Re: Anxiety Disorders (was Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

[Guest guest]

On 7/25/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> Your story is much like mine -- just accelerated.

Thank you for sharing yours.

>

> I too had a terrifying experience on pot that put me into tachycardia --

> and my pot was not laced with anything.

I got mine from my step-brother who lived above me every other weekend

after my mom separated from his dad, who moved upstairs. I didn't see

him for a while, and then he said casually over the phone that " Oh

yeah, that weed I got you was laced. I don't remember what he was

putting in it, but the kid I got it from what kind of crazy. " He said

he thought it was crack, then said no maybe it was coke, but I've

talked to some other people about it, and it seems that more often

than not other people who have tried it say it sounded like a

" mega-dose " of PCP.

After that, I would occasionally have flash backs from smoking pot.

In particular, tingly sensations in my neck would remind me of the

pain I head in the back of my neck and send me into a panic attack.

Over about two years, it got worse so that I would get anxiety attacks

more and more often from smoking less and less pot. And by the way,

in the middle, I smoked again some pot that was laced, not sure with

what, but part of what we smoked one guy stole from his room mate, and

those of us who had never (deliberately!) done hallucinagens had a

very intense experience while those who had saw traces from it. The

time frame of the high was also totally different than what's typical

of pot.

Anyway, I eventually quit smoking, and then I became progressively

more fearful of getting a contact high and thus a panic attack, so I

got to the point where the smell of pot could ignite a panic attack,

and so I lost my teenage friends who were always smoking pot.

> On the other hand I have largely fixed all of the problems. I quit

> smoking,

> drinking alcohol and caffeine in September of 2001. I stopped eating the

> SAD diet in January of 2002. By September of 2002 most of my symptoms had

> stopped.

I haven't found caffeine or nicotine to be significant to my anxiety

attacks. After quitting smoking pot and then smoking a few months

later when I was 15, I ate reasonably decent for my knowledge at the

time (on the whole kind of crappy, but low sugar, low soda, followed

the Zone diet). At the time, what I recall is that my anxiety

problems were better than when I smoked pot, but still a problem. I

had kind of a cross of OCD, phobia, and panic attacks. When I went

vegetarian at 18, they got rapidly worse to the point that when I was

19 I was probably borderline psychotic. I would be afraid that all my

food was drugged, and I would be afraid to sit in the seats in class,

looking for puddles of LSD. I had major anxiety about starting my

car, because I was afraid someone was trying to kill me and

half-expecting it to blow up. I spent 20 minutes picking out a glass

in the cafeteria, picked plates from the middle of the stack, spent

lots of time picking out the funny-looking flakes in my cereal and

making a pile on the side of my bowl, getting full-blown panic attacks

several times a week, etc. If I didn't notice a puncture in a seal or

some other reason not to eat a piece of food, I would keep

scrutinizing it until I created one. I had irrational fits of anger,

and I broke my door from slamming it and probably some other things

when I couldn't find anything in the house I felt safe eating, would

become angry at myself and go into a rage, and then would become

depressed and cry. It's amazing I graduated college during this time!

Although it explains why I got a history degree. LOL.

I also came down with a whole mouthful of cavities. My boss in the

dining hall was into raw milk and gave me a pamphlet on it, which is

how I found PPNF and then WAPF. I read _NAPD_ because I was

interested in fixing my dental problems, and bought _NT_ and began

following the recommendations-- raw milk, cod liver oil, a pound of

liver a week, zero white flour, zero white sugar, minimal deserts,

soup from bones, etc.

Although I was doing it for my teeth, a couple months later I saw some

girl, when I was working in the dining hall, lift up the top few

plates in a stack and then take one, and put the other plates back. I

thought to myself, " What the hell is she doing? " Then I suddenly

realized that it wasn't long ago that I always did that and other

compulsory stuff, and that I was no longer doing it! I'd even eat

things when the seal really *was* broken and not even care. It was

like I was a totally different person.

Every once in a while I feel the beginnings of a panic attack, but

they never materialize into anything.

Caffeine I feel has hurt my teeth and metabolism, but doesn't seem to

contribute to anxiety. I haven't had a panic attack in, I think,

about 2 1/2 years. I didn't start smoking again until I had the

concrete job, a little less than a year ago, and didn't smoke for

three months when I was teaching, and now smoke a little after I lost

my job.

> Start deep breathing for 3 minutes a day and keep it up until it clears.

That's something interesting I might try.

> As for your smoking -- the amount of your considerable mental energy that

> you are expending defending your 2 cigs a day is pretty pathetic.

I just call it as I see it. My opinion on smoking isn't much

different now than it was when I didn't smoke.

> If you

> were a healthy guy, no problem. I've always said that if I could smoke two

> cigs I day I would. But I can't and neither can you. The hell with the

> science -- you are wired to react strongly to stimulants and even tiny

> amounts can trigger you.

You're probably right that I might not be able to handle smoking like

a healthy person could, in terms of respiratory and maybe cardio

issues, not sure. It seems to be helpful for digestive issues, which

are my main thing right now.

> Nicotine, caffeine -- they are keeping you

> chronically accessed and in a sub anxiety state.

Caffeine does that, but I don't think nicotine does. The effects of

nicotine are short-lived. I am generally not under the influence of

nicotine.

The caffeine I believe is giving me some low-level anxiety, but I have

other problems I need to address. I went three weeks without

caffeine, and the withdrawals stopped in the first week, but I still

couldn't be productive without it. So right now I'm doing pretty

low-dose caffeine, much less than before.

> Quitting makes it worse

> but the thing that you need to know is that it will pass.

Well no, I think that it might not pass from quitting caffeine. I

think I might have to address my metabolism from other angles before I

fully go off or simultaneously. As to quitting smoking, there is no

issue there, becuase I'm not physically dependent on nicotine at all.

There are no physical effects at all from me going without smoking.

So it's merely a matter of whether I perceive there are drawbacks that

exceed the pleasure.

> I still struggle

> with caffeine but my blood pressure and pulse rate are normal so it's a

> struggle that I can live with. You, OTOH, have significant problems and

> need

> to give them both up until you are fully healed. It took me 6 months of

> torture to get over the nicotine and caffeine withdrawal when I quit in

> 2001

> and I suspect it will take you just as long.

It won't take me any time to get over nicotine withdrawal because I do

not get nicotine withdrawal's from not smoking. If I did, I would be

in a constant state of nicotine withdrawal all day long, since I spend

the vast majority of my day not smoking.

For caffeine, I have never heard a time frame that long. I had always

heard 3-5 days, and then someone who had read _Caffeine Blues_ said

one month. If it could truly take six months, then I could do it.

The reason I started drinking smaller amounts of coffee again is

because I went almost a month with no relief, so I figured that there

was something besides the coffee itself that was causing me to need

the coffee.

> My biggest mistake was

> thinking that I could integrate caffeine back into the program.

> Fortunately, I've known that I cannot touch a cigarette for the rest of my

> life so I'm completely over the desire to smoke at this point.

I can take or leave smoking without compulsive behavior or physical

dependence, which is why I smoke-- because it seems like such a

non-issue to me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You've had an interesting life so far.

Let me just say this to you. I had an acquaintance who always used to say

that if you fully understood the causes of a problem you would no longer

have the problem. So if a problem persists then all of your reasoning and

justification contains a flaw or flaws. Sometimes the only way to figure

that out is to stop what you are doing and do something different for a

sufficient amount of time to allow the new thing/behavior to fully create

its effects.

Reason is man's most powerful tool but it frequently becomes a stop when

what is apparent is actually incorrect.

Ron

> > Your story is much like mine -- just accelerated.

>

> Thank you for sharing yours.

> >

> > I too had a terrifying experience on pot that put me into

> tachycardia --

> > and my pot was not laced with anything.

>

> I got mine from my step-brother who lived above me every other weekend

> after my mom separated from his dad, who moved upstairs. I didn't see

> him for a while, and then he said casually over the phone that " Oh

> yeah, that weed I got you was laced. I don't remember what he was

[snip]

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >Let me just say this to you. I had an acquaintance who always used to say

> >that if you fully understood the causes of a problem you would no longer

> >have the problem.

>

> While I certainly agree with you that ought to quit smoking, even

> American Spirits, that's kind of silly. Addictions don't magically go away

> when you understand you're addicted;

Is anybody listening when I say that I am not addicted to

cigarettes??? I've been addicted to cigarettes before, I know quite

intimately what it is and what it's like. My mother is addicted to

cigarettes and I watch her struggle with it. I am NOT addicted to

cigarettes. I do not suffer physical withdrawal symptoms, nor do I

engage in any remotely compulsive behavior regarding smoking. I did

not smoke yesterday, for example, nor have I smoked today, and I do

not feel any different than I would have had I smoked.

Everyone is engaging this thoroughly ridiculous presupposition that if

I smoke at all I MUST be addicted, and if I say I'm not, I MUST be in

denial. I don't mind this conversation of having my lifestyle habits

scrutizined and debated by third parties, but I DO find it annoying

that people will continually refer to an " addiction " that I do not in

any way have.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> In Chris' case he's got high blood pressure and a fast pulse and he feels

> his heart beating when he takes deep breaths. And yet he's got his anxiety

> under control. ( 8(|) But he's built this rational structure that is

> impenetrable. Despite his deep knowledge and depth of analysis he's still

> got the problem and that simply means that at least one of his suppositions

> is incorrect. He can either listen to the advice that he's getting and

> give

> it a try or he can continue being both right and not in maximal health at

> the same time.

Actually, I think there may have been some miscommunication. I did

not say that I felt my heart beating when I take deep breaths. I said

that this happens when I have an *anxiety attack*, which I haven't had

for years, and also to some extent when my blood pressure is being

taken, which produces anxiety for me. However, I just took deep

breaths to see, which I never do, and found that I felt my heart

beating very subtly during the exhalation, although it seemed slow and

calm and did not cause me nervousness.

As to checking my pulse, it's been over a year since I've checked it,

and honestly I'm hesitant to check it at all, because of some

psychological baggage. Basically I have this fear that it will either

not be there or will be very rapid. And I question whether I could

get a true result, because I think I would get anxious while checking

it.

The eliptical machine at the gym caused me anxiety for this reason

because it automatically measures your heart rate by your hands. So

when I first started I would hold my hands above the sensors. Over

time, I weaned myself onto them and now it gives me no problem.

However, I can't use them to check my resting pulse because the screen

shuts down if you aren't moving. I suppose the best way to check my

pulse would be to get some machine that has a finger attachment and

digital display, and to wear it alot until I got used to having it on.

While it's true that I have some residual anxiety issues, I'm much,

much better than before! So no, I don't have a perfect handle on it,

but I've certainly gotten a handle on it somewhat.

I take the idea that coffee could be contributing quite seriously, and

I do intend to get myself off coffee. The question for me is HOW.

Smoking I could get rid of with no negative effects, which again, is

part of the reason I see it as a non-issue.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> While it's true that I have some residual anxiety issues, I'm much,

> much better than before! So no, I don't have a perfect handle on it,

> but I've certainly gotten a handle on it somewhat.

I have no doubt that this is true. And good for you.

OTOH, you are still not healthy. So you must do something different than

you have been doing to correct that situation. Given that your symptoms and

experience mirror mine very closely I would suggest to you that you do the

same things that I have done to repair the problems that you are having.

Quit smoking completely. Quit caffeine. Start a daily yogic breathing

regimen of some kind and stick to it for a year.

And I'm going to dive in and suggest that you give up gluten. I can't

really report any kind of conclusive results yet but I'm into week 6 of

complete gluten elimination and I'm already seeing some very strong

improvements in my fundamental daily sense of well being. This was clearly

a missing piece for me and it took me a year and a half of resistance before

I just decided to make the change.

Ron

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> OTOH, you are still not healthy.

Agreed.

> So you must do something different than

> you have been doing to correct that situation. Given that your symptoms

> and

> experience mirror mine very closely I would suggest to you that you do the

> same things that I have done to repair the problems that you are having.

> Quit smoking completely. Quit caffeine. Start a daily yogic breathing

> regimen of some kind and stick to it for a year.

Quitting caffeine is my first priority, because I need to figure out

how to do it. Quitting smoking is something I'll experiement with.

I'm ambivalent about the need to do so, becuase I feel like it

probably mildly decreases my respiratory and maybe cardio health,

which is relatively fit, but is good for my digestive system which is

in the greatest peril, I think. The breathing is a good idea I think

I'll take up.

> And I'm going to dive in and suggest that you give up gluten. I can't

> really report any kind of conclusive results yet but I'm into week 6 of

> complete gluten elimination and I'm already seeing some very strong

> improvements in my fundamental daily sense of well being. This was clearly

> a missing piece for me and it took me a year and a half of resistance

> before

> I just decided to make the change.

Well I've been more or less wheat-free for a long time. The only

thing I had left to give up was (good) beer, and rye sourdough toast.

I eliminated both a few weeks ago. I'm going to go on a trial

elimination of dairy, but I'm considering the possibility that I might

only have to eliminate cow dairy, which is scientifically plausible

and seems to be verified by experience.

But I think I'm going to have to do more than that to recover my

digestive health.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> But I think I'm going to have to do more than that to recover my

> digestive health.

Do you have genuine, out-and-out constant diarrhea or is it " loose "

stools?

If diarrhea...really? And does it alternate with constipation?

Also, because HCI keeps you from having diarrhea after 1/2 lb cheese

doesn't mean you have hypochloridia--cheese is rather constipating,

I've heard tell.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>Also, because HCI keeps you from having diarrhea after 1/2 lb cheese

>doesn't mean you have hypochloridia--cheese is rather constipating,

If cheese is constipating, why would you think loose stools or diarrhea

after cheese which can be corrected with HCl supplementation wouldn't point

towards hypochlorhydria?

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> Do you have genuine, out-and-out constant diarrhea or is it " loose "

> stools?

Well it is diarhhea-ish loose stools. I don't have diarrhea as in

constant random attacks that must be relieved within seconds... at

all.

> If diarrhea...really? And does it alternate with constipation?

No, I'm never constipated.

> Also, because HCI keeps you from having diarrhea after 1/2 lb cheese

> doesn't mean you have hypochloridia--cheese is rather constipating,

> I've heard tell.

The diarrhea after the cheese with no HCl is real diarrhea. How could

constipating effects of cheese cause diarrhea?

Good point though, I might not necessarily need the HCl. I probably

do though. What's that test again? Baking soda, 1/2 tsp upon waking,

and then see if your burp is within... 30s?

Chris

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

> If cheese is constipating, why would you think loose stools or diarrhea

> after cheese which can be corrected with HCl supplementation

wouldn't point

> towards hypochlorhydria?

,

I might think that by following this clown's-logic:

Loose stools can be fairly normal for some people. These same people

tend toward adequate HCI. If these same people ate a substantial

amount of cheese, they might get constipated, something

out-of-the-ordinary for them. If they threw in something to counter

that, like acid, they might not experience an induced bout of

constipation. Just making $#!@ up, here.

B.

/wait, does he get diarrhea/loose after eating cheese without HCl?

//previous, previous, previous...

///here it is: " I've found in the past that I react to milk with

rumbling in my

stomach, gas, and sometimes diarrhea, especially if mixed with other

foods. However, I've found that I tolerate raw cheese much better

than fresh milk, yoghurt, or kefir. So I'm guessing my issue is

primarily with lactose rather than casein, since raw cheese is

carb-free. Although, I always eat cheese, usually in the amount of

1/2 pound, with two HCl tablets. I find that with the HCl, it gives

me no problems at all, but the few times I've taken it without the HCl

I tend to have diarrhea in response. "

oops, I mis-remembered. yuck, reading that, I just threw up a little

in my mouth. I'm totally confused. Not sure how reacting to cheese

consumption with diarrhea is better than how he reacts to fresh milk,

yog. & kefir. why are you eating this stuff again--remind me?

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> oops, I mis-remembered. yuck, reading that, I just threw up a little

> in my mouth. I'm totally confused. Not sure how reacting to cheese

> consumption with diarrhea is better than how he reacts to fresh milk,

> yog. & kefir. why are you eating this stuff again--remind me?

Well first, I get no problems with HCl and I'm not sure that's the

case with the other dairy foods, and second, the others seem to sit in

my stomach for long periods of time and rumble around a bit.

Although, I got that to a very moderate degree last time I ate cow

milk cheese, and I haven't with sheep milk cheese, so I'm going to

experiment and see at some point if I can tolerate sheep milk cheese

well.

Why do I eat it? Because cheese is very convenient to eat, high in

calcium and most vitamins and minerals, an excellent low-carb

selection, and the easiest ready-to-eat form of protein.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

>

> >You are being literal when my comment requires some thought.

> Of course your

> >examples are correct.

>

> No, I'm objecting to a shallow aphorism, even though it has

> some truth.

There was nothing shallow about my aphorism.

>

> >In your addiction example I would say that if the addict

> fully understood

> >his addiction he would do the work to make it go away.

>

> I don't think that's really true. I've known many people who

> understand

> they should eat right, or at least eat differently, but they

> decide it's

> not worth it to them. Heidi has given examples of people who

> double over

> in agony from gluten-containing foods, have horrible diarrhea

> etc., yet

> decide to eat them anyway because to them, the sociability

> factor of eating

> " regular " foods is more important. I know numerous people

> who've given up

> on the SCD for the exact same reason. I know people who know

> -- really

> know -- that what they're eating is crap and is killing them,

> but they

> aren't willing to " give up " things they " enjoy " .

Yes, of course. I knew that I could get healthy and lose weight by eating

in the Zone for 5 years before I actually did it.

>

> Now, you could argue that they don't REALLY understand (or " fully "

> understand) and that might even be true in some cases, but it's

> fundamentally a tautological argument -- if they don't

> change, they must

> not fully understand because full understanding

> definitionally leads to change.

It is correct that they don't fully understand the root cause. If they did

they would change. On the other hand, you can change anyway. Even without

knowing it. You make the choice and then do it despite a lack of full

understanding.

>

> >In our Western model

> >the addiction is the substance. In reality the addiction is

> the need for

> >the substance and once the fundamental cause of the need is really

> >completely understood it goes away. This comes from my

> experience with

> >energy psychology and I have seen it happen many times so I

> find it to be

> >true. The lifestyle changes follow naturally from true understanding.

>

> I simply don't buy this.

Fair enough.

It is something with which I actually have experience. I have seen it

happen both to myself and others.

> I'm not saying understanding isn't

> important, I'm

> not even saying energy psychology (a mumbo jumbo term IMO)

Yes, from your viewpoint that would be true. I resisted the concept of

energy for many years until I began having experiences that made the energy

model the most useful one. In fact I still resist the word because I have

no real idea what it means. Yet I have sure experienced sensations that can

best be described as energy movement.

Go have a chat with your acquaintance from the Orgasmic diet Website if you

want to get some real insight into energy from someone that you know. I

have encountered her in yet another Web forum and she is definitely running

some energy.

> is

> useless,

> because I've gotten some benefits from EFT.

Watch out! EFT was my way in to all of this world, too. Next thing you

know you'll be talking like me. LOL.

> But this sort of

> approach

> discounts physical reality, which in my book is a dangerous

> and foolish

> thing to do.

It does not discount physical reality at all. There are certainly those in

the energy psych world who choose to discount physical reality but I find

them to be just as incorrect as those who think that physical reality is all

that there is.

> If all addictions -- in fact, if all physical

> health problems

> -- can be addressed by energy psychology and " understanding " ,

> why, then

> there's no need to address the problems of pollution and the

> disaster that

> is our food supply!

You could actually make that argument but it may well be wrong and it's a

pretty useless one at best at the moment. For now the most effective way to

handle those particular problems is on a purely physical level.

I took a class a few months ago with a woman who specializes in using energy

psych on allergies. She has stated that she has cleared allergies to gluten

but they are brutally hard to get rid of. When asked what kind of food she

eats herself she told everyone that she never eats grains of any kind -- she

can clear the negative effects on her body but some things are just not good

for most humans so you can also choose to stay away from them.

Energy psych is still fantastically unreliable. It is very dependent upon

the skill of the person who is delivering it -- as is regular psych for that

matter -- and it gets hit or miss results when you look at it as a whole.

The hits are dramatic, though, and can really call into question all of our

notions of how physical reality really works when you observe them for

yourself. You'll never believe my stories of energy psych wins but when you

experience a couple of big ones for yourself you'll know what I'm talking

about. And that's no negative judgment on you, either. I wouldn't have

believed some of the things that I've seen and experienced in the past

months if you had told me about them.

Here's something you can do if you want to put your thoughts and

rationalizations aside and actually get some real experience with EFT.

Craig is giving a three day workshop in Stamford, CT the first weekend in

September on healing serious disease states. The entire experience will be

him actually using EFT in front of the attendees on people with serious

disease. Craig is one of those who is able to consistently produce

significant result so you might actually get to see some of what we are

discussing in person and it may well help you dramatically with whatever

issues you have been using EFT for on yourself. The workshop is very

inexpensive and you live close enough to commute. My wife and I will be

there.

www.emofree.com

http://www.emofree.com/Workshop-Stamford.htm

>

> >The leg example is a little different because the cause is

> so fundamental

> >and clearly obvious that no would miss it. In that case the

> problem would

> >be if the person kept trying to walk and falling over again and again

> >because they didn't know the leg was gone. That would never happen,

> >obviously. Most of the problems that we face daily are not

> that clear.

>

> I think most amputees would not agree that their only

> possible problem

> would be trying to walk like people with two functioning

> legs. This sort

> of thinking would hold that my " problem " is not that I have health

> problems, but that I don't just accept them and work around

> them. I find

> that reprehensible. (Note that I'm not accusing you of

> actually saying

> that to me. I'm just saying you're addressing the problem of

> a lost leg in

> that way.)

I would say that you still don't know the root cause of your health

problems. I'm not saying that you have to work around them if they are

correctable. I think that you will agree that some problems are

correctable and others aren't. Some damage is permanent -- like cut off

legs.

For now you have some pretty good theories about what is wrong with you and

you are working diligently to fix those problems. But you are not yet fixed,

right? So there may well be unknowns that are holding you in place. Or you

are on the correct path and it's just taking time. You won't know until

some time in the future.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>> It is correct that they don't fully understand the root cause. If they

did

they would change. <<

I believe that awareness is vastly over-rated as a trigger for change.

In AA we say... awareness comes first, then acceptance, then action. Without

acceptance, all the understanding in the world is crap.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>

> > >Let me just say this to you. I had an acquaintance who always

used to say

> > >that if you fully understood the causes of a problem you would

no longer

> > >have the problem.

> >

> > While I certainly agree with you that ought to quit

smoking, even

> > American Spirits, that's kind of silly. Addictions don't

magically go away

> > when you understand you're addicted;

>

> Is anybody listening when I say that I am not addicted to

> cigarettes??? I've been addicted to cigarettes before, I know quite

> intimately what it is and what it's like. My mother is addicted to

> cigarettes and I watch her struggle with it. I am NOT addicted to

> cigarettes. I do not suffer physical withdrawal symptoms, nor do I

> engage in any remotely compulsive behavior regarding smoking. I did

> not smoke yesterday, for example, nor have I smoked today, and I do

> not feel any different than I would have had I smoked.

>

> Everyone is engaging this thoroughly ridiculous presupposition that

if

> I smoke at all I MUST be addicted, and if I say I'm not, I MUST be

in

> denial. I don't mind this conversation of having my lifestyle

habits

> scrutizined and debated by third parties, but I DO find it annoying

> that people will continually refer to an " addiction " that I do not

in

> any way have.

>

> Chris

i heard about yet another anti-smoking law passed somewhere,

on the news the other day, and said to my husband, 'pretty soon

they're going to start rounding up all the smokers and put them in

concentration camps'. he pretty much agreed. of course we were both

being facetious (sp?), but...

i don't smoke, but being 50, i grew up in a time when smoking was

accepted...it was not a big deal to smoke and a lot of people did.

i think smoking has become what steaks were a few years

ago...perceived to be the epitome of evil.

i just wish people would leave other people alone to live their lives.

haven't been fully following this thread but i hear your frustration,

chris, and i fully support you.

if you smoke, no hammer from the sky is going to come down and hit

you on the head, but then you already know this.

smoke in peace, chris. more power to you, if you're not addicted.

laura

[Guest guest]

" i heard about yet another anti-smoking law passed somewhere,

on the news the other day, and said to my husband, 'pretty soon

they're going to start rounding up all the smokers and put them in

concentration camps'. he pretty much agreed. of course we were both

being facetious (sp?), but...

i don't smoke, but being 50, i grew up in a time when smoking was

accepted...it was not a big deal to smoke and a lot of people did.

i think smoking has become what steaks were a few years

ago...perceived to be the epitome of evil.

i just wish people would leave other people alone to live their lives.

haven't been fully following this thread but i hear your frustration,

chris, and i fully support you.

if you smoke, no hammer from the sky is going to come down and hit

you on the head, but then you already know this.

smoke in peace, chris. more power to you, if you're not addicted.

laura "

And you might try talking to your cigarettes first before you smoke them,

thanking them for their service to humanity. If you lie to your cigarettes,

they won't taste as good.

[Guest guest]

-

>Loose stools can be fairly normal for some people.

They're common, but I don't think they're good.

> These same people

>tend toward adequate HCI. If these same people ate a substantial

>amount of cheese, they might get constipated, something

>out-of-the-ordinary for them. If they threw in something to counter

>that, like acid, they might not experience an induced bout of

>constipation. Just making $#!@ up, here.

In my experience, HCl has a solidifying effect. I know Robin's experience

is the same. That's only two data points, of course, but in general, it

makes sense. I think you'd have to overdose on HCl pretty substantially to

actually cause diarrhea. I don't know, though; maybe 's book has

something on the subject that I don't remember.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>i think smoking has become what steaks were a few years

>ago...perceived to be the epitome of evil.

There's a bit of a difference, though. When you eat a steak, you're not

shoving part of that steak down someone's throat.

-

[Guest guest]

> I do intend to get myself off coffee. The question for me is HOW.

> Smoking I could get rid of with no negative effects, which again, is

> part of the reason I see it as a non-issue.

>

> Chris

I find that it takes me about 3 days to get " off " caffeine. And it's

much easier if those 3 days are spent doing something totally different

from my regular routine...such as vacation.

I used to just take an OTC painkiller to deal with the headaches of

withdrawing from caffeine, but now I avoid them like the plague! ;-)

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>There was nothing shallow about my aphorism.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.

>It is correct that they don't fully understand the root cause. If they did

>they would change. On the other hand, you can change anyway. Even without

>knowing it. You make the choice and then do it despite a lack of full

>understanding.

So your assertion is, essentially, that nobody who fully understands a

problem will not decide to let the problem stand.

That's tautological reasoning.

I mean, think about it. You're saying that nobody who fully understands

that something he's doing now will have bad consequences later will decide

that some pleasure now is worth some pain later.

> > I'm not saying understanding isn't

> > important, I'm

> > not even saying energy psychology (a mumbo jumbo term IMO)

>

>Yes, from your viewpoint that would be true. I resisted the concept of

>energy for many years until I began having experiences that made the energy

>model the most useful one. In fact I still resist the word because I have

>no real idea what it means. Yet I have sure experienced sensations that can

>best be described as energy movement.

" Sensations " don't necessarily accurately describe reality. SOMETHING is

going on, obviously, but I think calling it " energy psychology " is just

putting off a lot of people to whom the term sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

>Go have a chat with your acquaintance from the Orgasmic diet Website if you

>want to get some real insight into energy from someone that you know. I

>have encountered her in yet another Web forum and she is definitely running

>some energy.

I've chatted with her plenty in the past, so I have no idea what you think

might be gained from further conversation.

>Watch out! EFT was my way in to all of this world, too. Next thing you

>know you'll be talking like me. LOL.

Unlikely.

>It does not discount physical reality at all. There are certainly those in

>the energy psych world who choose to discount physical reality but I find

>them to be just as incorrect as those who think that physical reality is all

>that there is.

Do you think EFT works through non-physical mechanisms?

> > If all addictions -- in fact, if all physical

> > health problems

> > -- can be addressed by energy psychology and " understanding " ,

> > why, then

> > there's no need to address the problems of pollution and the

> > disaster that

> > is our food supply!

>

>You could actually make that argument but it may well be wrong and it's a

>pretty useless one at best at the moment. For now the most effective way to

>handle those particular problems is on a purely physical level.

" May well be wrong " ? Are you bleeping kidding me? That's as far as you're

willing to go?

>I took a class a few months ago with a woman who specializes in using energy

>psych on allergies. She has stated that she has cleared allergies to gluten

>but they are brutally hard to get rid of. When asked what kind of food she

>eats herself she told everyone that she never eats grains of any kind -- she

>can clear the negative effects on her body but some things are just not good

>for most humans so you can also choose to stay away from them.

So the take-home message here is " I can clear allergies to certain foods,

but don't eat them anyway " . OK...

>The hits are dramatic, though, and can really call into question all of our

>notions of how physical reality really works when you observe them for

>yourself.

I've experienced a couple dramatic results from self-administered EFT (and

a lot of failures and some middling successes) and none of it called into

question my notion of how physical reality really works. I understand that

the self is a product of physical reality and that there are many ways of

affecting physical reality, EFT included.

>You'll never believe my stories of energy psych wins but when you

>experience a couple of big ones for yourself you'll know what I'm talking

>about.

I might believe them, but I'm coming to realize that you and I would have

very different explanations for them. (Not that I'm pretending to

understand the exact mechanism by which EFT works, but I'm confident that

it's scientifically explainable even if the science isn't there yet, and

I'm beginning to think that you think it's supernatural.)

>Here's something you can do if you want to put your thoughts and

>rationalizations aside and actually get some real experience with EFT.

>Craig is giving a three day workshop in Stamford, CT the first weekend in

>September on healing serious disease states. The entire experience will be

>him actually using EFT in front of the attendees on people with serious

>disease. Craig is one of those who is able to consistently produce

>significant result so you might actually get to see some of what we are

>discussing in person and it may well help you dramatically with whatever

>issues you have been using EFT for on yourself. The workshop is very

>inexpensive and you live close enough to commute. My wife and I will be

>there.

Since I have no problem with the idea that EFT can be very effective (and

since I've said so, your remark about putting my thoughts and

rationalizations aside is just so much condescension) and since I'd like to

improve my ability to use it myself, I'd actually be quite eager to go to

that workshop, but " very inexpensive " is a relative thing. $195 plus a big

pile of money sent Metro North's way is non-trivial. Not to mention that

the " buffet " no doubt translates to " must bring his own food " . But

I'll think about it, and maybe I'll do it. Do you think it'd be

substantially more useful than the Mercola EFT DVDs I have?

>For now you have some pretty good theories about what is wrong with you and

>you are working diligently to fix those problems. But you are not yet fixed,

>right?

Right, and I don't pretend to have the whole explanation to my problems

either. But I don't believe they're the result of some sort of psychic

energy maladjustment unconnected to physical reality that could be fixed

without addressing actual physical problems.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >It is correct that they don't fully understand the root

> cause. If they did

> >they would change. On the other hand, you can change

> anyway. Even without

> >knowing it. You make the choice and then do it despite a

> lack of full

> >understanding.

>

> So your assertion is, essentially, that nobody who fully

> understands a

> problem will not decide to let the problem stand.

>

> That's tautological reasoning.

>

> I mean, think about it. You're saying that nobody who fully

> understands

> that something he's doing now will have bad consequences

> later will decide

> that some pleasure now is worth some pain later.

Not my assertion at all. They must of course have the desire to change the

problem. It would be possible to hold the problem in place while fully

understanding its root causes. We actually each do this every day. Since

there is limited time and energy available we often decide that certain

problems that are correctable aren't worth the effort.

What I am saying is that if you have a problem and you can't get rid of it

there is something misunderstood somewhere. Once you get the appropriate

and correct knowledge or understanding then you can release the problem. If

you choose to.

>

> > > I'm not saying understanding isn't

> > > important, I'm

> > > not even saying energy psychology (a mumbo jumbo term IMO)

> >

> >Yes, from your viewpoint that would be true. I resisted the

> concept of

> >energy for many years until I began having experiences that

> made the energy

> >model the most useful one. In fact I still resist the word

> because I have

> >no real idea what it means. Yet I have sure experienced

> sensations that can

> >best be described as energy movement.

>

> " Sensations " don't necessarily accurately describe reality.

Actually they do. What I experience is sensation. Feeling. That is all I

can truthfully state about it. Everything beyond that is theory and

conjecture.

> SOMETHING is

> going on, obviously, but I think calling it " energy

> psychology " is just

> putting off a lot of people to whom the term sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

Yes, I fully appreciate that! I've even acknowledged my own degree of

resistance to the term in my previous posts. Yet -- I am now experiencing

things that are best described by the various energy models that are rooted

in Eastern Mysticism. Energy is the most accurate word to describe these

feelings and sensations.

I'm sure that you accept the validity of acupuncture -- to some degree at

least -- and that certainly works with the body's energy systems as

described by Chinese medicine, among other things. Energy psych works by

manipulating those systems while using various psychological techniques at

the same time.

>

> >Go have a chat with your acquaintance from the Orgasmic diet

> Website if you

> >want to get some real insight into energy from someone that

> you know. I

> >have encountered her in yet another Web forum and she is

> definitely running

> >some energy.

>

> I've chatted with her plenty in the past, so I have no idea

> what you think

> might be gained from further conversation.

She is in a very different place now than she was before if I'm

understanding her correctly. Talk to her about exactly this -- what is the

nature of what is happening to her? How is it best described?

>

> >Watch out! EFT was my way in to all of this world, too.

> Next thing you

> >know you'll be talking like me. LOL.

>

> Unlikely.

LOL. I'll be watching.

>

> >It does not discount physical reality at all. There are

> certainly those in

> >the energy psych world who choose to discount physical

> reality but I find

> >them to be just as incorrect as those who think that

> physical reality is all

> >that there is.

>

> Do you think EFT works through non-physical mechanisms?

I do not know. It is highly possible. And what does non-physical mean?

Where does the physical end? I frequently think that the physical ends at

the limits of our descriptions of it. These phenomena that seem to be

" supernatural " are actually just undecided. Once the mechanisms are

understood then they will be just as accepted as microwave radiation is

today.

>

> > > If all addictions -- in fact, if all physical

> > > health problems

> > > -- can be addressed by energy psychology and " understanding " ,

> > > why, then

> > > there's no need to address the problems of pollution and the

> > > disaster that

> > > is our food supply!

> >

> >You could actually make that argument but it may well be

> wrong and it's a

> >pretty useless one at best at the moment. For now the most

> effective way to

> >handle those particular problems is on a purely physical level.

>

> " May well be wrong " ? Are you bleeping kidding me? That's as

> far as you're

> willing to go?

Yes. There are non-standard models of the universe that postulate that

everything is energy and that physical reality can be manipulated in a

purely energetic way. There is tons of anecdotal evidence to support that

kind of thing but all of it is rebutted harshly by people who's worldview

cannot accept it. I am agnostic on the subject but the more I see the more

I wonder.

>

> >I took a class a few months ago with a woman who specializes

> in using energy

> >psych on allergies. She has stated that she has cleared

> allergies to gluten

> >but they are brutally hard to get rid of. When asked what

> kind of food she

> >eats herself she told everyone that she never eats grains of

> any kind -- she

> >can clear the negative effects on her body but some things

> are just not good

> >for most humans so you can also choose to stay away from them.

>

> So the take-home message here is " I can clear allergies to

> certain foods,

> but don't eat them anyway " . OK...

Yes! That's exactly the take home message. Delivered by someone who has

done exactly that with thousands of individuals.

>

> >The hits are dramatic, though, and can really call into

> question all of our

> >notions of how physical reality really works when you

> observe them for

> >yourself.

>

> I've experienced a couple dramatic results from

> self-administered EFT

Fantastic.

> (and

> a lot of failures and some middling successes)

Been there, done that.

> and none of it

> called into

> question my notion of how physical reality really works.

I understand.

> I

> understand that

> the self is a product of physical reality and that there are

> many ways of

> affecting physical reality, EFT included.

That is a theory. And a pretty good one, I might add. But it may well be

wrong. God knows that there are millions of people out there willing to

argue with you about it.

I can see Gene getting out the barf bag. LOL.

One of the better descriptions of reality that I've seen in the past 20

years is that of Ken Wilber. He postulates an area of what he calls

" interior states " that can only be self described and cannot be proven or

verified. If you view God as a product or expression of these interior

states rather than as an external being (old bearded white guy) then the

descriptions that others are giving of their God experiences become much

more interesting. Unprovable, but they tell us much and may point us in new

directions.

>

> >You'll never believe my stories of energy psych wins but when you

> >experience a couple of big ones for yourself you'll know

> what I'm talking

> >about.

>

> I might believe them, but I'm coming to realize that you and

> I would have

> very different explanations for them.

You are making some unfounded assumptions here I think. I am trying to

describe my world best by finding the model that most closely resembles my

experience. As I open to new experience my model shifts. I don't actually

KNOW any of the things that I'm postulating here. I do know that I'm moving

away from a purely atoms and molecules explanation for the nature of the

world but I fully acknowledge that I could well be wrong.

> (Not that I'm pretending to

> understand the exact mechanism by which EFT works, but I'm

> confident that

> it's scientifically explainable even if the science isn't

> there yet, and

> I'm beginning to think that you think it's supernatural.)

See my comments above. I don't think that there is actually anything that

is super-natural. But I do suspect that the nature of the model of physical

reality is most likely going to have to change as the science comes in over

the next centuries.

Here's a good moment for a book plug. Read _The Field_ by Lynn McTaggart if

you want to see what legitimate science has done with the paranormal over

the past 30 years or so. Great book.

>

> >Here's something you can do if you want to put your thoughts and

> >rationalizations aside and actually get some real experience

> with EFT.

> >Craig is giving a three day workshop in Stamford, CT the

> first weekend in

> >September on healing serious disease states. The entire

> experience will be

> >him actually using EFT in front of the attendees on people

> with serious

> >disease. Craig is one of those who is able to consistently produce

> >significant result so you might actually get to see some of

> what we are

> >discussing in person and it may well help you dramatically

> with whatever

> >issues you have been using EFT for on yourself. The workshop is very

> >inexpensive and you live close enough to commute. My wife

> and I will be

> >there.

>

> Since I have no problem with the idea that EFT can be very

> effective (and

> since I've said so, your remark about putting my thoughts and

> rationalizations aside is just so much condescension)

You should have seen what I had written before and deleted if you thought

that was condescending, LOL.

You are right, though. My apologies.

> and

> since I'd like to

> improve my ability to use it myself, I'd actually be quite

> eager to go to

> that workshop, but " very inexpensive " is a relative thing.

> $195 plus a big

> pile of money sent Metro North's way is non-trivial.

I understand. My comment was that in the scheme of the workshop universe a

three day program like this one is way low on the cost scale.

> Not to

> mention that

> the " buffet " no doubt translates to " must bring his own

> food " .

Oh yeah. Definitely. Last workshop the food was inedible and that was from

the viewpoint of the other attendees.

> But

> I'll think about it, and maybe I'll do it. Do you think it'd be

> substantially more useful than the Mercola EFT DVDs I have?

Oh yes. I've been to two of 's workshops and the most compelling

moments are when you watch him process someone live on stage. There is

absolutely no comparison between that and watching the DVD's. It is very,

very intense observing what happens in person and it can be very useful from

both a learning how to process perspective and also for actually working on

your own stuff while you are observing him.

>

> >For now you have some pretty good theories about what is

> wrong with you and

> >you are working diligently to fix those problems. But you

> are not yet fixed,

> >right?

>

> Right, and I don't pretend to have the whole explanation to

> my problems

> either. But I don't believe they're the result of some sort

> of psychic

> energy maladjustment unconnected to physical reality that

> could be fixed

> without addressing actual physical problems.

A perfect summation.

I would say that these problems _may_ be the result of psychic and energetic

maladjustments that are tightly connected to physical reality and that once

addressed will help create a change in your physical reality through both

their currently unexplained purely energetic mechanisms and through the

simple way of causing your behavior to change should you so desire it.

Ron

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I might believe them, but I'm coming to realize that you and I would have

> very different explanations for them. (Not that I'm pretending to

> understand the exact mechanism by which EFT works, but I'm confident that

> it's scientifically explainable even if the science isn't there yet...

And people think atheists don't live by faith :-)

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for... "

Hebrews 11:1

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> You can decide to change your behavior without fully understanding it. You

> can also really understand it and still not want to, or be able to, change

> it. Or you can go through life with no understanding and never changing, or

> you can of course understand it and change it. But there's no magical power

> granted by understanding, and for some people, all that time spent on

> THINKING ABOUT the deep meaning of all their bad patterns and habits is just

> a waste of time and a distraction from DOING SOMETHING.

Hey!

Welcome back. You have been missing all the fireworks. Or maybe not.

Perhaps reading them and wisely staying on the sidelines.

[Guest guest]

>> Welcome back. You have been missing all the fireworks. Or maybe not.

Perhaps reading them and wisely staying on the sidelines. <<

LOL, more or less... I've had some rough times lately with some of my

animals but I've been keeping up as best I can. Thanks for noticing I was

gone <G>.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Finally some time.

> >Actually they do. What I experience is sensation. Feeling.

> That is all I

> >can truthfully state about it. Everything beyond that is theory and

> >conjecture.

>

> Sure, words describing your sensations can accurately describe your

> sensations, but it doesn't mean they correspond to objective reality.

I don't understand your comment.

What I'm saying is that the only thing that I can truly state is that when

I'm doing various practices, or even when I'm not for that matter, I feel

certain feelings in my body. I can describe them as sensations and I can

spot where and how I'm feeling them. As soon as I attempt to state what is

causing those sensations or I attempt to create a model describing how those

sensations might be described I'm into the realm of theory.

For instance. I might be spending an hour doing a particular deep breathing

technique. At some point in the process I feel a tingling in my head. All

I can truthfully say is that I'm feeling a tingling in my head. Yet what is

causing the tingling? If every time I do this breathing process I get the

same tingling I can begin to form a model. Breathing X way creates

sensation Y. So if I do this often enough I might actually venture a theory

about the whole process. And what I have found -- after years of very

intense resistance -- is that much of this kind of stuff has been pretty

accurately mapped out already by the various Eastern religions.

>

> >I'm sure that you accept the validity of acupuncture -- to

> some degree at

> >least -- and that certainly works with the body's energy systems as

> >described by Chinese medicine, among other things. Energy

> psych works by

> >manipulating those systems while using various psychological

> techniques at

> >the same time.

>

> Actually, I have no idea whether acupuncture is valid or not.

> I know some

> people who believe it is, I know some people who believe it

> isn't, but I've

> never tried it myself or seen an adequate explanation for its

> function. (Not that I mean to suggest that something has to

> be adequately

> explained to be functional.)

Okay. Fair enough. For me, one of the more powerful moments in my

education occurred when I finally had an acupuncture treatment from someone

who knew what they were doing. It completely altered both my mood and

physical energy level in a matter of minutes. That began an opening to the

idea that perhaps there was some truth in all of these crazy Eastern models.

> It also seems quite variable in

> its supposed

> effects, which could be due to a wide variety of factors --

> perhaps it's

> bunk and the only thing at work is the placebo effect,

> perhaps it's very

> difficult to do, perhaps everyone needs very individualized

> acupuncture and

> not everyone decides on the correct treatment course for

> every individual,

> etc. etc.

Yes.

As to placebo -- I've had acupuncture treatments that had zero observable

effect and very significant effect. Again -- proving nothing but

interesting none-the-less.

In fact, the last one I had (which I actually got from Ken Morehead who is

on the WAPF Board of Directors) knocked me out for 3 days. A half hour

after getting off of the table I started to crash and was essentially

exhausted for a week. Needless to say, Ken was disturbed and we've been

trying to figure out what happened ever since. Lots of Western med type

tests, etc.

> There are also people who claim that they no longer need food but can

> subsist on air and cosmic energy and the like. Of course,

> when you follow

> them around, you see them eating apples and cheeseburgers and

> pancakes and

> the like.

>

> If some people can actually manipulate physical reality, it

> wouldn't be

> hard to verify.

I completely agree with you but we have a problem. There are people who's

entire goal in life is to disprove this kind of thing and they get a lot of

press. It's the " fear, uncertainty, doubt " method of stopping inquiry and

creating distrust. It works. One of my favorite guys to read is the one

who debunks the paranormal in Scientific American magazine. He's far more

religious than most of the fundamentalist Christians that I know. And much

more aggressive about it.

I am finding that there are actually groups of legitimate scientists doing

legitimate work in these areas but their voices are quashed or at best not

easily accessible. I live pretty close to the Rhine Research Center at Duke

University and while they are much reduced from what they once were they are

still doing legitimate research into the paranormal. Lots of good work

going on at Stanford and Princeton too. You have to seek these people out

and read the original research just as you do in the world of nutrition if

you want to understand the truth of the matter.

> This sounds like a rehash of Kant,

Interesting. In my very limited formal philosophy training 20 years ago I

decided I didn't much like Kant and largely ignored his stuff as it was

reported to be impenetrable anyway. LOL. Your comment triggered a cascade

of understanding and put much of what I learned back then into perspective.

Coincidentally -- on the way back from my trip to sweltering Wilmington, NC

I was listening to an interview between Wilber and iel Branden.

Branden was Ayn Rand's one time disciple and later lover. He broke the

relationship off and was then ostracized by the entire Objectivist

community. In the interview they talked a little bit about Kant and my

impression was that Wilber labels him a transcendentalist and doesn't place

any more value on his philosophical principles than any other.

The other fascinating thing about the interview was hearing a little bit of

the story of how Branden, who was the most virulent anti-mystic on the

planet except for Ayn herself, was opened to the possibilities of psychical

experiences by the things that happened to him in his relationships with the

two women that he loved after he left Ayn. His story sounded much like what

has been happening to me although, to some degree, I have gone seeking it

whereas it ended up hitting him over the head against his will. Of course

the Objectivist community has used his association with Wilber and his use

of Energy Psych to label him a fruitcake.

> but if Wilber and other

> disciples of

> Kant are correct, why is someone's unique and completely

> internal personal

> reality interesting at all if it's untranslatable and has no

> generalized

> meaning? (I don't mean to suggest they're actually correct, BTW.)

So what you are saying here is that it is not possible for us to discuss our

interior states with any kind of validity because it's untranslatable.

Does that make sense? We can't reason about the things that we think an any

way that is useful to the world in general? Psychologists do this all of

the time and they are given a patina of acceptance because they describe

what they do as scientific. I'm not really sure how true that is.

This is where Wilber's model becomes useful.

If I tell you that I have a freckle on my arm that statement is verifiable

by the use of the commonly used 5 senses and you can generate agreement or

disagreement by getting a bunch of people to observe my arm and decide if

they see a freckle or not. The freckle is an object. If I tell you that I

have a buzzing sensation on the left side of my head that can't be verified

in any external way by any kind of observer. So in your world my buzzing

sensation is uninteresting (to you) because it's untranslatable and has no

generalized meaning. What that ends up meaning is that you and I place less

value on subjective mental phenomena than we do on things that can be

defined as physical universe objects.

So what that kind of attitude does is eliminate at least half of our

experience from being open to legitimate analysis and investigation, right?

You live inside of your head but because _I_ can't be in there with you to

observe then those kinds of phenomena do not have the same kind of quality

that physical universe objects have. What Wilber says is that yes, these

phenomena are interesting and valid and they can be looked at and structured

and studied just like sensate phenomena. Once you stop trying to measure

buzzing sensations with oscilloscopes (using methods appropriate to the

study of exterior objects to study interior phenomena) you can figure out

ways to legitimately discuss these phenomena.

> >I do know that I'm moving

> >away from a purely atoms and molecules explanation for the

> nature of the

> >world but I fully acknowledge that I could well be wrong.

>

> There's a lot more to chemistry and physics than atoms and molecules.

>

> >Here's a good moment for a book plug. Read _The Field_ by

> Lynn McTaggart if

> >you want to see what legitimate science has done with the

> paranormal over

> >the past 30 years or so. Great book.

>

> Amazon evidently doesn't sell it, but a description I found

> on the web

> looks pretty absurd. Can you provide any more info?

http://tinyurl.com/cgzmu

I would disregard any negative assessments that you have read on the Web

about it. More screaming by the people most threatened by the info

contained in the book. It's well written and describes legitimate research

by legitimate scientists. You may well disagree with everything you read

but I would not describe the book as flaky. My wife read it also and found

it to be interesting and she's a scientist type.

>

> >I understand. My comment was that in the scheme of the

> workshop universe a

> >three day program like this one is way low on the cost scale.

>

> Well, maybe so. It looks like MetroNorth would be a little

> less expensive

> than I'd initially thought, so maybe I'll do it.

I hope that you choose to come. Just found out the other day that the

registration ends on August 10th.

>

> >Oh yeah. Definitely. Last workshop the food was inedible

> and that was from

> >the viewpoint of the other attendees.

>

> So I'd have to catch a 7:47am train three days running...

> I'd have to

> bring a cooler of food, and I'm not sure when I'd actually

> have to eat,

> since I usually get up around 8:30am but this would mean

> getting up as much

> as two hours early and there'd be the risk of needing to eat

> before I could

> get home... Train fare would be almost $60... I think I'd

> have to buy a

> medium-sized cooler, actually... Unless there's good food available

> nearby? I haven't been to Stamford in a couple years, but I

> used to be

> there often, and I can't think of anything readily at hand

> that would be

> useful.

No food nearby. Stamford is a fun little town with a bunch of thriving

restaurants and a pretty interesting looking singles community but we

couldn't find any place that had clean food. Best we got was a huge grilled

chicken salad at one of pubs near the hotel.

> >Oh yes. I've been to two of 's workshops and the most compelling

> >moments are when you watch him process someone live on

> stage. There is

> >absolutely no comparison between that and watching the

> DVD's. It is very,

> >very intense observing what happens in person and it can be

> very useful from

> >both a learning how to process perspective and also for

> actually working on

> >your own stuff while you are observing him.

>

> It sounds like it would be productive, but $300 productive?

> I'll have to

> ponder that a bit.

Let me just say this. My wife and I first saw at a workshop in

Chicago that he did with Dr. Mercola. We thought it was interesting enough

that we went to see him again on his own for three days when he came to

Stamford last year. We are going to see him for the third time because what

we found was that we learned the most and got the most gain from watching

him actually process other people. He did very little of that in the first

two workshops that we saw but when he did it was electric. This workshop

will be almost entirely him processing others and then describing what he's

doing as he does it. I hope it will be worth the cost.

>

> I'm curious, BTW, since you mention that EFT was your gateway

> -- what else

> are you into now?

>

I've been on a pretty slow gradient starting in the mid-80's when I first

read _Dianetics_ by L Ron Hubbard. I briefly did some processing at two

Churches of Scientology but figured out very, very quickly that they were

all nuts so I bailed. I was still interested in the ideas in the book,

though, because they seemed so powerful. After connecting to the Internet

in the mid-90's I started searching on Scio and discovered that there was a

whole community of former Scientologists -- including some of the most

powerful and best trained -- practicing on their own independent of the

organization. So I hooked up with some of them and my life promptly went

into the toilet. LOL. Knowing what I know now I suspect that it was more

the people who were doing the work than it was the processes themselves, but

it wasn't until I discovered EFT in 2000 that I started to get mild gain and

began to move forward.

After quitting my addictions and losing all of my weight in 2001 I began to

re-awaken and I started experimenting independently with some practices that

a couple of years later I discovered were described best by Tantra. Around

this same time I spent a year using the Holosync CD's from Centerpointe

Research Institute. It was really the harnessing of the sexual energy,

though, that began to create some of the shifts that I've hinted about and

is beginning to cause me to question some of the assumptions that I had

spent most of my life believing about the nature of the universe.

So right now I primarily find EFT, Holosync and Tantra to be the most useful

technologies in my life.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>For instance. I might be spending an hour doing a particular deep breathing

>technique. At some point in the process I feel a tingling in my head. All

>I can truthfully say is that I'm feeling a tingling in my head. Yet what is

>causing the tingling? If every time I do this breathing process I get the

>same tingling I can begin to form a model. Breathing X way creates

>sensation Y.

This conversation reminds me a lot of an article in Discover, where

some neurologists were working with the Dalai Llama. Turns out

that on brain scans, those Buddhist priests really ARE happy,

happier than anyone they have tested. The DL was very interested

in the results, and talked at length with the investigators, but

he gently chided them that they were too closed minded, because

they automatically ruled out anything " supernatural " from their

science. The monks are using techniques they basically discovered

over hundreds of years of experimentation, not pure research in

the sense we do in the West, but their techniques do seem to

work. Given that no one really knows how the brain works yet,

it's likely that the things that DO work on the brain will seem

improbable and weird when we find them out!

Heidi Jean