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

----- 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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
>

--- 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

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

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

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

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

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

On 10/28/2008 06:04 PM, Steve Floyd Jr 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.

He is also well-known as a former protege and closest possible
associate of Ayn Rand, founder of the Nathaniel Branden Institute for
Objectivist Studies (during the 1960s) and, at one time, Rand's
designated "intellectual heir".

> 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).

People may also cause you trouble by involuntarily (on your part)
interrupting you more than if you did not share that information. This
is why the Natural Social Contract contains clauses that clearly state
that such unpermitted interruptions are violations.
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm


> 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.

You are somewhat confusing what it is that can and cannot be stolen.
It is true that personal thoughts and experiences cannot be stolen or
even transferred, but that is because they are not physical in
character as are certain types of wealth, which can therefore be
stolen or otherwise transferred. However, *information* is not
something that can ever be taken from a person. It can only be copied
and transferred to another. Rather it is the information about your
physical wealth that can be used to steal it from you, whereas the
information about your personal thoughts and experiences cannot be so
used (mainly because they are not transferable precisely because they
are not physical in nature).

Furthermore, while the two types of information are not comparable in
some characteristics, they are comparable in terms of the lifetime
happiness increasing value to the person receiving them. In this sense
it should be now considered that "information" is a distinct new type
of economic exchange factor, along with goods and services. The
Internet has been the largest factor bringing about this change in the
status of information.


> 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.

Certainly they cannot transfer such information from you and leave you
without it as they could material wealth. However even for thoughts
and experiences "deprive" is the wrong word, since people can only use
whatever information you give them to non-coercively try to sell you
goods and services that satisfy your expressed needs, wants and
desires. However, to the extent that such things actually *do* satisfy
those desires and bring you more lifetime happiness the exchanges are
voluntary and should be wanted/welcomed by you. Such attempts to gain
from you will only be able to be negative for you if your wants, needs
and desires are irrational and not fully consistent with the rest of
your life (or if those attempts perpetrate *interruption harm* against
you, as mentioned above).


> 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).

First, it needs to be made clear that socially preferencing against
(negative social preferencing) can only occur when a person *acts* on
hir emotion of hatred (or even dislike).

Also some people may consider that some action or even viewpoint of
yours is harmful to them, even when it has no aspect of violation
involved. (See definition of violation in the NSC -
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#violate ) With respect to
such people, you may well be negatively socially preferenced (they may
show dislike for you, not associate with you and try to influence
others to do the same). However, since their reasons and actions are
irrational in this respect, you should ignore them and not take them
into consideration as much as possible. If you cannot do so and still
continue to have a tolerable level of existence within your current
environment, then you should move to a new environment where you can.


> Then it is good for me I hold no such views! :)

Unfortunately, because there is an enormous subjective disparity
within current society about just which views of a person are actually
harmful to others (largely because of the engendered and promoted
irrationalism of so many people), it is almost impossible for some of
your expressed views to not be considered as harmful by some people.
This means that expressing your views will almost always cause some
people to not want to interact with you and you will end up with fewer
overall people with whom to interact. The positive side of this is
that those people who are left will be the ones with whom you gain
more from interactions and they in turn have their lifetime happiness
increased through exchanges with you. In addition, you also gain by
the fact that the others do not gain from value exchanges with you and
are thereby ultimately lessened in lifetime happiness. You gain in
this manner because the undeserving (the irrational) are reduced in
total value and stature (and, hopefully, in power, influence and
fecundity).


> 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?"

This is similar to the illogic of the "Golden Rule". Rather the
question that should be asked is: "Do you think that your ideas
would be considered by me to be harmful". Note that the judgment of
whether or not something is harmful (or beneficial) must logically be
done by the receiver of it. Furthermore, one must carefully
distinguish between simple harm (reduction or lessened increase of
lifetime happiness) and culpable harm (or what in the NSC I call
Responsible Harm - http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm ).
Your example below is strongly about the latter type of harm.


> 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.

Such an evaluation and naming should be fully acted upon in order to
socially preference against such a person, first of all, and most
importantly, by having no association whatever with hir (unless forced
to by government laws/regulations that cannot be avoided, or some other
immediate necessity of survival, in which latter case one should then
act to eliminate any such necessary association).


> So again, I invite you to share your thoughts and feelings. I
> certainly think we can learn from one another.
>
> ---
> Steve Floyd


Thanks for initiating this set of personal posts.

--Paul

[I add my appreciation too, Steve. It brings to mind a Kitty Reflects entry I
made at MoreLife.org over 5 years ago that I wrote when Paul was first working
on the Self-Sovereign Individual Project. I wrote about some of his own
relationships - http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton030713.html 
**Kitty]

Hello everyone,

As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts and
experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.  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".  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*.  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.

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.  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.  These
experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.

Below I describe my thoughts and experience 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.
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.

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".

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.  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.  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".  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.  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!

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.  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!*

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.

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.
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).

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).

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

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.

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.


---
Steve Floyd

On 10/28/2008 08:56 AM, Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:

> As a side comment regarding lack of response from others, I realize
> that this is the closing days of US presidential election campaigning
> and many may be glued to TV sets listening to speeches. (An article
> written by me and published 10/27 will hopefully be of interest and
> value to those who are planning to vote, and even those who are not -
> Just a Charismatic Presidential Candidate? -
> http://tinyurl.com/5fptns ) There was one reply from an individual not
> identified to us, who also did not respond to my 2 message reminders
> of this requirement and encouraging hir to do so. The lack of any
> email reply was the most disappointing.
>
> **Kitty

Hi, Kitty,
I was not aware of the essay re Obama and hypnotism till I saw the
above. THanks.  I too would be interested in learning the name of the
author.
Bob

[If you, Bob, or others have comments regarding what I wrote in the article, you
can make comments at OpEdNews.com for 14 days after its publication or do so
here. In the latter case, please use quotes from the article (or my follow-up
reply to a reader's comment there) with any comments or questions.

I think the paper's author anonymity engenders as many problems as the subject
itself and conclusions the author draws.
But as I wrote, the real problem is the fact that so very many people make
decisions on what they hear and see in speeches, rather than from studying the
words of those speeches (and other sources) via text for content of what is and
is not included and the implications. And when the decision is regarding
government, especially voting on who will have control of the legalized use of
force, the matter is grave. **Kitty]

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

[We are asking Steve to delay submitting his next messages - not yet complete,
he has told us, and not likely to be until Thursday or Friday - to delay doing
that until Monday. We are in preparation for our drive to the warm south and
will not be doing any computer work after Friday morning. Therefore for those
wanting to comment on this message, please do so by Thursday afternoon or wait
until at least Sunday so that your message will not be sitting in the queue for
several days waiting for us to process it. **Kitty]

On 10/20/2008 09:35 AM, Dave Brett wrote:
> The following formed part of an email which I recently sent to Kitty.
> Kitty thought members of the group may be interested in
> discussing the subject :
>
> "I have often discussed my supplement and research chemical usage
> with others and I'm sure that a number of these acquaintances would
> benefit significantly from a calculated program of supplementation
> rather than solely considering/taking prescribed medication. In the
> UK, as I suspect you may already be aware, the National Health
> Service provides most prescription medicines either for "free" (paid
> for from general income tax and national insurance payments) or at
> very low cost (subsidised by general income taxation). In fact, the
> majority of the population qualify for both "free" treatment and all
> medicines. Consequently, and reasonably logically, there is a
> reluctance, on the part of many of the people known by me personally,
> to pay for any medication or supplements.

Those people who choose to make use of only "free" health services have
decided in effect to put themselves in a category of lowest common
denominator of health care, for this is what government health care
means. It is because there are so very many people who think that
government health care is sufficient (because they appear to think that
government authorities know best in this area, in spite of all the
evidence to the contrary in so many other areas) - and besides it's
"free" - that there is as much poor health status as there is. The
numbers of people who take an active truly disorder-preventative style
of life from their 20s onward is very low. Most not only have the
foolishness of youth that they are invulnerable but also think that
government (or employer-provided insurance) will take care of them.

If the health services payment method was one in which people paid
directly for their own checkups and low cost health services/medications
and had insurance only for truly catastrophic situations (say $10,000
and more), I am convinced that they would take far better care of
themselves and actually save money for those illnesses and accidents
that are likely to happen occasionally, even when one is careful. The
attitude of wanting to be taken care of by government or an insurance
company is one that demonstrates a less than fully adult person - a
child-like state. (This attitude exists also when a person does not view
health care providers as advisers by becoming knowledgeable oneself, but
simply agreeing to whatever is prescribed.) What really happens though
is that many people are very mixed in their thinking and don't want to
pay their own way in life - they wouldn't steal from their neighbor or
even a stranger, but have not thought out the progression of events
which causes their request for services from government to logically
be a demand that it extort money from others (and actually themselves
too, except that it appears most people foolishly think that they will
have a net gain) via taxes and fees.

>  Here in Switzerland the
> situation is different since specific health insurance is obligatory
> and the cost of medication is generally only partly covered by
> insurance.

Those living in Switzerland are also kept in a child-like state by
government, just somewhat less than in the UK. This Swiss-type
arrangement is what many in the US are trying to enact into law.

>  However, the Swiss appear to be very cautious when it
> comes to taking supplements, at least in my experience, although I
> have significantly less Swiss acquaintances by comparison with those
> from the UK."

["Cautious" means "marked by careful prudence in reducing risk or
danger". However, since physiological dysfunction and early death
(grave danger) are inevitable if one simply does what people have
always done and what the vast majority of current medical authorities
prescribe, *not* taking supplements (that are well determined to be
safe, even if they do not have fully proven benefit) is actually the
more risky thing to do, whereas *taking* supplements (as well as
following an excellent diet and getting adequate exercise and
rest/relaxation) is logically the more cautious approach to life. --Paul]

The caution may be a result of lack of government approval or
recommendation. A larger percentage of the population in the US appears
willing to make decisions on their own in regard to supplements and
research chemicals - at least currently. I wonder how many
health-related magazines or simply articles of that nature in general
magazines are purchased and read by those in Switzerland.

The numbers of health-related magazines sold in stores or by
subscription in the US are enormous - likely all are available
internationally through the mails. And then there are all the health
food stores or simply grocery store chains that are catering to more
health conscious customers in the US. These latter have increased in
number over the past 10 years. However we're still waiting for Sprouts
Farmers Market to put in a store in Casa Grande; maybe Trader Joe's and
Sunflower Markets will too. Until then we continue to drive to
Chandler/Mesa area every 2 weeks to go to these 3. Something to note
though is that the more traditional stores, like Fry's (and No Frills
and Price Chopper in rural Ontario) that we use regularly, do have a
greater selection of no-sugar added foods (without synthetic sweeteners)
than 5 years ago, but still don't carry as much as Sprouts, Sunflower,
Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.

In the US where the economy is still (even with the current
government-created financial mess) less government controlled than all
other industrialized countries, most existing businesses and
entrepreneurs are eager to meet the wants (economic "demands") of
purchasers/customers. The less government interference in voluntary
interactions, the more choices there are and can become available. In a
society where individuals voluntarily interact to mutual benefit without
any interference from others, and with each seeking to maximize hir
lifetime happiness (the purpose of each person's life whether or not
s/he recognizes it) using long range wide viewed thinking, the choices
will be unbounded - such a society is the goal of the Self-Sovereign
Individual Project.


> Dave
>
> [Thanks, Dave for following up on my suggestion.
>
> I won't respond with my comment for a week and hopefully in the
> meantime others will have something to say on the multiple of
> related subjects you've brought up. **Kitty]


As a side comment regarding lack of response from others, I realize
that this is the closing days of US presidential election campaigning
and many may be glued to TV sets listening to speeches. (An article
written by me and published 10/27 will hopefully be of interest and
value to those who are planning to vote, and even those who are not -
Just a Charismatic Presidential Candidate? -
http://tinyurl.com/5fptns ) There was one reply from an individual not
identified to us, who also did not respond to my 2 message reminders
of this requirement and encouraging hir to do so. The lack of any
email reply was the most disappointing.

**Kitty

Most of this group's members - as well as others - have likely not
noticed that Yahoo has made a significant change to user ID profiles.
In fact, nothing but the ID name is currently showing, unless, like
me, a member has happened to notice and gone through the process of
editing hir profile. Neither I nor Paul had received any notification
of this change - which Yahoo notes in small letters is "Beta". The old
information I had was still resident in the Yahoo system, but as it is
currently configured it required me going through the process of
approving it for being shown to a viewer. It appears that Yahoo is
making this change in order to operate much like FaceBook, Linked-In
and similar connection networks.

Those who have been open about themselves (to varying degrees) in
their Yahoo ID - many of whom have also fully identified themselves to
us and are, thus, qualified to post to this group - will need to go
through the same profile update process in order to have anything but
a bag-over-the-head type image show with *only* their Yahoo user ID.

Unfortunately the new system does not contain the previous convenient
favorite links feature and the previous entries of those has been
relegated to a section "anything else". Maybe if enough people
complain about this lack of the ability to enter active links, Yahoo
will reinstitute it.

Another annoyance is with a new feature - sending a message to the
person whose Yahoo ID you are viewing. Sending one does not work with
our Linux computers, but I did successfully send a message to Paul
using our Windows based laptop for which he received email
notification on his Linux machine. I don't see a value to this feature
for me, but I thought it worthwhile to try it out and let others know
the problem I encountered.

Hopefully, more people will actually make use of the identifying
capabilities with this new version of Yahoo profiles. Out of
curiosity, I clicked on the "Connection Suggestions" link with my
profile and saw the system turn up 10 people. The first one on the
list is Paul and the remainder are all people with real names - people
I actually know, and most are in this group. There obviously is
something that is entered in the profile information that is common
between the 11 of us that the Yahoo system now recognizes. I
definitely know what it is with Paul ;>)

**Kitty

The following formed part of an email which I recently sent to Kitty.
Kitty thought members of the group may be interested in
discussing the subject :

"I have often discussed my supplement and research chemical usage
with others and I'm sure that a number of these acquaintances would
benefit significantly from a calculated program of supplementation
rather than solely considering/taking prescribed medication. In the
UK, as I suspect you may already be aware, the National Health
Service provides most prescription medicines either for "free" (paid
for from general income tax and national insurance payments) or at
very low cost (subsidised by general income taxation). In fact, the
majority of the population qualify for both "free" treatment and all
medicines. Consequently, and reasonably logically, there is a
reluctance, on the part of many of the people known by me personally,
to pay for any medication or supplements. Here in Switzerland the
situation is different since specific health insurance is obligatory
and the cost of medication is generally only partly covered by
insurance. However, the Swiss appear to be very cautious when it
comes to taking supplements, at least in my experience, although I
have significantly less Swiss acquaintances by comparison with those
from the UK."



Dave

[Thanks, Dave for following up on my suggestion.

I won't respond with my comment for a week and hopefully in the meantime others
will have something to say on the multiple of related subjects you've brought
up. **Kitty]

Just want to say thanks for the thorough explanation below.  I'm sure
it's useful to other people, too.

Scott Miller
a.k.a. DukeNukem @ ImmInst.org

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2008 06:35 PM, game_investor wrote:
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> ...[O]ne in which the principles of Social Meta-Needs (which are
> >>  *not* my theories, but rather emanate directly from reality if only
> >>  one looks penetratingly enough) are rationally understood and in
> >>  operation during human interactions.
>
> > Paul, this statement stuck out for me.
>
> I am pleased to see you reading with thought, not just skimming, and
> even more pleased to have you ask a thoughtful question.
>
> > What do you mean when you say
> > "the principles of Social Meta-Needs" emanates from reality?
>
> It means that, just like the laws of nature in any particular area
> attempt to describe the behavior of a particular aspect of reality, so
> the theory of Social Meta-Needs, and the principles (another word for
> rules or laws) that derive from that theory, also attempts to describe
> the behavior of a particular aspect of reality. The laws of physics
> attempt to describe the behavior of space time and matter (the latter
> in both particle and bulk form, but not the bulk form in any great
> detail since that becomes the purview of many other separate
> sciences). The theory of Social Meta-Needs attempts to describe the
> interactions of human beings which will enable each at the same time
> to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness. Thus the principles of
> Social Meta-Needs are discovered by examining reality in the same
> manner as the laws of physics are found by examining reality. It
> appears to me that no one before me has examined the essence of what
> it means to be a human living with other humans on this Earth
> sufficiently carefully to have seen the complete and consistent
> picture of just what principles of human interaction will optimize the
> lifetime happiness of each all at the same time (or even that such a
> set of principles can even exist at all).
>
> > Is this because these principles are based on human psychology?
>
> Yes and no. They are based on the essential characteristics of human
> beings (characteristics that are inherent in being human and therefore
> common to all humans). Much of this would reasonably be placed under
> the heading of human psychology (and sociology too). However, current
> human psychology is merely the study of the behavior of the humans
> that have arisen within the current social environment. Human
> psychology says almost nothing about what humans could be, should be
> (in order to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness) and,
> therefore, ought to be.
>
> > Your statement, IMO, also implies that there is no other set of
> > principles that can exist, since reality has one truth (to the best
> > of my knowledge).
>
> Again that is essentially correct. Just as there is only one correct
> physical law (although a recent Science News article described how
> some physicists are beginning to doubt this in general), so there
> would be only one correct set of principles that will enable all
> humans together to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.
> Thus, my approach is completely at odds with most social philosophers
> who appear to think that the rules of social behavior are quite
> arbitrary and dependent on which culture one is in - which is, of
> course, nothing but a recipe for conflict - a sort of tower of Babel
> with respect to rules of social behavior on top of the language and
> religion problems already existent in the world.
>
> So while I have discovered the ideas of Social Meta-Needs, just as a
> physicist discovers a new physical law, and the theory of Social
> Meta-Needs is mine in the same way that the theory of general
> relativity is Einstein's, that theory is not mine in the sense of
> being a social scheme for human interaction derived from my own
> particular cultural heritage and my own personal narrow biased views
> of how humans should behave - as is the case for most other social
> theories.
>
> My approach to the science of human interaction has been entirely
> similar to that of any scientist who asks what principles, laws or
> rules of behavior govern/describe the operation of a certain set of
> objects of reality and their environmental interactions. So in the
> same manner, I looked at the most primary and essential aspects of
> human existent, human environment and potential human interactions.
> The theory of Social Meta-Needs is the result of that examination.
>
> --Paul
>

On 09/17/2008 07:00 PM, Lynn Martin wrote:
> I feel embarrassed to ask this question because for all I know it's
> already been answered somewhere on the MoreLife site.  But I've been
> so pressed with so many urgent tasks to do, including other things
> to research, that month after month I never go hunting for this on
> MoreLife.  If it *is* answered there, I'll ask for your indulgence,
> and maybe someone will post the link.  If it isn't, maybe my asking
> here will spark a discussion.  So here goes:
>
> Spinach contains oxalates, which bind to calcium and keep the human
> body from assimilating the calcium.
>
> Do these oxalates make only the calcium in the spinach inaccessible
> to the body, or do they bind to calcium from other foods/supplements
> in the meal and make that calcium inaccessible as well?

I had to do a little research on this one to find out for sure. Here
are my results.
1) Spinach does contain a large amount of both soluble and insoluble
oxalates, of the order of 1% by weight of fresh spinach with the
soluble being about 4 times more than the insoluble. Most other greens
(eg kale) do not contain oxalates.
2) The soluble oxalates are the ones that are absorbed and can combine
with minerals. The insoluble oxalates are mostly not absorbed.
3) About 75% of the calcium in spinach is in the form of insoluble
oxalates and so is not absorbed.
4) The soluble oxalates (which are not attached to calcium) are
available in the digestive tract and after digestion to bind with
calcium and some other minerals. However, I found one study that
showed iron absorption reduction by oxalates is negligible and that
boiled spinach is a good source of magnesium. In spite of the latter,
spinach can diminish absorption of magnesium from other foods.
5) The soluble oxalates can be caused to leach from the spinach best
by boiling it and discarding the water (too bad because I have always
loved the taste of spinach water).
6) Another way to reduce the absorption of oxalates from spinach is to
eat calcium containing milk products with it. This will cause the
soluble oxalates to become insoluble by being bound to the calcium in
the milk products, and of course this will also reduce the amount of
calcium absorbed from the milk products.

So the answer to your question is yes to the second part. Oxalates do
bind calcium in other foods and presumably supplements if the
supplement calcium is not strongly bound to something else which
compound is also absorbable. The solution is to do one or more of the
following:
1) Eat mostly other leafy greens instead of spinach.
2) When eating spinach boil it most of the time.
3) Do not take calcium supplements or foods with a spinach meal.
4) Take sufficient extra calcium that the amount absorbed will average
out okay.
5) Eat spinach with milk products (creamed spinach is good) and
realize that much of the calcium in the milk products will be lost at
that meal.
6) Take calcium supplements in chelated or other hard bound forms, at
least when you eat spinach.

OR

Just take lots of calcium supplements and forget about the oxalates in
spinach unless you have a tendency to form kidney stones. This is the
solution of me and Kitty - Kitty's kidney stone was *not* an oxalate
type.

Here are some abstracts which relate:

Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;47(4):707-9.
Calcium absorbability from spinach.
Heaney RP, Weaver CM, Recker RR.
Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178.

The absorbability of calcium from spinach was compared with the
absorbability of Ca from milk in 13 healthy adults in a randomized
cross-over design in which the test meal of either milk or spinach had
200 mg of Ca labeled with 45Ca. Absorption was measured by the
standard double-isotope method in which both the test food and the
miscible Ca pool are labeled with different Ca tracers. Measurement of
both Ca and oxalate in our test spinach revealed a very slight
stoichiometric excess of oxalate; hence it is likely that all of the
spinach Ca was effectively bound. Absorption was higher from milk in
every case, with the mean absorption from milk averaging 27.6% and
from spinach, 5.1%. The mean within-subject difference between Ca
absorption from milk and from spinach was 22.5 +/- 9.5% (P less than
0.0001). These results conclusively establish that spinach Ca is much
less readily available than milk Ca.
PMID: 3354496


Am J Clin Nutr. 1989 Oct;50(4):830-2.
Oxalate: effect on calcium absorbability.
Heaney RP, Weaver CM.
Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178.

Absorption of calcium from intrinsically labeled Ca oxalate was
measured in 18 normal women and compared with absorption of Ca from
milk in these same subjects, both when the test substances were
ingested in separate meals and when ingested together. Fractional Ca
absorption from oxalate averaged 0.100 +/- 0.043 when ingested alone
and 0.140 +/- 0.063 when ingested together with milk. Absorption
was, as expected, substantially lower than absorption from milk
(0.358 +/-0.113). Nevertheless Ca oxalate absorbability in these women
was higher than we had previously found for spinach Ca. When milk and
Ca oxalate were ingested together, there was no interference of
oxalate in milk Ca absorption and no evidence of tracer exchange
between the two labeled Ca species.
PMID: 2801588


Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Apr;51(4):656-7.
Calcium absorption from kale.
Heaney RP, Weaver CM.
Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178.

Absorption of calcium from intrinsically labeled kale was measured in
11 normal women and compared in these same subjects with absorption of
calcium from labeled milk. The average test load was 300 mg.
Fractional calcium absorption from kale averaged 0.409 +/- 0.101
(means +/- SD) and from milk, 0.321 +/- 0.089 (P less than 0.025). In
contrast with the poor absorption previously reported for spinach
calcium, kale, a low-oxalate vegetable, exhibits excellent
absorbability for its calcium.
PMID: 2321572

Br J Nutr. 2004 Apr;91(4):601-6.

Fractional magnesium absorption is significantly lower in human
subjects from a meal served with an oxalate-rich vegetable, spinach,
as compared with a meal served with kale, a vegetable with a low
oxalate content.
Bohn T, Davidsson L, Walczyk T, Hurrell RF.
Laboratory for Human Nutrition, Institute of Food Science and
Nutrition, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate Mg absorption from a test
meal served with an oxalate-rich vegetable, spinach, as compared with
a test meal served with a vegetable with a low oxalate content, kale.
Mg absorption was measured by a stable-isotope technique based on
extrinsic labelling of the test meals and faecal monitoring of the
excreted isotope labels. Nine healthy adults participated in the
study. The test meals were based on 100 g phytate-free white
bread, served with 300 g spinach (6.6 mmol oxalate; 0.7 mmol (25)Mg
label added,  5.0 mmol total Mg) or 300 g kale (0.1 mmol oxalate; 1.2
mmol (26)Mg label added, 4.8 mmol total Mg). The test meals were
served on days 1 and 3, at breakfast and lunch, using a cross-over
design. The results from the present study demonstrated that apparent
Mg absorption was significantly lower from the meal served with
spinach (26.7 (sd 10.4) %) than the meal served with kale (36.5 (sd
11.8) %)(P=0.01). However, the lower fractional apparent Mg absorption
from the test meal served with spinach can be assumed to be, at least
partly, counterbalanced by the higher native Mg content of spinach as
compared with kale. Although based on indirect evidence, i.e. not
based on an evaluation of added (or removed) oxalic acid, the
difference in Mg absorption observed in the present study is
attributed to the difference in oxalic acid content between the two
vegetables.
PMID: 15035687

J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Apr 20;53(8):3027-30.
Effect of different cooking methods on vegetable oxalate content.
Chai W, Liebman M.
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences (Nutrition), Department
3354, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie,
Wyoming 82071, USA.

Approximately 75% of all kidney stones are composed primarily of
calcium oxalate, and hyperoxaluria is a primary risk factor for this
disorder. Nine types of raw and cooked vegetables were analyzed for
oxalate using an enzymatic method. There was a high proportion of
water-soluble oxalate in most of the tested raw vegetables. Boiling
markedly reduced soluble oxalate content by 30-87% and was more
effective than steaming (5-53%) and baking (used only for potatoes, no
oxalate loss). An assessment of the oxalate content of cooking water
used for boiling and steaming revealed an approximately 100% recovery
of oxalate losses. The losses of insoluble oxalate during cooking
varied greatly, ranging from 0 to 74%. Because soluble sources of
oxalate appear to be better absorbed than insoluble sources, employing
cooking methods that significantly reduce soluble oxalate may be an
effective strategy for decreasing oxaluria in individuals predisposed
to the development of kidney stones.
PMID: 15826055


Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(2):219-24.
Bioavailability of soluble oxalate from spinach eaten with and without
milk products.
Brogren M, Savage GP.
Food Group, AFSD, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Savage@...

Leafy vegetables such as spinach (Spinacia oleracea) are known to
contain moderate amounts of soluble and insoluble oxalates. Frozen
commercially available spinach in New Zealand contains 736.6+/-20.4
mg/100g wet matter (WM) soluble oxalate and 220.1+/-96.5mg/100g WM
insoluble oxalate. The frozen spinach contained 90mg total
calcium/100g WM, 76.7%of this calcium was unavailable as it
was bound to oxalate as insoluble oxalate. The oxalate/calcium (mEq)
ratio of the frozen spinach was 4.73. When frozen convenience food is
grilled there is no opportunity for the soluble oxalates to be leached
out into the cooking water and discarded. Soluble oxalates, when
consumed, have the ability to bind to calcium in the spinach and any
calcium in foods consumed with the spinach, reducing the absorption of
soluble oxalate. In this experiment 10 volunteers ingested 100g
grilled spinach alone or with 100g additions of cottage cheese, sour
cream and sour cream with Calci-Trim milk (180 g) and finally, with
20g olive oil. The availability of oxalate in the spinach was
determined by measuring the oxalate output in the urine over a 6-hour
and 24-hour period after intake of the test meal. The mean
bioavailability of soluble oxalate in the grilled spinach was
0.75+/-0.48% over a 6-hour period after intake and was 1.93+/-0.85%
measured over a 24-hour period. Addition of sour cream and Calci-Trim
milk reduced the availability of the oxalate in the spinach
significantly (P<0.05) in both the 6-hour and 24-hour collection
periods.
PMID: 12810415

J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1995 Dec;41(6):671-85.
The bioavailability of magnesium in spinach and the effect of oxalic
acid on magnesium utilization examined in diets of magnesium-deficient
rats.
Kikunaga S, Ishii H, Takahashi M.
Faculty of Home Economics, Notre Dame Seishin University, Okayama, Japan.

Spinach was evaluated for its bioavailability of magnesium in the
experiment with magnesium-deficient rats. The effect of oxalic acid on
absorption of dietary magnesium was also examined in the same
experiment. After there were significant differences in the body
weight of the rats between the control group and the
magnesium-deficient group, and after the number of dead rats
increased, the magnesium-deficient rats were divided into six groups.
They were pair-fed for 8 days on the magnesium-deficient diet,
magnesium-deficient diet supplemented with raw powdered spinach
(R-sp), boiled powdered spinach (B-sp), or fried powdered spinach
(F-sp), control diet supplemented with oxalic acid (Ox-C), and control
diet (+Mg). On the 10th day, there was no significant difference in
the food intake of the rats between the control group and
magnesium-deficient group. However, the body weight, and body weight
gain of the rats increased more significantly in the control group
than in those of the magnesium-deficient group. Also, the contents of
calcium and phosphorus in the liver and kidneys, and serum calcium
content increased significantly in the magnesium-deficient rats
compared with those of the control rats. However, the serum magnesium
content decreased significantly in the magnesium-deficient rats. An
especially large amount of calcium was accumulated in the kidneys of
the magnesium-deficient rats. At the end of the experimental period,
there were no significant differences in the food intake, body weight
and body weight gain of the rats among the control group and each of
the spinach-added groups. The body weight and body weight gain of the
Ox-C rats decreased significantly in comparison with those of the
control group and each of the spinach-added groups. Although, there
were no significant differences in the concentrations of serum
minerals (Mg, Ca and P) among each of the groups, kidney magnesium,
calcium and phosphorus, and liver magnesium and phosphorus were
significantly higher in each of the spinach added groups than those of
the control, Ox-C and +Mg groups. A large amount of calcium was
accumulated in the kidneys of the rats fed on the R-sp, B-sp, F-sp and
Ox-C diets. However, the kidney calcium of each of the spinach-added
groups markedly decreased in comparison with kidney calcium of the
magnesium-deficient rats on the 10th day, when the magnesium-deficient
rats were separated. There was no significant difference in the
magnesium content of the left tibiae among each of the spinach-added
groups. Also, the magnesium contents of the left tibiae of each
of the additional groups did not reach the level of those of the
control rats. The contents of calcium and phosphorus of the left
tibiae were not significantly different among any of the groups except
for both the R-sp and Ox-C groups, and decreased significantly in the
R-sp and Ox-C groups compared with those of the other groups. A highly
positive correlation between bone calcium and bone strength was not
observed in this study; the breaking force of the left femurs of the
B-sp and F-sp rats increased significantly in comparison with that of
the Ox-C group. The rate of magnesium absorbed by the rats receiving
the control, R-sp, B-sp, F-sp, Ox-C, and +Mg diets was 88.9, 80.2,
88.4, 90.4, 88.1, and 87.7%, respectively. The rate of apparent
absorption of calcium from the control, Mg-deficient, R-sp, B-sp,
F-sp, Ox-C and +Mg diet was 87.0, 84.1, 57.3, 66.4, 66.2, 53.3 and
83.5%, respectively. The data indicate that oxalic acid remained
in spinach after cooking of boil or frizzle was not deleterious to
magnesium availability, and that spinach is one of the most promising
sources of magnesium.
PMID: 8926539

****
Here is an interesting study on mineral balances that found that
spinach eating is not a problem for calicium absorption in general.
****

J Nutr. 1988 Oct;118(10):1197-204.
Mineral balances of men fed a diet containing fiber in fruits and
vegetables and oxalic acid in spinach for six weeks.
Kelsay JL, Prather ES, Clark WM, Canary JJ.
Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Beltsville, MD 20705.

In an investigation of the effects of fiber and oxalic acid on weekly
mineral balances, 12 men consumed two diets consisting of natural
foods for 6 wk each in a crossover design. One diet contained about 25
g neutral detergent fiber (NDF) in fruits and vegetables and included
100 g spinach, which is high in oxalic acid, every other day. The
second diet was a low fiber diet that contained about 5 g NDF and the
same amount of spinach as the first diet. On the basis of mean values
for 6 wk, balances for calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc or manganese
were not significantly different due to diet. Copper balances were
significantly lower when the low fiber diet was consumed than when the
diet containing fiber in fruits and vegetables and consequently a
higher level of copper was consumed. Mineral balances were
significantly different due to week. When results of both diets were
considered together, mean mineral balances decreased at some time
after wk 1 and returned to the wk 1 level during wk 6. Balances for wk
1 and 6 were not significantly different for any of the six minerals.
These results demonstrate the importance of determining weekly
balances for several weeks when conducting a human metabolic study.
PMID: 2846801


--Paul

Yesterday was a busy one here. We had 3 very large standing dead trees
cut down professionally (pictures in the future), which Paul has already
started to cut up gradually (I'm helping too of course :), and I
did the final uploading of updated files at MoreLife.org. All this in
addition to our regular activities.

Our change in eating from once daily to the increased intermittent
fasting of one full day out of 3 that we began in early July resulted
in numerous website changes related to both our food and supplement
intake sections.

Foraging for berries and mushrooms has been a major activity for us
- good exercise and cuts down on some store-bought food expenditures.
Information about this can be seen on our More Diet Ideas page. Some
additional recipe ideas - with photos of course - have been added on
the Dinner page. Additions to other related pages too.

Since we don't get in any public dancing while in Ontario, it was fun
to revisit the photos I took earlier this year at 3 events in putting
together another photo page - and look forward to our return to this
great form of exercise early in November. I've got plenty of photos that
I've downloaded (or is that uploaded ? :) from my camera awaiting new
page creations. As a preview I've uploaded a few to the photo section
for members - including of Paul trying out his long unused water-skiing
legs.
http://health.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/photos/browse/aacf
(There's plenty of space for members to upload photos of themselves.)

In addition to our quarterly updated photo on the Personal Index page,
I've added the information to my bio of the writing I've been doing at
OpEdNews.com with a link to my author page there. And I *have* been busy
there in the past couple of months.

And lastly for major updates, our quarterly at-home measured physical
parameters are, of course, part of this upload.

All items can be reached via the front page - http://morelife.org

As always, although I do a lot of reviewing before uploading, please let
me know if you see anything that looks like it may be an error.

**Kitty

On 08/28/2008 06:32 PM, couvrette2002 wrote:
> I came upon this site recently and had a conversation with Dr Levy...
>
> Unfortunately, my knowledge of chemistry is sadly lacking...so I am
> simply posting this for those with a higher level of knowledge to
> discuss...and perhaps consider.
>
> http://www.livonlabs.com/
>

The site is a commercial producer and seller of a limited number of
vitamins/nutrients that have been placed in liposomes. A liposome is "an
artificial vesicle that is composed of one or more concentric
phospholipid bilayers and is used especially to deliver microscopic
substances ... to body cells" - /Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, Unabridged/ . Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (29 Sep. 2008)

Liposomal delivery of drugs to the human body is scientifically based on
the fact that fats are absorbed into the blood stream by a fundamentally
different pathway (not into and out of intestinal lining cells, by more
like squeezing between them - as I recall the process). A PubMed search
of "liposome OR liposomal" gives 36727 hits, so these words are
certainly used often in the scientific ltierature. Liposomal delivery of
vitamins, nutrients or drugs also means that they will likely be less
processed by the liver before going on to the other parts of the body.
While I have been aware of the potential of liposomal delivery for about
15 years, I have never done much research into it because such a method
of making a compound available will be far more expensive than is
currently done for most and likely that is why very few companies have
been interested in developing this technology and doing the research to
verify the superior efficacy of each liposomally encapsulated compound.

I was not very impressed by the homepage of this website, however, since
once again it confuses correlation with causality. Just because the
blood levels of vitamin C in middle aged to elderly people who had less
mortality during a 4 year followup period was higher than that of others
who had more mortality during that period, does not mean that those
higher levels of vitamin C caused that lower mortality. All that such a
study indicates is that such cause and effect is likely good to test.

In addition, while some nutrients may well be better absorbed and
utilized with liposomal delivery, vitamin C is certainly not one that I
would ever think of doing that way. There is much controversy on just
how much is good for a person and that more may be harmful, and I am
convinced that one can get all that one needs via the normal absorption
route.

> My research did find one Pubmed study that indicated interest in the
> process.
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15545088?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PE\
ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
>

I am sure there must be more papers than that one, but it would likely
be a good review of the subject if one could get the full paper.


--Paul

On 09/30/2008 06:35 PM, game_investor wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> ...[O]ne in which the principles of Social Meta-Needs (which are
>>  *not* my theories, but rather emanate directly from reality if only
>>  one looks penetratingly enough) are rationally understood and in
>>  operation during human interactions.

> Paul, this statement stuck out for me.

I am pleased to see you reading with thought, not just skimming, and
even more pleased to have you ask a thoughtful question.

> What do you mean when you say
> "the principles of Social Meta-Needs" emanates from reality?

It means that, just like the laws of nature in any particular area
attempt to describe the behavior of a particular aspect of reality, so
the theory of Social Meta-Needs, and the principles (another word for
rules or laws) that derive from that theory, also attempts to describe
the behavior of a particular aspect of reality. The laws of physics
attempt to describe the behavior of space time and matter (the latter
in both particle and bulk form, but not the bulk form in any great
detail since that becomes the purview of many other separate
sciences). The theory of Social Meta-Needs attempts to describe the
interactions of human beings which will enable each at the same time
to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness. Thus the principles of
Social Meta-Needs are discovered by examining reality in the same
manner as the laws of physics are found by examining reality. It
appears to me that no one before me has examined the essence of what
it means to be a human living with other humans on this Earth
sufficiently carefully to have seen the complete and consistent
picture of just what principles of human interaction will optimize the
lifetime happiness of each all at the same time (or even that such a
set of principles can even exist at all).

> Is this because these principles are based on human psychology?

Yes and no. They are based on the essential characteristics of human
beings (characteristics that are inherent in being human and therefore
common to all humans). Much of this would reasonably be placed under
the heading of human psychology (and sociology too). However, current
human psychology is merely the study of the behavior of the humans
that have arisen within the current social environment. Human
psychology says almost nothing about what humans could be, should be
(in order to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness) and,
therefore, ought to be.

> Your statement, IMO, also implies that there is no other set of
> principles that can exist, since reality has one truth (to the best
> of my knowledge).

Again that is essentially correct. Just as there is only one correct
physical law (although a recent Science News article described how
some physicists are beginning to doubt this in general), so there
would be only one correct set of principles that will enable all
humans together to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.
Thus, my approach is completely at odds with most social philosophers
who appear to think that the rules of social behavior are quite
arbitrary and dependent on which culture one is in - which is, of
course, nothing but a recipe for conflict - a sort of tower of Babel
with respect to rules of social behavior on top of the language and
religion problems already existent in the world.

So while I have discovered the ideas of Social Meta-Needs, just as a
physicist discovers a new physical law, and the theory of Social
Meta-Needs is mine in the same way that the theory of general
relativity is Einstein's, that theory is not mine in the sense of
being a social scheme for human interaction derived from my own
particular cultural heritage and my own personal narrow biased views
of how humans should behave - as is the case for most other social
theories.

My approach to the science of human interaction has been entirely
similar to that of any scientist who asks what principles, laws or
rules of behavior govern/describe the operation of a certain set of
objects of reality and their environmental interactions. So in the
same manner, I looked at the most primary and essential aspects of
human existent, human environment and potential human interactions.
The theory of Social Meta-Needs is the result of that examination.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>>> ...[O]ne in which the principles of Social Meta-Needs (which are
*not* my theories, but rather emanate directly from reality if only
one looks penetratingly enough) are rationally understood and in
operation during human interactions. <<<

Paul, this statement stuck out for me.  What do you mean when you say
"the principles of Social Meta-Needs" emanates from reality?  Is this
because these principles are based on human psychology?  Your
statement, IMO, also implies that there is no other set of principles
that can exist, since reality has one truth (to the best of my knowledge).

Scott Miller
a.k.a. DukeNukem on ImmInst.org

[Good questions, Scott. Glad to see you bring them up. I've changed the message
subject to be relevant. Paul's response to follow. **Kitty]

I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email today from Marc
Boucher; it had been a couple months since I'd last heard from him but
I knew he was quite busy. The message contained several items that I
thought others would benefit from reading and I offered to post it to
the Group rather than ask him to do so. Marc promptly agreed and sent
along a photo that I hope he will also upload to the group. I know
from having seen another a couple years ago that he's looking more
trim these days.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Interesting cookbook
Date:  Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:26:24 -0400
From:  Marc Boucher <dheasulfate@...>
To:  kitty@...


Hi Kitty,

Out of the very sparse time that I've had lately (you probably recall
that I decided on going back to college : took up nursing—will likely
get a bachelor's degree in nursing). I find my current situation
somewhat frustrating, although I also like the new life that I now have.

I've looked at a recent pic of you and Paul and you both look happy
and healthy. Despite how little time I have (especially time to be
spent on the web), I've resumed working out, doing cardio (HIIIT),
I've lost a good deal of weight and gained lean mass too. I've also
been working at improving my diet which obviously comes first and
foremost. I've recently bought a cookbook that I particularly like :
http://www.gourmetnutrition.com/

Of note, working out my goal isn't get highly muscular, but for my
metabolism to remain in anabolism rather than catabolism. I train at
home, because I do not need any gym environment to keep me motivated.

Regarding the above mentioned cookbook, I thought I'd share this with
you. Clearly, your diet (both yours and Paul's) have been very good
for years, so the main reason I wanted to share this with you is that
it's always nice to have new healthy recipes—the wider the range the
better for diversity.

I've told you before, but let me remind you that my overall mentality
or mood has changed a lot over the last years, and although I've said
it before, I have much admiration for what you and Paul have been
doing. I'm not layering thick here, but rather telling you what I've
thought about the both of you. Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on
everything, but that's ok, I don't mind. I'm one to see the good sides
in people.  I realize that I've changed quite a bit over the last few
years.

I often prefer to send you emails privately—I prefer one on one
conversations, because I don't feel these demand as much of my
attention as those gone public. I've always preferred more intimate
conversion as opposed to group discussions—although, I'm aware of the
benefits of group dymanic.

I've got a major physiology test to be taken this week, and as soon as
I'm done typing this one email out, will hit the books a good deal
ahead of time, because as you guessed I aim high so far as grades.

Regarding my low libido issue, it seems that the main reason why it
used to be so low (since it's improved) is because of overall tension
that lasted for 10 years. Most of the time : theanine, magnesium, zinc
boost it to a noticeable degree—either or combinations of these last
substances that is. Vitamin C causes it to go down unless I take more
Mg, that I work more on the inhibitory side than the stimulatory one.
  This is what I've observed over the last years. I also use Binaural
beats CD's to drift me to sleep, and these helped to a noticeable
degree too. I also try (although not always easy) to get to bed
earlier. I've been going to bed between 12 midnight and 1 am  for
years on end—that alone has adversely impacted my ability to
concentrate/pay attention to most everything.  So I now totally agree
that lifestyle alone can be responsible of a lot of harm. Every
aspects of living must be taken into account when working on improving
one's quality of life.

Ok, I must be going now it's 1:23 pm and I should already be going
over my notes J

Marc

P.S. I manage to read a few of the Morelife discussions that I get in
my inbox.
-----------------End of Message---------------------------


Those who have been reading MoreLife Yahoo for several years or have
gone back extensively in the archives and therefore have seen a number
of Marc's earlier messages will recognize a considerable change in his
writing. His vocabulary and style is greatly improved - and English is
not his primary language. Beyond that of course, is the welcomed to
him - and to me and Paul - bettered mood and thinking processes, a
result largely from slowing down to improve his nutrition, sleep and
methods for handling stress while eliminating many sources of this
last. And the improvement he reports in his libido is a resolution of
a major concern for him that he raised here years ago.

The fact that Marc also has now taken on an intense course of study
and is enjoying it and is also demonstrating far more reasoned
thinking is a demonstration to me and Paul that, after several
occasions of frustration with him, our efforts in numerous messages
here (and some private emails) has borne fruit ;>) We both look
forward to his periodic messages about his improved life - maybe he'll
contribute them directly to the group.

**Kitty

On 08/19/2008 12:57 PM, François ROSE wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/2008 11:27 AM, Gary Baumgartner wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I would like more writing to be worth careful reading for its
>>>
>>> facts and arguments (as opposed to, e.g., aesthetic value, "reading
>>>
>>> between the lines" in order to interact with the author,
>>>
>> Personally, I am always greatly annoyed with those who attempt to "read
>> between the lines" of what I write, since, being a forthright person,
>> I do not attempt to nor want to communicate in any such ambiguous and
>> devious manner.
>>
>
> I don't agree with you on that.
> First, reading between the lines is something necessary because not
> everything is verbally stated.

But it should be! Except for basic emotional displays, all communication
should be verbal or written, since that is the only method to make one's
meaning clear and unambiguous.

> But even with someone as Paul who tries to be a forthright person,
> it is necessary to read Paul between the lines:
> from Kitty from
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1884
>
> [Note: I have added quotes around the following text from Kitty, and
> placed a blank line before and after, to show that such text is *not*
> a moderator comment within this message. --Paul]
>
>
> "[I have often, when reading over Paul's responses to messages,
> recommended that he add some further wording because what he has
> written
> leaves open the possibility for misinterpretation by some readers who
> are not studied readers. There have even been a few occasions when I
> have misunderstood his phrasing, making it obvious that different
> wording would be necessary. However, both of us expect that readers
> are reading attentively, rather than skimming, what we (and others
> here) have written. **Kitty]"
>
> So as Paul tries to be as brief as possible, I have to fill the
> blanks inside his reasonings though I may understand wrongly (it is
> the risk).

It is now clear that you and I are using a different meaning for the
phrase "read between the lines". The meaning that I give that phrase
is to examine the words of another for some hidden message,
specifically of intent and purpose, which message has purposefully
(either consciously or subconsciously) not been included in the
message itself (ie hidden meaning). It is this assumption (actually
somewhat arrogant, IMO) by others, that they understand me and know my
purposes better than I do, that I resent. This meaning of "read
between the lines" is not related to the *fidelity* of communication
(whether or not it is sufficiently complete and unambiguous to achieve
the fully consciously held purposes of its writer/speaker), which is
the meaning that you appear to be using. However, if that is true,
then you also appear not to understand the meaning of the word
"forthright" which you used in the first sentence of your paragraph
above. Forthrightness is not directly related to clarity of
communication, although it can affect it.

> I personally had to do that regarding a writing from Paul here
> http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/paulon080226.html
> « I and Kitty went to the post office yesterday to send off two
> parcels, one of which was a priority flat rate box that we wanted to
> insure for a large amount. Kitty had checked the USPS website and
> already calculated what the total of postage plus insurance would
> be. Sure enough this was the first amount that appeared on the
> screen as the clerk was figuring out what to charge us. However, he
> did not immediately tell us that amount and ask us to pay the total,
> but instead continued working and new figures began to appear on the
> screen replacing the old ones, namely registration plus insurance.
> When we asked what was happening, he said that he thought that it
> might be cheaper this way and since it was also more secure, this
> would be a better way to send it as long as we were not too
> concerned about the small extra amount of time due to the
> registration tracking and accounting procedures. Even though it at
> first appeared illogical that registration plus insurance should be
> cheaper than only insurance, I quickly saw that the logic of the
> situation was based on the fact that the risk of any loss was far
> lower if the package was sent registered than if not and thus the
> insurance rate was far lower. I talked this over with the clerk and
> stated that it was so nice to see the reasonableness of this pricing
> difference because so often pricing on things was quite irrational
> (as, for example, when Food City has their l lb bags of carrots at 2
> for $1 while their 2 lb bags of carrots remain at $1.09 - as is the
> odd situation found there almost all the time). The clerk smiled
> back in agreement with me about both my reasoning for the USPS logic
> on this pricing and the fact of other pricings often being
> irrational. As we were talking I could not help but notice a small
> welling of tears (of joy) in my eyes and after paying the total as
> we walked away, I related to Kitty my emotional state (as clearly
> shown by that tear response). It is a response that I have always
> had when events (particularly difficult ones) are consummated with a
> rationally happy conclusion. These are tears of joy and relief that
> things have worked out well, which have often occurred in heroic
> movies with good endings - like there used to be a lot of 50+ years
> ago, but are much fewer today. In the case of the post office, I
> think that it was in response to the fact that even here in a
> government monopoly one could find some logical pricing, a clerk who
> understood it and moreover cared enough to see that we got the best
> exchange to mutual advantage that was possible within his system. My
> emotion was tears of joy, that maybe, just maybe, there is still
> hope for current society. » (sic)
>
> I never cried because I had a discount at the post office when I had
> given my name and address

This kind of facetious paraphrasal of my clear and frank description
of my emotional response and the reasons for it, is completely out of
place. To make such a remark, in response to my total candor and
earnestness to reveal and explain my emotional self is almost an
insult. You need to learn that it is not appropriate to make light of
things that are to another very serious and personal, and such
facetiousness will not generally be appreciated by the other person.

And it was *not* a discount - it was the correct and reasonable price.
Furthermore, the fact that the price was lower has little relevance to
the emotional response. It is *all* about personal characteristics and
social interactions and nothing about money.

I think that this shows one or more of the following:

1) you have very little empathic capability
2) you still cannot interpret English sufficiently well
3) you have a shallow understanding of what are my major concerns
4) you and I are so different with respect to our major concerns that
you cannot possibly imagine my emotional responses to them

> so for quite a long time I didn't
> understand Paul's emotional reaction until I've connected it with
> http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html
> So, as I understand it between Paul's lines,

Since I fully described the reason for my emotional response, there is
no need to "read between the lines" to discover it.

> his huge emotional reaction to that event

Nowhere did I say that it was a "huge" emotional reaction. Yes, the
tears were welling in my eyes, but they did not get down my cheeks
and I was far from sobbing and chest heaving. That is why I described
it as simple "tears of joy" - joy at seeing someone behave in the true
sense underlying the theory of Social Meta-Needs - all for one and one
for all. But of course, if you are the kind of person who has never
really cared about something so deeply as to have had tears of joy,
then you could not possibly understand.

> (according to my own judgement) was due
> because Paul saw a  practical aspect of one important part of his
> theories happening under his own eyes. Paul may corrects me if he
> wants to or if he thinks I was wrong.

At least here you are closer to the meaning that I fully described
above. However, it is not "[my] theories" that I seek to have
validated, but rather that I long to see in effect and to experience
an optimally operating society - one in which the principles of Social
Meta-Needs (which are *not* my theories, but rather emanate directly
from reality if only one looks penetratingly enough) are rationally
understood and in operation during human interactions.

> So reading between the lines is a necessity even when one person
> tries to be as forthright as he can.

This makes it even clearer that you and I are using very different
meanings for "read between the lines", and also that you do not understand the
meaning of "forthright".

> So misunderstanding is inherent
> to discussion and there is usually a need for good will and
> understanding in both parts in order to fix misunderstandings.

I disagree totally with this. All that non-clarity, incompleteness and
ambiguity of communication means is that if one does not fully
understand the other's meaning, one should not proceed without asking
questions until one *does* fully understand (at least everything that
one knows that there is to understand). That is the only way to truly
understand without the risk of making some incorrect assumption (which
your method always does risk). In fact, I maintain that this is an
intellectual responsibility of anyone who has sufficient respect for
another.

> Reading between the lines is, in my mind, also related to read with
> the memories of what one has already read (from the same person or
> upon the same subject) in order to confront or test the coherence of
> a point or a person.

While reviewing old writings and integrating them with new ones is a
very good method of learning in general and particularly to understand
a given writer, I disagree that this relates to either your or my
meaning of "reading between the lines". To amplify my statement above
about asking questions to gain fully understanding, depending on the
situation, a review of previous related work may be a courteous and
effective way to gain full understanding *before* asking questions
intended to achieve full understanding (if they are in fact still
necessary after such a review).

--Paul

[I have never been in disagreement with Paul on this subject of "reading between
the lines" being undesirable and definitely not necessary. Leaving things unsaid
so that others operate in ignorance or under assumptions they gather from other
sources is very likely to cause dissension. And individuals who proclaim to pay
more attention to how a person says something rather than to what is actually
said have always been annoying to me. But then so are those who refuse to be
clear in what they say and/or write. Neither I nor Paul fall into this last
group. **Kitty]

On 09/25/2008 02:25 AM, Lynn Martin wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> ... (kidney failure ... I consider ... to be entirely preventable).
>>
>
> If you don't mind, Paul, I'd appreciate hearing an expansion of this
statement.
>
> Lynn


The simple answer is that, in the context of what I previously wrote
(as a parenthetical remark about kidney failure not being "any focus
of mine"), I meant that I am convinced that all the health and
longevity measures that I am taking will prevent any major loss of
kidney function (baring direct external physical harm, of course)
until the age at which all my other body parts are also beginning to
be dysfunctional and eventually the dysfunction in one of them will
exceed the homeostatic capability of my body.

To consider this question in more detail, one needs first to ask: "Why
should the kidneys stop fulfilling their physiological functions
(particularly since there are two of them) and particularly why moreso
than any other major body part?" In fact, this is true for every body
part. I am here challenging the current paradigm that disease and
dysfunction, even before age 80, say, are inevitable. Instead, I think
that the norm for the body should be that if it is given the
nutrients, exercise and sleep that it requires to continue to be the
excellent self-repairing machine that it is, then all of its parts
will continue to be functional until some not fully preventable
accumulating processes lead to the gradual loss of function with the
passage of time.

Therefore, if one begins to think in these terms (in opposition to the
reigning paradigm of current medicine), it is clear that the onus is
not on me to explain why I think some particular dysfunction is
preventable, but rather on others, who such dysfunction is not
preventable to give their reasons why they think so. Only if this is
done will there be something concrete to discuss and critique.

Thanks for asking for explanation of my statement (since it does not
correspond with the reigning paradigm) and giving me a chance to
explain further. If you have some specific reasons why you think that
kidney failure is not generally preventable (bearing in mind that it
is almost always secondary to some others major physiological problem,
which itself should/could have been prevented), then please reply with
them in detail.

--Paul