Mental disease as a blessing. [OR: How healers are born]

Advertisements

shamann

In the shamanic view, mental illness signals “the birth of a healer”, explains Malidoma Patrice Somé. Thus, mental disorders are spiritual emergencies, spiritual crises, and need to be regarded as such to aid the healer in being born.

‘What those in the West view as mental illness, the Dagara people regard as “good news from the other world.” The person going through the crisis has been chosen as a medium for a message to the community that needs to be communicated from the spirit realm. “Mental disorder, behavioral disorder of all kinds, signal the fact that two obviously incompatible energies have merged into the same field”, says Dr. Somé. These disturbances result when the person does not get assistance in dealing with the presence of the energy from the spirit realm.

One of the things Dr. Somé encountered when he first came to the United States in 1980 for graduate study was how this country deals with mental illness. When a fellow student was sent to a mental institute due to “nervous depression”, Dr. Somé went to visit him.

“I was so shocked. That was the first time I was brought face to face with what is done here to people exhibiting the same symptoms I’ve seen in my village.” What struck Dr. Somé was that the attention given to such symptoms was based on pathology, on the idea that the condition is something that needs to stop. This was in complete opposition to the way his culture views such a situation. As he looked around the stark ward at the patients, some in straitjackets, some zoned out on medications, others screaming, he observed to himself, “So this is how the healers who are attempting to be born are treated in this culture. What a loss! What a loss that a person who is finally being aligned with a power from the other world is just being wasted”.

Another way to say this, which may make more sense to the Western mind, is that we in the West are not trained in how to deal or even taught to acknowledge the existence of psychic phenomena, the spiritual world. In fact, psychic abilities are denigrated. When energies from the spiritual world emerge in a Western psyche, that individual is completely unequipped to integrate them or even recognize what is happening. The result can be terrifying. (1)

See the disease as your friend.
Imbalance must be treated harsly.
Only through war can you reach balance.

Take a look at that crazy person.
Listen to insanity in a cosmos which is nothing but sane.
How can the spirits affect the body peacefully?

Shout out.
Let the pain run through your body.
You are not a peaceful creature destined to find happiness.
You are here to suffer.
You are here to die.

So that you can be reborn.

Big Bang, universe, logical, illogical.

Advertisements

The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it? Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional “wrapping” around a four-dimensional black hole’s event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole. (1)

In order to keep our minds sane, we are willing to sacrifice everything in our path.

Why the universe should be “comprehensible”? Why the universe should be “normal” if its initial state was “abnormal”? Why do we still look for rules if the intiial state of the cosmos did not have any?

The doctrine of God seems illogical to many.
But so does love.
But so does the Big Bang theory.

Choose your theories wisely.
It seels that we live in an illogical world.
Trying to find logic in it is the only illogical thing…

Simple questions. Research. Crazy. Definitions…

Advertisements

The Broad Institute, a collaborative biomedical research center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has received a $650 million donation from philanthropist and businessman Ted Stanley to study the biological basis of diseases such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

The largest donation ever made to psychiatric research, the gift totals nearly six times the current $110 million annual budget for President Barack Obama’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Stanley has already given Broad $175 million, and the $650 million will be provided as an annual cash flow on the order of tens of millions each year, with the remainder to be given after Stanley’s death. (1)

We spend so much time and money researching mental disorders and we have not even solved the simplest of problems: What is “normal” and what is “crazy”? Who defines it?

Start from the simple questions.

And all the complicated ones will lose their significance…

1+2+3+… = -1/12 !? Or… “Why infinity does not exist!”

Advertisements

Srinivasa Ramanujan presented two derivations of “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … = −1/12” in chapter 8 of his first notebook. The simpler, less rigorous derivation proceeds in two steps, as follows.

The first key insight is that the series of positive numbers 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · ·can be transformed to the alternating series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·. The latter series is also divergent, but it is much easier to work with; there are several classical methods that assign it a value, which have been explored since the 18th century.
In order to transform the series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · into 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, one can subtract 4 from the second term, 8 from the fourth term, 12 from the sixth term, and so on. The total amount to be subtracted is 4 + 8 + 12 + 16 + · · ·, which is 4 times the original series.
These relationships can be expressed with a bit of algebra.

Whatever the “sum” of the series might be, call it c = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …
Then multiply this equation by 4 and subtract the second equation from the first:

The second key insight is that the alternating series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is the formal power series expansion of the function 1/(1 + x)2 with 1 substituted for x.

So it seems that -3c = 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · = 1/4. Now make another small calculation and voila!

It seems as if c = 1+2+3+4+… = -1/12! (1)

But can this really be true?
Can the sum of POSITIVE numbers equal a negative one?
Can the sum of INTEGERS be a fractional number?

We tend to rely too much on assumptions.
The whole science is based on assumptions.
And when we rely too much on them, we tend to forget they even exist.

Watch closely.
See the “proof” more carefully once more…

Srinivasa Ramanujan presented two derivations of “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ = −1/12” in chapter 8 of his first notebook. The simpler, less rigorous derivation proceeds in two steps, as follows.

The FIRST key insight is that “infinity” exists.

The SECOND key insight is that the series of positive numbers 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · (we CAN put these dots because of the first assumption) can be transformed to the alternating series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·. The latter series is also divergent, but it is much easier to work with; there are several classical methods that assign it a value, which have been explored since the 18th century.
In order to transform the series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · into 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, one can subtract 4 from the second term, 8 from the fourth term, 12 from the sixth term, and so on. The total amount to be subtracted is 4 + 8 + 12 + 16 + · · ·, which is 4 times the original series.
These relationships can be expressed with a bit of algebra.

Whatever the “sum” of the series might be, call it c = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …
Then multiply this equation by 4 and subtract the second equation from the first:

The second key insight is that the alternating series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is the formal power series expansion of the function 1/(1 + x)2 with 1 substituted for x.

So it seems that -3c = 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · = 1/4. Now make another small calculation and voila!

It seems as if c = 1+2+3+4+… = -1/12!
But this result is not logical!
So the same process could be actually proof that infinity does not exist!

Infinity…

What is that infinity which we all seek?
What is that infinity to which we all pray?
What made us think about it in a finite cosmos?

Are we humans thinking as Gods?
Or Gods thinking as humans?

Seek the finite.
And you will see the infinity staring back at you…

Law. Surveillance. Dehumanization.

Advertisements

Nine years ago, federal agents stuck a location tracker on a nightclub owner’s car without a warrant. The agents thought their suspect might be dealing drugs, and four weeks of GPS data ultimately proved them right. He countered that the prolonged tracking had violated his privacy, and therefore his constitutional rights. The case fell apart in the Supreme Court, where justices debated the length of time that police could tail citizens before routine investigation became all-out invasion. Was four weeks too long? What about three days, or four hours?

Last week, a high-tech solution was proposed: let algorithms set the guidelines for us. Since computers are able to unearth subtle patterns in data, the thinking goes, they could help lawmakers quantify how much or how little surveillance is fair.

“Some justices think four weeks is too much and they’ve never been able to explain why,” says Steven Bellovin at Columbia University in New York City. “I saw there was a natural way to answer some of the questions by using these techniques.”

Bellovin, along with specialists in computer science and law, analysed previous research on tracking to learn what such data could uncover about an individual’s characteristics and daily habits. They concluded that one week of data would reveal enough information to constitute a threat to privacy, and so would be a reasonable place for the law to draw the line (NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, doi.org/s5d). (1)

We have started trusting computers to determine whether someone should go to jail.
We have started trusting computers for matters of justice.
We have started trusting computers for human matters.

We have stopped being human.
We have started thinking like computers.

So illogical.
So paradox.
So… human.

Give THAT to computer to analyze…