :-)
  > -- best wishes from... Austin, Texas
  >
  > --Shannon Vyff
  > "21st Century Kids"
  > http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Kids-Shannon-Vyff/dp/1886057001

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts
> > and experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.
>
> And I first want to express my thanks and high esteem for your candid
> and fully identified expression of your thoughts on such personal matters.
>
> > First, I
> > should point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free
–
> > How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from reaching
> > your full adult potential". This book as a whole was very
> > interesting because a theme throughout the book was Branden's
> > insistence that most parents, through action or inaction, do a great
> > deal of psychological harm to their children in one way or another.
> > This point was especially interesting to me because, while I consider
> > my childhood to have been "mediocre" as an environment that is
> > conducive for children to develop into independent, rational, well-
> > adjusted adults, I hadn't realized that the lack of a good home
> > environment was so prevalent. Branden reiterates his conviction that
> > most home environments lack what he would consider a "healthy
> > environment".
>
> My own view is that this, "healthy environment" relative to growing
> children, is a deteriorating situation, in general even worse than when
> I was a child (and I do not consider my own growing-up environment
> particularly good but then neither was it highly negative). I think this
> is entirely to be expected based on all other trends of society and is
> one of the reasons why I am concerned about the course of current
> civilization.
>
> > In the context of this "healthy environment", the book
> > mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that environment, and
> > how parental behavior can effect a child's (and the resulting
> > adult's) behavior. A very important aspect of this interaction
> > between a parent's behavior and the child's behavior as an adult is
> > that when the child becomes an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he
> > is behaving in a manner that is harmful to hirself*.
>
> What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
> an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
> adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
> attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
> asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
> process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives.


I have thought about how it may be misleading to emphasize a person's
18th or 21st birthday as the attainment of "adulthood" or "maturity".
It seems that the attainment of a certain age does not necessitate a
minimum level of achieved maturity in a person. Perhaps this
"celebrating adulthood" at 18 or 21 encourages a person to conclude:
"I am now an adult and need no further personal development".


> Full
> human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
> which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
> are 30".


I have heard of this phrase and have always been concerned that it may
apply to me someday. However, it seems to me that I have developed
myself to have disposition to be constantly learning and growing, and to
have an open mind. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that I will ever
become developmentally "stagnant".

I wonder if it is possible to change someone's halted development. I
wonder what it is that makes a person's mind "turn-off" to the rest of
the world.


> > Studying this
> > book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
> > engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
>
> Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included.
> It is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
> degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even
> though one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that
> will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
> *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
> reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
> unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
> time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
> one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
> work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
> experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that
> I don't get better at this much faster than I do.


Your description of the estimation process above makes sense. It
makes me think of the idea that mental development is the process by
which to improve one's chances at estimating correctly, since that is
what the mind is for. I enjoyed a book called "The Black Swan" by
Nassim Nicholas Taleb. In the book he describes how the social
world with which a human interacts is much more complicated now
than it was not so long ago. With improved communication and
transportation technologies, information and people can move around
the world so quickly that it makes it all the more difficult to make
accurate estimations.


> > The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
> > Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
> > practicing psychologist). This entire book is based of an epiphany
> > Branden had during one of his group sessions. He asked the group a
> > series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
> > were children. He found that when he asked an appropriate question
> > to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great
> > deal of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
> > questions about hirself.
>
> This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
> Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
> facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
> conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
> that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
> psychological development/growth.


I can picture how this process occurs within a great many people. When
a person points out an inconvenient truth about another person's history
or personality, it can be easier to make excuses for it, rather than admit
it, try to understand what is wrong with it, and take action to correct it.


> > As is likely the purpose of the book, I, as
> > the reader, experienced a significant number of enlightening moments
> > with respect to questions about myself and my personality.
>
> That is an excellent sign that you have a healthy mind, still open and
> capable of growth.
>
> > These experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.
> >
> > Below I describe my thoughts and experiences while reading this book
> > as it relates to a given category. The two categories of thoughts
> > and experiences I will discuss are: emotional withdrawal and sexual
> > roles.
> >
> > Emotional withdrawal
> >
> > I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
> > fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
>
> Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
> called patient confidentially. If that patient wants it, while that is
> still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
> even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
> the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
> confidentially and even welcome their names being used and are fully
> willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
>
> [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
> Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of writer's,
> whether in the health care fields or not, use this technique for examples,
> rather than obtain permission to use that of a specific individual. These
> writers like this method also to combine the characteristics of several of
> their clients into one pseudo-person with the problems or situations
> they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
>
> [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
> example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and,
> for any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even
> occur in the reality of any single human. This is similar to using a
> unicorn or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally
> unacceptable for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]

This practice of using a composite person as an example, if engaged in,
does seem like an awfully dishonest way of communicating an example.
Given that each person responds to words and ideas differently based
on hir knowledge and experience, there's really no way to tell what a
"composite" person would do. This way of giving an example seems to
be no better than just making-up the person and hir response. And
doing so would not be reality, only the author's estimation of reality.

> > The chapter is called "The Unknowable". The question posed
> > to "Henry" in the book is as follows:
> >
> > "When you were a child, did your parents manner of behaving and
> > dealing with you give you the impression that you were living in a
> > world that was rational, predictable, intelligible? Or a world that
> > was bewildering, contradictory, incomprehensible, unknowable?"
> >
> > In this chapter, Henry responded to the question by giving a story
> > about how his parents behaved toward him when he was a child. Henry
> > states that when he was a child he once used some matches to set a
> > few leaves on fire in the back yard. His father discovered him and
> > told him that the police were going to take him to Juvenile Hall.
> > Then his mother came running up to Henry, hugging him, telling him it
> > was "OK", and telling him that he was her "darling angel". Henry
> > then remembers his father screaming at his mother and forgot all
> > about Henry's careless burning of leaves. Henry then states that
> > later that night, his father gave him a gift and seemed quite
> > cheerful. Henry recalled that this experience was very bewildering
> > to him and he didn't know what to think of it.
> >
> > Henry then describes how his parents were always shouting, his mother
> > was often crying, holding Henry and saying that "everything will be
> > okay when we're with Jesus". I agree with Henry: this is a confusing
> > situation for a child to grow up in.
>
> I was certainly fortunate in that my parents, while often having
> irrational ideas and actions that were negative for me and my
> thinking/growth, nevertheless practiced those ideas and actions
> reasonably consistently (even if such ideas and actions were not
> self-consistent as a whole). Although my parents thought of themselves
> and Christians, I also had none of this Jesus nonsense that is so
> prevalent in the US.


I agree: it *is* prevalent, it *is* nonsense, and (my thought) it *is*
frustrating!


> [I on the other hand was raised in a home where my mother was a
> strongly adherent Catholic and my father was mostly so, keeping
> disagreements he had on the subject to himself, something I concluded
> when I was in my late 20s. When I voiced my very different ideas at
> age 16, the reaction however was not anger but rather more of confusion
> on their part.]


I recall actually getting a prompt backhand to the mouth from my
mother for disagreeing with religious ideas or for refusing to recite
a prayer at an appropriate time. This was when I was very young. However, now
that I reflect on this experience I see how it could
certainly affect my willingness to assert myself.


> [Also at that time, and even into my late 40s when they both died
> (less than a year apart), my ability to present my ideas in a cogent
> fashion was far less than it is now or was even 7 years ago. **Kitty]
>
> > Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
> > stopped trying to understand the world around him. This random,
> > unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
> > a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
> > world. Henry had given up the hope of understanding. When reading
> > this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
> > says to Henry:
> >
> > "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding. You stopped
> > caring to understand. That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
>
> Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
> as efficacious with respect to reality.


I am still working at making a connection between the idea of self-esteem
and the feeling of being able to understand reality and act upon it
appropriately. As I read Branden's books I see that he makes this
connection, and describes how efficacy in dealing with reality is a
person's source of self-esteem because the mind is a person's main
way with which to deal with reality. He says that, since humans are
designed to deal with reality through the use of their "rational
faculty", full, successful use of this rational faculty is the source
of a person's self-esteem. However, I still can't see and understand
these connections in my mind. I'm thinking about them.


> And the first step to being
> efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
> second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
> goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
> choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
> (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).


This point is clear. If one constantly has choices to make, when
making choices, one must decide one's desired outcome (the goal).


> > This is the point in the book when I began to laugh, and cry,
> > simultaneously – both quite heartily. I think I became emotional at
> > this particular statement in the book because I have never really
> > understood the idea of self-esteem. I am still struggling to
> > understand it, and other parts of this book have helped me to
> > understand it. But Henry's story sounded very similar to parts of my
> > childhood. My parents could be quite random in their behavior,
> > laughing one minute, quiet the next, shouting at one another the
> > next, or drunk and loving the next.
>
> I was fortunate that my childhood and parents behavior was far more
> steady than what you have described.
>
> > It made a lot of sense to me
> > that a child in this type of situation would "give up" trying to
> > understand the behavior of others and would begin to "turn off",
> > emotionally. I think I have turned my own emotions off.
>
> But at least you did not give up trying to understand other, not emotion
> related things in life. That was your anchor to reality and what enabled
> your mind to retain sufficient health that you could now finally begin
> to examine emotions.


I had a wonderful, related experience with one of Branden's other
books, the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I agree: during these experiences
I had never given up at trying to understand non-emotion things, and that
I can now apply this inquisitiveness to myself.


> > Since some
> > things my parents did could be hurtful, or (in contrast) caring,
> > or irrational, I began to tune them out and to stop emotionally
> > responding to them.
> >
> > I still do this today. For example, I don't like a number of traits
> > about my mother and I am not very close to her, intellectually or
> > emotionally. However, on the rare occasions I see her or talk to her
> > on the phone, she will try to hug me or tell me she loves me. My
> > first response to these expressions of "love" is to ignore them or
> > tune them out. I don't want to respond to her, probably because my
> > response would be: "no you don't Mom, or you would act differently
> > than you do".
>
> What this means is that she does not really know what love means.
> She merely thinks of it as a duty that she owes to a son and can be
> accomplished simply buy using the word and taking the standard actions.
> She probably very deeply wants to love you but she does not know what
> love really entails nor how to actually do it.


What you describe above seems to accurately describe most people in my
family. I wonder how many other people think the same thing about the
actions of each of their family members.


> > But, rather than say that (which, in fact, I have on
> > occasion), I mute my emotional response. So one might say that I'm
> > emotionally withdrawn. Rather than express my true emotions and
> > thoughts and create conflict (since she will get angry with me and we
> > will get into an argument – it's happened many times before), I
> > ignore my feelings and even encourage myself to be non-responsive.
> > This "ignoring of feelings just to get through the situation" seems
> > exceedingly prevalent in my life.
>
> Far better would be to greatly reduce the likelihood of encountering
> such situations and instead seek emotional situations with people who
> understand them and act consistently with that understanding. The fact
> that she (and perhaps other people that are negative to your well-being)
> are biologically related should have no bearing on this decision.


I strongly agree that biological relation has no bearing on my decision
to interact with people, and have begun to apply this perspective in my life.
Since I understand this philosophy to be highly rational, I find it surprising
that so few people agree with it. Perhaps this is because so many people
have been indoctrinated by religion or family pride (or something else)
that they experience strong guilt if they refuse to interact with people
biologically related to themselves.


> I do
> not have a single biologically related person to whom I am close, mainly
> because none of them have any high regard for the ideas that I think are
> most important of all. In fact, they all appear to regard me as an
> impractical misfit and kook.


Paul, I think it is interesting that your family regards you as "an
impractical misfit and kook". I think this is very interesting because
from my knowledge, those people who have accomplished great things or
who have revolutionary ideas are often considered "misfits" and
"kooks" by their contemporaries. This relationship between unorthodox
ideas and accomplishment seems to make a lot of sense. If one wants to
make a great improvement to some aspect of reality, this desired
improvement implies that the current state of reality must be
*different*. Hence, those who discover something *different* (and
perhaps wonderfully beneficial) must *think differently*. In the
process of thinking differently they may also need to take the abuse
of their contemporaries for being  "different".

It is very unfortunate that unusual ideas are treated with such hostility,
because improvement only comes through new ideas (a deviation from
the current idea).


> But so what? There are lots of other people
> in the world, some of whom have shown and will still show that they
> appreciate my most cherished ideas.
>
> [The description Paul gives for himself is near identical to mine.
> While he has 1 brother, 1 sister and 1 biological daughter (that he
> knows about - the others were from sperm donations), I have 2
> brothers, 2 sisters (all younger than me),


Kitty, I note that you are the oldest of your siblings, as am I. I
understand independence of thought tends to be more prevalent
in eldest children.


> and 2 sons (the oldest was surrendered for adoption as an infant
> - see http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton040528.html )
> None of those closest of biological relationships are ones in which
> I have any (let alone close) contact with the other person because
> they do not verbalize or demonstrate in anyway that they have
> esteem for me. In fact, I have had written communication from 4
> of them during the past 8 years (one of them just last December)
> clearly stating their dislike for my ideas and actions.


Your above description seems like more evidence that many people
behave with indifference, or even hostility, toward unconventional
ideas. It is also evidence that one can not look to one's biological
relationships for friendship and camaraderie.


> So a biological relationship is no guarantee at all that two persons
> will have esteem for each other, and less that they will be close
> friends. **Kitty]
>
>
> > I have a difficult time expressing
> > my thoughts or feelings about a number of things, especially in my
> > employment setting, because I'd rather not "rock the boat" by
> > exclaiming, for example, that I really hate wearing a tie!
>
> One solution is to clearly make that statement by the simple action of
> acting differently ("actions speak louder than words"), and let the
> other person "rock the boat" by raising the issue.

I did try this, and was promptly requested to wear a tie next time. I
should have raised the issue.

> > While this "emotional muting" may not sound very harmful, Branden
> > says another very interesting thing about emotional responses. I am
> > having difficulty finding the exact quote, but Branden states that
> > emotional responses are value judgments. When a person has an
> > emotional response, the emotions are an automatic expression of how
> > that person values a certain event.
>
> Yes. Emotions are automatic, subconscious summations of your evaluation
> of something or someone. If rational and consistent (and mentally
> healthy) such evaluations are fully consistent with what you
> consciously think and profess. It is only that it would likely take
> you far longer (and would not likely even be as accurate) to
> consciously go through the entire evaluation procedure that the
> subconscious does for you. In this respect I have gone a little
> further than Branden. I call emotions "tools of cognition" because if
> they are made consistent with your consciously held principles, they
> can be used to help you understand and react to given situations and
> people much more quickly and accurately than can conscious thought.
> More than once in my life I have found my emotions telling me
> something that I did not at first agree with, but after a while came
> to realize was more consistent with my fundamental principles of
> behavior than the conscious choices and actions I was taking. However,
> for one to be able use and rely on one's emotions in this fashion one
> must deliberately and with great focus, and over time, go through a
> process that I call "reprogramming one's emotions" in order to ensure
> that they are consistent with one's most fundamental conscious
> convictions and their implications.


I enjoyed your discussion above, Paul. Perhaps your experiences are
what people call "going with your gut". However, I do agree that it is
most prudent if one "reprograms the gut" to respond in a way that is
in one's best interests.


> > To me, this means that if I fail
> > to emotionally respond to events, I also fail to experience and
> > *express* my value system.
> >
> > *And what do you know? I've had problems with asserting my values
> > and standing up for my convictions! Wow!*
>
> It is very enjoyable to see such insight!

It is very enjoyable to experience it! I feel as though I have made
much progress in a short period of time (the past few weeks). It is
invigorating, refreshing, and rewarding to see the world in a better
way.


> > All of these relationships between ideas made a lot of sense to me
> > and I'm still working on understanding their full implications. I
> > want to note here that taking the time to put these idea-
> > relationships into words (typing it out) helps with this
> > understanding. The process of writing a coherent story with an
> > audience in mind requires the author (me) to be able to clearly
> > explain the ideas. And being able to clearly explain anything
> > requires the author (or speaker) to understand the material.
> >
>
> No question about that being true.
>
> > Sexual roles
> >
> > A second, very important point in this book influenced my thinking
> > very much. Branden only briefly mentions the topic of sexual roles,
> > and compares male and female sexual roles. I will first briefly
> > discuss my experience with sexual roles.
> >
> > When I was in high school, approximately 16 years old, I had a
> > girlfriend who I dated for quite some time (18 months if I remember
> > correctly). During that time, being teenagers, we were both
> > interested in sex and exploring sexual desires with one another.
>
> Such a difference in 50 years. I was also interested in sex at that age,
> but there was absolutely no thought of taking any related action to
> explore sexual desires with a girl.

Not infrequently it is the girl who first initiates the exploration of
sexual desires. Another girlfriend I had in high school was *very*
sexually assertive. She was 16-17 years old. What was the sexual
environment like for young people at this age 50 years ago?


> > However, during our relationship, my girlfriend was very reluctant
> > to have sexual intercourse. This did not bother me, but many of her
> > peers learned of her preference for non-intercourse sexual
> > activities. Her peers proceeded to pressure her and mock her for not
> > wanting to have sexual intercourse.
> >
> > After a year of dating this girl, I was visiting with her family at
> > their cottage, and some of our friends came along. One night I snuck
> > into her room and we spent time together, talking, kissing, and
> > holding one another. I don't recall anything sexually-out-of-the-
> > ordinary occurring that night, but at one point she began crying
> > intensely. After I coaxed her into explaining what it was she was
> > upset about she described to me how her brother had sexually molested
> > her several years prior. She had been very reluctant about sexual
> > situations because this experience with her brother still bothered
> > her. At this point I began to understand why she had been reluctant
> > about sexual activities and *I resolved to not pressure her about
> > sex* (emphasis placed because I will come back to this point again
> > very soon).
>
> What was needed was to explain to her that loving, caring sexual
> activity is totally different and unrelated to molestation (although I
> would need to have the actual actions described before I can accept the
> word "molestation" as a correct naming of them).


I am interested to hear your thoughts about what constitutes
"molestation".


> In that sense you should never have pressured her


I made a mistake by using the phrase "pressure her". By pressure, I meant
that verbally asserting my interest in sex was considered by her to be
pressure. When I said above that I "resolved not to pressure her about
sex", I meant that as "I resolved not to ever mention sex so as to
avoid making her feel pressured".


> but merely described the possible joy of such
> activities. But then you were far too young to fully understand this
> at age 16.


Agreed.


> > Within the next couple of months, the pressure she encountered from
> > her peers intensified. Finally she said that she was tired of the
> > emotional grief from her peers regarding the context of sex in a long-
> > term relationship and she decided to end the relationship. I was
> > very hurt. I think I learned from this experience *not to pressure a
> > woman about sex, even if I have sexual desires* (again, I will come
> > back to this).
>
> Actually one should never "pressure" anyone about anything.


Again, it seems that I  incorrectly used the word "pressure". I used the
word "pressure" to mean that, even the simple act of mentioning a topic
is considered to be "pressure", depending on the person. For example,
if I ask my father how he is feeling, he may become angry and say: "No
Steve, I haven't stopped smoking yet", even if I had no intention of
discussing his smoking habit. My asking about his health is construed
as "pressure" about his smoking habit.


> To be
> effective and successful, all influencing should be done by means of
> persuasion (reasoned argumentation) related to the lifetime happiness
> of the other person.


I agree, and try to practice this at all times. Since humans are designed to
operate within reality by using their rational faculty, appealing to that
faculty is a good way to influence a person.


> > In this book, Breaking Free, Branden briefly describes sexual roles.
> > I have taken the time to find the excerpt from the book where Branden
> > describes this point. It is on page 206 (in the Bantam edition first
> > published December 1972):
> >
> > Branden: "Masculinity or femininity entails an affirmative attitude
> > towards one's sexual nature and one's sexual role." (Next on page
> > 212): Branden: "Now here's something I regard as of prime
> > importance. [A man's sexual role is] not being afraid of the
> > responsibility of masculine self-assertiveness. If you're a woman,
> > [it's] not being afraid or inhibited about responding to the man,
> > about surrendering sexually."
> >
> > My first response to reading the above was that it was unfair of the
> > man to be sexually assertive (phrased: "masculine self-
> > assertiveness") and expect the woman to "surrender sexually".
>
>
> I had the same response and still do. I see the roles in romantic love
> as almost completely equal, with which partner is doing the initiating
> (not "asserting", that is far too forceful a word) alternating from time
> to time depending on natural desires. So here is one place where I
> disagree with Branden's rather old fashioned, almost patriarchal idea.


I have thought about your label of Branden's idea as "patriarchal" and
it seems to be a good way to describe it.


> > However, I contemplated this point at length and realized that I
> > likely have this response because of my experiences with women who
> > had been sexually abused (I have dated one other woman who had also
> > been sexually abused.)
>
> I hate this much and often improperly used word "abuse". I simply will
> not accept any usage of that word unless and until I am told the full
> details of what is called an abusive action.
>
> > I understand how such women can be afraid of
> > sexual encounters and therefore I had resolved not to sexually assert
> > myself.
>
> If someone is still bothered so fundamentally by such an occurrence in
> hir past then you are better to not get involved with hir in any way
> related to sex, unless you first help hir get this "bother" resolved and
> ended.


This resolution is a lengthy process, one which I thought I could help with.
In this regard I had been acting for the benefit of others, rather than
myself, which is wrong.


> > However, in deciding this, I also am denying my sexual role
> > and sexual nature (if Branden's evaluation of these are accurate).
> > And this contradiction seems likely to cause a fair amount of
> > frustration, for both myself and any woman with whom I am in a sexual
> > relationship.
>
> There is no doubt that many women look for a man to always be the
> assertive one, but I think that is irrational thinking on their part and
> needs to be cleared up. IOW, do you really want a sexual relationship
> with such a woman while she still thinks that way?


Good point. No I don't. I had been in a relationship with a woman who
thought this way and it was very frustrating. I constantly had the
responsibility of sensing her desires (exactly as you describe below).
Of course, since I can not read the minds of others I could not always
do this successfully and she felt "unwanted" during the times that she
had desires and I didn't sense them. Very frustrating, and unrealistic.


> To me such thinking
> also puts a lot of pressure on the man to always be able to sense the
> woman's desires and make the right assertiveness decision. I have never
> liked that situation. Like you somewhat, I would always rather do
> without than to make a mistake.


Right, I had decided to do without rather than make a misteak. (Haha,
I left that there in reference to our previous discussion on that joke.)
:)


> > I must consider these points more. I am currently reading "The
> > Psychology of Self-Esteem" by N. Branden and have been taking notes
> > on my experiences while reading. I will consider the possibility of
> > also sharing these other experiences with the group.
>
> That would be good for both you and the readers, I expect, although it
> is a little dismaying that after all this time there has been no
> response to your very frank, honest and friendly post.
>
> > I hope some of the readers find my personal experiences above to be
> > enlightening, encouraging, or at least, interesting. I look forward
> > to comments and discussion.
> >
>
> And why none have come, I simply do not understand.
>
> > ---
> > Steve Floyd
>
> Again thanks for posting this.


You're welcome. I'm glad that we discussed it. Even if there
are not yet any other posts to this, there is always the possibility
that it may be read, thought about, and considered by others in the
future. That's why I chose to post in a public forum.


---
Steve


> --Paul

On 11/13/2008 01:19 PM, Dave Brett wrote:
> I found this recent study of canines treated for hypertension.
> http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/10/1002
>
> The authors comment, in the Clinical Perspective, "Thus, aortic size
> should be monitored carefully in clinical trials of these agents."
>
> The comment was in view of their findings that "A highly significant
> effect of ALT to increase aortic dimension was observed. This
> occurred despite lower BP over the course of the model and was
> independent of distending pressure or body size".
>
> I wonder if this is a significant cause for concern in those of us
> taking ALT-711 on a chronic basis and would be interested to read any
> comments.

Unfortunately, the link above goes only to a page that requires a US$20
payment in order to access the full text of the paper and the abstract
does not say anything related to your remarks above. In addition, my
university access does not have that journal available. Without reading
the full text any reasoned opinion about what you ask is impossible, but
it seems to me if it were viewed as really important it would have been
mentioned in the abstract. If you have the full text (pdf) and could
send it to me by email attachment then I would be happy read it and
comment further.

> Coincidentally, I have a heart scan scheduled for next week and will
> make a point of asking the radiographer if he/she can detect any
> significant change in the size of my aorta since the last scan seven
> years ago.
>
> I'll report my results back to the group in a couple of weeks, after
> I receive the full report from the doctor who reviews my scan.

I look forward to your report.

--Paul

>
>
> Dave Brett
>

On 11/24/2008 12:34 AM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
> On 11/13/2008 01:19 PM, Dave Brett wrote:
>
>> I found this recent study of canines treated for hypertension.
>> http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/10/1002
>>
>> The authors comment, in the Clinical Perspective, "Thus, aortic size
>> should be monitored carefully in clinical trials of these agents."
>>
>> The comment was in view of their findings that "A highly significant
>> effect of ALT to increase aortic dimension was observed. This
>> occurred despite lower BP over the course of the model and was
>> independent of distending pressure or body size".
>>
>> I wonder if this is a significant cause for concern in those of us
>> taking ALT-711 on a chronic basis and would be interested to read any
>> comments.
>
> Unfortunately, the link above goes only to a page that requires a US$20
> payment in order to access the full text of the paper and the abstract
> does not say anything related to your remarks above. In addition, my
> university access does not have that journal available. Without reading
> the full text any reasoned opinion about what you ask is impossible, but
> it seems to me if it were viewed as really important it would have been
> mentioned in the abstract. If you have the full text (pdf) and could
> send it to me by email attachment then I would be happy read it and
> comment further.

I was just sent (and have now read) the full text - thanks Larry.
I now realize that the "aortic dilation" *was* mentioned in the
abstract, but in such a way that my too quick reading did not
distinguish that result from increased aortic distensibility at systole
(the systolic - high - pressure point). In analysis of this somewhat
concerning apparent dilation of the aorta, not related to blood
pressure, I would suggest that perhaps the fairly short duration of the
experiment (only 8 weeks) was not sufficient time for the aorta to
remodel its wall structure to a younger composition and strength after
so abruptly being jolted into change by the administration of ALT-711.
This may be similar to the report by some people that use of ALT-711 has
made their knee joints more flexible, but also more "loose". I think this
is likely a result of taking too much ALT-711 too early and not giving
sufficient time for the knee ligaments and other structural components
to remodel themselves.

BTW, one other very important point brought out by this study is that
CML (N{epsilon}-(carboxymethyl)lysine), which is the standard measure
of the presence and amount of AGEs (but is not itself a crosslink AGE),
may not be a very good measure of all AGEs present.

--Paul

In the message prior to this one (below) I discussed my arguments
against the practice of anonymity. I recently read a great article
that discusses some disadvantages of practicing anonymity.

Here's the article: http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html

I really like this article because it is concise in communicating a
very important, practical, *negative* implication of anonymity. I
understood this point of the article as thus: when making any
decision, one must have information upon which to base hir decision.
This point applies to any decision, including what foods to eat, what
types of exercise to engage in, what books to read, where to buy
food, which car to buy, etc. This article points out very clearly,
and accurately, that the decision regarding *who to interact with* is
also based on information. That is, if I were considering striking up
a conversation with someone, whether I do so is dependent on the
information I have about that person. If I have *no* information
about a person (i.e. that person *practices anonymity*) I will likely
choose not to interact with hir. This is because I have no
information on which to base a decision. But, if that person were to
tell me something about hirself, I can then at least have *some*
information upon which to make a decision about interacting with hir.
Without such information I can make no decision. In contrast, the
more information I am presented with, the more confident I can be in
my decision. So, the person who practices anonymity has a much-
reduced chance of garnering the interest of those who hold similar
ideas.

As a personal example, I have made a personal profile on several
networking websites. When browsing these websites I often find
numerous individuals who have submitted no personal picture and only
a very, very brief personal introduction. I recall that I have
instinctively ignored these people and decided not to interact with
them. I now realize that I had made this decision because I have no
idea who they are, what they look like, what their personal
philosophies are, etc. The people that neglect to be more descriptive
give me no information! I only have a limited amount of time - why
would I decide to say hello to a person who has told me nothing about
hirself? A person who registers at networking websites with the
intent of meeting new people, and does a poor job of communicating
characteristics about hirself, is simply wasting hir time.

This article presents a strong argument for the practice of *at
least* being open and communicative about *some* aspects of one's
character, including interests, dislikes, hobbies, etc. How else does
one get acquainted with others? And communicating this information to
a large number of people is very convenient with the internet. I plan
on making a personal website in the future for just this purpose.
Finally, I think the best networking sites would be those that allow
the largest number of methods by which a person can communicate
personal information (personal videos, pictures, writings, etc.).

I hope others will enjoy this article as much as I have!

---
Steve Floyd


--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have spent a considerable amount of time in the past few days
> reading, analyzing, and interpreting the works of Nathaniel Branden.
> From my understanding, Branden is well-known as a psychologist and
> for his books on self-esteem. During the past few days of my
> studying I have experienced a remarkable amount of self-discovery
> that I would like to share with the group. Prior to my beginning to
> read Branden's work I thought myself to be a successful, socially
> well-adjusted 26-year old male. I still think these things about
> myself, but after reading Branden's work it is apparent to me that I
> still have plenty of work to do in developing myself to be as
> rational and well-adjusted as I can be. As I have found my
> experiences studying Branden's work to be very enlightening and even
> life-changing, I would encourage others who have not yet read his
> work to consider doing so.
>
> Before I get started with my thoughts about Branden's ideas and how
I
> have applied them to me I would first like to discuss my thoughts on
> sharing the "personal" information I am about to share. Some of the
> ideas I am about to share may seem to others to be highly personal,
> and a reader might ask the question: "why would Steve share this
> with other people on the internet he doesn't even know". A reader
> might also think: "I would never share such highly personal thoughts
> and experiences as Steve has in such a public forum". Since many
> people who are active on the internet seem to be what I would
> call "overly cautious" of sharing personal information with others,
> these questions are ones I would like to reply to, in hopes that my
> answers inspire readers to reconsider their overly-private
> disposition.
>
> When considering whether I would share these thoughts openly with
> others (or when considering sharing any information with others), I
> ask myself if there is possibility of negative consequences to me by
> sharing these thoughts. Answering this question can be difficult
> sometimes, such as the question: "should one share their financial
> information with others?" By my analysis, there seems to be a number
> of possible negative consequences that I might be more likely to be
> subjected to should I share my personal financial information with
> others. For example, if I had a large amount of wealth and shared
> this information openly with everyone I knew, some people (given a
> large enough sample of people who are aware of my wealth) would
> consider taking advantage of me to obtain some of my wealth. To this
> point I might reply: "well, if I am not being foolish with my
> wealth, and only use it for things that are important to me, no one
> would be able to cause me to part with my wealth without my
> consent". I think this is a valid reply to such an argument.
> However, some of these people, aware of my wealth, may consider
> taking my wealth from me by force. This, of course, would make my
> life more dangerous, much like carrying a large amount of cash
around
> on my person, and being flashy with it, in a crowded area. From my
> understanding, doing this would make it more likely that I could be
> harmed for my cash (i.e. for my wealth).
>
> However, from my analysis, sharing personal thoughts and experiences
> is much different than sharing information about wealth. If one
> tries to compare the two pieces of information (about wealth and
> about experiences), only the former can be stolen. That is, the two
> types of information are not comparable in their value to others. If
> someone knows that I have had a certain thought, or experienced a
> particular feeling, they can not use this information to deprive me
> of material wealth.
>
> On the other hand, a person with possession of this knowledge might
> use this information to illustrate me to others as a bad person.
> That is, if I am convinced of an idea that would result in me being
> harmful to other people, the fact that I hold this idea can be
> communicated to a large audience with the intent to cause others to
> dislike me. Should I be convinced of ideas that are harmful to
> others I should be careful about what ideas and experiences I share
> with others, for I wouldn't want others to hate me (i.e. socially
> preference against me).
>
> Then it is good for me I hold no such views! :)
>
> My question then, for those who are convinced that they should not
> share their personal experiences and philosophies with others,
> is: "are you convinced of ideas that would motivate you to harm
> me?" For example, perhaps you firmly think that your life should be
> spent stealing from others, or that you very much enjoy killing
> people while they sleep. Certainly I would not want to associate
> with you if you hold these views, and I would also communicate to
> those I cared about that it is in their best interests to avoid you.
> However, how many people, that is, what proportion of people hold
> views like this? And even more relevant, if *you*, reading this now,
> hold no such harmful or malicious views, what is the harm in sharing
> them? Perhaps you will make new friends. Perhaps you and I will
> become great friends!
>
> So, I invite everyone reading this to reply to my comments,
> especially should they have personal thoughts and experiences to
> share that relate to what I am about to share.
>
> Furthermore, on the subject of sharing personal thoughts and
> experiences: perhaps a reader would be concerned of being ridiculed
> for holding a certain view or feeling a certain emotion at a
> seemingly inappropriate time. In reply to this idea, I would
> ask: "If you were to share something personal and someone were to
> ridicule you, which one of you would look like a fool to everyone
> else? You, or the person doing the ridiculing?" Of course, the
> plain answer is that any person who ridicules someone else for
> sharing personal thoughts with others is seen by others as an
> inconsiderate asshole. That would be the name for the ridiculer that
> would pop into my mind.
>
> So again, I invite you to share your thoughts and feelings. I
> certainly think we can learn from one another.
>
> ---
> Steve Floyd

Paul Wakfer and I recently had a private email discussion about the
benefits and drawbacks of using blood donation as a method of
reducing high body iron stores. I thought it would be of interest to
others in the group, so I have placed it in this message (below).

---
Steve Floyd

[In order to maintain correct dialog level information, I decided to
only retain Steve's original question in this message and to place my
response in an immediately following reply to it. --Paul]

---------------- original message -------------
Hi Paul,

I am working on my literature review for my organic chemistry
course, which is due this week. This literature review is concerned
with the possible negative health-consequences of high iron status.
It's coming along fairly well, but there's one point I would like to
make in this review that I don't yet have sources for. I remember
reading an article recently (I think on Morelife Yahoo) where you
caution Olafur about blood donations. You mention that blood
donations, while effective at lowering iron stores, may have
unforeseen negative effects, such as depleting limited immune cells,
stem cells, and others. I was wondering if you had any references for
those assertions, as I would like to discuss these negative
consequences in the section of the paper where I discuss phlebotomy
as a method of reducing iron stores. If not, I will search for them
on my own, as I think it is prudent to give an accurate benefit vs.
risk evaluation in a paper such as this. Even pointing me to a
certain journal or article on sci.life-extension or other such group
would be very helpful. I spent a little time searching for several
items in Morelife Yahoo and sci.life-extension and did not find what
I am looking for.

---
Steve Floyd

On 11/29/2008 08:54 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:

<snipped information relating to source of this dialog>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am working on my literature review for my organic chemistry
> course, which is due this week. This literature review is concerned
> with the possible negative health-consequences of high iron status.
> It's coming along fairly well, but there's one point I would like to
> make in this review that I don't yet have sources for. I remember
> reading an article recently (I think on Morelife Yahoo) where you
> caution Olafur about blood donations. You mention that blood
> donations, while effective at lowering iron stores, may have
> unforeseen negative effects, such as depleting limited immune cells,
> stem cells, and others. I was wondering if you had any references for
> those assertions, as I would like to discuss these negative
> consequences in the section of the paper where I discuss phlebotomy
> as a method of reducing iron stores. If not, I will search for them
> on my own, as I think it is prudent to give an accurate benefit vs.
> risk evaluation in a paper such as this. Even pointing me to a
> certain journal or article on sci.life-extension or other such group
> would be very helpful. I spent a little time searching for several
> items in Morelife Yahoo and sci.life-extension and did not find what
> I am looking for.
>
> ---
> Steve Floyd
>

[The messages Steve is referring to are in the thread that began in April 2005
and started with http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/931
**Kitty]

I think that you have misunderstood my argument. The fact that donations
of whole blood temporarily decrease *all* blood components is pure logic
and therefore needs no references. The results of blood donations that
do need consideration are:

1) How fast will the optimal level of blood components (which, except
for iron, you presumably had before the donation) be restored? Now most
doctors and the blood donation clinics will say even this does not
matter much because after all, the donation is only 250 ml which is only
about 5% of the total amount of blood in your body (about 5 liters for a
normal adult human). However, even though I agree with this somewhat,
nevertheless the body has lost blood components that it had produced
according to its determination of its most optimal state. I do not know
how long the restoration of each blood component will take, but I have
no great concern about any negative effects from such a small depletion
over this time period, since I know that the body can quickly upregulate
its production of any one of these components (particularly white blood
cells) if it should determine the need to do so. However, this is not
true for memory white blood cells that have been trained by encounter
with previous pathogens, including through vaccinations, to quickly
initiate an immune response and thus prevent any new appearance of that
same pathogen from causing any major harm. These appear to remain in the
blood system for life and only slowly decrease with time, perhaps even
because of normal blood loss - I don't think that anyone really knows
the full reasons for the rate of decrease, which definitely varies
between individuals. There may even be other, perhaps unknown, blood
components that one has acquired over time and with maturity which will
be depleted by blood donations and only very slowly regained, if ever.
Scientists are far from knowing and understanding all aspects of the
human body, not even the blood, which is a highly complex mixture.

2) Any loss of essential body cells will require their progenitor cells
to divide in order to replace those lost cells. While this is not going
to be a problem acutely (if occurring only a few times or very
infrequently), if done chronically (as some people are advising), it
will, over time, deplete the division potential of the cells that
produce the blood cellular components, and if done sufficiently often
the doubling time potential of those cells (the Hayflick limit) may be
reached and become a limiting factor to lifespan. (There is already good
evidence that the Hayflick limit plays a part in the exhaustion of white
cell division that occurs with AIDS.) In addition, the cells that
produce non-cellular blood components will constantly be operating at a
higher rate than they normally do in the body, which logically also may
have negative effects on their healthy lifespan. Now for a normal
healthy person a reasonable number of blood donations may not have a
significant effect with respect to the doubling potential that is
required for a normal lifespan - see http://pmid.us/12869115 - (one has
to search very hard to find any mortal pathology that is potentially
caused by exhaustion of the cell doubling ability - AIDS is the only
possibility that I know of), for a life extensionist, any unnecessary
reduction of doubling ability of any stem cells is negative to continued
life, as long as it can possibly be avoided. However, with respect to
the trained and specialized cells mentioned above, if many blood
donations are given this must necessarily result in a cumulative loss
and should weaken your immune response to previous pathogens that your
body has detected and conquered. (And I know of no study, such as the
above linked for telomere length, which has tested the effect of
repeat blood donations on immune cell depletion.)

These are the major reasons why I disagree with some people who are on
sci.life-extension (and some doctors elsewhere) advising others that it
is health and life extension promoting to donate blood every 2-3 months
for the rest of their lives, at least into very old age and dysfunction.

In summary, it is not logical to eliminate a number of blood components
that a healthy body has determined are needed for continued optimal
health, merely because one of those components is deemed to be negative
for long-term health and the mechanisms of the body have not been able
to either determine that or do something about it. Rather if one finds
that one has very high iron stores, then yes, it is a good idea to
donate blood every 3 months for a while until iron stores are at a more
healthy lower range, even though this is going to be slightly harmful
(for the reasons given above). This is necessary and valuable *only*
because no other reasonable and effective method of ridding one's body
of iron only (very strongly sequestered by the body for evolutionary
reasons) is known at this time. However at the same time, it is vital to
alter one's diet to reduce iron accumulation in the body. This can
easily be done by reducing consumption of red meat, eggs, etc (heme
iron) and increasing consumption of fibers that prevent the absorption
of iron from the GI tract.

--Paul

The following is a dialogue between Paul Wakfer and I regarding
insurance, responsibility, and my thoughts on so-called "universal
health care". The first part of the message is Paul Wakfer, with my
reply following after.

---

> One only needs to have sufficient wealth for one's immediate needs
> and for a future amount of time which might need to pass, if one's
> ability to generate more wealth were curtailed temporarily. As far as
> total disability, that is what insurance is for. Insurance is
> entirely reasonable for those negative occurrences that only rarely
> happen to individuals. And by rarely I mean, unlikely during one's
> lifetime. The pooled risk of insurance is then a reasonable way for
> each person to help the other *if* *(and only if) such rare negatives
> are also truly unavoidable. However, since it is hard to tell whether
> or not something is truly unavoidable (generally this is never the
> case), I am negative on insurance altogether since it ends up
> fostering irresponsibility. In this day and age it is also hard to
> imagine a disability so bad that you would both want to continue to
> live and yet still not be able to do *anything* to gain the necessary
> money to support yourself.

I agree that insurance tends to foster irresponsibility, as does any
circumstance where one does not have to pay attention to the outcome
of hir action (or inaction), such as government or parents "taking
care of everything". That's an interesting point you bring up about
it not being likely that one suffers from a disability so bad that
they'd still want to live, and yet not be able to do *anything* to
make a living. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a group of ~8
people about medical services and insurance. Most of the people in
the room thought that so-called "universal health care" is desirable.
I was the only one to disagree, and I found it a little difficult to
explain my position without getting upset at their position, which I
see as amounting to stealing from me to pay for someone else's
condition.

During this discussion, my biggest contention was that I should not
have to pay for someone else's expensive, catastrophic illness
(through taxes or premiums I pay and don't use). Several people in
the group opined that everyone should have access to health care,
regardless of illness. I explained that, from the standpoint of
reality, this position made no sense. In reality, bad things happen
to people, and in many instances these bad things can't be prevented
or foreseen (this discussion regarded conditions such as a birth
defects or spontaneous cancer). But, just because a bad thing happens
to a person doesn't necessitate that person being entitled to medical
assistance. I gave them an example: assume I have a child, and my
child has a birth defect that requires an expensive medical procedure
to correct. If I can't afford the transplant, what should I do? I
said (a little sarcastically): "sure, all I have to do is break into
your house and steal from each of you, and I'll be able to afford it!
Yes, it's unfortunate that my child has a terrible birth defect, and
will probably die. But that's reality, and I have no right to require
the rest of you to pay for it." Most of the people in the room paused
and considered this and I think I made them reconsider their
position. This discussion went further, but I recall that I felt
really great after it, feeling as though I expressed my thoughts
about reality accurately and convinced others that my thoughts were
accurate.

I have found that many people think this perspective of "withholding
medical services" as being heartless or inhumane. It seems as though
the people who hold this view don't realize that medical services
cost something - money, experience, education, time, etc. For
everyone to have access to them means that these services are free
(like air) - but they're not!

Does anyone in the group have any thoughts about this? "Health care"
seems to be a popular topic in the media relatively recently.

---
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Wakfer
To: morelife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:53 AM
Subject: [morelife] Re: Blood donations for iron reduction and possible
drawbacks

On 11/29/2008 08:54 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:

<snipped information relating to source of this dialog>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am working on my literature review for my organic chemistry
> course, which is due this week. This literature review is concerned
> with the possible negative health-consequences of high iron status.
<snip>


If Steve Floyd, Jr. would be willing to post or forward his literature
review when it's completed, I for one would appreciate it.

Lynn
dayrain@...

[Moderator note: Steve is welcome to upload his review to the Files section of
the group for access by members. **Kitty]

In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@...> wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts
>>> and experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.

<snip previous comment>

>>> First, I should
>>> point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free –
>>> "How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from
>>> reaching your full adult potential".

<snipped old details>

>> What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
>> an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
>> adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
>> attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
>> asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
>> process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives.
>>
>
> I have thought about how it may be misleading to emphasize a person's
> 18th or 21st birthday as the attainment of "adulthood" or "maturity".
> It seems that the attainment of a certain age does not necessitate a
> minimum level of achieved maturity in a person. Perhaps this
> "celebrating adulthood" at 18 or 21 encourages a person to conclude:
> "I am now an adult and need no further personal development".

All of the above is certainly true, but worst of all is the mutually
exclusive classification of humans as either children (with
subclassifications from new-born to adolescence), who are in a process
of physically and mentally maturing to more fully realize their human
potential, and adults, who have already matured and for whom it is
assumed and accepted by most people that the process of maturing is now
complete. However, the true situation is that all such
subclassifications are merely sometimes useful approximations and do not
fully characterize reality. Just as humans are from birth ever
physically developing and changing (even aging is part of the continuing
process of development), so they can be and should always be mentally
growing, changing and increasing in maturity, understanding and efficacy
in dealing with reality, because this is the means by which each
effectively achieves hir purpose in life, optimally increasing hir
lifetime happiness, even though the full extent of such possible human
potential is something that can never be finally reached.

>> Full human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
>> which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
>> are 30".
>>
> I have heard of this phrase and have always been concerned that it may
> apply to me someday. However, it seems to me that I have developed
> myself to have disposition to be constantly learning and growing, and to
> have an open mind. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that I will ever
> become developmentally "stagnant".
>
> I wonder if it is possible to change someone's halted development. I
> wonder what it is that makes a person's mind "turn-off" to the rest of
> the world.

A major reason is because they have never experienced both the immediate
joy and the enormous sense of pride that comes from using one's mind
to effectively deal with reality. I mainly blame current educational
methods for this, but of course it is a self-inducing system because
their parents and all other role models around them were also turned-off
by that same hopelessly sterile educational approach.

>>> Studying this
>>> book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
>>> engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
>>>
>> Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included.
>> It is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
>> degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even
>> though one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that
>> will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
>> *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
>> reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
>> unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
>> time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
>> one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
>> work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
>> experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that
>> I don't get better at this much faster than I do.
>>
>
> Your description of the estimation process above makes sense. It
> makes me think of the idea that mental development is the process by
> which to improve one's chances at estimating correctly, since that is
> what the mind is for. I enjoyed a book called "The Black Swan" by
> Nassim Nicholas Taleb. In the book he describes how the social
> world with which a human interacts is much more complicated now
> than it was not so long ago. With improved communication and
> transportation technologies, information and people can move around
> the world so quickly that it makes it all the more difficult to make
> accurate estimations.

While these differences perhaps make estimations and decisions about
some things more difficult, I think the enormously increased ability to
find information generally makes estimates and decisions about most
things far easier. If only people would be more open about themselves
and eschew anonymity, then decisions with respect to people would also
be much easier now than in decades past.

>>> The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
>>> Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
>>> practicing psychologist). This entire book is based of an epiphany
>>> Branden had during one of his group sessions. He asked the group a
>>> series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
>>> were children. He found that when he asked an appropriate question
>>> to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great
>>> deal of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
>>> questions about hirself.
>>>
>> This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
>> Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
>> facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
>> conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
>> that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
>> psychological development/growth.
>>
> I can picture how this process occurs within a great many people. When
> a person points out an inconvenient truth about another person's history
> or personality, it can be easier to make excuses for it, rather than admit
> it, try to understand what is wrong with it, and take action to
> correct it.

More often, in my experience, the person, either ignores you, goes off
in a huff and never talks to you again or lashes back with some negative
comment about you, usually totally unrelated to the point you were
making. At least if someone tries to make excuses, that is something
that you can try to counteract, providing some hope for the future of
the relationship.

<snipped previous details>

>>> I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
>>> fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
>>>
>> Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
>> called patient confidentially. If that patient wants it, while that is
>> still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
>> even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
>> the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
>> confidentially and even welcome their names being used and are fully
>> willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
>>
>> [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
>> Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of writer's,
>> whether in the health care fields or not, use this technique for examples,
>> rather than obtain permission to use that of a specific individual. These
>> writers like this method also to combine the characteristics of several of
>> their clients into one pseudo-person with the problems or situations
>> they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
>>
>> [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
>> example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and,
>> for any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even
>> occur in the reality of any single human. This is similar to using
>> a unicorn or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally
>> unacceptable for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]
>>
>
> This practice of using a composite person as an example, if engaged in,
> does seem like an awfully dishonest way of communicating an example.
> Given that each person responds to words and ideas differently based
> on hir knowledge and experience, there's really no way to tell what a
> "composite" person would do. This way of giving an example seems to
> be no better than just making-up the person and hir response. And
> doing so would not be reality, only the author's estimation of reality.

I'm in total agreement with that.

<snipped portions on religious upbringing>

>>> Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
>>> stopped trying to understand the world around him. This random,
>>> unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
>>> a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
>>> world. Henry had given up the hope of understanding. When reading
>>> this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
>>> says to Henry:
>>>
>>> "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding. You stopped
>>> caring to understand. That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
>>>
>> Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
>> as efficacious with respect to reality.
>>
>
> I am still working at making a connection between the idea of self-esteem
> and the feeling of being able to understand reality and act upon it
> appropriately. As I read Branden's books I see that he makes this
> connection, and describes how efficacy in dealing with reality is a
> person's source of self-esteem because the mind is a person's main
> way with which to deal with reality.

Self-esteem is one's own subjective estimation of one's worth, the
measure of which is one's ability and success at gaining the purpose of
one's life - optimally increasing one's lifetime happiness. In order to
achieve this success one must be as efficacious as possible in
understanding, modifying and gaining happiness from the reality in which
one lives. There is no other real method of gaining happiness and
therefore there is no other valid measure of one's worth.

> He says that, since humans are
> designed to deal with reality through the use of their "rational
> faculty",

Branden certainly errs here. Humans are not "designed", since "designed"
implies a designer. What a strange statement for an atheist to make! A
better way to say the same thing would be "humans have evolved to deal
with reality ...". Humans do not have the biggest teeth, the thickest
hides, the fastest legs, wings, gills, hibernation capability or any
other abilities superior to all other lifeforms *except* their brains.

> full, successful use of this rational faculty is the source
> of a person's self-esteem. However, I still can't see and understand
> these connections in my mind. I'm thinking about them.

Hopefully my words above will help a little.

>> And the first step to being
>> efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
>> second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
>> goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
>> choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
>> (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).
>>
> This point is clear. If one constantly has choices to make, when
> making choices, one must decide one's desired outcome (the goal).

And one necessarily *always* and *constantly* has choices to make as
long as one is conscious. It is important here to realize that taking
no action at all (no change from whatever one is currently doing) is
still a choice that one has made and acted on.

>>> This is the point in the book when I began to laugh, and cry,
>>> simultaneously – both quite heartily. I think I became emotional at
>>> this particular statement in the book because I have never really
>>> understood the idea of self-esteem. I am still struggling to
>>> understand it, and other parts of this book have helped me to
>>> understand it. But Henry's story sounded very similar to parts of my
>>> childhood. My parents could be quite random in their behavior,
>>> laughing one minute, quiet the next, shouting at one another the
>>> next, or drunk and loving the next.

<snipped previous comment>

>>> It made a lot of sense to me
>>> that a child in this type of situation would "give up" trying to
>>> understand the behavior of others and would begin to "turn off",
>>> emotionally. I think I have turned my own emotions off.
>>>
>> But at least you did not give up trying to understand other, not emotion
>> related things in life. That was your anchor to reality and what enabled
>> your mind to retain sufficient health that you could now finally begin
>> to examine emotions.
>
> I had a wonderful, related experience with one of Branden's other
> books, the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I agree: during these experiences
> I had never given up at trying to understand non-emotion things, and that
> I can now apply this inquisitiveness to myself.

And doesn't that feel great!

>>> Since some
>>> things my parents did could be hurtful, or (in contrast) caring,
>>> or irrational, I began to tune them out and to stop emotionally
>>> responding to them.
>>>
>>> I still do this today. For example, I don't like a number of traits
>>> about my mother and I am not very close to her, intellectually or
>>> emotionally. However, on the rare occasions I see her or talk to her
>>> on the phone, she will try to hug me or tell me she loves me. My
>>> first response to these expressions of "love" is to ignore them or
>>> tune them out. I don't want to respond to her, probably because my
>>> response would be: "no you don't Mom, or you would act differently
>>> than you do".
>>>
>> What this means is that she does not really know what love means.
>> She merely thinks of it as a duty that she owes to a son and can be
>> accomplished simply buy using the word and taking the standard actions.
>> She probably very deeply wants to love you but she does not know what
>> love really entails nor how to actually do it.
>
> What you describe above seems to accurately describe most people in my
> family. I wonder how many other people think the same thing about the
> actions of each of their family members.

Likely few, I suspect (it sure seems that way from all my experience).
Most people merely accept the cultural norm that one has some kind of
duty to love or at least continue cordial relations with one's
relatives even if deep inside you can't stand them.

>>> But, rather than say that (which, in fact, I have on
>>> occasion), I mute my emotional response. So one might say that I'm
>>> emotionally withdrawn. Rather than express my true emotions and
>>> thoughts and create conflict (since she will get angry with me and we
>>> will get into an argument – it's happened many times before), I
>>> ignore my feelings and even encourage myself to be non-responsive.
>>> This "ignoring of feelings just to get through the situation" seems
>>> exceedingly prevalent in my life.
>>>
>> Far better would be to greatly reduce the likelihood of encountering
>> such situations and instead seek emotional situations with people who
>> understand them and act consistently with that understanding. The fact
>> that she (and perhaps other people that are negative to your well-being)
>> are biologically related should have no bearing on this decision.
>>
>
> I strongly agree that biological relation has no bearing on my decision
> to interact with people, and have begun to apply this perspective in
> my life.
> Since I understand this philosophy to be highly rational, I find it
> surprising
> that so few people agree with it. Perhaps this is because so many people
> have been indoctrinated by religion or family pride (or something else)
> that they experience strong guilt if they refuse to interact with people
> biologically related to themselves.

I think that the biggest reasons for most people continuing to interact
with their biological relations are:
1) These are naturally people with whom one is most likely to have both
experiences and genetically predisposing characteristics in common.
2) The culture of today strongly influences everyone to refrain from
judging others. This is based in religious origins ("Judge not, else ye
shall be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" - and who is the
closest "neighbor" during one's childhood? Family of course) and in
political origins such as the disastrous phrasing, that was sneaked
into the US Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal".

>> I do
>> not have a single biologically related person to whom I am close, mainly
>> because none of them have any high regard for the ideas that I think are
>> most important of all. In fact, they all appear to regard me as an
>> impractical misfit and kook.
>>
>
> Paul, I think it is interesting that your family regards you as "an
> impractical misfit and kook". I think this is very interesting because
> from my knowledge, those people who have accomplished great things or
> who have revolutionary ideas are often considered "misfits" and
> "kooks" by their contemporaries. This relationship between unorthodox
> ideas and accomplishment seems to make a lot of sense. If one wants to
> make a great improvement to some aspect of reality, this desired
> improvement implies that the current state of reality must be
> *different*. Hence, those who discover something *different* (and
> perhaps wonderfully beneficial) must *think differently*. In the
> process of thinking differently they may also need to take the abuse
> of their contemporaries for being  "different".
>
> It is very unfortunate that unusual ideas are treated with such hostility,
> because improvement only comes through new ideas (a deviation from
> the current idea).

It is refreshing to see someone else appreciate and state that so well.
Of course, the converse does not hold. Just because a person is very
different in thought and action from others does not imply that s/he has
discovered any important and generally unknown/accepted truths of
reality. Many people like to be different for no other reason than
perhaps their own amusement or self-identification. But most who are
different, do so to associate with similar others in groups somewhat
alienated from the rest of society.

>> But so what? There are lots of other people
>> in the world, some of whom have shown and will still show that they
>> appreciate my most cherished ideas.
>>
>> [The description Paul gives for himself is near identical to mine.
>> While he has 1 brother, 1 sister and 1 biological daughter (that he
>> knows about - the others were from sperm donations), I have 2
>> brothers, 2 sisters (all younger than me), **Kitty]
>
> Kitty, I note that you are the oldest of your siblings, as am I. I
> understand independence of thought tends to be more prevalent
> in eldest children.

That is the general finding of psychologists. However, my brother was 2
years older and my sister 6 years younger (WWII intervened). As a child
my brother was certainly more of a rebel with respect to the family
mores than I was, but this led to him being, in general, a far less
ethical person than me, but, after his teens, also far more aligned with
the behavior and norms of society than me. Still my radicalism came
slowly, continuing to build all my life, as I more and more questioned
and analyzed everything that I observed others doing.

<snipped previous comments>

>>> I have a difficult time expressing
>>> my thoughts or feelings about a number of things, especially in my
>>> employment setting, because I'd rather not "rock the boat" by
>>> exclaiming, for example, that I really hate wearing a tie!
>>>
>> One solution is to clearly make that statement by the simple action of
>> acting differently ("actions speak louder than words"), and let the
>> other person "rock the boat" by raising the issue.
>>
>
> I did try this, and was promptly requested to wear a tie next time.
> I should have raised the issue.

Yes. You could have challenged back by simply asking "Why should I?"
Not with a challenging tone, but rather one sincerely wanting reasons.

>>> While this "emotional muting" may not sound very harmful, Branden
>>> says another very interesting thing about emotional responses. I am
>>> having difficulty finding the exact quote, but Branden states that
>>> emotional responses are value judgments. When a person has an
>>> emotional response, the emotions are an automatic expression of how
>>> that person values a certain event.
>>>
>> Yes. Emotions are automatic, subconscious summations of your evaluation
>> of something or someone. If rational and consistent (and mentally
>> healthy) such evaluations are fully consistent with what you
>> consciously think and profess. It is only that it would likely take
>> you far longer (and would not likely even be as accurate) to
>> consciously go through the entire evaluation procedure that the
>> subconscious does for you. In this respect I have gone a little
>> further than Branden. I call emotions "tools of cognition" because if
>> they are made consistent with your consciously held principles, they
>> can be used to help you understand and react to given situations and
>> people much more quickly and accurately than can conscious thought.
>> More than once in my life I have found my emotions telling me
>> something that I did not at first agree with, but after a while came
>> to realize was more consistent with my fundamental principles of
>> behavior than the conscious choices and actions I was taking. However,
>> for one to be able use and rely on one's emotions in this fashion one
>> must deliberately and with great focus, and over time, go through a
>> process that I call "reprogramming one's emotions" in order to ensure
>> that they are consistent with one's most fundamental conscious
>> convictions and their implications.
>>
>
> I enjoyed your discussion above, Paul. Perhaps your experiences are
> what people call "going with your gut". However, I do agree that it is
> most prudent if one "reprograms the gut" to respond in a way that is
> in one's best interests.

Yes, they are called that, but I am always very negative about that
expression, since all reasoning and evaluation, whether conscious or
emotional takes place in the brain. So one reprograms one's brain with
respect to emotions, not one's gut. One's gut is what one reprograms to
respond in one's best interest by, for example, accepting certain foods
and other substances, which one has consciously decided are beneficial
for one's body, without too much disturbance.

>>> To me, this means that if I fail
>>> to emotionally respond to events, I also fail to experience and
>>> *express* my value system.
>>>
>>> *And what do you know? I've had problems with asserting my values
>>> and standing up for my convictions! Wow!*
>>>
>> It is very enjoyable to see such insight!
>
> It is very enjoyable to experience it! I feel as though I have made
> much progress in a short period of time (the past few weeks). It is
> invigorating, refreshing, and rewarding to see the world in a better
> way.

And it appears to me that you *have* made much progress.

<snipped previous comment>

>>> A second, very important point in this book influenced my thinking
>>> very much. Branden only briefly mentions the topic of sexual roles,
>>> and compares male and female sexual roles. I will first briefly
>>> discuss my experience with sexual roles.
>>>
>>> When I was in high school, approximately 16 years old, I had a
>>> girlfriend who I dated for quite some time (18 months if I remember
>>> correctly). During that time, being teenagers, we were both
>>> interested in sex and exploring sexual desires with one another.
>>>
>> Such a difference in 50 years. I was also interested in sex at that age,
>> but there was absolutely no thought of taking any related action to
>> explore sexual desires with a girl.
>
> Not infrequently it is the girl who first initiates the exploration
> of sexual desires.

Again that was never the case in my experience (very limited, I grant).
It did not happen to me until I was 40 and had a brief affair with a
slightly older woman some years after the breakup of my first marriage.

> Another girlfriend I had in high school was *very*
> sexually assertive. She was 16-17 years old. What was the sexual
> environment like for young people at this age 50 years ago?

Actually that age was more like 54 years ago (1954), when I was in the
last two grades of high school (there were then 5 HS grades in Ontario
9-13). In my experience at that time, sex before marriage, or at the
least engagement, was taboo and only the lowest class or most crass
people did it, mainly because they were too weak to resist their baser
urges - actually not too different a view than about people who got
drunk. (Note these are *not* my present thoughts at all! But an honest
attempt to phrase how I and most other morally "good" people thought
about it in 1954.)

>>> However, during our relationship, my girlfriend was very reluctant
>>> to have sexual intercourse. This did not bother me, but many of
>>> her peers learned of her preference for non-intercourse sexual
>>> activities. Her peers proceeded to pressure her and mock her for
>>> not wanting to have sexual intercourse.
>>>
>>> After a year of dating this girl, I was visiting with her family at
>>> their cottage, and some of our friends came along. One night I snuck
>>> into her room and we spent time together, talking, kissing, and
>>> holding one another. I don't recall anything sexually-out-of-the-
>>> ordinary occurring that night, but at one point she began crying
>>> intensely. After I coaxed her into explaining what it was she was
>>> upset about she described to me how her brother had sexually molested
>>> her several years prior. She had been very reluctant about sexual
>>> situations because this experience with her brother still bothered
>>> her. At this point I began to understand why she had been reluctant
>>> about sexual activities and *I resolved to not pressure her about
>>> sex* (emphasis placed because I will come back to this point again
>>> very soon).
>>>
>> What was needed was to explain to her that loving, caring sexual
>> activity is totally different and unrelated to molestation (although I
>> would need to have the actual actions described before I can accept the
>> word "molestation" as a correct naming of them).
>>
>
> I am interested to hear your thoughts about what constitutes
> "molestation".

The root problem with "molest", abuse" and so many other words
attempting to describe negative social actions, is that they confuse
psychological effects and physical effects. As an example here is the
definition of "molest" from Collegiate portion of /Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, Unabridged/. Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

"1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or
injurious effect
2: to make annoying sexual advances to; /especially/ : to force
physical and usually sexual contact on"

Now to be complete, one would in turn need to look up "annoy",
"disturb", "persecute" and, at least, "hostile" (all dictionaries are
necessarily circular in character). However, it is clear from the
general meanings of these words and all others used above that while
some actions that fall under this definition, are clearly physical and
are therefore Violations of the receiver (see the definition and uses of
Violation in the NSC), many others are not physical at all, but purely
psychological. It is a major implication of the theory of Social
Meta-Needs that while many actions that are purely psychological may be
disliked by the receiver of those actions, any actual harm that is done
by them is *entirely* up to the receiver. While such actions may
therefore, be socially preferenced against, they are *not* Violations
of the receiver.

>> In that sense you should never have pressured her
>
> I made a mistake by using the phrase "pressure her". By pressure, I meant
> that verbally asserting my interest in sex was considered by her to be
> pressure.

Then that was her problem (psychologically), not yours. If she really
thought that she was right and was proud of her decisions, then she
would have just said no, and left you to decide whether or not that
answer and its result satisfied you, sufficiently to continue the
relationship, at least on the same level as up to that point.

> When I said above that I "resolved not to pressure her about
> sex", I meant that as "I resolved not to ever mention sex so as to
> avoid making her feel pressured".

Understood now, but "pressure" is another word in that class above
like so many that have conflated meanings encompassing both physical
and psychological actions. Therefore, care has to be taken in its
usage to make sure that the reader understands that its intended usage
is purely to mean "attempt to have a psychological effect".

>> but merely described the possible joy of such activities.
>> But then you were far too young to fully understand this
>> at age 16.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> Within the next couple of months, the pressure she encountered from
>>> her peers intensified. Finally she said that she was tired of the
>>> emotional grief from her peers regarding the context of sex in a long-
>>> term relationship and she decided to end the relationship. I was
>>> very hurt. I think I learned from this experience *not to pressure a
>>> woman about sex, even if I have sexual desires* (again, I will come
>>> back to this).
>>>
>> Actually one should never "pressure" anyone about anything.

I meant this to be true even for psychological pressure, in the sense
that one should not attempt to use psychological influence on others,
but rather always use persuasion by trying to appeal to their
reasoning ability. This is particularly true with children because it
promotes in them the notion that all actions should be based on
reasons rather than whims.

> Again, it seems that I  incorrectly used the word "pressure". I used the
> word "pressure" to mean that, even the simple act of mentioning a topic
> is considered to be "pressure", depending on the person. For example,
> if I ask my father how he is feeling, he may become angry and say: "No
> Steve, I haven't stopped smoking yet", even if I had no intention of
> discussing his smoking habit. My asking about his health is construed
> as "pressure" about his smoking habit.

You must learn not to accept someone else's construing of any word you
use or action that you make as your own meaning or intent. His
construing is his problem, not yours.

>> To be effective and successful, all influencing should be done by
>> means of persuasion (reasoned argumentation) related to the
>> lifetime happines of the other person.
>
> I agree, and try to practice this at all times. Since humans are
> designed to operate within reality by using their rational faculty,

Now you are parroting, just like someone else that I recently
criticized for this. But again, humans are not designed, rather they
evolved to be as they are. There is a crucially important difference.

> appealing to that faculty is a good way to influence a person.

It is only a good way to influence those people who are amenable to
reason, which unfortunately does not seem to be anywhere near a
majority. For that reason, using reason to influence is also a very
good way to filter out people with whom you would be better of not
associating very closely. In addition, I think that influence by
reason (ie persuasion) is the only way to ensure that such influence
will be fully integrated and lasting, but again only with those who
are amenable to reason and integration of it into their conscious idea
structure.

>>> In this book, Breaking Free, Branden briefly describes sexual roles.
>>> I have taken the time to find the excerpt from the book where Branden
>>> describes this point. It is on page 206 (in the Bantam edition first
>>> published December 1972):
>>>
>>> Branden: "Masculinity or femininity entails an affirmative attitude
>>> towards one's sexual nature and one's sexual role." (Next on page
>>> 212): Branden: "Now here's something I regard as of prime
>>> importance. [A man's sexual role is] not being afraid of the
>>> responsibility of masculine self-assertiveness. If you're a woman,
>>> [it's] not being afraid or inhibited about responding to the man,
>>> about surrendering sexually."
>>>
>>> My first response to reading the above was that it was unfair of
>>> the man to be sexually assertive (phrased: "masculine self-
>>> assertiveness") and expect the woman to "surrender sexually".
>>>
>> I had the same response and still do.

Upon re-reading your lines above, I realize that I miss-read them
initially, so my statement of agreement above is not correct. I never
thought of this asymmetrical view as being unfair to the woman (since
I never thought of it as precluding assertiveness and initiation by
the woman), but rather as being an unfair psychological burden on the
man (which is what I then addressed in my comments).

>> I see the roles in romantic love
>> as almost completely equal, with which partner is doing the initiating
>> (not "asserting", that is far too forceful a word) alternating from time
>> to time depending on natural desires. So here is one place where I
>> disagree with Branden's rather old fashioned, almost patriarchal idea.
>
> I have thought about your label of Branden's idea as "patriarchal" and
> it seems to be a good way to describe it.

I think so - it is patriarchal in the sense that the man (father
figure) is always supposed to be the initiator and leader and the
woman his subordinate follower. It is related to the idea expressed by
Ayn Rand (and never given an acceptably reasoned explanation) that the
President of the US should never be a woman. I was surprised to see
that Branden, much younger than Rand (only a little older than me) is
still carrying on that sort of notion.

>>> However, I contemplated this point at length and realized that I
>>> likely have this response because of my experiences with women who
>>> had been sexually abused (I have dated one other woman who had
>>> also been sexually abused.)
>>>
>> I hate this much and often improperly used word "abuse". I simply
>> will not accept any usage of that word unless and until I am told
>> the full details of what is called an abusive action.

My reasoning for disliking the word "abuse" is now fully explained above.

>>> I understand how such women can be afraid of sexual encounters and
>>> therefore I had resolved not to sexually assert myself.
>>>
>> If someone is still bothered so fundamentally by such an occurrence in
>> hir past then you are better to not get involved with hir in any way
>> related to sex, unless you first help hir get this "bother" resolved and
>> ended.
>>
>
> This resolution is a lengthy process, one which I thought I could help
> with.
> In this regard I had been acting for the benefit of others, rather than
> myself, which is wrong.

It is only wrong to help someone overcome a problem if the resources
that you need to expend in doing so, cause a greater reduction of your
lifetime happiness than the probable increase that you estimate will be
obtained from the ongoing relationship with the person after the problem
is eliminated. Of course, this also requires a continuing estimate of
the success at such elimination. There are many times when I have given
resources to a person, for which I never received sufficient return of
value in any way. And this will happen again in the future since one can
never be sure without trying, at least a little. I take solace in the
fact that I must continue to do that in order to find or help create
people who then return value that makes up for all those small losses.
For example, Kitty has made up for just about all the losses in my life
before her.

>>> However, in deciding this, I also am denying my sexual role
>>> and sexual nature (if Branden's evaluation of these are accurate).
>>> And this contradiction seems likely to cause a fair amount of
>>> frustration, for both myself and any woman with whom I am in a sexual
>>> relationship.
>>>
>> There is no doubt that many women look for a man to always be the
>> assertive one, but I think that is irrational thinking on their part and
>> needs to be cleared up. IOW, do you really want a sexual relationship
>> with such a woman while she still thinks that way?
>>
>
> Good point. No I don't. I had been in a relationship with a woman who
> thought this way and it was very frustrating. I constantly had the
> responsibility of sensing her desires (exactly as you describe below).
> Of course, since I can not read the minds of others I could not always
> do this successfully and she felt "unwanted" during the times that she
> had desires and I didn't sense them. Very frustrating, and unrealistic.

It was very much that way with my first wife, even though before we
married she was the more socially outgoing and assertive one than I. In
fact, one of the reasons I was attracted to her was because I was so
socially inept and I thought that she would be able to help me and/or
supply that aspect of the partnership. Lo and behold once we were
married, all of a sudden *I* was supposed to be the assertive leader
and make all the social contacts! You can imagine the result.

>> To me such thinking also puts a lot of pressure on the man to
>> always be able to sense the woman's desires and make the right
>> assertiveness decision. I have never liked that situation. Like you
>> somewhat, I would always rather do without than to make a mistake.

I note that I used "pressure" above, one of those words with conflated
meanings. However, I do always use it solely in the psychological sense,
something that can always be resisted by a fully rational receiver (as
you do also, it appears).

Actually this word is probably used that way, exclusively, by the vast
majority of people when applied to a social context. The problem with
the use of such a word is that its origin and root meaning is purely
physical.

<snipped previous comments>

>>> I hope some of the readers find my personal experiences above to be
>>> enlightening, encouraging, or at least, interesting. I look forward
>>> to comments and discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> And why none have come, I simply do not understand.
>>

I leave this in to emphasize that it is still the case.

>>
>>> ---
>>> Steve Floyd
>>>
>> Again thanks for posting this.
>
> You're welcome. I'm glad that we discussed it. Even if there
> are not yet any other posts to this, there is always the possibility
> that it may be read, thought about, and considered by others in the
> future.

Or even has been already by some, but without some feedback no one can
know that.

> That's why I chose to post in a public forum.

Exactly. Doing so at least provides the possibility that one's ideas
and thoughts will effect more people.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Martin" <dayrain@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Wakfer
> To: morelife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:53 AM
> Subject: [morelife] Re: Blood donations for iron reduction and
> possible drawbacks
>
> On 11/29/2008 08:54 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>
> <snipped information relating to source of this dialog>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I am working on my literature review for my organic chemistry
> > course, which is due this week. This literature review is
> > concerned with the possible negative health-consequences of high
> > iron status.
>
> <snip>
>
> If Steve Floyd, Jr. would be willing to post or forward his
> literature review when it's completed, I for one would appreciate
> it.

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for communicating your interest in my review. I will consider
uploading it after I am completed with it. I plan to be completed
with it in the next few weeks. However, at this time it will still
be "in-progress", as this section on iron accumulation will be only
one section of several in a paper I am doing on accumulation of
several metals. Therefore, I am hesitant to post it in "incomplete"
form, since at that time I will likely not have all of the grammar
corrections and organizational details completed.

I will keep it in mind. Again, thanks for communicating your
interest.

> Lynn
> dayrain@...
>
> [Moderator note: Steve is welcome to upload his review to the Files
> section of the group for access by members. **Kitty]

Kitty, I note that if I decide to upload my review, that I will add
it using the "Files" section of the group.

[Since the Files section of the group is only available to members and
is not therefore searchable through Google or others, perhaps a better
place (because more public) would be on the MoreLife website. After
you upload it to the Files section here, we will consider where on
MoreLife.org is the best place for it to go. --Paul]

---
Steve Floyd Jr

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
[big snip]
> 2) Any loss of essential body cells will require their progenitor cells
> to divide in order to replace those lost cells. While this is not going
> to be a problem acutely (if occurring only a few times or very
> infrequently), if done chronically (as some people are advising), it
> will, over time, deplete the division potential of the cells that
> produce the blood cellular components, and if done sufficiently often
> the doubling time potential of those cells (the Hayflick limit) may be
> reached and become a limiting factor to lifespan. (There is already
> good evidence that the Hayflick limit plays a part in the exhaustion
> of white cell division that occurs with AIDS.)

One thing to consider is that average blood loss during menstruation
is 35 ml with 10–80 ml considered normal (from Wikipedia on menstrual
cycle). Assuming 12 cycles, the total comes to 0.42 liter, or 0.89 US
pints per year lost to menstration, just a bit less than the typical
donation.

Perhaps donating once a year might affect the gap between average male
and female life expectancies, if the over-mineralization theory of
aging has some merit.

Speaking of the Hayflick limit, I was surprised that a search for
"astragalus" didn't turn up a match in this group's archives. I've
participated in discussions
(http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921) on using
astralagus extract along with a small dose (I use 250 mg) of chitosan
to increase its bioavailability (http://pmid.us/16715776 -- I don't
have the text, but the study apparently reports that 0.1% chitosan
increases absorption by over 60 fold).

Of course, does it really work to extend telomeres and in which
tissues are still open questions.

StephenB

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2008 01:19 PM, Dave Brett wrote:
> > I found this recent study of canines treated for hypertension.
> > http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/10/1002
> >
> > The authors comment, in the Clinical Perspective, "Thus, aortic size
> > should be monitored carefully in clinical trials of these agents."
> >
> > The comment was in view of their findings that "A highly significant
> > effect of ALT to increase aortic dimension was observed. This
> > occurred despite lower BP over the course of the model and was
> > independent of distending pressure or body size".
> >
> > I wonder if this is a significant cause for concern in those of us
> > taking ALT-711 on a chronic basis and would be interested to read
> > any comments.
>
> Unfortunately, the link above goes only to a page that requires a
> US$20 payment in order to access the full text of the paper and the
> abstract does not say anything related to your remarks above. In
> addition, my university access does not have that journal available.
> Without reading the full text any reasoned opinion about what you
> ask is impossible, but it seems to me if it were viewed as really
> important it would have been mentioned in the abstract. If you have
> the full text (pdf) and could send it to me by email attachment then
> I would be happy read it and comment further.

When I originally posted this message the full text was indeed
available at the link quoted - albeit in html form only. At the time
I noticed that a fee was required for the pdf version. I printed html
version for my records and if any interested group member would like
a copy I'm happy to scan and email it.

[Thanks to a member with access, I now have a pdf version (see my reply
to your earlier post in this thread, #1933), which, if anyone requests
a copy, it would be far easier to provide as well as easier for hir to
use. --Paul]


> > Coincidentally, I have a heart scan scheduled for next week and
> > will make a point of asking the radiographer if he/she can detect any
> > significant change in the size of my aorta since the last scan seven
> > years ago.
> >
> > I'll report my results back to the group in a couple of weeks, after
> > I receive the full report from the doctor who reviews my scan.
>
> I look forward to your report.


Unfortunately I'm still waiting for the report to arrive from the
consultant and the attending radiologist at the time was unable to
say whether the aorta appeared to be enlarged. It seems that the
heart scan doesn't pick this up. She suggested that an ultrasound
might be a more appropriate way of investigating the size of the
aorta. However, I asked her if she would mention my concerns to the
consultant anyway to see what he would suggest.

The radiologists initial comment to me was that, off the record,
everything looked fine with my heart and unchanged from my previous
scan seven years ago.

Should the consultant's report present any further relevant
information I'll post it.


Dave

On 11/22/2008 09:04 AM, Steve Floyd wrote:
> I agree with many of Paul's comments, including where he states:
>
>  > One that I must point out here will make any knowledgeable person
>  > shake hir head and immediately dismiss the intelligence of all
>  > cryonicists. It is the following:
>  >
>  > "[Some cryonicists] are environmentalists who ... are happy that no
>  > electricity is used to upkeep their preserved remains (only liquid
>  > nitrogen), and that their carbon footprint is only pennies each year."
>
> Upon reading the above, quoted statement of yours, Shannon, about
> cryonicists being environmentalists I became a bit concerned. I don't
> think that kind of generalization is appropriate. I think you may be
> using this statement as a way to appeal to as wide of an audience as
> possible (here, trying to appeal to environmentalists). Perhaps it is
> useful to "cut environmentalists off at the pass" with the statement
> about the upkeep of preservation being low. However, when I read it it
> seemed like a desperate attempt to appeal to more people. Perhaps it
> could be re-worded to show its benefits without sounding this way?

Since Shannon made it clear in her original that it was only some
cryoncists who were environmentally concerned, her environmentalist
argument was not out of place to me, but rather an initially good
move. When one is trying to "sell" something, it is perfect valid and
reasonable to make use of all possible honest and correct ways to make
any attribute of that thing appealing. Note that in your criticism of
Shannon in this regard, relying on my quote was not sufficient. In
order to properly make your case you should have quoted her "petition"
directly, particularly since your criticism was not the same as mine.

However, perhaps it is necessary to explain what I thought would be
obvious by my comment above:

"One [statement of Shannon's "petition"] that I must point out here
will make any knowledgeable person shake hir head and immediately
dismiss the intelligence of all cryonicists."

with which Steve said that he agreed, but gave no indication that he
understood its point.

Although nitrogen comprises about 80% of Earth's atmosphere and is
effectively a totally free resource, the only way to produce liquid
nitrogen is to expend an enormous amount of energy to cool it down to
its liquefaction temperature (about -196' C). The production of this
energy either directly or, as usually done, through the intermediary
of electricity, is therefore generating the same average "carbon
footprint" as other usages of that same amount of energy. In addition,
maintenance of cryonics patients requires the use of electricity for
monitoring and various other administrative needs. So, unfortunately,
Shannon's attempt to appeal to environmentalists using a low "carbon
footprint" argument, while well-meaning, ends up being a black mark
against her intelligence, or at least knowledge, and by implication
that of all cyronicists.

I have no comment on the rest and have snipped it.

--Paul

On 11/26/2008 04:06 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> In the message prior to this one (below) I discussed my arguments
> against the practice of anonymity. I recently read a great article
> that discusses some disadvantages of practicing anonymity.
>
> Here's the article: http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html
>
> I really like this article because it is concise in communicating a
> very important, practical, *negative* implication of anonymity. I
> understood this point of the article as thus: when making any
> decision, one must have information upon which to base hir decision.
> This point applies to any decision, including what foods to eat, what
> types of exercise to engage in, what books to read, where to buy
> food, which car to buy, etc. This article points out very clearly,
> and accurately, that the decision regarding *who to interact with* is
> also based on information. That is, if I were considering striking up
> a conversation with someone, whether I do so is dependent on the
> information I have about that person. If I have *no* information
> about a person (i.e. that person *practices anonymity*) I will likely
> choose not to interact with hir. This is because I have no
> information on which to base a decision. But, if that person were to
> tell me something about hirself, I can then at least have *some*
> information upon which to make a decision about interacting with hir.
> Without such information I can make no decision. In contrast, the
> more information I am presented with, the more confident I can be in
> my decision. So, the person who practices anonymity has a much-
> reduced chance of garnering the interest of those who hold similar
> ideas.
>
> As a personal example, I have made a personal profile on several
> networking websites. When browsing these websites I often find
> numerous individuals who have submitted no personal picture and only
> a very, very brief personal introduction.

In my own experience, this is the vast majority of people, particularly
with Yahoo profiles. Generally only a small minority provide a fairly
complete profile. Although on LinkedIn it is a high majority because
that is its purpose. However even there, few people enable their profile
to be publicly accessible.

> I recall that I have
> instinctively ignored these people and decided not to interact with
> them.

Good, except you did not do that "instinctively", rather you did it
through a lifetime of experience, learning and thinking causing your
subconscious mind to be programmed to behave that way (the behavior
that you describe below).

> I now realize that I had made this decision because I have no
> idea who they are, what they look like, what their personal
> philosophies are, etc. The people that neglect to be more descriptive
> give me no information! I only have a limited amount of time - why
> would I decide to say hello to a person who has told me nothing about
> hirself? A person who registers at networking websites with the
> intent of meeting new people, and does a poor job of communicating
> characteristics about hirself, is simply wasting hir time.
>
> This article presents a strong argument for the practice of *at
> least* being open and communicative about *some* aspects of one's
> character, including interests, dislikes, hobbies, etc. How else does
> one get acquainted with others? And communicating this information to
> a large number of people is very convenient with the internet. I plan
> on making a personal website in the future for just this purpose.
> Finally, I think the best networking sites would be those that allow
> the largest number of methods by which a person can communicate
> personal information (personal videos, pictures, writings, etc.).
>
> I hope others will enjoy this article as much as I have!
>
> ---
> Steve Floyd


Thanks for your good description and arguments against anonymity. I
have a suggestion for a different word usage in your second to last
sentence. It is better to use "enable" than "allow" as:

"I think the best networking sites would be those that enable
the largest number of methods by which a person can communicate
personal information ..."

"Allow" always relates to a reduction of some restriction of liberty,
whereas to make some process or facility available is to enable it and
to enable a client to accomplish its purpose. A lot of people use
"allow" when they mean "enable" and I, too, have been guilty of this
in the past, but the two are really quite different in social intent
and should be kept quite separate in usage.

--Paul

Hello all,

I am a new member here - Brian Lennon from Melbourne, Australia. The
existence of this group is of great interest to me. I have enjoyed
good health for my 63 years, am still working full time etc., but
have my high blood pressure brought to my attention a few years ago.
The ALT-711 possibility of reversing that damage therefore has been
an exciting discovery. I appreciate the work that the members of this
group, particularly Paul and Kitty, have been doing together on this
and related issues. It's great to find you all.

It has been interesting to see how my personal perspectives have been
changing knowing that the ALT may be available. I find I am planning
to be more active and busier for the next 20 years since knowing that
I may indeed be able to do something effective about the artery-
hardening process. Given me some food for thought about what that
change in perspective may be like on a larger scale for many older
people as more information and effective approaches become available.
Quite a social experiment isn't it?

My question then. Do people here know more about good ways of
encouraging the cross-links to stay uncrossed once they are cut? The
cut molecules will after all still be in close proximity and it does
seem that they would have every chance of re-forming unless something
terminates the ends pretty much permanently?

Thanks for your joint work so far. I'm looking forward to getting to
know you, and perhaps contributing to the work done here when I am up
to speed.

Brian Lennon

Some others in the group have noticed, as I did a few days ago, that
the search tool at this group is not functioning. I thought it was
simply a temporary problem Yahoo was having and so did not send a
message to Yahoo Groups until today after noting that the search is
working for at least one other group of which I am a member.

In the mean time, searching at Google can be used. In order to
accomplish this do the following using the advanced search -
http://www.google.com/advanced_search
Enter the individual words or phrases you are looking for. (You can
also exclude items that contain other words if you want.)
The last entry line is the important one and is: "Search within a site
or domain:". At this point enter the URL for MoreLife Yahoo -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/

As an example, no returns in the group's search are obtained for
"crosslink": " We did not find results for "*crosslink*"."  But doing
the search at Google yields 7 results, which does not include the most
recent post by Brian Lennon showing that the search is only among
those items that have been indexed by Google's Internet crawler
mechanism, which has not yet found Brian's post.

[Note: Since 12/07/2003 I have been saving all MoreLife Yahoo messages
in an email folder, just in case they are lost or deleted by Yahoo
(which has happened on other groups because someone(s) has made
vociferous complaints to Yahoo about a group). I also saved all the
older messages but not in an email folder in the form in which I
received them. Searching for "crosslink" in the body of messages in
this saved email folder yielded 24 hits (and there might be more in the
other folder of messages previous to 12/07/2003). It therefore appears
that Google is not fully crawling the archives of this group and, thus
that even an advanced Google search will not provide all occurrences
of what is being searched. Still, for now Google advanced search is
the best that is available for that purpose (unless someone can find
some better results from another search engine). --Paul]


Attempting to use Yahoo's advanced search engine -
http://search.yahoo.com/web/advanced - was not helpful since it did not
restrict the search to just MoreLife Yahoo, despite the fact that I
indicated the search was to be done in only that one site/domain. At
that point I entered the http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
(I did it a second time w/o the "http://", but no difference).

So until Yahoo Groups resolves this problem, using Google as I've
explained above should get the results needed by a reader/member of
the MoreLife Yahoo.


Later: I found at the Yahoo Groups Moderator group a message from
December 2007 explaining the problem some groups were then having with
searching within their group:

     "We have identified the root cause of this problem which is
     related to the indexing of messages. If you are currently
     experiencing this issue please contact Customer Care and we'll
     work to correct this on a case by case basis."

Apparently this problem is happening again, at least to this group.
I've received the automatic response from Yahoo and will likely hear
from them within the next day or two.

Later 2: Part of message received from Yahoo Groups! a few minutes ago:
"We understand that you are experiencing a message search issue within
your Yahoo! group "MoreLife". We apologize for the inconvenience this
may have caused you.

"We are aware of the situation and our Engineers are further
investigating the cause.

"We have escalated your case to the proper team and understand from them
that they should have a fix shortly."


Looks good for a resolution soon.


*Kitty

On 11/29/2008 10:51 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> The following is a dialogue between Paul Wakfer and I regarding
> insurance, responsibility, and my thoughts on so-called "universal
> health care". The first part of the message is Paul Wakfer, with my
> reply following after.
>
> ---
>
>> One only needs to have sufficient wealth for one's immediate needs
>> and for a future amount of time which might need to pass, if one's
>> ability to generate more wealth were curtailed temporarily. As far as
>> total disability, that is what insurance is for. Insurance is
>> entirely reasonable for those negative occurrences that only rarely
>> happen to individuals. And by rarely I mean, unlikely during one's
>> lifetime. The pooled risk of insurance is then a reasonable way for
>> each person to help the other *if* *(and only if) such rare negatives
>> are also truly unavoidable. However, since it is hard to tell whether
>> or not something is truly unavoidable (generally this is never the
>> case), I am negative on insurance altogether since it ends up
>> fostering irresponsibility. In this day and age it is also hard to
>> imagine a disability so bad that you would both want to continue to
>> live and yet still not be able to do *anything* to gain the necessary
>> money to support yourself.
>>
>
> I agree that insurance tends to foster irresponsibility, as does any
> circumstance where one does not have to pay attention to the outcome
> of hir action (or inaction), such as government or parents "taking
> care of everything". That's an interesting point you bring up about
> it not being likely that one suffers from a disability so bad that
> they'd still want to live, and yet not be able to do *anything* to
> make a living. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a group of ~8
> people about medical services and insurance. Most of the people in
> the room thought that so-called "universal health care" is desirable.

This is the same kind of inane babble that also "thinks" that everyone
should be well-fed and housed. Note that I put the word "thinks" in
quotes in the preceding sentence, because such people are not really
thinking at all but rather opining (stating an opinion). The same goes
for your use of the word "thought" above. One should not dignify such
nonsense statements with the use of the word think.

[I have found it more correct to say that certain others "made
statements". If one or more of them actually used the words "think"
then I think it best - in conveying who is attributing the function of
thinking to what took place - to use a quoted phrase. I'd then write
about the conversation like this: "Most of the people in the room
considered [or viewed] the so-called "universal health care" as
desirable." Or "Most of the people in the room actually stated 'I
think universal health care is desirable'".

If one had the opportunity in such an atmosphere to explore, with
those who made such statements, what it was that they concluded was
desirable and why, it would be quickly seen that for most (?all), they
had not really done very much thinking on the subject at all.  **Kitty]


> I was the only one to disagree, and I found it a little difficult to
> explain my position without getting upset at their position, which I
> see as amounting to stealing from me to pay for someone else's
> condition.
>
> During this discussion, my biggest contention was that I should not
> have to pay for someone else's expensive, catastrophic illness
> (through taxes or premiums I pay and don't use).

More strongly, you should not *have to* pay for someone else's anything!

> Several people in
> the group opined that everyone should have access to health care,
> regardless of illness.

An opinion that is effectively a wish for a different reality -
essentially not dissimilar from a wish for flying pigs, every person
well-fed and money growing on trees. Worse, it is not even a well-
defined wish. For example, what exactly do "access" and "health care"
actually mean in practical detail? And how can any such be applicable
to *everyone* when some are very remote from any health care facility?

> I explained that, from the standpoint of
> reality, this position made no sense. In reality, bad things happen
> to people, and in many instances these bad things can't be prevented
> or foreseen (this discussion regarded conditions such as a birth
> defects or spontaneous cancer). But, just because a bad thing happens
> to a person doesn't necessitate that person being entitled to medical
> assistance.

That is not quite the right way to say it. No one is entitled to force
anyone else to provide anything for hir. However, everyone should be
entitled to any goods or services for which s/he has contracted with
the provider and fulfilled the terms of that contract, including
provision of the funds being asked, whether such payment is from
hirself or some charitable third party.

> I gave them an example: assume I have a child, and my
> child has a birth defect that requires an expensive medical procedure
> to correct.

Often such an occurrence can be prevented by prior genetic testing
and/or excellent health and nutrition of the parents. After the fact
solutions are often impossible because the problem is not reversible,
so that, even where they can be done, such solutions generally do not
put the child/patient into the same state as if the problem had never
occurred.

> If I can't afford the transplant, what should I do? I
> said (a little sarcastically): "sure, all I have to do is break into
> your house and steal from each of you, and I'll be able to afford it!
> Yes, it's unfortunate that my child has a terrible birth defect, and
> will probably die. But that's reality, and I have no right to require
> the rest of you to pay for it."

You will see that the word "right" as used above is essentially vacuous
if you replace it with "ability". Then you will also see that only the
government has the "ability", through its enforcers, to require such
payments. Which in turn makes it clear that the government is the source
of all such rights, and furthermore, that such rights therefore cannot
exist as any kind of natural or inalienable attributes of humans.

> Most of the people in the room paused
> and considered this and I think I made them reconsider their
> position. This discussion went further, but I recall that I felt
> really great after it, feeling as though I expressed my thoughts
> about reality accurately and convinced others that my thoughts were
> accurate.

You did very well as far and as deep as you went.

> I have found that many people think this perspective of "withholding
> medical services" as being heartless or inhumane.

To counter this simply point out that "heartless" and "inhumane" are
human characteristics, so just who is being heartless or inhumane by
withholding medical services? And furthermore, just from where is the
money coming to pay for those services that some government paid
dispenser of stolen goods is heartfully and humanely handing out with
generally little care or responsibility either about the harm that was
done in acquiring those resources or seeing that they are efficiently
used because that person did not have to earn or beg for those funds.

> It seems as though
> the people who hold this view don't realize that medical services
> cost something - money, experience, education, time, etc. For
> everyone to have access to them means that these services are free
> (like air) - but they're not!
>
> Does anyone in the group have any thoughts about this? "Health care"
> seems to be a popular topic in the media relatively recently.

Judging by the silence, it appears that almost no one in this group
has any opinion on anything much. Of course I do know that the large
majority of readers of this group, even among those who are members,
are too timid (scared? cowardly? lazy? - I don't have a clue which of
these applies) to even fully identify themselves so that they can post.

Once I get the MoreLife wiki operating, I will almost certainly close
this group since I have no desire to have a bunch of people as members
who never say anything. Such exhibited numbers (of members) is far too
dishonest and unreflective of reality for my liking.

--Paul

[Earlier this year I became an associate member of the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons. I have known of the group for many
years and had occasionally followed its activities. I greatly support
its mission to restore the patient-doctor relationship, which is
greatly interfered with by the actions of government directly and by
insurance companies, which are themselves highly government regulated.

Now as a member ($90 per year), I receive its newsletters (postal and
email, which are different). The latest one (received on 12/3 but
which I only just now opened to read due to being *very* busy) is
something far more people should read - "Massachusetts resorts to
group visits with the doctor". It starts off:
"Massachusetts, the proud model for likely Obama-Kennedy reform, is
trying a new answer for the problem of a severe doctor shortage: group
appointments.

"Deluged with demand from newly insured patients, doctors have no room
on their appointment schedules for all the new patients. At Holyoke
Medical Center, it takes 4 months to get an appointment..."
Read the whole article with reader comments -
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00113

It's mind boggling that so many in Massachusetts couldn't read the
writing on the walls of UK with its NHS and Canada with its own
combination provincial/federal health care plans - the problems in
both locations are considerable in number and quantity. Simply read
BBCNews Health section regularly to be aware of what is going on in UK
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/default.stm
A very recent article is about the newest attempt to convince children
in the UK that the good health care they receive is because of the
wonderful system... "Poem published to mark NHS 60th".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7764884.stm  No mention that what
services individuals do receive always is done by individuals and that
government is but the (dis)organizer using funds taken from
citizens/residents. And of course no mention in this "ode" of what
individuals can and should do for themselves prior to consulting with
a physician.... It's a mentality of, if it were not for this marvelous
government creation - the health care system - people would be dying
like flies caught in a cloud of insecticide...

[This poem shows how much current society is already at the stage of
many of the things well dramatized in Orwell's must read social future
fiction novel "1984". Far too few people realize that many aspects of
current society are already at or past the stage described in that
prophetic novel. --Paul]

Doing a Google search using: "Canada health care plan problem" (no
quotes), brings up all sorts of websites and articles. This one is
well written and very interesting - "The Ugly Truth About Canadian
Health Care" by David Gatzer
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

I encourage those who have been impressed with the polished political
speeches over the past many months that included promises of "health
care for all" to do some *real* study and thinking on the subject,
instead of simply nodding their heads like the old dashboard (or rear
window shelf) bobbing head figurines. (Look the last up on Google if
you have no remembrance of these.) **Kitty]

On 12/03/2008 11:18 AM, spboulet wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
> [big snip]
>
>> 2) Any loss of essential body cells will require their progenitor cells
>> to divide in order to replace those lost cells. While this is not going
>> to be a problem acutely (if occurring only a few times or very
>> infrequently), if done chronically (as some people are advising), it
>> will, over time, deplete the division potential of the cells that
>> produce the blood cellular components, and if done sufficiently often
>> the doubling time potential of those cells (the Hayflick limit) may be
>> reached and become a limiting factor to lifespan. (There is already
>> good evidence that the Hayflick limit plays a part in the exhaustion
>> of white cell division that occurs with AIDS.)
>>
>
> One thing to consider is that average blood loss during menstruation
> is 35 ml with 10–80 ml considered normal (from Wikipedia on menstrual
> cycle). Assuming 12 cycles, the total comes to 0.42 liter, or 0.89 US
> pints per year lost to menstration, just a bit less than the typical
> donation.

One argument in favor of men donating blood for health purposes is that
in human origins, the men went off to forage, hunt, fight to protect the
family, etc and were likely to naturally lose blood in such endeavors.
However, all that such an argument means it that this and female
menstruation are the evolutionary cause of human biology being so good
at sequestering iron from the diet and retaining it.

> Perhaps donating once a year might affect the gap between average male
> and female life expectancies, if the over-mineralization theory of
> aging has some merit.

The over-iron theory definitely has some merit.
If a man eats a standard North American diet and takes no other special
measures to extend lifespan, then it is very likely true that his life
will be extended by donating blood once per year, at least from puberty
to age 55. However, this does not imply that donating blood will
necessarily be part of a man's comprehensive plan to live as long as
possible.

> Speaking of the Hayflick limit, I was surprised that a search for
> "astragalus" didn't turn up a match in this group's archives.

That is because the group search is not working and hasn't been for some
time now. Using Google advanced search with URL:
groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife and search string "astragalus" shows its
occurrence in messages: 93, 856, 918, 1679 (and perhaps others since
Google crawling of Yahoo message seems to be never complete).

However, there has not been much discussion because until very recently
there has not been a single paper on PubMed that linked astragalus with
telomeres.
Even though it is not found with a PubMed search for astragalus,
http://pmid.us/18981163 does contain such information, which
definitely strengthens the case for astragalus as a "small molecule
telomerase activator, (TAT2)" . The full text states: "we identified
TAT2 (cycloastragenol) based on its ability to up-regulate the low,
basal level of telomerase in neonatal human keratinocytes (unpublished
data)". It is unfortunate that so much research, with critical findings,
remains unpublished. Here is the conclusion from the full text:

"In sum, our studies indicate that telomerase activators, such as
TAT2, may constitute a novel class of therapeutic agents which
improve immune function at a fundamental, cellular aging level,
thus complementing existing drugs for the treatment of HIV/AIDS
and a variety of age-related diseases associated with immune deficiency.
Indeed, the potential utility of TAT2 in treating HIV-1
infection is underscored by clinical studies documenting the association
of high constitutive telomerase activity and longer telomeres
in HIV-specific CD8+T lymphocytes in individuals with
greater control over the infection and slower disease progression.

It is also interesting that the research "was funded in part by Geron
and TA Therapeutics" and that "C. B. Harley is an employee and
shareholder of Geron and is working on the therapeutic development of
telomerase activators. A. C. Chin was an employee and shareholder of
Geron during the time this research was conducted". Note that Geron
holds the patent to which I refer below and the company marketing TA-65
is indirectly related to Geron.

> I've participated in discussions
> (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921) on using
> astralagus extract along with a small dose (I use 250 mg) of chitosan
> to increase its bioavailability (http://pmid.us/16715776 -- I don't
> have the text, but the study apparently reports that 0.1% chitosan
> increases absorption by over 60 fold).

Thanks for the tip. I had never heard this, which seems strange because
chitosan is notorious for decreasing bioavailability of many nutrients,
particularly fats and minerals. However, on reading other abstracts I
see that chitosan generally increases bioavailability of hydrophilic and
lipophobic high molecular weight chemicals.
However a careful reading of the patents and the information available
on TA-65 had convinced me that the most important astragaloside was not
astragaloside IV, but rather the much more potent, but also more scarce,
cycloastragenol, even before the above cited paper confirmed that).
Whether chitosan would have the same effect on that, I don't know since
there is even less research on cycloastragenol than there is on
astragaloside IV. I cannot get the full paper of the PMID 16715776, but
perhaps someone else reading this group can supply it.

> Of course, does it really work to extend telomeres and in which
> tissues are still open questions.

Yes, and until there are published studies giving more information, it
is not worth spending a lot of money on it unless one is very wealthy. If
my total assets were $10M or more then I would definitely try TA-65 (or
get someone to produce it for me and possibly others). However, the lack
of research makes it not currently a widely salable product for this
purpose, even though it most likely could be marketed as a supplement.

--Paul

On 12/07/2008 04:43 AM, brianlennon2357 wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am a new member here - Brian Lennon from Melbourne, Australia. The
> existence of this group is of great interest to me. I have enjoyed
> good health for my 63 years, am still working full time etc., but
> have my high blood pressure brought to my attention a few years ago.
> The ALT-711 possibility of reversing that damage therefore has been
> an exciting discovery. I appreciate the work that the members of this
> group, particularly Paul and Kitty, have been doing together on this
> and related issues. It's great to find you all.

I and Kitty are pleased to have you on the group. I just hope that you
get enough out of it to keep you interested. Even though the group has a
reasonable number of members (and they are almost all "real" as opposed
to other groups that do not cull members who can no longer be reached),
relatively few of them are fully identified and therefore able to post,
and even fewer actually do post anything with any frequency.

> It has been interesting to see how my personal perspectives have been
> changing knowing that the ALT may be available. I find I am planning
> to be more active and busier for the next 20 years since knowing that
> I may indeed be able to do something effective about the artery-
> hardening process. Given me some food for thought about what that
> change in perspective may be like on a larger scale for many older
> people as more information and effective approaches become available.
> Quite a social experiment isn't it?

I like that you see this and responded in this manner. Yes, I think
that the entire life extension notion and its practical implementation
and effects will have enormously positive individual and social
consequences. That is one reason why I think the time is now ripe, as
never before, for a gradual transition of human thinking and social
practice towards something very much like the Freeman Society, the
foundations of which I describe on the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project - http://selfsip.org

> My question then. Do people here know more about good ways of
> encouraging the cross-links to stay uncrossed once they are cut? The
> cut molecules will after all still be in close proximity and it does
> seem that they would have every chance of re-forming unless something
> terminates the ends pretty much permanently?
>

These were exactly my thoughts when I first came upon ALT-711 many years
ago (which similarity in analytical thinking increases my expectation
for the overall wealth of your relationship with this group and myself).
There are several other members of this group who could have answered
your question very competently and I am dismayed that none of them have
done so.
The answer is to take the many chemicals that operate to reduce the
formation of crosslinks and AGEs, such as carnosine, pyridoxamine,
thiamine pyrophosphate, benfotiamine, aminoguanidine, aspirin,
metformin, penicillamine, N-acetyl-cysteine together with other
anti-oxidants and polyphenols, in general. That list was not intended to
be comprehensive, being mostly from memory. I expect other group members
could add more if they wish to do so.

> Thanks for your joint work so far. I'm looking forward to getting to
> know you, and perhaps contributing to the work done here when I am up
> to speed.
>

That would be very welcome indeed. I am getting along quite well at the
process of installing and configuring the MoreLife website (and
SelfSIP, as well as 2 other new sites) as wikis. This should make it
much easier and more attractive for others to contribute.

> Brian Lennon

--Paul

[As Paul has intimated, our computer oriented time since getting back to Arizona
(and the high speed Internet connection) has been heavily spent on the numerous
tasks associated with creation of the wikis. Most of my time has been related to
the graphics and one of the outputs can be seen in the favicons now appearing at
the start of the browser URL address for both MoreLife.org and SelfSIP.org (not
yet perfected). Learning just some of the numerous functions of Inkscape and
GIMP has kept me quite busy, but it is an area in which I get much satisfaction
and for a purpose I consider of extreme importance. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2008 11:18 AM, spboulet wrote:
[snip]
> > Speaking of the Hayflick limit, I was surprised that a search for
> > "astragalus" didn't turn up a match in this group's archives.
>
> That is because the group search is not working and hasn't been for some
> time now. Using Google advanced search with URL:
> groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife and search string "astragalus" shows its
> occurrence in messages: 93, 856, 918, 1679 (and perhaps others since
> Google crawling of Yahoo message seems to be never complete).

Thanks.

> However, there has not been much discussion because until very recently
> there has not been a single paper on PubMed that linked astragalus with
> telomeres.
> Even though it is not found with a PubMed search for astragalus,
> http://pmid.us/18981163 does contain such information, which
> definitely strengthens the case for astragalus as a "small molecule
> telomerase activator, (TAT2)" . The full text states: "we identified
> TAT2 (cycloastragenol) based on its ability to up-regulate the low,
> basal level of telomerase in neonatal human keratinocytes (unpublished
> data)". It is unfortunate that so much research, with critical findings,
> remains unpublished.

I wrote in this thread
(http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921&view=findpost&p=259366):

"That study's abstract said 'Astragaloside IV is one of the main
active ingredients of Radix astragali'." It may also be useful to look
up studies of the Chinese herb Radix astragali to get insight into
astragaloside IV. PMID 18309905 found that radix astragali (RA)
"alleviates muscle atrophy under simulated weightlessness conditions".

> It is also interesting that the research "was funded in part by Geron
> and TA Therapeutics" and that "C. B. Harley is an employee and
> shareholder of Geron and is working on the therapeutic development of
> telomerase activators. A. C. Chin was an employee and shareholder of
> Geron during the time this research was conducted". Note that Geron
> holds the patent to which I refer below and the company marketing TA-65
> is indirectly related to Geron.

Oh, yes. TA Sciences has very close links with Geron. Good to keep in
mind.

> > I've participated in discussions
> > (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921) on using
> > astralagus extract along with a small dose (I use 250 mg) of Chitosan
> > to increase its bioavailability (http://pmid.us/16715776 -- I don't
> > have the text, but the study apparently reports that 0.1% chitosan
> > increases absorption by over 60 fold).
>
> Thanks for the tip. I had never heard this, which seems strange because
> chitosan is notorious for decreasing bioavailability of many nutrients,
> particularly fats and minerals. However, on reading other abstracts I
> see that chitosan generally increases bioavailability of hydrophilic and
> lipophobic high molecular weight chemicals.
> However a careful reading of the patents and the information available
> on TA-65 had convinced me that the most important astragaloside was not
> astragaloside IV, but rather the much more potent, but also more scarce,
> cycloastragenol, even before the above cited paper confirmed that).
> Whether chitosan would have the same effect on that, I don't know since
> there is even less research on cycloastragenol than there is on
> astragaloside IV. I cannot get the full paper of the PMID 16715776, but
> perhaps someone else reading this group can supply it.

While it does look like cycloastragenol is the substance with the
strong telomerase activity, astrogaloside IV might also enhance
telomerase activity, though this hasn't been thoroughly proven yet. My
hope is that it's increased bioavailability with chitosan will result
in similar activity to cycloastragenol. Astralagus root has been used
for centuries, so hopefully the downsides are few.

There may be a formulation with cycloastragenol available for sale soon
(http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921&view=findpost&p=281974).
Should be much cheaper than what TA Science sells. ;)

Stephen

Might there be any concerns with taking a generic ALT-711 after surgery?
I had inguinal hernia surgery 8 days ago, and wanted to put the question
out there.

I read that some who have taken it have seen callouses shrink, for
example. I don't think that cross link formation plays a role in wound
healing, but collagen deposition does.

StephenB

I have been in a great mood in overcast Chicagoland this winter, and I
wanted to pass along a couple of supplement ideas that may be responsible.

1. Normalized vitamin D. With 2000 IU of vitamin D, I reached a
25-hydroxy level of 40 ng/mL, which I believe makes me a fairly low
responder. I've since increased that to 5000 IU/day.

2. Lithium orotate. For the past two weeks I've started on 120 mg of
lithium orotate daily, containing 5 mg elemental lithium, a
nutritional, not pharmacological, dosage. I've noticed a subtly more
balanced mood and more positive attitude, not that I've had much in
the way of mood swings in the past. Our water comes from Lake
Michigan, and contains no lithium.

From PMID 1699579, "Using data for 27 Texas counties from 1978-1987,
it is shown that the incidence rates of suicide, homicide, and rape
are significantly higher in counties whose drinking water supplies
contain little or no lithium...". PMID 18363457 is another study on
this topic, but without an abstract. Here's another good introductory
article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_/ai_93736454.

Lithium orotate is claimed to avoid the liver toxicity issue seen with
other forms of lithium.

Any thoughts on the need for and efficacy of supplemental lithium?

StephenB

[This thread should have been renamed two posts back. Sorry for not
doing so earlier. --Paul]

On 12/23/2008 03:08 PM, spboulet wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2008 11:18 AM, spboulet wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>> Speaking of the Hayflick limit, I was surprised that a search for
>>> "astragalus" didn't turn up a match in this group's archives.
>>>
>> That is because the group search is not working and hasn't been for some
>> time now. Using Google advanced search with URL:
>> groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife and search string "astragalus" shows its
>> occurrence in messages: 93, 856, 918, 1679 (and perhaps others since
>> Google crawling of Yahoo message seems to be never complete).
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> However, there has not been much discussion because until very recently
>> there has not been a single paper on PubMed that linked astragalus with
>> telomeres.
>> Even though it is not found with a PubMed search for astragalus,
>> http://pmid.us/18981163 does contain such information, which
>> definitely strengthens the case for astragalus as a "small molecule
>> telomerase activator, (TAT2)" . The full text states: "we identified
>> TAT2 (cycloastragenol) based on its ability to up-regulate the low,
>> basal level of telomerase in neonatal human keratinocytes (unpublished
>> data)". It is unfortunate that so much research, with critical findings,
>> remains unpublished.
>>
>
> I wrote in this thread
>
(http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921&view=findpost&p=259366):
>
> "That study's abstract said 'Astragaloside IV is one of the main
> active ingredients of Radix astragali'."

That may be so, but astragaloside IV is still a very small portion of
any extract currently being marketed. So to get the amounts needed you
would need to either take very high amounts of those supplement extracts
or find a source of more purified astragaloside IV.

>  It may also be useful to look
> up studies of the Chinese herb Radix astragali to get insight into
> astragaloside IV. PMID 18309905 found that radix astragali (RA)
> "alleviates muscle atrophy under simulated weightlessness conditions".

There are many studies showing many different benefits of astragalus
(which all appear on PubMed by using "astragalus" in the search string,
since PubMed's search is "smart" enough to associate together different
phrases for the same compound). So the many benefits and safety of
supplementing astragalus extract is not in contention. However, none
until the one that I mentioned above had any direct relevance to
telomeres. This also applies to the new one you have cited above.

>> It is also interesting that the research "was funded in part by Geron
>> and TA Therapeutics" and that "C. B. Harley is an employee and
>> shareholder of Geron and is working on the therapeutic development of
>> telomerase activators. A. C. Chin was an employee and shareholder of
>> Geron during the time this research was conducted". Note that Geron
>> holds the patent to which I refer below and the company marketing TA-65
>> is indirectly related to Geron.
>>
>
> Oh, yes. TA Sciences has very close links with Geron. Good to keep in
> mind.

And unfortunately, Geron is not publishing their own research on TA-65,
preferring to keep it under wraps, except for what was stated in the
patent application.
The paper that I cited was the first on astragalus relating to Geron
and, strangely enough, it did not contain "astragalus" (or any associated
word) either in the abstract or as a keyword. This action prevented
PubMed's search from finding it with the string "astralagus AND
(telomere OR telomerase)", which still returns zero hits.

>>> I've participated in discussions
>>> (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921) on using
>>> astralagus extract along with a small dose (I use 250 mg) of Chitosan
>>> to increase its bioavailability (http://pmid.us/16715776 -- I don't
>>> have the text, but the study apparently reports that 0.1% chitosan
>>> increases absorption by over 60 fold).
>>>
>> Thanks for the tip. I had never heard this, which seems strange because
>> chitosan is notorious for decreasing bioavailability of many nutrients,
>> particularly fats and minerals. However, on reading other abstracts I
>> see that chitosan generally increases bioavailability of hydrophilic and
>> lipophobic high molecular weight chemicals.
>> However a careful reading of the patents and the information available
>> on TA-65 had convinced me that the most important astragaloside was not
>> astragaloside IV, but rather the much more potent, but also more scarce,
>> cycloastragenol, even before the above cited paper confirmed that).
>> Whether chitosan would have the same effect on that, I don't know since
>> there is even less research on cycloastragenol than there is on
>> astragaloside IV. I cannot get the full paper of the PMID 16715776, but
>> perhaps someone else reading this group can supply it.
>>
>
> While it does look like cycloastragenol is the substance with the
> strong telomerase activity, astrogaloside IV might also enhance
> telomerase activity, though this hasn't been thoroughly proven yet.

As I recall from reading the patent, cycloastragenol is 20-50 times more
potent, which is why the active amount of TA-65 taken is only 5 mg. (One
of the members of this group is a client of TA Sciences and regularly
takes TA-65.)

Here is the patent: http://tinyurl.com/88j4fa

And here is the quote about the difference in activity between
cycloastragenol and astragaloside IV from pages 38-39:

"For treatment of a subject or patient, such as a mammal or a human
patient, dosages are determined based on factors such as the weight and
overall health of the subject, the condition treated, severity of
symptoms, etc. Dosages and concentrations are determined to produce the
desired benefit while avoiding any undesirable side effects. Typical
dosages of the subject compounds are in the range of about 0 5 to 500
mg/day for a human patient, preferably about 1-100 mg/day. For example,
higher dose regimens include e. g. 50-100,75-100, or 50-75 mg/day, and
lower dose regimens include e. g. 1-50, 25-50, or 1-25 mg/day. In
specific embodiments, for example, the compound designated herein as 2
(cycloastragenol) is administered at a level of at least 1 mg/day,
preferably at least 5 mg/day; or the compound designated herein as 1
(astragaloside IV) is administered at a level of at least 50 mg/day,
preferably at least 100 mg/day.

Studies in support of the invention indicate that the compounds of
formula I-m have excellent bioavailability and low toxicity. For
example, a representative compound, cycloastragenol (2), was negative
for reverse bacterial mutation potential in the Ames test, employing
Salmonella Typhimurium tester strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA 1537 and
E. coli tester strain WP2 uvrA, at levels up to 5000 LE/plate. It was
well-tolerated systemically in Sprague-Dawley rats, after single
intravenous injections up to 10 mg/kg.

No significant dose-dependent changes were observed for males or females
in behavior (eating, drinking), gross weight, organ weights (heart,
lung, liver, kidneys, adrenals and spleen), hematology or clinical
chemistry."

> My
> hope is that it's increased bioavailability with chitosan will result
> in similar activity to cycloastragenol.

This will not happen unless one takes large dosages of Astragaloside IV
- at least 100 mg of bioavailability, it appears. Therefore, I do not
think chitosan will help much with currently available astragalus
extracts, most of which do not even list the percentage of total
astragalosides, let alone specifically astragaloside IV.

[In May 2007 I requested of LEF "that LEF obtain from Nature's Plus the total
astragaloside content (range, if variation by batch occurs) of the astragalus
product LEF sells with its own product number #12024". After several exchanges I
received the answer, "They inform us that while astragalosides are known to be
present in the herb, they have not measured them. They only measured for the
chemical the product is standardized for, namely the 4'-hydroxy-3'
methoxyisoflavone 7-sug." **Kitty]


> Astralagus root has been used
> for centuries, so hopefully the downsides are few.

While it is true that astragalus root and its extracts have been taken
for centuries and are undoubtedly safe, no one has ever taken them at
the dosages required to have a telomerase promotion effect. Therefore,
at such a dose, safety and negative effects need to be fully researched.

> There may be a formulation with cycloastragenol available for sale soon
>
(http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19921&view=findpost&p=281974).
> Should be much cheaper than what TA Science sells. ;)

I am hopeful that this latest research relating astragalus to telomerase
promotion will push some supplement manufacturers to bring out
astragalus extracts with a higher potency of astragaloside IV. It would
be difficult to produce any extract with any effective amount of
cyclostragenol because its concentration in the natural plant is
extremely minute. Geron produces cycloastragenol by chemically
processing astragaloside IV.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "spboulet" <stephen@...> wrote:
>
> Might there be any concerns with taking a generic ALT-711 after surgery?
> I had inguinal hernia surgery 8 days ago, and wanted to put the question
> out there.
>
> I read that some who have taken it have seen callouses shrink, for
> example. I don't think that cross link formation plays a role in wound
> healing, but collagen deposition does.

That's a good question. Wound healing is a complex process, and yes,
cross-linking plays a role in it. But AFAIK except for the initial
stage, where a blood clot is formed, cross-linking plays only a minor
role in wound healing. In addition generic ALT-711 is very specific in
that it only breaks certain types of cross-links. It does not break
many of the most abundant cross links in the body such as glucosepane.
Also the main cross-links formed during the formation of a blood clot
are different from the cross-links formed randomly in the body in that
their formation is enzymatically driven causing the reaction to be
much faster. This is why a blood clot can form within a very short
time. Even if generic ALT-711 could break the cross-links formed
during blood clot formation it wouldn't happen fast enough to have any
significant effects on blood clot formation, at least not at any
reasonable concentration of ALT-711 obtainable by oral ingestion.
Generic ALT-711 is more likely to effect some of the later stages of
wound healing which occur much more slowly such as scar tissue
formation and maturation. Some people have reported fading of scars
from taking generic-AL-711 which may be attributed to this, but any
such changes if real are gradual and do not occur in a very short
time. So even if it does reduce scar tissue formation I wouldn't be
worried about taking it before surgery and and even less so after
surgery. Only if you are taking a very high dose of generic ALT-711
and are having a major surgery done would I suggest to stop taking it
prior to and shortly after the surgery just in case.

Cross-linking also plays some role in callus formation. But this is a
much slower process than that of blood clot formation. The slow
formation gives generic ALT-711 more time to break the cross-links and
cause significant effects. This may be the reason some people have
reported reduced callus formation when taking generic ALT-711.

[Many thanks to Olafur, for such an excellent detailed answer. --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
> > On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts and
> > experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.
>
> And I first want to express my thanks and high esteem for your candid
> and fully identified expression of your thoughts on such personal matters.
>
> >  First, I
> > should point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free –
> > How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from reaching
> > your full adult potential".  This book as a whole was very
> > interesting because a theme throughout the book was Branden's
> > insistence that most parents, through action or inaction, do a great
> > deal of psychological harm to their children in one way or another.
> > This point was especially interesting to me because, while I consider
> > my childhood to have been "mediocre" as an environment that is
> > conducive for children to develop into independent, rational, well-
> > adjusted adults, I hadn't realized that the lack of a good home
> > environment was so prevalent.  Branden reiterates his conviction that
> > most home environments lack what he would consider a "healthy
> > environment".
>
> My own view is that this, "healthy environment" relative to growing
> children, is a deteriorating situation, in general even worse than when
> I was a child (and I do not consider my own growing-up environment
> particularly good but then neither was it highly negative). I think  this
> is entirely to be expected based on all other trends of society and is
> one of the reasons why I am concerned about the course of current
> civilization.
>
> >  In the context of this "healthy environment", the book
> > mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that environment, and
> > how parental behavior can effect a child's (and the resulting
> > adult's) behavior.  A very important aspect of this interaction
> > between a parent's behavior and the child's behavior as an adult is
> > that when the child becomes an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he
> > is behaving in a manner that is harmful to hirself*.
>
> What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
> an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
> adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
> attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
> asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
> process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives. Full
> human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
> which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
> are 30".

Is not "being an adult" the time after which a non-adult crosses a
social boundary by claiming full responsibility for hir actions,
therefore ceasing to be a child of other adult(s).  This is a social
expression, a way of reaching out to others who also claim self-
responsibility, and, when two or more such individuals intentionally
interface, a social contract is formed.

Paul explains both the individual's self responsibility in Social
Meta Needs and the individual's social responsibilities in the
Natural Social Contract, and I'm confident we agree, both childhood
and adulthood are defined, with the adults being the parties to the
contract and fully responsible for the social interactions of their
children.

The paragraph above by Paul can be misunderstood that adulthood is
defined as unreachable, that all humans are children-becoming-adults
that can be compared along a continuum from stunted to advanced
children.
Instead, I think it is important to define "adult" as the time period
that a human claims to have freed hirself from parent(s) and is
taking full responsibility for hir existence and activities.

There could instead be two becoming processes, one describing the
ascension from childhood to adulthood and another describing the
continued improvement vis-à-vis the rate of happiness achieved by the
adult.  (was this a good use of vis-à-vis?)

Here's a terrifying thought (similar disappointment expressed by
fictional character Cherryl Taggart, Atlas Shrugged: Part III, Ch 4.
Anti-Life): there is clear evidence that many Americans and probably
most of the world's 21+ (age group) individuals are de facto children
to their respective governments and insurance programs, hugging
tightly to the benefits handed to them through a convoluted maze (tax-
funded services) which binds superior producers to their respective
local governments of moochers, who in turn "milk the cow" and leave
leftover crumbs to the stunted children.

> >  Studying this
> > book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
> > engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
>
> Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included. It
> is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
> degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even though
> one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that will
> optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
> *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
> reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
> unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
> time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
> one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
> work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
> experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that I
> don't get better at this much faster than I do.

This last statement (in the context of this paragraph) is especially
apropos most of the concepts I consider daily, and in particular:
1) what personal characteristics can I change?
2) how fast will I change? and
3) how do changes fit in with or adversely affect other related
characteristics?

Naturally then, I must ask by what methods will the changes occur
most rapidly and completely, and how will I verify (measurement)?
I appreciate that Paul related this, if only to be reminded of how
important is improving one's estimations.

> > The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
> > Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
> > practicing psychologist).  This entire book is based off an epiphany
> > Branden had during one of his group sessions.  He asked the group a
> > series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
> > were children.  He found that when he asked an appropriate question
> > to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great deal
> > of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
> > questions about hirself.
>
> This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
> Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
> facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
> conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
> that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
> psychological development/growth.
>
> >  As is likely the purpose of the book, I, as
> > the reader, experienced a significant number of enlightening moments
> > with respect to questions about myself and my personality.
>
> That is an excellent sign that you have a healthy mind, still open and
> capable of growth.

I've found Branden's books to be useful in providing a large number
of questions to ask myself, and from there, I've developed more
appropriate questions to bring out underlying principles by which I
govern my actions.  I suggest doing the same, tailoring the questions
to aim deeply.

Most "dirt" that I find is related to emotions that are tied to
particularly complex concepts, such as money, fairness, justice,
happiness, leisure, trade, political thought, and economics.

> >  These experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.
> >
> > Below I describe my thoughts and experiences while reading this book
> > as it relates to a given category.  The two categories of thoughts
> > and experiences I will discuss are:  emotional withdrawal and sexual
> > roles.
> >
> > Emotional withdrawal
> >
> > I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
> > fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
>
> Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
> called patient confidentiality. If that patient wants it, while that is
> still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
> even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
> the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
> confidentiality and even welcome their names being used and are fully
> willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
>
> [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
> Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of
> writer's, whether in the health care fields or not, use this
> technique for examples, rather than obtain permission to use that
> of a specific individual. These writers like this method also to
> combine the characteristics of several of their clients into one
> pseudo-person with the problems or situations they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
>
> [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
> example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and, for
> any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even occur in
> the reality of any single human. This is similar to using a unicorn
> or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally unacceptable
> for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]
>
> > The chapter is called "The Unknowable".  The question posed
> > to "Henry" in the book is as follows:
> >
> > "When you were a child, did your parents manner of behaving and
> > dealing with you give you the impression that you were living in a
> > world that was rational, predictable, intelligible?  Or a world that
> > was bewildering, contradictory, incomprehensible, unknowable?"
> >
> > In this chapter, Henry responded to the question by giving a story
> > about how his parents behaved toward him when he was a child. Henry
> > states that when he was a child he once used some matches to set a
> > few leaves on fire in the back yard.  His father discovered him and
> > told him that the police were going to take him to Juvenile Hall.
> > Then his mother came running up to Henry, hugging him, telling him it
> > was "OK", and telling him that he was her "darling angel".  Henry
> > then remembers his father screaming at his mother and forgot all
> > about Henry's careless burning of leaves.  Henry then states that
> > later that night, his father gave him a gift and seemed quite
> > cheerful.  Henry recalled that this experience was very bewildering
> > to him and he didn't know what to think of it.
> >
> > Henry then describes how his parents were always shouting, his mother
> > was often crying, holding Henry and saying that "everything will be
> > okay when we're with Jesus".  I agree with Henry: this is a confusing
> > situation for a child to grow up in.
>
> I was certainly fortunate in that my parents, while often having
> irrational ideas and actions that were negative for me and my
> thinking/growth, nevertheless practiced those ideas and actions
> reasonably consistently (even if such ideas and actions were not
> self-consistent as a whole). Although my parents thought of themselves
> as Christians, I also had none of this Jesus nonsense that is so
> prevalent in the US.
>
> [I on the other hand was raised in a home where my mother was a
> strongly adherent Catholic and my father was mostly so, keeping
> disagreements he had on the subject to himself, something I concluded
> when I was in my late 20s. When I voiced my very different ideas at
> age 16, the reaction however was not anger but rather more of
> confusion on their part. Also at that time, and even into my late 40s
> when they both died (less than a year apart), my ability to present
> my ideas in a cogent fashion was far less than it is now or was even
> 7 years ago. **Kitty]
>
> > Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
> > stopped trying to understand the world around him.  This random,
> > unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
> > a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
> > world.  Henry had given up the hope of understanding.  When reading
> > this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
> > says to Henry:
> >
> > "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding.  You stopped
> > caring to understand.  That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
>
> Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
> as efficacious with respect to reality. And the first step to being
> efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
> second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
> goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
> choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
> (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).

This second step of understanding ultimate purpose has been my
largest obstacle to navigate and traverse.  I have trouble with
motivation mostly, not necessarily to stay on track, but to enjoy
what I'm doing.

For example, I conclude an ultimate purpose is to become a scientist
because this will best train my mind to systematically consider
reality, identify problems, obtain resources and apply them to the
problems, and most efficiently evaluate the outcomes.  However,
during my first 25 years (not including playing basketball and
volleyball) I routinely followed paths of least resistance.  In
addition, I learned to react with joy to all of my experiences; IOW,
I was and am today able to enjoy most situations as challenging,
enlightening, aesthetically pleasing, etc., especially if somewhat
unordinary (to me).  Even though I have discovered problems with my
surroundings, my "country", my peers, my parents, my self, and so on,
I am not discouraged about maintaining a pleasurable relationship
with the wacky world because I have always successfully made the best
of situations.  Further, as I perceive reality today, I still only
possess a romantic interest in becoming a scientist, one like movie
characters such as Tom Cruise's in Mission Impossible, who, it was
implied, was well-practiced as a systematic and precise judge of
reality as well a wise negotiator (of reality) to his benefit.
AFAIK, learning and practicing the skill-set of a scientist will not
be an action-packed lifestyle and may not offer enough subtle changes
to keep my interest, but I am attempting to overcome these personal
characteristics of mine by practicing despite the boredom, etc.

So, I struggle with enjoying this learning and practice in hopes that
my interests in the material and methods will grow.

I have decided that if I do enjoy being a scientist (in the purest
sense possible), I would like my economic impact to lead to
activities that improve my and my friends' chances of living
indefinitely.

Regarding the remainder of this message in response to Steve, Paul,
and Kitty, I have nothing to add.

David "Jack"emeyer
Tempe, AZ
BioTech Student, Arizona State U
Methuseluh Foundation student/lab rat
---------------------------------------

Hi Morelife community,

I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the
pronounciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,
hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I
purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my
attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my
body.
However, I will be making a change beginning this winter and
continuing through Arizona State spring semester by reserving writing
and thinking time each day for Morelife Yahoo Group, that I might
participate with Paul, Kitty, Steve, and others.

That said, I have a personal concern for your consideration.

I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day
has been working fine for me.  I would also like to exercise 45 min
per day.  BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in
response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group
posted 06/04/08:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent
would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways
hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

David "Jack"emeyer
BioTech student
Methuselah Foundation student/lab rat