Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Parody songs

For the longest time, I've wanted to understand the concept of what can only be described as a "parody song". I just found the best example of it: check out the end of the second half of this ep of Robot Chicken and you'll see exactly what I mean.

(If you haven't seen the show or you don't know my opinions on it, let me say that I do not give the show as a whole my fullest endorsement. There is a good chance that you won't like their style of humor. When it comes on TV, I'm never hesitant to change the channel if my TV-watching partner doesn't care for it. Just sayin'.)

A parody song is a song that is intended to closely resemble a more famous song without infringing a copyright. If it's done right, the original song should be recognized immediately and unmistakably. Sometimes, it is a particular artist that will be parodied, as in Will Farrel's impression of Robert Goulet. (That's not the best example, since most people wouldn't be able to identify a song of Goulet's. A better example is the frequent parody/tribute/mockery of Michael Jackson's unique voice, mannerisms, and music.) Often, this technique will be used in comedy shows as a montage, often when interviewing a washed-up artist or in a parody of commercials for those "Best of the 90s" albums they sell on TV.

I want to crack that code! Uncovering that secret would be an eclectiphile's dream; it would combine the study of music, psychology, sociology, performing arts, and even law! Talk about Fecundity!

And the Robot Chicken example is perfect, though not because of the quality of the parody. I want to study it in particular specifically because it's kinda crappy. Because even with the show's self-imposed limitations, I was still able to tell exactly which song they were doing almost immediately. It's like that experiment where you jumble up the letters of a word, leaving the first and last letters unmoved, and people can read the words just as fast as if they were unjumbled. Plus, there are more than one of them in a row; that's a higher sample size.

If you've got any other good examples of parody songs, let me know so I can add them to my list!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Manipumility

The following is something that needs to be said. I say this because it seems that the vast majority of people are operating on false pretenses when regarding this subject. Time and time again I've seen this logical fallacy used as a trump card for any difficult to solve issue related to one's personality. I'm talking, of course, about manipulative humility, also known as manipumility.

Manipumility is when someone has a predisposition to some unsavory character trait--let's use "takes offense too easily" as our example in this case--that ze is well aware of. However, instead of solving this longstanding character flaw, this person instead openly proclaims the problem for all to hear. This happens especially frequently when the person in question first meets someone. Ze will take offense to something, recognize hir overreaction, and say something to the extent of, "Oh, yeah, I do that all the time. I very prone to it. Just so you know." The implied meaning here is, "This is going to keep happening no matter what, so you either need to learn to deal with it or change your behavior so it doesn't happen again." 

Manipumility is a powerhouse tool of any social construction set. The person wielding it finds hirself in a very advantageous situation, as the recipient, presumably innocent and ethical, has only a few options available that don't involve trickery and tomfoolery. Ze can say, "Oh, that's alright," and change hir behavior in accordance with hir acquaintance. Ze can say, "Well, I guess I will have to deal with that!" and simply learn to ignore the outbursts. Or, ze can what I am saying, which is, "That's a bullshit excuse and you know it! If you are aware of the fact that this behavior is not socially acceptable, and you know the situations that trigger it, then you have no one and nothing to blame but yourself." 

This brings up another classic sidearm of the argumentatively-inclined: the "telling it like it is". This is, of course, being incredibly blunt and even insensitive; being aware of the fact; and, when confronted by the slighted associate, saying, "Hey, I'm not going to bullshit you. I'm just telling it like it is. That's the TRUTH for yo' face!" This, of course, warrants a limited set of responses: "Word, thanks for the straight troof yo, I didn't even realize I was trippin'" "I think you're mistaken good chum, but indeed thanks for the helpful words of wisdom!" or "Hey, you insensitive turd! STFU with your 'like it is'! I don't want it!"

Of course, the choice you make as a response to your low-blowing friend depends on a lot of factors, and depending on the level of the infraction, one of the first two responses may be appropriate. However, about 80% of the times either of these weapons are used, the best decision is the last one. Telling people that you know what they're doing and that you won't let them get away with it will help to breed this behavior out of the meme pool. This may lead to some conflicts to start with, but if you lead by example and enforce these ethical rules of discourse with respect, I think people will oblige. 

Part of the problem is not being aware of the problem. Especially once we get past a certain age, we trick ourselves into thinking that we are who we are, and we will never drastically change our identities (behaviors). We see our shortcomings and instead of viewing them as challenging puzzles that lead to personal growth, we cover them up with one excuse or another, whether it be psychological or pharmacological. Thus, when someone sees a problem that interferes with their lives, like being annoying or boring, they make excuses the treatment. You can't hold something against someone who is helpless to control it, right?

So, try it out! The next time you see yourself tempted to explain away a behavior by saying it will never change, take a different tact! It may be true that it is an integral part of your personality, but that doesn't mean it can't change. It just means you have to try a little harder to change it, which means you'll have to want to change it a little bit more. But hey, nothing good comes easy, right?

'Llusionisto

P.S. Don't let this turn into meta-manipumility! This is not an excuse to find an equally BS tactic and use it instead. Ethics first!

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Children's show, gender blow?

That is to say, does the following example of gender being portrayed in a children's show serve as a boon or a bane (blow) to gender equality?

I can't decide if this is an example of serendipity (the "Bananas Foster Effect") or simply indicative of how pervasive expressions of gender difference are in our society, but I turned the TV on for the first time in weeks and was greeted to an episode of The Fairly Oddparents.

(For those of you who are unfamiliar with the show, it is a quite excellent cartoon on Nickelodeon starring Timmy, a boy I assume is in elementary school, who has two shape-shifting guardian angels that grant him unlimited wishes. It is through these wishes that he gets into mischief, learns life lessons, yada yada yada. Lots of the humor is very tongue-in-cheek, and it is definitely geared towards a cross-generational audience: bright colors, funny voices, and easy-to-grasp plotlines for the kids, and sarcastic humor, quick and subtle sight gags, and gratuitous use of hyperbole for their parents.)

This particular episode was heavy on the gender themes. The episode starts with Timmy trying to tie knots, ending up tying himself up (BDSM anyone?). His godparents free him, and he explains that he is practicing for the camping trip the Squirrel Scouts are about to go on, but how he hardly needs any practice, because his dad is the highest ranking in the scouts, Flying Squirrel. His dad comes in, ready and raring to go, when his pager blinks "GO TO WORK" and he drops everything to soar out the window (still in his flying squirrel uniform) to rush to his job. Jimmy is bummed, and his mom grabs the rope from the floor and ties a "triple helix double hitch knot", binding all of Dad's dropped gear into a neat package. Jimmy doesn't notice, instead thanking his mom morosely and walking out the door, wondering to his godparents where he will find a man to replace his dad on the trip.

He wishes that several of his friends' fathers would be his instead, trying each out before realizing none of them will work on the camping trip. His godparents are obviously hinting that he try his mom, who appears in cutaway scenes throughout the episode, obviously (and unintentionally) proving her worth as a camping partner by, say, tossing the gas grill over her shoulder when she couldn't light it and instead hastily erecting the perfect firepit and starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together. (Meanwhile, his father is ineptly flying in and out of the frame, behaving like a squirrel and making numerous mentions of "nuts".) Finally, the audience thinks Timmy gets the hint, saying "Maybe I don't need a DAD...", but finishes saying "...I could use a STEP-dad instead!" He tries his friend's stepdad, but to no avail. 

Timmy walks home to see his mom roasting marshmallows on her perfect fire, and she hands him one. He munches it, thanking her, and walks up to his room, forlorning that he won't be able to go on his trip. His mother calls from down in the yard, asking if he can help her hold the tent she wove out of dog hair and grass clippings while she places the hand-carved wooden tent poles. He walks outside, and his mother warns him to be careful of her enormous solar powered water purification plant (made of wood) and her gigantic display of 297 (generic) "girl scout" merit badges that she is going to spit shine later. Finally, Timmy gets it, and asks if she would accompany him. She of course agrees, suggesting they take her pre-industrial wooden catapult to the campsite. 

Cut scene to Jimmy and Mom being handed the giant golden acorn for being the best scouts. Mom makes a small speech, saying she would like to thank all the scouts and scout leaders, as well as her stern-looking, sunglasses-and-suit-clad attorney (who happens to be standing behind her and to the left) for "forcing all of you to let me attend". All of the scouts look to each other and confusedly say, "You're welcome?" 

The episode ends with a shot of the inept father soaring through the air, mouth full of acorns, being tailed by fighter jets demanding that he land. 

So, what do you think? Clueless, lollygagging father who drops an arrangement with his son to go into work (though is instead seen flying around the city the whole day)...who possesses incredible scoutly skills...as well as the super human ability to fly aided only by a scout uniform with wing flaps. Bright yet somewhat oblivious (why didn't she suggest accompanying Timmy herself?) stay-at-home mom who is clearly capable of doing all that a man does (and far more). Timmy never stopping to consider his mother as a "replacement" for his father until all other viable (and magically-induced) options are exhausted. And last, but certainly not least, the explicit mention of legal action being required to allow mom to accompany her son to a scouting event. 

Is this good or bad for a child's conception of gender? I'm going to go ahead and say it is good. While a 1:1 role reversal of parental duties is not exactly what the gender equality movement has in mind as far as achieving its goals, it's a damn good start. What's more, from a child's perspective, or even from someone not well-versed or aware of the great disparities in gender equality, the way equality is portrayed is obvious and positive; I can just picture a kid yelling at the screen, "Timmy, you fool! Can't you see your mom would be AWESOME on that camping trip? She is SO GOOD at camping! She is WAY better than all those other men you are trying out!" 

I'd love to hear your take on it, though!

Much pce, y'll.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Entheogens in the Evolution of Philosophical and Religious Practice

This...is a paper...that I spent tens of hours on. I finally got it where I want it, and I think it's just beautiful. Please read it and tell me what you think. Better yet, read it and learn, and then tell me what you learned!


Since the dawn of man, we have concerned ourselves with one goal: to understand the world around us. This accounts for our insatiable wanderlust, our drive to explore and discover. When man first came to be, his means to this end was simple: to look inside himself and find reality reflected from within. This introspection took the form of spiritual beliefs. It was not in faith or dogma, however, that spirituality was manifest. It was through direct experience with the divine. Throughout history, many techniques have been devised to change man’s state of consciousness and let him experience oneness with creation outside of his waking ego, but none were as effective as entheogens. Their importance in shaping ancient religious and philosophical thought cannot be overstated.

It is important to first define the concept of an entheogen. It is derived from the Greek word enthousiasmo, which means “the god within one”.[1] In essence, an entheogen is an organism that, once ingested, causes the observer to experience the sensation that divine knowledge is being generated within himself. An entheogenic experience is most often characterized by ecstasy, a sense of unity and oneness with all creation, and a timelessness that results in the full impact and memory of the experience never leaving the observer.[2] In ancient times, these substances would have occurred naturally in plants, animals, or fungi, and required little to no preparation to activate.

This investigation into the influence of entheogens begins with an examination of the Rig Veda, perhaps the oldest existing Indo-European document. It is a collection of hymns written between 1800 and 900 B.C. that discuss and reflect the teachings of early Hinduism, referred to here as the Vedic religion. It was an important religious text, and it is perhaps more to this day, because it is one of the first documents to establish the concept of ritualistic use of entheogens. This concept was named soma.

It is important to note that much confusion still exists about the concept of soma. The word is used in the Rig Veda, related texts, as well as by Greek and Egyptian authors, to refer to a variety of things. It can refer to a plant, a beverage, a ceremony, or a god. When referring to a beverage, it can refer to something that one drank when thirsty, when wanting a bit of energy, or when one wanted to commune with the gods, suggesting that its psychoactivity varied. What’s more, knowledge of soma belonged only to the priestesses, and so while anyone could partake, it was only through a holy woman. It is largely through the allusions and eyewitness accounts of initiates, as well as careful analysis of other holy documents, that ethnobotanists and historians can approach identifying soma.

We can date the emergence of soma as an important religious concept to around 3000 B.C. by looking at references found in the Rig Veda to a text already written at the time called the Madhu Brahmana that first makes mention of soma.[3] It is from around this time until the Rig Veda was finished that we find soma being refined as a potent religious tool.

The importance and impact of soma can be attributed to two aspects of the experience: the ritual and the chemical. The ritual aspect was designed not only to worship the gods, but also to provide a basis for interpreting and appreciating altered sensory perceptions. All believers could attend these rituals and partake of the soma beverage. It closely resembled many ceremonies found in present-day religions, including Holy Communion in the Christian Church. (This is found not only with the idea of a golden chalice that may have started myths about the Holy Grail, but from the Vedic religion being the first to deify water and use it in ceremonies.)[4] The ceremony was designed to celebrate the greatness of creation and man’s oneness with it. The gods specifically invoked by the ceremony included Soma, the god who imparted knowledge and inspiration to mortals via a huge pillar of light; Indra, god of creation, who created the cosmos while under divine soma inebriation; and the twin Asvins, healers of the gods, keeper of the secret of the divinity of soma.

It was these twins, who rode in a chariot pulled by horses that traveled at the speed of thought, gathered the soma from its container, the moon, imbued it with power derived from the flowers that surrounded and represented them, and brought it in a golden chalice to the gods to drink, thereby assuring their collective immortality.[5] They represented the dual nature of reality: fire and water, day and night, birth and death. They were born of the river, and were always found together. The description of their physical appearance gives historians many clues to what the sacred soma plant’s identity may be.[6]

In studying soma as an entheogen, it would be very useful to know the identity of the plants involved. We start this process by looking at the purported effects of drinking soma. According to many of the writers of the Rig Veda, it seemed to have medicinal properties. This can be inferred from the fact that the gods drank it to remain immortal, as well as specific claims that it increased longevity and virility and cured ailments as diverse as vision problems, menstrual issues, and muscle aches. It was even claimed that it imbued users with special abilities, such as the ability to walk on water, to regenerate lost limbs, and to raise the dead.[7] It is thought that the inspiration for some of Jesus’ legendary acts came from accounts found in the Rig Veda, including the Asvins’ act of transubstantiation, turning the inert soma beverage into something divinely inspired.[8]

Additionally, components of soma must have some level of psychoactivity. Soma was known to be consumed as a beverage outside of a ritualistic setting, suggesting that the “base” for soma could be used for different purposes by altering its potency. This also points towards what is known as “elixir theory”, the idea that it was not just one plant that resulted in the soma achieving full potency, but a combination of them.[9] In the Vedic culture, alcohol consumption was frowned upon. Nevertheless, when soma was concerned, this rule was allowed to be leniently interpreted; one method of preparing a very strong batch of soma involved a degree of fermentation, though it is thought that it was done solely to release more active chemicals from the plants. [10]

Historians looking at all of these factors have come to two conclusions. In the 1960s, many historians were under the impression that the main psychoactive component of soma was a mushroom called Amanita muscaria, also known as “fly-agaric”. They point to the fact that it was grew prolifically, found use in other cultures as an entheogen, and that certain language in the Rig Veda seems to allude to its general shape and red and white coloration.[11] However, in the past ten years a new theory has been developed that the entheogenic component of soma consisted of two plants: those of the genus Nymphaea, a type of lily, and Nulumbo, a species of lotus.

All the evidence that points towards the fly-agaric can also be interpreted to support these two flowers, plus more claims that are of religious import. Almost all the health benefits attributed to soma can be produced by the flower combination.[12] The fact that they grow from the water points to the Vedic creation myth that all life rose from the rivers. Using two flowers to explain soma fits in perfectly with elixir theory. Most importantly, though, the psychological effects seem to perfectly match the accounts of the Rig Veda. Modern historians have consumed the three organisms in question, both independently and in various combinations, and have shown that the feelings of ecstasy and unity, as well as out of body sensations, are most strongly related to the water-dwelling flowers.[13]

Particularly worthy of note are the visual distortions associated with consuming the flowers together. Light-like phenomena, including seeing people as possessing columns of light, are often reported while under their influence. It was believed by followers of the Vedic religion that located at the place where man first learned of soma from the gods is an endless pillar of light that connects the earth to the heavens. It is this light that also dwells within is, making up the spark that infuses all life on earth. The soma plants were thought to soak up and store especially large amounts of this “light of life”, and by consuming them, the light they contained joined with the light within man, releasing it into the heavens. It was thought that this freeing of divine energy resulted in a permanent connection to the greatest source of light: the gods in the heavens. Once experienced, a permanent connection to the gods was established, which resulted in achieving the promise of eternal life while still in an earthly body.[14] This is the first time the concept of a person being granted immortality, which arises repeatedly later in time, has been used in our history.

As the prominence and popularity of the soma ceremonies increased, so did the dissemination of information about it. The next people to use Nymphaea and Nulumbo were the Egyptians. It was during the mid 1500s that the Egyptians, after having shaken off the Hysoks, started to expand their empire, and this included expanding trade. This is likely the time during which the two soma flowers were brought to Egypt. The Egyptians were known for importing plants to be used in their culture--”The two most sacred Egyptian plants, the papyrus and water lily, were not indigenous to Egypt”[15]-- and the Nymphaea and Nulumbo, with their healing powers, nutrition, and entheogenic potential, not to mention their awesome beauty and aquatic habitat, surely drew the Nile-worshiping Egyptians’ attention. In the Ebers Papyrus, written in the 1550s B.C., mention is made of both flowers. They are classified as “poisonous”, but many plants that were used in religion and medicine were labeled as such, which seems to imply Egyptians had just started to discover the potential of the plants.[16]

While not much is known about exactly how the Egyptians used entheogens in their ceremonies, it is thought that they were primarily used in worship of Osiris. Legend has it that Osiris was killed in a struggle with his evil brother, his body was chopped into pieces, and he was thrown into the Nile. Isis, Osiris’s wife, Goddess of motherhood and fertility, reassembled him and raised him from the dead. Osiris, while always important--especially when he took on the role of “judge of the dead”[17]--was celebrated nationwide in the spring. Here we see the contrasts of good and evil, life and death, coming together in the story of one god. Most importantly, we see the theme of resurrection and eternal life, which most strongly ties these ceremonies to the soma ceremonies of India. It is not difficult to see how the soma plants would fit into the Egyptian religion.

For the next several hundred years, Egypt continues to thrive as an empire. Eventually, however, it was made part of the Persian Empire along with western India, and it is during this time that we find even more contact between these two regions. It is also during this time that we start to see the rise of Greece, and contact between Greece and Egypt. (Indian culture is also still prominently found in Egypt, as in 500 B.C. there was an Indian colony inside Egypt proper.)

As the Greeks entered the Archaic Age, we start to find their documentation of entheogen use. A fragment of a poem written by Alcman that was found in Sparta, dating to 650 B.C., tells of a drink made of a sacred plant that draws many parallels to the Vedic concept of soma: it is prepared by women, consumed from a golden chalice, is associated with fire and water, and is thought to be linked to the idea of ambrosia, which is linked to the Vedic soma by the mythology of the moon filling with an elixir that grants the gods immortality.[18] Around 600 B.C., Pherekydes of Syros, Pythagorus’s teacher, has contact with India and first start using the term ambrosia to refer to the concept of an immortality elixir.[19]

It is between 580 and 490 B.C. that Pythagorus first starts to take the reigns of the intellectual revolution that is about to occur in the Classical Age of Greece. He teaches that the secrets of the universe can be learned by trying to recognize the patterns that are found in all creation, and that math and music most clearly reflected these patterns. This was a departure from previous Greek religious beliefs. “These early Greek philosophers may have eliminated the role of the gods as they were portrayed in Greek myths, but they did not eliminate divinity itself from the world, tending instead to identify it with the underlying, unchanging forces that govern the universe.”[20]

Ostanes, a direct pupil of Zoroaster, took the next step. Around 500 B.C., he started to explicitly teach Vedic magic and alchemy to Greek thinkers, and this included making soma plants known to them as well. He said that Egypt is “superior to all others on account of its wisdom and knowledge. The people of Egypt as well as those of the rest of the world, however, have need of the inhabitants of Persia and cannot succeed in any of their works without the aid that they draw from this country,”[21] thereby making the connection between India (part of the Persian empire at the time), Egypt, and Greece clear.

Between 460 and 370 B.C., we find Demokritos. He was an ascetic and a student of Ostanes, and he is credited with inventing atom theory, which was responsible for strongly influencing Greek thought. However, records from India show that they had developed a nearly identical theory before the year 500. Demokritos is known to have spent a great deal of time with Vedic ascetics, and it is through this interaction, along with his Vedic-taught teacher, that we can trace his atomic theory. [22]

With Plato, during the years from 429 to 347, we start to see materialized what will be quite an impasse for Greek philosophers: the idea of a dualistic reality. More and more, Greek thinkers were of the mindset that the world around them was completely separate from the world of man. It was due to this dualistic nature of inquiry that they could accomplish such leaps in scientific theory. However, it resulted in a strained relationship with religion. If natural phenomena were based on unchanging laws, not the demeanor of the gods, then what hope did they have for a better future, or an afterlife?

To the rescue came the mystery religions. As stated in Spielvogel, through mystery religions “individuals could pursue a path to salvation and achieve eternal life by being initiated into a union with a savior god or goddess.”[23] This union could be attained by anyone who could attend a secret ceremony, after which they were considered initiates and could enjoy all the benefits of being a member of the cult, including eternal life. It allowed for that emotional attachment that had gone missing from mainstream Greek religion. These cults were gaining popularity not just in Greece but in Egypt as well.[24] Clearly, there was a need for a more genuine connection with the gods, not one solely of servitude.

Of particular interest were the Eleusinian Mysteries. The myth behind the cult goes as follows: Hades, at Zeus’ behest, abducts Persephone, daughter of Demeter and Zeus. When Demeter hears word of this, she leaves Olympus in disgust and wanders the earth in human form, eventually being taken in by the ruler of Eleusis. Demeter rewarded their good nature by revealing herself to them and building a temple in her name. In order to punish the gods, she killed all the crops. The threat of not receiving the prayers of humanity forced Zeus to recall Persephone, but not without striking a bargain with Hades that she would have to return for a third of every year. This myth is intended to explain the growing seasons: no crops can grow in the winter, when Persephone is in Hades. This brought about great popularity for the cult when, in 760 B.C., the Oracle of Delphi told all Greek citizens to sacrifice to “Demeter of Eleusis” in order to banish a devastating famine.[25]

Though the myth seems straightforward, the Mysteries were indeed quite mysterious. Not only were specific details of the ceremonies kept hidden from initiates, like in India, but Eleusinian cultists were sworn to secrecy, not to tell anyone of what occurred inside the telesterion, the dark building in which the Greater Mysteries took place. In fact, to reveal the secrets of the cult was punishable by anything up to and including death. “When Alkibiades…dared to imitate acts of the celebration [at Eleusis], he was condemned in absentia, his property was confiscated, all the priests and priestesses of the state were called upon to pronounce curses upon him.”[26]

The so-called Lesser Mysteries were well documented, as they occurred for thirteen days before the sacred ceremony, and were conducted in public. There was parading in the streets, and much drinking and singing in celebration of the bountiful crop. The fourteenth day, however, was more somber. It started in a slow procession, led by the Eleusinian priestesses, which ended in entering the telesterion.[27] While little is known of what actually occurred inside the building, accounts from the newly initiated are well documented. All seemed to exit the experience permanently changed. The secrets of the universe were made known, and they had every assurance that they had been granted eternal life.

There is one detail of the Greater Mysteries that cannot be ignored, however. It is the presence of the kykeon. It was known in common parlance as a refreshing beverage made of barley and mint, considered by some to be a peasant’s drink. However, when given to an initiate by an Eleusinian priestess, it caused a powerful entheogenic reaction, much as soma only intensely affected the consumer when taken in a ritualized setting. Most historians think that contained in this special kykeon was ergot, the secretion of the crop fungus Claviceps purpurea. It infected grains of all sort, including barley, and worked by parasitizing the plant, replacing some of its fruiting body with ergot, the mycellial offshoot of the fungus.[28] This makes sense: when celebrating the crops and finding something odd that gives you paranormal abilities and ecstatic revelations, what Greek wouldn't think of this as the wonders of Demeter? Ergot produces a chemical called lysergic acid, which is the biological component of LSD. As such, the perceptual shift and change in consciousness that they imparted the consumer would have been incredibly dramatic. Unfortunately, due to the pact of silence that all the initiates signed into when undergoing the Mysteries, there are few eyewitness accounts of the experience that do not speak of them in vague, ecstatic praises.

However, changes in the beliefs of Plato, a known Eleusinian initiate, may shed some light on the matter, so to speak.[29] After his initiation, he begins to develop his thesis that the world of matter that surrounds us is not real. Instead, on a different plane of reality there exists the “true” form of every material object, represented in light energy. He believed that the best way to gain true knowledge was to try to look past the illusion of material existence and try to experience these “light bodies”.[30] This is a very Grecian approach to the concept of unity and oneness with reality; instead of acknowledging that we are one with everything, Plato says that we are being deluded into thinking that we cannot be one with everything, and he uses the concept of the lowest common denominator of light (life) energy as a means to the end of the unification of man and the universe.

For many hundreds of years, the Mysteries remained incredibly popular as way for Greeks to achieve the promise of eternal life. With the rise of the Roman Empire, we find Mystery cults from every major religion being practiced. There is no doubt that the popularity of these religions, all stemming from Vedic teachings, led directly to the rise of Christianity. The obvious comparisons--resurrection/rebirth, unity with the divine, life after death--are present. However, there is also ample evidence that Jesus himself not only partook of entheogens but also spread them to his disciples. Many of the Gnostic teachings that were not entered into the official version of the Christian Bible spoke of the process of anointing with oil being superior to baptism by water, and the oil they describe, when reproduced in our time, has been shown to have an extremely high level of THC, as well as other powerful psychoactives.[31] The term “Christ” itself means “anointed one”, and the term anointed, in ancient times, implied the use of oil. It was by anointing others, not baptizing them, that Jesus not only made them Christ-like, but Christs themselves, capable of anointing others in the same way Jesus did. There is also evidence that The Last Supper actually consisted of wine fortified with such potent psychoactive drugs as henbane and cannabis, and the “bread” was Amanita muscaria, one of the alleged soma plants of India, called teonanacatl, or “flesh of God”, by tribal Aztecs to this day.[32] Clearly, religious practitioners of all sorts could derive meaning from entheogenic experiences.

It was with the popularization of Christianity that entheogens fell from favor, eventually becoming demonized. As priests, bishops, and popes became more important, there were further barriers between god and man. They outlawed the use of entheogens because it allowed followers of the faith some control over their own souls. Those in charge of the church wanted the only way to communicate directly to god to be through them. Only through monasticism could one hope to attain a powerful personal relationship with god, but this required a complete change of lifestyle, and was considered unrealistic to most. Christian missionaries systematically wiped out religions that used substances to alter consciousness, almost out of some sense of jealousy. During the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a member of the invading force of holy men had this to say: “The orthodox Christian must accept on faith the miracle of the conversion of the bread and wine into God’s flesh and blood: that is what is meant by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. By contrast the sacred mushroom of the Aztecs [called “flesh of god”] carries its own conviction: every communicant will testify to the miracle he has experienced.”[33]

The fear of altered states of consciousness that started to develop as a result of policies in the church has been linked to the Salem witch trials. There had come to be a regular occurrence in some cities, especially in France, known as “St. Anthony’s Fire”, in which a whole town would succumb to debilitating psychological and somatic effects. They would have painful sensations of heat in their limbs (the sensation of “fire”), their hearts would race, and sensory perceptions that ranged from distracting to incredibly disturbing would flash before their eyes. This has been linked to an outbreak of ergot in a town’s grain supply.[34] It is also thought that the concept of “witches amongst us” in general, and the Salem witch trials in specific, could be linked to the accused accidentally ingesting ergot and behaving abnormally.[35] It has even been suggested that a sort of generalized state of ergot poisoning ensued, which resulted in some simply becoming paranoid and delusional, while those who were especially susceptible to the toxins started acting noticeably strange, causing the first group, in their hallucinatory haze, to come to the conclusion that the others were witches. All of these effects took place due to the same substance found at the Eleusinian mysteries, which points to the importance of ritual when dealing with entheogens.

It cannot be emphasized enough how much Greek philosophy and Christian theology has affected the modern world. It is almost impossible to separate any function of society from these influences. It seems, though, that many of the values we hold near and dear to our hearts today were developed by the thinkers of old intentionally altering their own states of consciousness in order to peer past the trappings of the normal. If we can admit to ourselves that we have learned anything from these great minds, then we must admit to ourselves that the tools they used are effective in discovering these lessons. This is not to suggest that any of the abuses of so-called “psychedelics” today is justifiably. It is, however, a call to inquiry. It has been shown here that these substances, when used properly, can greatly enhance humankind. Let us not deny ourselves these potent tools of self-discovery. The results of ignoring these pleas is a society-wide stagnation, of losing track of the things that truly matter--that have always mattered. Let us not doom ourselves to repeat history. Let us learn from it.



[1] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen,  8

[2] Shulgin, TiHKAL 120

[3] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen, 4

[4] Ibid, 44

[5] Ibid, 55

[6] Ibid, 90

[7] Ibid, 23

[8] Ibid, 107

[9] Ibid,  80

[10] Ibid, 102

[11] Metzner,  Sacred Mushroom of Visions Teonanacatl, 97

[13] Smith, Cleansing the Doors of Perception, 55

[14] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen,  96

[15] Ibid 29

[16] Ibid 28

[17] Spielvogel, Western Civilization 21

[18] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen,  88-89

[19] Ibid 89

[20] Spielvogel, Western Civilization pg 80

[21] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen,  78

[22] Spess, Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen,  79

[23] Spielvogel, Western Civilization 109

[24] Ibid 110

[25] Forte, Entheogens and the Future of Religion, 31

[26] Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries 224

[27] Forte, Entheogens and the Future of Religion 33

[29] This was a source of controvery at the time. Plato never explicitly said that he learned these truths at Eleusis, and so he was not technically in violation of the pact of silence. The Eleusinian priestesses, however, knew exactly what he was doing, but they could not accuse him, as to do so publicly would act to reveal the Mysteries, and then they would be guilty, not Plato

[30] Rachels and Rachels, The Truth About The World, 35

[32] Ibid

[33] Forte, Entheogens and the Future of Religion 99

[35] www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=2165

 

Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, The. Marijuana and the Bible.  Beacon Press, 1988

 

Forte, Robert. Entheogens and the Future of Religion. San Francisco: The Council on Spiritual Practices, 1997

 

Grof, Stanislav. The Adventures of Self-Discovery.  Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988

 

Metzner, Ralph. Sacred Mushroom of Visions Teonanacatl.  Rochester: Park Street Press, 2004

 

Mylonas, G. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961

 

Plotkin, Mark.  Tales of a Shaman’s Apprentice.  New York: Penguin Books, 1994

 

Rachels, James and Stuart.  The Truth About The World.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005

 

Smith, Huston. Cleansing The Doors Of Perception. Boulder: First Sentient Publications 2003

 

Spess, David L.  Soma: The Divine Hallucinogen.  Rochester: Park Street Press, 2000

 

Spielvogel, Jackson J.  Western Civilization.  Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009

 

Wasson, R. Gordon. The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of The Mysteries. Berkley: The R. Gordon Wasson Estate, 2008

 

Erowid Ergot Vault : Timeline, located at http://www.erowid.org/plants/ergot/ergot_timeline.php, The Vaults of Erowid, Accessed April 1, 2009

 

Ask Erowid, located at www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=2165, The Vaults of Erowid, Accessed April 1, 2009

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Hookah homophobe revelation, Pt1

Yesterday I got the urge to get out of the house and relax somewhere. I’d been working hard at school and exercise all week, I’d just taken three tests in two days, and I felt I deserved a break. I decided to go to a local establishment that a lot of college students and otherwise interesting people hang out. I’d only been there once before, and so I didn’t really know the customs and expectations associated with it, but I thought I’d set up my computer, kick back, put in some headphones and get caught up on some music listening and some emailing. Alas, when I got there, there was no internet to be found. I couldn’t get a signal for the life of me, and while I initially lamented, I decided I would still take advantage of this time.

So I decided I would get some typing and some listening done. And I'm realizing I'm surrounded by smart, interesting people. Two guys were having a conversation, and the first line of it that I heard was a, "Did you just make a sexist and a homophobic comment?" The guy responded, "…dude, I'm not homophobic." How refreshing! …and how terribly, terribly interesting. Why was it more acceptable to be sexist instead of homophobic? Sexism seems to be an issue that people don't think is an issue anymore. We are not in "post-sexist America" right now. Sexism is here to stay, since women are actually so different. But this is just what's highlighted by popular culture (media): a cherry-picked version of all the evidence that's at hand.

Now I can't claim to have examined all of the relevant scientific data. I don't even claim to have a fair knowledge of any degree of breadth or depth; A lot of what I have to go on, I'll admit, has probably been cherry picked pretty well. One would say that I have not achieved "sufficient evidence" yet. I should still remain skeptical. It could easily be that the illusion of gender differences is, itself, an illusion. What's more, the little evidence I've managed to acquire in my experience doesn't even share the same method of information. I've got 3rd person observation; various percentages and graphs from different magazines; a number of empirical studies on the matter that seem to "tell it like it is", basing it on the concept of whether the hypothesis matched the data, and how well is "well enough"; and what various talking heads have to say. But the most important experience I have is my own first-hand experience. And why is that? Definitely a question for a more philosophical mind state. But I know that it has more impact than any of this other evidence, and that's even acknowledging the fallibility of a singular perspective.

Grey would say that wisdom is to have more than just that singular perspective. He said that it's like being in a maze and being able to zoom up above it and use that information to make the labrynthesque journey of life that much easier. He said it's to come closer to the ultimate objectivity that is the eye of god; unmoving, ever-conscious, and always observing. And so I like to think of myself as wise in that regard, in that if I haven't come close, I've at least tried to achieve higher perceptual ground. It's been my goal, even if I haven't made much progress.

Aristotle was quoted as saying, "All I know is that I know nothing." I'm tempted to apply this adage to the situation at hand, but only before clarifying that claim as I've been taught to. Because [that woman] says that what he really meant was, "I do not claim to know things that I do not know." I think in this case, it could even be appropriate to go so far as to say, "…that I cannot know." Because in reality, I know that I cannot know the truest version of another's perspective. 

So does this apply to say, "These thoughts about gender differences are immoral beliefs because you know you cannot know, and yet you claim to know anyway"? I don't think so. I think this is where the matter of degree comes in. I do have experience, and I do feel that it is in at least some small, flawed way a description of "how it really is." This is why I do not dogmatically claim to know the truth about gender issues and to disbelieve any evidence to the contrary. For instance, I acknowledge, now more than ever due to what I've been learning in human sexuality, that the effects of hormones are very real, and that they can be generalized to an extent. (This is to approach a clinical take on the situation--"This individual is ab/normal because hir scores and tests fall within this range"--but this is where my interest and education in biochemistry fills in scientific evidence--perhaps some of the most sufficient evidence.) 

But, for instance, a recent example from my recent life applies directly to this: I read in a magazine that drinking cold liquids while eating is bad for digestion, because it dilutes digestive juices, making the stomach produce more HCl; After digestion, the level is still high, contributing to stomach problems. What assumptions are being made here? Here's my best guess: "My audience is mostly people who have read this magazine, and my advice in it, and if they're going to heed my advice now, they've probably done it before. This means they've been eating their veggies, exercising, and especially drinking 64oz of water every day and chewing their food 500 times." What does this mean? The people taking this woman's advice had better know the context of her claim.

I didn't think all of this at first. I took her claim at face value, and decided to apply to it the scientific method, if only (and especially) for my own personal gain. What I found seemed to be inconclusive, if not possessing a negative correlation. When I ate without drinking, I would feel fuller, but not in a satisfied way. It seemed to me that her advice wasn't working for me.

Some would say, "Of course not!" and I almost wish I held their convictions that highly. Ignorance can sometimes be bliss. But in this case, the conviction being held is that "everybody's bodies respond differently to different experiences, treatments, and stimuli." This is another claim I can back up with personal and scientific evidence. I really want to believe that this is true, but the ramifications are great. It would imply that maybe the whole field of medical science is off-base, and that seeing my GP again would be like entering the shaman's hut to have some ritual bleeding done. I like to believe that the answers to my problems are close at hand, just a phone call away. To suggest that my body could be completely different from the "ideal average" that pharmaceutical companies operate off of is scary. It means there's much more I have to know, much more to learn. 

But I like learning, and so this desire, combined with my reasons for skepticism, colored my experimentation. So who knows if science lady is right or not, especially seeing as she didn't provide any numerical data? I certainly don't. It seems possible, even likely, that she's wrong, except for the fact that I do take great comfort of being able to call a doctor when something bad happens and he'll make it all go away. Poof. And so wouldn't this make me prone to believing a supposed professional? My interpersonal communications class would suggest that the positivity bias would also play into this equation, making me believe that the nice lady would never intentionally mislead her readers.

At the same time, how do scientists figure out correlations? They probably take a sample of people with no confounding variables. This means relatively healthy people. I do not believe that this is a representative sample of the American population. I think most impartial statisticians agree that it is perhaps the majority of American citizens that have something "wrong" with them, whether it be their weight, their hearts, their reproductive organs, their brains… I think this disconnection with the actual population being studied--us-- runs as deep as the researchers themselves. Imagine how much further the reality of the situation is distorted through the fuzzy connections and conduits of mass media, word of mouth, and various political and religious institutions. By the time the crux of the matter gets to our ears, it's merely a dim shadow of truth, flickering like a star's light shooting untold miles through space and atmosphere. 

So what does this all mean? That's always the core of the matter: okay, I believe so, so what do I do from here? You've read this, so that's a start. The next act is to try to live for the pursuit of wisdom, an altered perspective, a strive for sufficient evidence, a bountiful heap of skepticism. But this does not mean inaction. Skepticism is never an excuse for inaction. In fact, it's almost a rallying cry. So maybe lady is only conveying a very specific version of the truth, but it's got that glimmering point of truth to it. The next step is to establish what level of authority to grant this lady. She may be good enough to be printed, but does she have formal education in the matter? an ulterior motive? faulty information? How accurate and scientific is this magazine? Is this an issue I already feel strongly about (this statement goes on the assumption that my audience already believes in and adheres to some level of Clifford's idea of the morality of sufficient evidence, even if they don't know it by name)? All of this, I feel, ought to balance out to the point that I've come to. "There's only one way to find out for certain if this advice is applicable to my life: Test that ish out. Not only that, but get the opinion of others: namely acquaintances and medical professionals."

One also needs to keep in mind what the goal of this investigation is. It is not to prove that lady is right or wrong. It is only to prove whether or not that set of advice applies to your life. This is not the endpoint, however. Even after personal knowledge has been established, the goal should cycle back to unanswered questions found in the earlier process of skepticism: how reputable is this magazine? this author? Is this knowledge universal, or personal? In short, what is that glimmer of truth? Just because it shines on me, doesn't mean everybody feels it the same way. (Circle back to the fallibility of a singular perspective.) The goal, in essence, becomes the quest for truth and knowledge through the active act of wisdom. 

So what did I end up finding? I determined that my body is still adjusting--to a new climate, a new sleep schedule, a new medication, a new exercise routine--and that these adjustments all relate to my level of hydration, which I have learned over the years (through the aforementioned process) is very important to my body. It's why I always preach to drink water whenever anything is wrong with someone. It's a belief that I've held to such a standard of sufficient evidence that I feel comfortable--even moral--recommending this faith to others. And even in this act of proselytizing for the church of biochemistry, I listen to those who say, "You know, I always thought that, but I actually function better when I'm slightly dehydrated." It's these people that really catch my attention, because they seem to know more about the matter for two apparent reasons: their conviction when expressing their belief seems to be based on some level of sufficient evidence, and the relative lack of people who strongly disbelieve the correlation between hydration and health. In a world with no zealotry, the agnostic becomes the outlier. 

So, really though, what did I end up finding? Besides more questions? I found lady's advice doesn't apply to me at this period in my life. That's the only thing I know for certain. It's a certainty that isn't dogmatic. It's almost too idealistic. It's skeptical certainty. 

"Philosophy is not something that only applies when thinking about philosophy. Knowledge is power always." 

P.S. Part two is explaining why I believe what I do about sexuality and gender, and why I feel comfortable in the moral nature of the act of expressing these beliefs in this way to you, the reader.  


Monday, February 2, 2009

Yes, the language barrier. No, not that one.

Hello and welcome again! For those of you who are returning readers, thanks for your continued interest! Let me know you're here by joining in the discussion. For those of you new to the blog, welcome welcome welcome! Feel free to make your voices heard in whatever capacity you feel is appropriate!

I'm going to take a step away from the topic at hand and back from the viewpoint currently in effect to take a look at language. I feel this topic is pertinent for two reasons: not only is language just about the most variable part of our society, constantly shifting and redefining itself, but it's also the heart of the discussion of bi-ness, seeing as one of the biggest obstacles between humans and absolute fluidity is the words we use to describe it. Or, to put it more succinctly, I am just as interested in studying language as I am in studying bi-ness, and the two walk hand-in-hand, intermingled alongside humanity.

I was given a book by someone who knows me very well entitled "The Evolution of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind". It's an awfully thick read, and I was only able to get through the first conclusion the author made before I had to set it down and massage my temples for, oh, say, four months or so. The other day I picked it up and paged through what I'd already covered, and was reminded of exactly why I set the book down in the first place: for the time being, the lessons it taught me have almost intentionally sought to pervade every last action and interaction I take part in.

Enough suspense-building. The author's message, laymanized as much as possible, is this: True human consciousness didn't exist until the invention of language. (In this case, the term "language" is defined as "communication through abstract symbolism", as in, for example, that the shape of each letter of every human language is inherently meaningless were it not for our interpretation and dissemination of their meanings.) His assertion was spelled out and proven in a very convincing way, being presented through the lens of biochemistry, psychology, sociology, linguistics...it was a very broad scope. So, before humans were able to communicate, they weren't truly "human", but instead just quite intelligent animals.

Of course, all sorts of arguments spring up when the matter is discussed so simplistically, seeing as the question of "What is human?" has been around since humanity could ask it. For the time being, please trust me when I say that my critical mind was convinced of the author's claims with a minimum of skepticism. If it makes you feel better, let's at least agree on the idea that "Language is of the utmost importance to defining, furthering, and bettering humanity as we have come to know it."

Why is this, though? Well, we need to look at how we define humanity. Humanity implies dealing with all humans everywhere, and so to understand it is to understand what is the most basic level of commonality between humans. Humanity involves some level of society. Society is just a series of complex interactions between two or more people. People have an inherent desire to understand the world around them, and one of the most potent methods of accomplishing this is to tap into the perceptions of others. People perceive the world through their senses. It is their language that allows them to express their perceptions. This language is only effective if it is learned and shared with others.

Let's work from the bottom up. To understand the inner workings of another's mind fully is impossible, for to do so would be to empathize 100%, and this would result in a loss of self. Now, this is not to invalidate empathy; Quite the contrary, it is to emphasize just how important a tool it is in human interaction. (It is certainly possible to empathize with anyone to some extent, but this is only once they use the tool of language to express just what emotions they are feeling that can be empathized with. However, I digress, and will discuss this in my next blog.) However, the actual processing of thoughts, the catacombs and recesses that must be traversed in one's own mind to come to a conclusion that can be expressed with any accuracy using language, are often veiled even to ourselves. For example, take a look at inspiration. If any of you dear readers have ever felt a sudden bolt of realization, a fresh new thought, fully formed, that had never occurred to you before and seems to have no path that can be backtracked through your mind, you know what I mean when I say "inspiration". True inspiration cannot be manufactured; Conditions can be changed so that inspiration is more likely to make itself known, or so that you can latch onto it for long enough to bring it to the front of your mind and duly note it, but to arduously come to an inspirational conclusion is not true inspiration at all. It is inspirational, at best, in the same way a motivational speaker can be.

This is where language steps in. I just said that it's impossible to fully empathize with another's thought processes because it would result in a total loss of self. This reason is secondary to the fact that most of us don't truly know how we come to our own thoughts, inspirational or otherwise. It is some combination of perceptions of the world around us, viewed through past experience and seasoned with personality, that ultimately forms a conscious thought. Through these already muddied details we can glean only a fraction of the reality of our mind, which is muddied still by the fallibility of language. And then the thought is expressed, and it hits our listener's ear, and the process begins anew. And what is that last step before speech? In our mind, we put the words together, we rehearse them in our inner ear (so to speak), and once the proper vocabulary and syntax are present, we let our mouth finish.

But what about the steps previous, the ones that lead to that conclusory act of speech? This is the no-man's land I've just been discussing, but I'd like to make a guess as to its nature. I wager that this space is filled with language as well.

To make this all a bit more palatable, I'll use an example from my childhood. Every child is at some point taught a superstitious tradition about driving through a tunnel. Maybe the passengers need to hold the roof up with their hands, or hold their breath for the duration of the tunnel, perhaps while touching some piece of metal, and at some point a silent wish is involved. I was always taught to hold my breath and wish. However, I changed the rules a bit. I figured that it wouldn't be fair to simply hold your breath under every bridge and overpass...hell, even an overhead stoplight would suffice if the strictest definition of the word "tunnel" were used (there we go again with the variability of language!) Plus, living in the suburbs of Minneapolis meant that there was only one tunnel I encountered on even a semi-regular basis--the somewhat lengthy one on 94E going into Minneapolis--and when I was young it was often a painful struggle to get my wish granted. I thought, it's not fair to deny someone hir wish just because hir lung capacity wasn't big enough. So, I came to the fairest conclusion I could: The wish only counted if one could have feasibly said the wish aloud while still under the tunnel. This ruled out all the "fake" tunnels and bridges one would pass under going 50+ miles per hour, thereby making the "real" tunnels more important to wish on. Further yet, I felt that the longer the tunnel, the greater the feat of breath-holding, and therefore the more potent the wish should be. However, a wish is a wish, isn't it? They're all created equal. So long as one follows the wishing ritual, it floats off into the aether to be granted. But what if one wants to wish for only one thing? Would wishing for it twice cancel it out? Would it anger the wish gods? No, I reasoned, because not all wishes come true. There must be something that makes a wish more or less likely to come true, and I reasoned it was the tenacity of the wisher. Therefore, the more times something is wished for, the more likely it is to catch the wish-granter's ear and come true.

So what was the end result of all this childish logic? "The longer a bridge, the longer I have to hold my breath, and the more opportunities I have to make my wish, but it can only be as many opportunities as I would have if I said the wish aloud." Try conceptualizing it for a second: Think the same sentence in your head over and over, as fast as you can...or, perhaps more accurately, picture yourself saying your wish aloud as fast as your lips can move. "I wish I had a pony I wish I had a pony I wish I hadaponyIwishihadaponyiwishadapony..." There reaches a point where you're "cheating", where all the syllables mash together and are no longer a wish that the wish gods can understand. Now, try conceptualizing it differently. Try imagining that you have a recording of your voice saying the wish, and every time you press a big red button in front of you, the wish is made. Now press it as fast as you can. Can you hear in your head the sentence piling on top of itself? I would wager that as you first start to pick up speed, you can. "I wish I had I wish a pony had I wish I pony had a pony a pony." However, again, soon it gets to a point of muddled confusion, and the true meaning of the wish is lost. There are plenty of other conceptual ways to maximize your silent wishes, but again I say that there is a finite maximum, even if that number is the total time spent inside the tunnel divided by the time it takes a single neuron to fire. Of course, for this to be true, one would have to break down the concept of making a wish into less than most thoughts actually take, a feat that is difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish, much less describe or experience. This is to say, it is an experience that falls outside the boundaries of language...except for the sentence I just wrote, that being the equation "# of Wishes=Time(Tunnel)/Time(Firing neuron)".

I feel that the previous is a fine metaphor for just what I was trying to explain. After reading this, would you agree with me that the line where language ends and cognition begins is very fine indeed? And would you also agree that anything beyond that line is incomprehensible to people, even the person thinking the thoughts? If it helps to be less silly and more concrete, think of it like a ticking clock. Whether it is wound by hand, run by a quartz crystal, or ruled by an atom in Boulder, to the viewer the inner goings-on matter a great deal...but the only part that is perceived, and therefore truly matters, is the ticking of the second hand. Each tick is a thought, a mental sentence, that leads into the next tick of a thought, and the space between is filled by incomprehensible grindings and machinations. And if that hand stops ticking, all the background whirring is for naught. In the same way, stop that whirring and the ticking will follow suit. And further, the only way to tell that the insides whir on is by the ticking. So, the ticking is the language that reflects the processing of the stimuli we take in...that stimuli being the laws of motion and physics that rule over the clock's inner workings.

Whew...long-winded, eh? I'll rest for now, as I consider just how wishes and clocks actually do build up language and humanity. Of course, any hints to this topic would be lovely...so feel free to chime in!