Thursday, September 29, 2016

Overkill vs Underkill

Too sensitive vs not sensitive enough?  Does it bother an addict to be called an addict? Once they realize we are addicts, we can start to recover. Without this recognition, we have a problem with no name.

There we have an academic trying to undermine an essential part of my recovery. Well meaning but ignorant of reality of recovery academic. The problem must be defined and a specific solution provided. http://blog.smartrecovery.org/2016/09/29/destigmatizing-addiction-2/

Overeating has many groups of causes and addiction to specific foods or specific digestion produces is just one cause. This same process is how we decide how much we like specific foods. Addiction is process of liking something more than we can control the intake, it comes to own us. It is likely only a small portion of the obese who have this issue. How much? I do not know, 5 to 10 percent, but then are some that lump addition with insulin overshot and say 75%.  

So does the food addict have a problem with the food? Well, there are various problem with overeating and some are addicted to the food, actually. This is two small groups; one hypersensitive to serotonin, and carbohydrates push a serotonin wave from the gut, and we become addicted to the serotonin rush. The second to chemicals in the food, traces of opioid peptides in gliadin containing grains and dairy products. These are true food addictions; the only solution is to accept these facts and quit using, aka eating these foods. Any food that contains opioids or digests to opioid peptides are a problem for some. Some are either hypersensitive or have more enzymes to break certain proteins into opioid peptides. Either way, acceptance of this is required before lasting recovery can occur.  

Does calling yourself an addict make a difference? Acceptance of the fact that we are addicted to these foods, and the only solution is to stop eating these foods, aka stop using, is the only solution. It is acceptance of this fact that makes the difference. We need to understand that we are addicted, that use keeps the desire strong, and weakens our resolve; we can never again eat these products makes the difference. Without acceptance that we are addicts, this would be difficult.

Some may not want to be addicted, and object to being called an addict, and they also face an added problem, a sociopathic personality issue of not being to accept reality. Oh well, I wish them luck with recovery. They will not develop the strength of character, willful stubbornism required to never again eat wheat products, even when wheat and dairy is in most processed foods.

There are many who deny that food addiction occurs. These are not helping the problem, and many of them are funded by the food industry. Oh well, we need to overcome a few obstacles and negative toward us people in our lives. This will require a certain stubborn characteristic to develop.  It come down to what do we need to believe to recover.

We need to be honest with ourselves, enough to be able to admit were are addicted to specific petites, add to make the decision to never intentionally consume these again. It is likely we will be misled into consuming these by food pushers, but we must learn to recognize these and recoil from them, as part of recovery. Oh well, itewajda. 


      

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Blog Blog Blog

To blog or not to blog is not the question, rather to care or not to care about the audience, content, and correctness of my thoughts. Does any of this really matter, in the short term; nothing matters in the long term.

I read a bit of philosophy, because some of it explains what was/is missing from my life, or at least what was important to various philosophers. Some is just not compatible with other philosophers. So does this make one wrong or just stubborn? Consider the question of free will, aka, do we have any? Epictetus states that we have control over our ability to make choices, our opinions, our likes and dislikes or desires and aversions, and the motivation to act, but not the actions. This give us control over our beliefs, and a few mental process outcomes and little else. So if we accept this as being approximately correct, then free will is limited to these small area of concern.

Yet we see that a philosopher has gone out and done a bunch of elaborate testing looking for free will outside of the area where, by inspection, free will can only exist in. Finding none, he has declared that here is no free will. Follow the money. He was paid well for the research and testing, and for the report, which tuned into a book. Now does that sound like atheists? First we must define god before we can say that god does not exist. We can find a god, and lots of evidence if we define go correctly, or no evidence, even evidence of non-existence if we provide a supernatural definition. So until you define it, the population can go either way.

The stoics defined god as nature and used the word god to define nature, and the logos, and could then talk openly about god, all the time knowing that there definition of god exists as nature, but to others the word means something entirely different. This kept them from getting hassled by the government thugs.Speaking of government thugs...

Today the government thugs carry guns, and while the proclaim to serve and protect, it is themselves that they serve and protect, but they too are part of society, so with clear conscious, they proclaim themselves as the serve and protect bunch of society. Oh well, shit happens. Anyone who makes them nervous gets shot, it is that simple. Avoid is the best solution. If that fails, strict adherence to there direction is the next item, but even then dealing with them is risky. Good luck with that if you are a bit colored or bearded. Oh well, itewajda.

All this and the real problem of the world is human overpopulation. Humans and US rats both have this problem.     

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Maslow

In addition to Maslow's hierarchy of needs there is Maslow's expanded hierarchy of needs. It is not clear to me that Maslow had any thing beyond inspiration with these, but never the less, they are an improvement... well sort of. The bottom 3 and a 1/2 are human needs, the remainder are dependent on which culture you live in, what your lived philosophy is, and other factors. There is tremendous cultural input in these upper levels. These are not universal.

http://the-mouse-trap.com/2007/12/14/maslows-eight-basic-needs-and-the-eight-stage-devlopmental-model/

At some point, perhaps after belonging and before self-esteem three needs to be a duty or utility function need, for making a living in our modern society, need for money to pay the rent, medical care, taxes, insurance, duty bound expenses as children braces, rent a wife, whatever. This is beyond physiological, safety, and belonging, yet not self esteem. This allows us to jobs that we hate for the money, all the time not building self-esteem. In working societies, where survival is a big win, anything more is just dreaming. Self-esteem, knowing that I am doing a good job is necessary for most trades, specialized knowledge, or similar, but where survival is more dependent on luck, as in a collapsing society such as Syria, doing may be more important than what ever we think of ourselves. Oh well, itewajda.

Religion is often used as a motivator, to create those upper needs, any yet we know that all religion is just delusion/illusion, belief of story as real, but that is not much different than a philosophy; adopting a "seams reasonable" philosophy. Science with demonstrable rational explanations must be believed, but not all science is correct. Much of science is done for the money; research can be biased. Look at the tobacco, sugar, drug, medical, chemical, GMO industries, even fertilizer industry.  There is much fertilizer there. So what I am saying is the Religion Industry, along with the charity industry, is also in the fertilizer industry. It should be lumped with advertising industry. But could a society survive without all those near useless industries, considering the unemployment and  underemployment there would be with a utility only type philosophy. That is essentially Buddhist/minimalist economic theory. To produce a sustainable world order, we have a lot to do.

As long as population growth continues, the Co2 will continue to rise. That is the most measurable thing that indicates the demand on the earth environment. It has been rising since the 1960's at a rate that is not sustainable. Fish will die from the acid level being to high to fix calcium, and that is happening now. It is too late to save many of the fish species. The decline of fish worldwide will be one of the early steps in the decline of society as we know it. Collapse or the human environment is going to happen; we cannot get governments to act until it is too late. This all will require a top down solution. Bottom up is also happening, but there are too many deniers out there to convince. Religions are still not promoting birth control, and that must happen to manage population. Religions are part of the problem. Oh well, itewajda.    

We humans have made extinct unintentional many species already. I am proposing to keep the earth livable we need to cap the population at something about 3.5 billion; that is what it was when the Co2 started it's clime. If we develop enough technology to get the Co2 to head down, than that could be the new population cap. It will not be easy, but the young are living through a exciting time. Many of us expect to die off before the problem is solved. Oh well, itewajda.  


     

Friday, September 16, 2016

Going Forward From Here

To go forward from here is the only choice, for backward or laterally does not exist, stopping is hardly practical. So what does forward look like... Sustainable life style... sounds good but what is that.

Our own integrity and virtue is all we can really own, that cannot be taken from us easily, according to the stoics, the planners for a good life.  More than a pleasant life, but without the attachment of a meaningful life or purposeful life. I once knew a young girl, many years ago, who stated here purpose in life was to raise children and sheep. We can choose, we can attache our self to something bigger than ourselves, and thereby create meaning. But what if we realize what we attached our self to is a false profit?  like this poor girl http://www.grettavosper.ca/ . Oh well, itewjda (in the end we just die anyway).

Once we recognize that much of what we learned was just wrong, including religion, our belief systems, even about the financial system, politics, government, is just wrong; nobody cares much, they are just out for their finical gain mainly with a little residual benefit coming to us... and where does that leave we individuals.  We learn, that is the cost of doing those things... what ever they are.

We are all free to do what ever we like or not. That is the sad state of affairs in this world. We can try to sell whatever we like to anyone, and if they buy, it is cash for us, if they do not, to bad, so what. Delivery of the promised article is optional. It is just our integrity, or the lack of it that produces the requirement for any promised article actual delivery. Insurance is the prime example, where it is often necessary to sue the insurance company. And everybody loses.

So we have to chose only one at a time, but we may be able to switch:
  • a pleasant life 
  • a good life
  • a purposeful life
  • a meaningful life
  • other just for completeness
Now I need to make a move, and picking integrity/ virtue, leads to the stoic based life, and going forward means more of the same.

I have been attending humanist meet up group, and have concluded that most of those people are stuck beating on the religions, not on moving forward with their lives, and those who are, are not moving in the same direction as I am. So what is the purpose of attending? What is the benefit? little/none. Oh well, itewajda.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Reflections on 9/11

This post started as a potential comment on http://freethoughtblogs.com/kriswager/2016/09/11/15-years-ago/, but I decided that It need a real post.

What has been the effect of 9/11 on civilian life in Canada? ... beyond the GW Bush war...

Well I think it has caused questioning of religion in general, and that has resulted in a greater christian pressure, or atheism... of some form.

It has caused a mistrust of Muslims. Well, mistrust is the mildest term.. distrust, dislike, all the way to hatred.., with a corresponding I should not feel that reaction, resulting is over correction tolerance by some and government.

Those of us who have taken the time to study this have realized that there is no god, no life after death, no rebirth, no human purpose or meaning in life until we paint one on. This life is all we get; it is too short to waste with any religion or tolerance for such supernatural thinking. Sorry, it is all bullshit. I now feel pity for Muslims and Christians alike, they have been deceived into believing a illusion and live a delusion.  We still need to live right, with some form of do not do that which we would not tolerate being done to us, and moral guidance of we all need to live together, which is not what governments preach with wars and stupid regulations, guidelines and attitudes. Oh well, itewajda (in the end we all just die anyway).

I think 9/11 started the process of closer examination of the subject for me and for many around me. It is the boring down to truth, the letting go of supernatural thinking, aka a belief in a god or any help of any kind.

You can do what ever you want also means that nobody cares much about fellow man nor knows what should be done. Well no longer. I know that we should all give up religion and learn to live on a moral basis, by not doing what we find objectionable, and at the same time make only a small environmental footprint, as small as possible. How we do that is another question.

I am not saying that all that religions teach is wrong; just it has a wrong premise, and some religions excuse wrong behavior where a government dedicates are concerned.  

It is a human characteristic to be born with fear, anxiety, and depression. Once we recognize this, we see that those who do not have these are sociopaths, and psychopaths. We need to live withing a positive group to overcome these inborn characteristics; those of us who grew up in negative environments have that much more to overcome. We also need to overcome bullshit ideas, religions, promoted by government and society. Oh well, itewajda.     


Thursday, September 1, 2016

Realism

I am declaring myself to be a realist, rather than the negative connotation atheist. I am not against anything, but am for realism, the separation of real from unreal, whether that is a belief in a god, life after death, rebirth, and anything supernatural. 

http://www.atheistrev.com/2016/08/coming-out-as-atheist-in-mississippi.html 
displays the problem of the connotation of a negative sounding word.

There are a number of ways of going forward from here, and adopting a sound philosophy, even cherry pick the sound beliefs from a number of different concepts and build on them. Positive Psychology outlines a number of styles of development; pleasant life, a good life, a meaningful life, a life of purpose. Pick any one, and run with it. The good life is essentially stoic concepts, while humanism is an outward looking bias of a life with purpose or meaning. Realism specifically picks on a purpose of that which is real, not anything unreal or supernatural, which all religions have in spades. If I cannot demonstrate it to be real, I am going to assume that it is unreal.  Oh well, itewajda.

I can call bullshit on anything this way, and not being militant, I can walk away, knowing that it and they are just wrong, but have no need to express that to them. It is none of my concern that they see a virgin Mary in a burnt toast... It is all in there head. I know that with enough mushrooms, we all can see anything in anything.

There is what something is and what we perceive in something, each may be wrong or right, producing four possible conditions of any something. Epicetetus ii, 18 or 28. It does not matter, for I can evaluate any something, and carry on. Oh well, itewajda. 

  

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

How big is the cultural overlay?

We sapiens are animals who evolved on this big rock whirling through space. We evolved to take advantage of this environment and available food sources. Genes evolve slowly, yet epigenetics switch on or off parts of the individual genes. We evolve and learn. Some individuals and groups learned to write and read. They wanted to record all of what they knew and believed, possible to help the next generation learn all that we were unable to teach them, for life was short, brutal and ugly for many. For some it remains so. So learned behavior become culture, and it is just the "learnings" of the past in carried forward to the present time. Oh well.

So on this natural, genetic base, there is a cultural overlay. All our ethics, morality, behaviors and the like are founded in culture. Laws of the land are current agreements and dictates of the governments defining acceptable behavior... well sort of. It defines what some will put money into enforcing, when it is convenient.  Perhaps it is intended to show how people should live, if we want to should ourselves. Now we can further slice this cultural overlay into religion, family, political, personality, etc. And where does all this leave us? Genetic predisposition plus culture, environment, and the like leaves us with a random distribution of a large number of variables, some desirable some less so, and even that varies over time and situation. We have so many choices, and we make them, one at a time. Some we keep, some not. Some become part of us, some not. Oh well, itewajda. (in the end we all just die anyway.)

Morals and ethics vary widely, and as long as we can justify our behavior to ourselves, we will be ok with anything. As long as our behavior has no or very little impact on others, nobody cares anyway. If it has no impact on others does it matter? Other people insist that some things should not be done, but is it of there concern? The local busy body has views on everything, but if it none of here concern, what does she matter? "What would the neighbors think?" was one of my grandmothers expressions for most anything. Currently, I would need to ask myself also, do I care what the neighbors would think? For the most part, the answer would be no, most of the time.

So the old bitty neighbor complained about the weeds along the day lilies, so I told her that if they bothered her, she could pull them. She has not spoken to me since. Oh well. itewajda. It looks to me like cultural overlay is most everything beyond our genetic predisposition.