The Secret Beneath "the Secret"

The message in the bestselling book/movie The Secret is that in thinking about the future it pays to stay positive. This involves not only visualizing a bright future, but also seeing whatever there is in the present in a positive light. An underlying principle is that what is held in one's unconscious will manifest itself in reality at some point.

Basically it involves making the right choice of looking at a glass as either half full or half empty. One observer looking at a glass with 50 percent liquid in it will say "Too bad, I only have half of it left--I miss the time when it was full," the other, who knows "the Secret" will say "Great, I already have half of the glass filled." The one with the stance of the glass being half full will be at an emotional advantage simply because a positive outlook is more energizing, making it easier to improve one's situation.

And yet, an emotional advantage may not necessarily produce positive results. First, in maintaining the glass being half full, one needs to say and ask, "Yes, it's full, but full of what?" There is an assumption that the glass contains pure drinking water. Okay if true, if not, optimism can lead to disaster.

Drinking glasses are containers. So what about the advantage of containers being half full in other contexts. A ship in the ocean is an example of a large floating container. What if the ship has sprung a leak and is now half full of sea water. Should we rejoice because the sinking ship is "only" half full or because it is still half empty?

It is obvious that the universal half-full-glass optimism of "the Secret" needs to be carefully examined. All factors, especially relevant laws of nature need to be taken into account. The secret beneath "the Secret" may be that those who place their blind faith in the universe simply accommodating whatever they wish for and visualize may have been basing their optimism on a metaphorical glass half full of clean, clear water which may not turn out to be so clean and clear when transposed into material reality. So should one simply forget about "The Secret?" My answer: Stay optimistic but keep a careful eye on the glass and its content.

Speculating on Chemical Imbalances as a Cause of Depression

A few days ago a friend of mine asked me my opinion about the connection between clinical depression and chemical imbalances. Here is my very speculative answer:

My understanding of depression is that it always involves a person's mindset as well as chemical configurations within anyone's bio-system.   Any given event, let's say good news about a loved one's recovery from an illness on the one hand, or sudden news about a  great loss in the stock market will set off thoughts and emotions that will change body chemistry.  "Good things happening" place one's physical being into a setting of comfort, and /or excitement, and the world is perceived as a place of joy--the heart beats happily, taste buds and digestion enter a dance of appreciation with the food that is eaten, the mind looks forward to solving problems, and one's muscles are ready for active movement.

"Bad things happening" may at first place one's body into a defensive and alert condition.   Personal rejections may bring feelings of disappointment.   A series of disappointments may cause body and mind to go into a standby mode, which, if intensified, shuts down activity and ends up causing an individual's body and mind to enter into a state of hibernation that feels like nothing less than clinical depression.  Just as the body chemistry of someone in happy circumstances is taken to be "balanced,"  the body chemistry of someone in dire straits will appear to be "imbalanced."

Having established that life's experiences can push an individual into the chemical imbalance of clinical depression, it would seem that the escape from depression could come either as a result from "lucky events" or from therapy that helps change the depressed person's thinking  into happier thoughts that help restore a healthy chemical balance. 

And yet, while it may be obvious that a healthy chemical balance may be supported by "good thinking," there is no guarantee that the right kind of mindset will prevail over a bio system falling into depression. It may be possible that someone slides into a state of depression without any obvious triggering events in his/her personal life, but that a chemical imbalance comes about for unknown reasons. It may happen that an individual reaches a state of clinical depression in which no kind of human interaction can restore a healthy chemical balance. Once a state of bio-energetic lock-down is manifest there can no longer be communication because the sufferer will be unable to get the meaning of what is being said.

When words can no longer reach someone who is deeply depressed, other interventions become more attractive. Fifty, sixty years ago, the simple solution was to subject patients to electroshock treatments, which tended to work because the "treatment" involved was so great a trauma to a patient's nervous system that the patient developed coping mechanisms that would restore chemical balance in order to avoid the torture of electroshocks.  Somehow a very diabolical approach of inducing the fear of extreme pain worked to jar patients out of their depression. 

Keeping in mind the torment the clinically depressed underwent with electroshock therapy, the administration of anti-depressant chemicals is humane  by comparison.  And yet, there may be better ways.  I have been speculating about placing clinically depressed persons on high-speed roller coasters to see if the shock effect of the ride would trigger life affirming survival mechanisms.  I am fully aware of the logistical problems of strapping a group of clinically depressed patients into the seats of a ride like the Viper at Six Flags Magic Mountain. Issues of security and liability might be prohibitive to say the least. But there is no reason to lose all hope: With ever greater progress in the development of virtual reality devices not all is lost.  It is quite conceivable that with advancing technology the clinically depressed can be jarred back into the joy of life through an exhilarating virtual reality roller coaster ride wearing little more than computerized head gear designed for this purpose. 

Judging Tiger Woods

I have read many a comment in different places that condemns Tiger Woods for his escapades with various women. Sure, looking at the results, his behavior was clearly a mistake. But there is a big trap for onlookers: It is the implicit assumption, "If I were the Tiger, I would not be so stupid as to have fooled around with those women because I am on a higher plane morally." It is a claim that you, with your experiences, would have acted differently. It assumes that had you found yourself in the same situation you would have been able to resist the temptations he yielded to.

You cannot justify making this assumption--chances are that given your life and background you would not have gotten Tiger Woods' success and fame, not just because you were not as gifted, but simply because you are you as a result of your own very different personal history and nature. This being so, it would not ever be possible for you to experience the same reality. Why? The content of any reality is determined by the nature of the individual and the situation s/he faces. If either of these two components is different, another person's reality is not the same as yours. This being so, it is wrong to assume a moral superiority allowing you to judge the star who has fallen from grace.

Understanding the Tiger Woods Scandal

Why was Tiger selected as a role model for big corporations to advertise their products?

In the first place it was his fame as a winner in a field that seemed to be closed to minorities. That made him newsworthy in and of itself. The media covered him as a new type of champion. And as any product struggles to get more attention than the rest, being associated with a winner, if not "THE WINNER," makes the product appear as a champion by association.

What qualities make a star more valuable as an endorser of product?

First, the better known a star is to the public the more valuable s/he becomes. The simple reason: A star in the eyes of hundreds of millions is a star with greater candlepower than one with just a few millions. The math is simple: the more people become starry- eyed, the greater the number of viewers who want to buy the products associated with the star.

What about controversy? Doesn't it make the star even more interesting?

Yes, as a news item per se--people at the moment pay more attention to Tiger than before, but his usefulness for sponsorships is lessened. Where before the scandal his pristine reputation in all respects made him appear as a total winner, his endorsement is no longer effective with anyone to whom "moral standards" are important. And with the "flawless" reputation lost, many viewers would longer identify themselves with him.

Was it wise for him to give up golf for the moment?

Undoubtedly. Had he stayed, he would have been hounded every time he appeared in public, resulting in an ever greater hunger for paparazzi and tabloid writers to get material on him. It's much less interesting to keep his story in the headlines while he is not around.

Will his scandal do damage to the golfing industry?

Probably little. People who take up golf because of Tiger have done so already, and it is highly unlikely they will lose interest because of a scandal involving the biggest star in the sport. Sports, whether as a participant or a spectator, are habits, and most habits are not easily broken.

What can we conclude from it all?

Stardom is about money. Prizes for the star's performance, product endorsements and the fame that opens doors are the star's rewards. Publicity surrounding him is food for the tabloids who make money by "exposing the star's flaws." There is money to be made when the star gets brighter and stays brighter, and there is money to be made when his light is darkened by scandal.

Thanksgiving

Woke up super-early this morning realizing how incredibly much I have to be thankful for--big things, little things and what-not-else. The world's film industry is among the many examples. Saw an unbelievably brilliant DVD two nights ago. It is the story of "Bruno", a lesser known member of the Austrian fashion industry. The hero, played by the inimitably talented Sascha Baron Cohen, goes on a global journey in quest of world fame but runs into one flabbergasting obstacle after another. Not wishing to spoil the plot for those who might see the film, I will not go into further detail. Suffice it to say, this is the second time within a little more than a year that Cohen managed to rattle the cage of America's social conventions. If nothing else, he deserves an Oscar as best actor, but I'd be surprised if the academy would have the nerve to step up to the plate.

Obama and the New Kid on the Block Syndrome

[I posted this article a few weeks ago, but removed it temporarily pending further developments]

It is wonderful that President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and the world may become a better place for it. At the same time, when it comes to domestic reforms that would save the American middle class from extinction Obama appears to be stuck. Why? He may be a victim of the New-Kid-on-the-Block Syndrome.



I remember that, when Clinton ran for his first term, I was so impressed when he described his background of poverty where, among other things, he had to stop his drunken stepfather from getting violent. In that same talk, I was moved when he said "I'll never forget where I came from." I took it to mean that he would always keep in mind the needs of people who struggled with poverty. But when he was well into his presidency he appeared to have forgotten that promise, as he permitted changes in laws that made it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.



What happened? The Clintons, who started from humble backgrounds, as they increasingly came in contact with the wealthy and powerful came to feel very much at home among those who do not associate with the poor. Once they found themselves to be on the right side of the tracks, they were not at all unhappy to enjoy the satisfaction of being separated from the lesser folk. The rich and powerful now treat them as "friends," and they feel honored. Sharing the sentiments of the wealthy has made the Clintons think and act like the oligarchs with whom they associate, and the interests of old acquaintances from their more humble past have simply become less important.



In terms of social adaptation Obama has followed the Clintons' footsteps. Also born into humble circumstances, like the Clintons he went to an ivy league university and ended up in the White House. As president and holder of the politically most powerful position in the country, he is now much closer to the corporate chiefs and the wealthy than he is to the progressives who helped him win the election. Where he may have been the new kid on the block with ideas for change when he first took office, he is now one of the good ole boys that include the Wall Street and banking elite. 



From his speeches we know that President Obama still means well; it is very likely that the reforms he once promised are still on his mind, but as he now sees the world through the eyes of his old pragmatic advisors and his new "friends," their priorities have become his: the ugly duckling of earlier days is now the adult swan who soars with his peers.

To Take or not to Take the Swine Flu Shot

I saw some interesting videos about the swine flu. One from the seventies is especially worth checking out: :
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam I did the math on it: 46 million people were inoculated against the flu and there were 4000 lawsuits by people who contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which means about one in eleven thousand suffered enough to file a lawsuit. The question that's not answered is how many lives might have been saved among those who would have gotten the flu if they had not been given the shots. As always, it's a crap shoot. I once got very sick from a smallpox vaccination, but thank God I'm still around to tell about it.

A little info from the front lines. My daughter who is an attending physician working full-time in a Portland hospital told us she got a swine flue shot a few days ago. The shot takes about three weeks to become effective. According to her a lot more cases are beginning to show up day by day, and you can do a google on "frequency of swine flu cases" to see what the bigger picture is. Two women across the street from us came back early from a road-trip in their RV because one of them had contracted the swine flu. (She's recovering slowly.)

Of course, it always pays to be suspicious as long as somebody somewhere is out to make a buck, and there is money to be made in vaccine sales.

So what's the answer? The better informed you are from as many sources as possible and the more willing you are to do a little detective work, the better the odds you will make the right decision. It goes without saying that staying in good spirits is always conducive to your health. If things are getting you down, get in touch with a life coach.