NEW YORK - Researchers are studying a pervasive psychological phenomenon in which oh man we've got to finish doing the taxes this weekend ... C'mon, admit it. Your train of thought has derailed like that many times. It's just mind-wandering. We all do it, and surprisingly often, whether we're struggling to avoid it or not.
Mainstream psychology hasn't paid much attention to this common mental habit. But a spate of new studies is chipping away at its mysteries and scientists say the topic is beginning to gain visibility.
Someday, such research may turn up ways to help students keep their focus on textbooks and lectures, and drivers to keep their minds on the road. It may reveal ways to reap payoffs from the habit.
And it might shed light on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which can include an unusually severe inability to focus that causes trouble in multiple areas of life.
more
Thursday, 22 March 2007
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Institute of General Semantics
IGS founded 1938 by Alfred Korzybski
How well do you integrate ... what goes on 'in here' ... with what goes on 'out there'?
When we talk about wanting to become better critical thinkers, or more discriminating individuals, or simply more sane human beings, what we're talking about concerns questions such as:
How well do we 'interface' with the world around us?
How appropriately do we interpret what goes on outside our skin?
How appropriately do we interpret what goes on inside our skin?
Do we purposely and consistently apply what we 'know' about what goes on 'out there'?
Do we purposely and consistently apply what we 'know' about what goes on 'in here'?
This short tutorial will re-acquaint you with some notions you may find familiar, or "obvious". Perhaps it will introduce you to some new ways of 'thinking'. And the resulting implications might help you to be more critical, more discriminating ... and, perhaps, eventually more sane.
Page 2 of 17
Page 2 of 17
Copyright © 2005 Institute of General Semantics,
except where noted. All rights reserved in all media.
Saturday, 17 March 2007
Bush: Insult to Manicheans
Calling Bush's Views Manichean Is an Insult to the Manicheans
By Dan Skinner
Mr. Skinner is an instructor of political theory at Hunter College at the City University of New York. He is a PhD student of Political Theory at the City University of New York Graduate Center, focusing on the relationship between language and politics.
This is an excellent article and well worth following the link to read it all. The .... show where sections are missing.
Since George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech on January 29, 2002, his polarizing politics have often been characterized in terms such as a “Manichean struggle with a single overarching enemy called terrorism” (Washington Post, April 19, 2002). Since September 11 the term “Manichean” has been bandied about carelessly in the media as though it were a mere synonym for “binary” or “polar”—suitable for use in describing any worldview comprised of forces of “Good” and “Evil.” A closer look at the etymology of the term, however, reveals that we might have been better off had we elected an actually Manichean president.
The Manicheans were a syncretic religious sect led by Mani, a Buddhist-influenced ascetic born in Baghdad in the 3rd century AD. Like Bush, the Manicheans carved the spiritual world up into two categories—Good and Evil—but, as orthodox dualists, they believed that the forces of Good and Evil were not engaged in some continuous and messianic struggle, but rather that their contrasting presence was the very basis of the spiritual order. ..................
Bush’s public pronouncements of faith have somewhat successfully hidden from the public the reality of how unchristian his particular form of dualism is. The so-called “Doctors” of Catholic theology—Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm—rejected any such battle between Good and Evil .............
Ironically, if there is any theological tradition that Bush’s politics embody it is that of another ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism—but with a twist. .......... The Zoroastrian quest was spiritual, which eliminated force or violence as options for obtaining peace.
It should be noted that Zoroaster was the same man that Friedrich Nietzsche called Zarathustra, from whose ontology Nietzsche challenged enlightenment conceptions of progress, shunned democracy and surmised that the weak were albatrosses around society’s neck. Nietzsche took the peaceful and hopeful philosophy of Zoroastrianism and stripped it of its optimism, leaving behind not the triumph of Good over Evil, but conflict itself. ........
This brief theological excursion is only politically relevant today because modern politicians such as George W. Bush have made it so. In drawing upon a dualistic political framework (“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”), Bush has positioned himself as the arbiter of good versus evil, a struggle which has come to define the public face of his foreign policy.
The major problem with this mode of thinking is that, aside from Bush’s role as ontological authority, his rigid dualistic politics forces yet another logical distinction: friends and enemies. In Bush’s Zoroastrian world, life is defined not by positive categories that envision a better world, but by a preoccupation with destruction of the Other. ....................
The student of politics will also recognize the more stark historical manifestation of Bush’s ontology. It was the patron philosopher of the Nazi party, Carl Schmitt, who suggested that the state has one essential function: distinguishing friends from enemies. This friend-enemy distinction has two classifying functions: f............................
In today’s political climate the question is often asked, when or how does this end? The honest observer would be forced to acknowledge that an end is unattainable so long as dualisms remain the ontological building blocks of our political understanding. ............................
Manicheans—those great dualists who gave the Catholic theologians such a hard time—at least had the vision necessary to find non-destructive meaning in their distinction between Good and Evil. The permanence of these forces allowed individuals to reconcile themselves with the spiritual world as they found it, and not attempt to do violence to what they saw as the very structure of the world, the opposing forces that “give life meaning.” ..................
Underlying all of this is the question that might follow the construction of any dualism: Did Bush get the categories right? Is he sure who is Good and who is Evil? If not, he is energizing a high-stakes dualistic game based on false distinctions. ......................
By Dan Skinner
Mr. Skinner is an instructor of political theory at Hunter College at the City University of New York. He is a PhD student of Political Theory at the City University of New York Graduate Center, focusing on the relationship between language and politics.
This is an excellent article and well worth following the link to read it all. The .... show where sections are missing.
Since George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech on January 29, 2002, his polarizing politics have often been characterized in terms such as a “Manichean struggle with a single overarching enemy called terrorism” (Washington Post, April 19, 2002). Since September 11 the term “Manichean” has been bandied about carelessly in the media as though it were a mere synonym for “binary” or “polar”—suitable for use in describing any worldview comprised of forces of “Good” and “Evil.” A closer look at the etymology of the term, however, reveals that we might have been better off had we elected an actually Manichean president.
The Manicheans were a syncretic religious sect led by Mani, a Buddhist-influenced ascetic born in Baghdad in the 3rd century AD. Like Bush, the Manicheans carved the spiritual world up into two categories—Good and Evil—but, as orthodox dualists, they believed that the forces of Good and Evil were not engaged in some continuous and messianic struggle, but rather that their contrasting presence was the very basis of the spiritual order. ..................
Bush’s public pronouncements of faith have somewhat successfully hidden from the public the reality of how unchristian his particular form of dualism is. The so-called “Doctors” of Catholic theology—Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm—rejected any such battle between Good and Evil .............
Ironically, if there is any theological tradition that Bush’s politics embody it is that of another ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism—but with a twist. .......... The Zoroastrian quest was spiritual, which eliminated force or violence as options for obtaining peace.
It should be noted that Zoroaster was the same man that Friedrich Nietzsche called Zarathustra, from whose ontology Nietzsche challenged enlightenment conceptions of progress, shunned democracy and surmised that the weak were albatrosses around society’s neck. Nietzsche took the peaceful and hopeful philosophy of Zoroastrianism and stripped it of its optimism, leaving behind not the triumph of Good over Evil, but conflict itself. ........
This brief theological excursion is only politically relevant today because modern politicians such as George W. Bush have made it so. In drawing upon a dualistic political framework (“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”), Bush has positioned himself as the arbiter of good versus evil, a struggle which has come to define the public face of his foreign policy.
The major problem with this mode of thinking is that, aside from Bush’s role as ontological authority, his rigid dualistic politics forces yet another logical distinction: friends and enemies. In Bush’s Zoroastrian world, life is defined not by positive categories that envision a better world, but by a preoccupation with destruction of the Other. ....................
The student of politics will also recognize the more stark historical manifestation of Bush’s ontology. It was the patron philosopher of the Nazi party, Carl Schmitt, who suggested that the state has one essential function: distinguishing friends from enemies. This friend-enemy distinction has two classifying functions: f............................
In today’s political climate the question is often asked, when or how does this end? The honest observer would be forced to acknowledge that an end is unattainable so long as dualisms remain the ontological building blocks of our political understanding. ............................
Manicheans—those great dualists who gave the Catholic theologians such a hard time—at least had the vision necessary to find non-destructive meaning in their distinction between Good and Evil. The permanence of these forces allowed individuals to reconcile themselves with the spiritual world as they found it, and not attempt to do violence to what they saw as the very structure of the world, the opposing forces that “give life meaning.” ..................
Underlying all of this is the question that might follow the construction of any dualism: Did Bush get the categories right? Is he sure who is Good and who is Evil? If not, he is energizing a high-stakes dualistic game based on false distinctions. ......................
Welcome
<<< left column is a list of my other Blogs.
I would be delighted if you leave comments!
go well!
I would be delighted if you leave comments!
go well!
Sunday, 11 March 2007
emotional intelligence
Having emotional intelligence means being able to manage your own emotions effectively and being able to respond appropriately to the emotions of others. Managing your emotions does not mean denying or suppressing them. Try the Emotional Intelligence Quiz to see how well you handle your emotions and other people's.
Managing your emotions constructively - a few tips
Make a list of your negative emotions, what triggers them, how they impact your behaviour and what effect they have on others around you.
Without suppressing or denying them, strive to control the most negative effects on you and others.
To control your negative feelings, the first step is to acknowledge that two factors are involved - (1) some external provocation and (2) your reaction to it. If you cannot control the former, work on the latter. Convince yourself that you are free to choose how you react to external events. If you really work at it, you can see the funny side or the good in almost anything negative.
Writing down what is bugging you can make it easier to deal with it.
Separate what you can change from what you cannot change and make a plan to change what you can.
For things you cannot change, make a list of the positive aspects of the situation to balance your negative view.
Make a list of your positive emotions and figure out what prompts them. Channel your positive emotions into productive activity. For example, if you are most enthusiastic, energetic or optimistic in certain rooms or at certain times of the day or week or with particular people, try to make more use of such situations to get more done.
Ask others for feedback on how well you are managing your emotions.
Thank people for constructive feedback, try not to argue or defend yourself.
Monitor your reactions to situations and try to determine why you reacted as you did and how you could have reacted differently.
Responding appropriately to the emotions of others
Observe closely the emotional flavour of people's speech and behaviour.
If people are enthusiastic, try to respond in kind.
If they are down, show an appropriate level of empathy.
Notice disparities between words and body language and act accordingly.
Avoid over-reacting - getting angry just because someone else is angry.
Try not to let the negativity of others undermine your positive feelings.
Build on the enthusiasm, empathy or support of others instead of dismissing it.
Managing your emotions constructively - a few tips
Make a list of your negative emotions, what triggers them, how they impact your behaviour and what effect they have on others around you.
Without suppressing or denying them, strive to control the most negative effects on you and others.
To control your negative feelings, the first step is to acknowledge that two factors are involved - (1) some external provocation and (2) your reaction to it. If you cannot control the former, work on the latter. Convince yourself that you are free to choose how you react to external events. If you really work at it, you can see the funny side or the good in almost anything negative.
Writing down what is bugging you can make it easier to deal with it.
Separate what you can change from what you cannot change and make a plan to change what you can.
For things you cannot change, make a list of the positive aspects of the situation to balance your negative view.
Make a list of your positive emotions and figure out what prompts them. Channel your positive emotions into productive activity. For example, if you are most enthusiastic, energetic or optimistic in certain rooms or at certain times of the day or week or with particular people, try to make more use of such situations to get more done.
Ask others for feedback on how well you are managing your emotions.
Thank people for constructive feedback, try not to argue or defend yourself.
Monitor your reactions to situations and try to determine why you reacted as you did and how you could have reacted differently.
Responding appropriately to the emotions of others
Observe closely the emotional flavour of people's speech and behaviour.
If people are enthusiastic, try to respond in kind.
If they are down, show an appropriate level of empathy.
Notice disparities between words and body language and act accordingly.
Avoid over-reacting - getting angry just because someone else is angry.
Try not to let the negativity of others undermine your positive feelings.
Build on the enthusiasm, empathy or support of others instead of dismissing it.
Monday, 5 March 2007
Things to bear in mind
- If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out.
- Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often.
- Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
- It ain't the jeans that make your butt look fat.
- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
- My idea of housework is to sweep the room with a glance.
- Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
- It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.
- If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip.
- Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of checks.
- A conscience is what hurts when all of your other parts feel so good.
- Eat well, stay fit, die anyway.
- Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Deal with it.
- No man has ever been shot while doing the dishes.
- A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand.
- Middle age is when broadness of the mind and narrowness of the waist change places.
- Opportunities always look bigger going than coming.
- Junk is something you've kept for years and throw away three weeks before you need it.
- There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
- Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
- By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends.
- Thou shalt not weigh more than thy refrigerator.
- Someone who thinks logically, provides a nice contrast to the real world.
- If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before.
I don't know the origins of this, but whoever wrote these, thank you so very much! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)