Therese, before she had stimata

I watched this video on Theresa and it said: Therese became partially paralyzed after falling of a stool. After falling another time she became completely blind. Four years later, Therese recovered from her blindness. Yep. Also, after she became a saint her paralysis went away. To top it off, she was diagnosed with appendicitis and when she went to get it operated she convulsed violently. All of a sudden she stopped convulsing and asked her family to take her to the church. After praying, Therese no longer had appendicitis.

The stigmata thing is definitely crazy, but, at least for me, it goes to this level of 'far out' that I can't always grasp. However, paralysis, blindness, and appendicitis is definitely within my grasping realm. Faking paralysis? Really? I guess she had to lay in bed to a point where she got bed soars that revealed exposed bone. WTF!!! When I heard that I was convinced that this was no longer acting. This girl is paralyzed--but maybe not like a spinal disruption paralysis but maybe like a Kill-Bill-I'm-coming-out-of-a-nine-year-comma paralysis, if you follow. Maybe it was just this mental block she got over. Same with the blind for four years--could be mental. Just a neural mess that took a while to fix. But it's the appendicitis that really gets me. She was diagnosed with it! It was in her body, not her brain!

What I wonder is did she naturally get appendicitis, then by an act of of God got better by herself? Or did her mind deliberately develop appendicitis knowing exactly how to fix it? Appendicitis is one of those muddy conditions that I don't think is very clear--especially in the early 1900's. Regardless of which, Therese has this incredible mind-body connection. It's like she's an alien or something. But perhaps, it's not a good mind-body connection, but a poor one. For example, maybe she didn't really cure her blindness, but rather her body messed up in making her blind in the first place and just picked up the slack later on. Who knows. I'm very 50-50 at this point. It makes me laugh when I realize that I'm completely bewildered and i haven't even mentioned stigmata yet!

Living on Air

This past Saturday I spent some of my time with friends watching a television show called “Bullshit”, hosted by comedians Penn and Teller. During each episode, Penn and Teller pick a topic – often a controversial one – and interview several proponents and a few opponents. I’ve seen episodes covering new age medicine, dolphin language, and cryptozoologly. The show isn’t trying to shed light on the topic, but rather blatantly make fun of it. This kind of entertainment is geared directly towards Cartesians; Penn and Teller fill the role of the voice of reason, and why certain beliefs can’t be right, given the lack of scientific evidence, historical examples, and simply, common sense. For my group of friends and me, this show entertains us, and plays on our “reasonable” way of thinking (and admittedly, cynicism). However, a more important issue is being presented beneath the jokes and absurdity of the show – how do some people actually believe the things they do? Why do some people so firmly belief in crystal healing and alien abduction, when the rest of us laugh because we have “reason” on our side? This is a direct Cartesian problem.

Take for instance my favorite crazy on the planet – Jasmuheen (for shock and awe, check out the 60 minutes interview). She is a self-proclaimed breatharian, and she claims she doesn’t drink any fluids or eat food. Instead, she lives solely off of air. That’s it. She says that any nutrients she needs she derives from breathing and mediation. What is scary about her practice – other than self inflicted starvation – is that she has millions of followers and has a sort of empire, calling herself the “Ambassador of Peace”. Three deaths have even been linked to her teachings. Jasmuheen claims that these people didn’t find the right “light” or divine force to live off of, and died of food deprivation because they weren’t following breatharianism with integrity.

As Cartesians, we know this isn’t right. The body needs food to sustain itself; this is an irrefutable fact. And yet, Jasmuheen and her followers firmly believe the opposite despite overwhelming evidence that living off of air isn’t possible. Jasmuheen herself participated in an experiment where she was taped 24/7 and given no food or water. She claimed she could survive like this for as long as possible. Three days in, the experiment was forced to stop because a doctor said Jasmuheen would die if she were to continue. However, she still preaches her message to willing ear. The mind boggling problem is why do some believe in the impossible, while others - like myself- know it can't? They have air, I have facts!

The only answer my Cartesian brain could reason up is faith. I use faith in evidence and science to rationalize my beliefs, and others believe in something beyond the physical and readily explainable. However, the reason why most of us laugh at Jasmuheen is because most of us believe in science. Common sense, then, can be defined as the most widely accepted belief or faith. Cartesianism, which relies on reason, also requires faith, just like Jasmuheen.

Can miracles happen?

We humans tend to classify everything...and I mean everything. If something doesn't have a clear explanation most people tend to get frustrated and keep trying to figure out an explanation. This is what Descartes would call cartesian. Descartes showed us that there has to be an explanation for everything and that everything can be classified into groups or a cartesian plan. Things that are said to be "miracles" such as bloody Theresa are nonsense to cartesians because everything has to have an explanation. They have trouble believing that a woman could be bleeding everywhere without any wounds and be able to survive without years of no food or water. This doesn't make any sense to cartesians, therefore they believe she is lying.
I myself am a very spiratual person and I believe that miracles can occur. I personally believe that there is something out there much bigger then us and some things don't need explanation. On the other hand I also love science and I love learning about how everything in life works, like our bodies, our minds, and all the things in our environment. These two things are quite contradictory but I feel I have a good balance of both in my life. In the case of Bloody Theresa, I found myself wondering what could be the cause of such bleeding but at the same time it didn't bother me that people were calling it a miracle. I feel that maybe this could be something spiritual that people will never be able to figure out with solid evidence. I personally wouldn't be bothered by the idea that this was a miracle but cartesians would say that there is no way she could be bleeding without a source and they constantly will try to find an explanation for this phenomenon. Although I am a spiritual person and don't always try to seek explanations I believe that Descartes made a huge contribution to science and helped make our world as technologically advanced as we are today.

Gendered Identities

I've decided to take on the "6 types of people" controversy. I think the point of this idea possesses good intentions; although, does it prove to effectively convey the point that our society is comprised of diversity, or does it actually work in doing the opposite. We, as a society, strive to categorize everything that exists. It almost seems as though comfort lies within the relative organization of people or identities into these strict discursive categories. But what about the people who can't physically, mentally, or socially fit within these specific categories? They must be extremely weird or even inhuman, right?

This is exactly what the activists of this "6 genders" notion is trying to disprove. They want everyone to acknowledge that there is too much diversity to fit perfectly within societies' "categories." They feel as though gender shouldn't be limited to 2 genders (black and white), but should incorporate transgenders as well (the grey area). This is where culture and science come together. Culture has "safely" limited gender into masculinity and femininity, but science has proven that there is some abiguity as far as being born with stricltly and only these 2 genitalia. Although their intentions are to diversify these strict categorizations and maybe even abolish them all together, is this the most effective way to go about it? When these other 4 genders are mentioned, the intention is to open the conforming minds of society to what actually exits, but is it actually doing justice or just encouraging more categorization?

Even though the intentions are to break away from such a black and white notion of the world, mentioning and acknowledging this differentiation almost encourages us as a society to categorize and correlate gender with ones' identity. Creating 4 more genders doesn't really facilitate that type of change necessary, but encourages more conforming categorization. This is similar to individuals who seek individualism. They strive to disconnect themselves with all things conforming or labeled as popular culture, but in doing this, they are actually conforming themselves to a culture specific notion of individualism.

There's no escape from culture; it's in everything we say and do, but can we find a happy medium between science and culture that will allow for everything to be seen in a grey area?

Striving for Explanations

Humans are very curious beings and are always looking for explanations and asking the question why. They need to try and find a reason for most instances in life. I am a very curious person and try to find logical explanations for everything. Humans are very Cartesian in the way they classify, name, and explain.

I found the bloody Theresa and Twinkle stories to be very interesting and a perfect example of people trying to find out the explanation of the bleeding. I do not think that these stories make sense, and I believe that in both of these instances Theresa and Twinkle are lying. The interesting thing is that in Twinkle's case, the doctors never saw the bleeding begin, they only saw her after the bleeding had started. So, how can anyone not question the validity of the bleeding? I understand that there cannot be answers and explanations for everything, but I feel that in these instances with Theresa and Twinkle, there are and it is not left up to faith. I believe that people can will their bodies to do things, like bleed, and this is maybe how these two stories began. A lot of what our bodies do is psychological and we can make them certain things if we think a certain way, whether we are aware of this or not. I think we should look into this a little more, because there is a better explanation I believe than just faith. There are more answers out there.

The Logical Lama

The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Buddhists and a political figure for the people of Tibet. To date there have been 14 different Dalai Lamas. When one Dalai Lama dies, the people at the very top of the Buddhist ranks must go searching for his reincarnation. The way they get hints is to wait at a sacred lake until they have visions or the lake gives them physically visible hints. They also watch which way the smoke from the cremated Dalai Lama blows and search in the general direction. Once the searchers think they have found the reincarnation of the old Dalai Lama they show him a mix of items that either were or weren't belongings of the previous Lama. If the suspected reincarnation is able to pick out only the belongings of the prior Lama then he is brought to a high council for inspection. Once the council says that they think that he is the reincarnated Dalai Lama he is sent to learn how to lead his people and it’s a done deal.

It seems amazing that this is how the leader of around 360,000,000 is chosen. It is a huge political and spiritual decision, with almost no Cartesian influence. It may seem more outrageous to me because I am a westerner who has been raised in a Cartesian state of mind. This practice of hunting down a male child from the villages of Tibet to become a spiritual and political figurehead due to which way the wind blows uses no Cartesian deduction logic at all. But who is to say that they are wrong in saying that a child already born is now the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama even though he doesn't know it.

Historically this practice has been done 14 times, and has apparently proven to find strong enough leaders to keep the faith in this practice. It seems like a nonsensical theory, but think of the power it gives the people who get to choose the next Dalai Lama. The search team gets to go out to a remote part of Tibet and choose a young man who is then taken, along with his family, to go get training from Buddhist monks for years. Basically the child can be taught whatever they want him to learn and they can shape his mind believe whatever they think. So the practice itself is not Cartesian but the process of choosing the Dalai Lamas reincarnation is.

This process of choosing the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama resembles the process that Mustapha Mond describes about how he was chosen to become the world leader in ‘A Brave New World’. The leaders of the new world were purely Cartesian thinkers who attempted to make the world as comforting as possible, whereas Buddhists live their lives out trying to transcend this world by reaching nirvana. It seems as if the Buddhists have a “brain in a vat” point of view, where the mind can be separated from the body. This belief that leaders can be chosen and molded, under the veil of silly science and reincarnation seems to be working for the Buddhists.

Since reincarnation is not logical, it cannot be doubted by logical reasoning. So while the people who can read “signs” go out to find the new Dalai Lama, they can choose someone who can be molded to their liking. What can be learned from the Buddhist practice of finding the new Dalai Lama is that it is very effective to give the people an un-Cartesian practice to mask a logical plot.

The Disconnect

After looking at photos or watching video of Therese Neumann, one has to ask herself: what is goin’ on here? Was this a miracle of God? Was it a hoax? Or did she make herself bleed, unconsciously using the old mind-over-matter trick (so to speak)?

I think that she probably willed this upon herself (knowingly or unknowingly.) After a sequence of events - such as losing her eyesight completely and then regaining it years later - she eventually escalated to the stigmata. If she thought her prayers were actually answered, and that that assent manifested outrightly in her being healed, I think she whole-heartedly would have believed in her own connection to the Divine.

Quite the Cartesian, I am, I am – and there are many more like me. By saying what I just said in the last paragraph, I am actively doubting a “miracle of God” and positing Science as the law of the land. It easy for me to do this, I suppose, as the church is not the institution one now seeks for legitimation. If I were scribing this on parchment sometime in the Middle Ages I think the story would be different.

But my quasi-scientific theory has a flaw in it too. It’s the same problem Descartes had trouble with after writing Methods – how do the mind and the body communicate? What is the mind? If the case of Therese Neumann, or a little boy wishing away warts, are indeed the results of the mind wanting something so strongly that it appears in physical reality, then how does this happen? There seems to be a disconnect between the mind (consciousness) and the body. That is, we can’t confidently explain the relationship. Not yet.

It does seem like science may one day be able to figure out the “substance” that is the mind, whether it’s unique neural pathways or what ever. To speculate, which is about all I can do for this matter, I’d say that when the day of determining the matter of the mind comes we’re in for a lot of hard reconciliation. I’m not sure I like obliterating the idea of the self into mathematical equations.

Miracles Happen

I was watching the Olympics today and I was reminded of the epic defeat of the Soviet hockey team in the 1980 Olympics. The "Miracle on Ice" is what Al Michaels the announcer for the game coined it. Now, obviously this is not an actual miracle, just hard work, good coaching, and luck, of course, that helped the 1980 USA Olympic Team to beat the Soviets, but it got me thinking. It got me thinking about Mother Theresa, and medical miracles.

As we see examples like Lance Armstrong overcome metastatic tumors to become one of the worlds most respected and famous athletes, I always wondered how he could be so lucky. How did he elude the grimy hands of death? Why him? As a man of science i wanted to understand how this miracle happened. Because I am a Cartesian, I cannot just accept the fact that it was a miracle. I am uncomfortable in not knowing what caused this miracle to happen. As a Cartesian, I want to classify and replicate the cause of this miracle. However, if I am a Cartesian, I am also supposed to separate the mind from the body...

As we discussed in class, and as I know from my personal experience, the mind and the body cannot be separated. I know that when I experience different emotions I carry myself differently. When I'm happy, I have a little "pep in my step", and when I'm upset, I look like I'm going to hurt you if you talk to me. From being an athlete, I also know that your mindset affects what your body does. If you feel confident or self-doubting, whether it be a full count with the bases loaded in the world series, or trying to score the winning goal in your state high school hockey playoffs, your mind controls what and how your body is going to perform.

I feel like I am not a pure Cartesian, but rather a mixture of ideas, and ideologies. Cartesian-ism may play a big role in the way that I think, but I cannot separate the mind from the body. And sometimes I think that things are better to be left alone sometimes. I like the saying "Shit happens", because I dont feel the need for everything to have an explaination at this moment in time. I feel that as the human race advances, we will be able to better understand how the world works. We may be obessed with categorizing, and organizing things, but having the unknown makes life interesting...

Bridging the gap

Fasting:

Fasting is voluntarily not eating food for varying lengths of time. Fasting is used as a medical therapy for many conditions. It is also a spiritual practice in many religions.

(from http://www.answers.com/topic/fasting)

I find the idea of fasting very interesting in its application to the Cartesian mind-body dualism we've been talking about in class. From my general understanding of fasting (in the spiritual, "self cleansing" way), the idea is almost against the mind-body dualism in the sense that the practicing faster wishes to bridge the Cartesian gap--the dualism, the separatism, if you will--between the entities of Body and Mind. Ultimately, from many spiritual and religious perspectives, fasting is supposed to be a supreme, deep bodily rest that allows reinvigoration and rejuvenation of the body, mind and soul. These things cannot be separated from one another and the absence of either mind or soul will consequently compromise the entire effort, causing the faster to fail or suffer through a miserable period of abstinence.

There is another kind of fasting that is "generally accepted" (http://www.answers.com/topic/fasting-research-and-general-acceptance), which is medical fasting, in which a patient would also abstain from food from anywhere between seven and twenty-one days (http://fasting.ygoy.com/medical-fasting/). The idea is that restricting foodstuffs from entering the digestive system would effectively allow the stomach and intestines to "rest" and focus on healing the body from toxins that lie dormant in impacted feces, kidneys, bladder, sinuses and skin. They even claim that is helps people with obesity and chronic illnesses such as cancer! What a miracle this fasting must be. Interestingly, though, when speaking of a medical fast, there is either equal weight placed upon the spiritual and health benefits, or the spiritual benefits are not even mentioned.

There are hordes of people and "experts" claiming this method to be the ultimate experience of improved well being and mental clarity. Without new toxins entering their bodies, people claim that they were blessed with clarity of thought, agility, and improved consciousness and healthier values (Tom Coghill, http://www.fasting.ws/juice-fasting/juice-fasting-water-fasting-detoxifcation/fasting-soul-searching)!

But...really? Does it really work (physiologically, that is?) Is the dualism really abolished in this practice, where mind and body meet on the common ground of need, want, or desire (i.e. willful starvation)? It's an interesting concept and one I'd really like to explore more. It's my own opinion that perhaps the health and spiritual benefits may only really be contained within the mind, just like the warts magically disappearing when painted red, or blood oozing from a Catholic mystic's eyes and hands. Is the mind really its own thing, its own elevated entity, or does it, in some way, control every aspect of the body, from healing to stigmas to warts? This is why I find the idea of fasting such an interesting one; to think that the mind could have such power to cause a person to a) willingly abstain from food, even as long as Jesus supposedly did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXGj4DksFAY) or longer, and b) heal themselves through faith, will power, and the belief that abstaining from food (or as some would like to call it, starvation) could possibly cure any ailments, diseases and mind fog.

Ethically, we have to wonder about any doctor who would advise their patients to stop eating when they've been plagued by any sort of disease. How right would it sound? How right is this idea of starvation, and how accurate is it to say that starvation will cleanse the body the way so many claim it does? Scientifically, is there proof? Some say no (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4616603.stm). As a weight loss method, there is a split between yes and no (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/09/why-deprivation.html). Can we thus say that perhaps the successes and failures are based not in the body, but in the mental perseverance of those involved? I think so.

Growing up in America in the popular time of the nuclear family, there are many different family cultures and people that don't fit in that category and therefore are left out, so to say in the cartesian way of thinking which has us constantly naming, organizing, and putting order to everything. Generally things that don't fit in a subject areas are looked upon as outcasts that don't belong. Struggling a long looking for acceptance and rarely finding it. In America where all things are supposed to be treated equally this doesn't seem the case.
In "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto-Sterling the idea of sexuality and gender come to play. She discusses how there are more than two genders, and that we should be socially accepting of all of them. For years people have suffered with their identity because they don't fit in the black and white of our world. This is not fair nor is it okay, we all are human and deserve to have a place in which we belong. Like Alfred Kinsey who categorized men and women on a scale of zero to six rather female then male gives hope for the future. Fausto-Sterling opens the door for opinionated and close minded people to open their eyes and see that there is a large gray area and it is easier to see more clearly if we aren't so concerned about the categories of everything. Seeing clearly and being more accepting of others will make life easier for all. Not only do we need to be more open minded and understanding of people with different sexual orientations and genders but with everything that we judge and categorize as well.

Our Need to Classify

Cartesians lay things out, name things, and categorize everything. There is not one thing that I have come across in my life that didn’t have a name. We as human beings are the masters of classifying. Think about how many millions, probably billions, of people who have jobs doing just that, sorting, classifying, and constructing categories. When things do not fit into our laid out plan (Cartesian plan) we get uncomfortable and feel we need to find a place for it. Our entire world is laid out with a Cartesian mindset.

In Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book “Sexing the Body”, she lays out the categories of male vs. female. She also gives the defined criteria for those who fit into these two categories and the criteria for those who do not. She also informs us of 3 other “sexes” that have been constructed in order to categorize those who do not fit into the 2 socially accepted categories.

Fausto-Sterling argues that individuals born with an undetermined sex should be able to live that way. She believes that doctors should not be able to decide which sex the child “embodies more of”. I would say that Fausto-Sterling is “anti-Cartesian”. She does not think it is necessary to have 2 genders, 2 sexes, and 1 socially accepted sexual orientation. She thinks that there can be all and everything in between and this should be socially accepted. One should not have to check male or female on almost any survey, test, or ballot they fill out.

Having a socially accepted Cartesian way of thinking can sometimes hurt our society, especially when it damages one’s character. This is especially evident in the homosexual community. There are so many people in this world that do not agree with the socially accepted way of living. There have been reports of murders with the motive being the victim’s sexual orientation. If we did not classify this, we would not have this war of the “right vs. wrong“. Getting past the socially accepted genders, sexes, and sexual orientations is something that we as a society need to focus on. Things are not always going to fit into our “categories” and we must accept that.

The Evolution of Human Reason

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy was a groundbreaking work, beginning with a dispensation of all knowledge attained to that point in his life, and beginning anew, attempting to find through human reason certain basic truths about the world. What I found most interesting about his method is the idea of accessibility. No longer was one forced to subscribe to a system of beliefs in which the chief players held superior knowledge of the worldview, keeping it within their inner circle. What was once necessary to take on blind faith was now empowered to all with even a basic mental capacity. More importantly, all those with a basic capacity for reasoning can see that Descartes' theories find a common point of concurrence for mankind to agree upon. The previous paradigm does not account for this, creating points of contention. Thus, those of a different sect of faith (e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Atheist vs. Muslim vs. Buddhist, etc.) could never agree on certain tenets of their faith that do not apply to the others.
One can see this shift of balance to the human reasoning in most aspects of modern human life, especially in the establishment of the "scientific method" as a means to "truth". Charles Darwin's observations aboard the HMS Beagle and at the Galapagos islands point to a need to explain through natural means, rather than automatically assigning the transmutation species to God's will. He demonstrates a Cartesian preference for order, neatly assorting various bird species according to their similar physical characteristics, then uses deductive reasoning to conclude that, over time, certain finches had developed longer, narrower beaks as food became scarcer, allowing the finch to dig for insects in holes in fallen trees and so forth. One must take notice of the similarities to Darwin's categorical assignments and those of the professor and her mud and tree maps in the African forests and grasslands.
Are we to discard Descartes ideas, then, just because we get stuck in a specific mindset? Not necessarily. Although it may cause us to be unable to truly think "outside the box", it also gives man/womankind a base of commonality, from which we can begin a useful dialogue that can be understood on a specific set of terms that do not need to be indoctrinated or taught to us; we are born with our human skills of reason.

Descartes and the Legal System?

In order for myself to fully understand the tremendous repercussions of Descartes writings on western thought I always try and find examples where functions of society and daily life were transformed in a realm that I have experience with. While thinking about the way that I know the world and how I exercise my individual reason I was reminded of when I was called to my civil contribution of jury duty. I wasn't excited to go to the government center every morning but thought it could be interesting to witness our legal system in the works. Being thoroughly convinced I wouldn't get called to any trial, let alone selected by the attorneys to have a seat on the jury, both of course happened. I presented myself accurately and was most likely chosen on the basis that I was an educated college student with experience growing up in the twin cities and therefore I was most likely liberal with my judgments. After two and a half weeks of trial and a full day spent of sequestered deliberation, myself and twelve others participated in the act of charging a person with murder without intention.

Everyone has judgments about the way they see and know the world that have been effectively established by our individual use of reason, however who's to say what's right if anything? The defendant was a black middle aged male that had been battling an addiction to crack-cocaine. I made the assumption that this was probably not the first encounter he had with the courts, which after the case was over, I learned the wrong assumption. My reason failed me. During investigations the police collecting the information and evidence used during trial were using their subjective intuition and reason to gather 'objective' information. Rather than using objective methods I noticed extremely faulty ways of finding, or not finding, evidence that seemed biased by on individual prejudices often associated with drugs and race. It was unclear what happened in the situation but what was clear was the investigation that held the weight of a human's future was conducted in a poor manner. Now, do you charge someone with this because you THINK they PROBABLY did it? A lot of it is speculation, which you are not allowed to use in the jury deliberation process. This act of speculation would not be available without Descartes. My reason led me to use all of the presented evidence and nothing else such as my understandings of what happened, or could have happened, basic intuition, feelings, experience, ideas about the world. A police officer is using all of these things when conducting the investigation that ultimately creates facts. So. Who gets to choose what's right? Why couldn't a jury collectively think outside of evidence? What happens if the police officer leading the investigating happens to hold an extreme opinion that effects his objectiveness, would he still create true facts?

The democratic practice of the legal system in and of itself would not be available without Descartes' belief in reason. During the middle ages, someone accused of murder would automatically be tortured or killed in return--no questions asked. Now the idea of a group of humans deciding a verdict that is the absolute truth seems to be something that is so readily accepted that it is rarely called into question, similar to how Scholastic philosophy was the functioning idea before Descartes. How can we use reason to critique or even think differently about dominating functions of human existence when we are living inside of that very existence?

Bloody Theresa

When i look at bloody Theresa i say that there is no possible way she is actually bleeding that much in those spots without wounds. Without proof i would never even come close to believing that it was actually happening. This isn't because i don't believe in god or miracles but because i do, but i also call Theresa a big liar. I don't see how anyone can look at this and blindly accept it, and i don't think many people do.
The question i am now asking myself is how would i go bout thinking this if I was before Descartes. If Descartes supposedly changed the way the world thinks today, does that mean that i would blindly accept that Theresa bleeds for no reason? I would like to think i would still think critically about stuff like that but who can be sure. I can't see myself accepting anything and everything as truth but the world was different before Descartes.
Bloody Theresa is just one example, I find it very hard to accept almost anything without first having a lot of proof. Is Descartes the one to thank for all my skepticism? It's also hard for me to believe that Descartes almost alone had that much impact to change the way humans think today.

Descartes' lasting template

You could say that the musings scribed to paper by Descartes in the 17th century created a new and (atleast in that moment) superior theory of achieving genuine truth. His picturesque description of the origin of knowledge and what is knowable (tree of knowledge with roots, a trunk, and branches producing fruit available to be plucked by rational observers and actors) imprinted a technique in establishing a means and method in attaining what can be known, or experienced, about the exterior world. It is best to argue that his writings and ideas expressed throughout his meditations established (most likely with the help of other individuals, organizations, and systems that offered him legitimacy and support) the modern truth-finding methodology. The only realizations and idealization experienced within an individual must filter through a process of logical reduction based on our intellectual faculty of doubt, so that anything remaining after this process of doubting is not-doubtable , or indubitable. A thought or concept that resists all penetration of doubt can therefore be recognized as true, or real. This methodology established the sciences we're all so familiar with and brought us into "modern" postures of thinking. With it, modern and indubitable ways of organizing human individual and group activity also emerged (Schools of economics, rightly guided systems of political organization, etc).

Therefore, theories belonging to any branch of knowledge promulgated in our age stem from this inevitable template of methodology. When forming an active opinion around a matter or issue that begs elaborations or investigation belonging to our system of discourse, our process for discovering/ inventing the answer will adapt and absorb the technique of examination momentously outlined by our father of modernity, Rene Descartes.

With this in mind, people such as Pinker and witnesses or observers of bloody Theresa can understand and analyze phenomena through a similar vein of understanding what lies within reality. These two cases are good examples because at first glance they seem to represent two differing systems of intellectual understanding. Empirical realism vs. faith-based miracles. However, Descartes offers his followers (i.e. everyone) a rational explanation for both perspectives. Remember that Descartes obligated a full meditation to the existence of God, and he did so using the same language of logic that he utilizes in highlighting the benefits of empirical analysis and the importance of doubt. The fruit of knowledge that we can taste from the tree is made possible first and foremost from the roots; but where is the origin of the roots?

Blog Posting #4 (Due Sunday 2/21 11:59 PM)

This week we get to write about all the things many of us wanted to talk about for hours—maybe over beer: the faith-science wars; Christian Texas Patriots; bleeding mystics (and cute teenagers); indubitable 'selves,' reason (and faith), hypnotized away warts, and the entire mind-body split.

What we've been calling the 'Cartesian Moment' (Descartes' successfully elevating REASON to the center of all knowledge, and banishing the BODY and all its attributes) changed everything. Anne Fausto-Sterling starts her deeply political work on science, sex, bodies and lives by calling the 'Cartesian' split (a 'dualism') into question on many grounds.

We claimed that we were all 'Cartesians' even if we'd never read a word of his or even heard his name.

Fair enough. So now what?

Well, for starters, let's try to make 'common sense' of the idea that we're sort of trapped by the ways we see the world, and have trouble imagining things any other way. The idea that the world is 'framed' by certain 'paradigms' or 'world views'—ours being pretty 'Cartesian.'

Explain how Descartes 'inhabits' Steven Pinker (or Louis Menand), or the National Geographic producers, or Dr. George Buchanan, or people loving Blessed Teresa (or some of us thinking 'she faked it'), or sexologists who think there are 'six types of people' (…body, 11), or the guys writing the DSM, or the Founding Fathers, or, or, or. Find a good example to read closely—ours are fine; so are yours if you've got one. Whatever works.

Then suggest how this all plays out—theoretically, scientifically, ethically, historically, whatever. Work with our readings. How are we bamboozled and how might we get un-bamboozled? Alternatively: how does our 'reason,' rightly used, steer us right? How do we need to think in order to see more clearly? If you want a model, it's Anne Faust Sterling; her book is a passionate polemic about why seeing sex and gender wrongly (or confusedly) has made life harder for all of us.

foucault vs chomsky

ah the internet. debate is from 1971, 'Human Nature: Justice vs. Power'

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw

Brainwaves

I read the article "Brainwaves" that was on the Star Tribune Website but was published in the New York Times on February 4th 2010. I thought this was a very interesting article. It talked about the ethical dilemma of "pulling the plug" on someone who is in a vegetative state. It says that now physicians are rethinking the diagnosis of someone who is supposedly in a vegetative state because there have been more and more stories of people who's brain activity has come back and were able to respond to things again. Even though these cases are rare it is causing a lot of problems for physicians because families don't want to let their family members go because of their hope that they might come back to them. I feel that this is a very sticky issue. I think Doctor's should have a very precise method of determining whether someone is brain dead and if they will stay brain dead. I also had a problem with a comment that someone left on the article concerning the cost of keeping someone who is in a vegetative state in the hospital. This person said that "these are some expensive vegetables (that you can't eat). I thought this was a very disturbing comment. This is a human life we are talking about. I feel that money should not matter when we are talking about someone's loved one. I feel the family should have the choice of whether or not to keep them alive and cost should not be an that big of an issue.

Dear Benedict Carey,
I thought that the article "Brainwaves" that you wrote in the New York Times on February 4th 2010 was a very interesting article and has brought up a very controversial issue in today's society. Although I feel that doctor's should work on a better diagnostic technique for determining someone to be in a complete vegetative state, I feel the new diagnostic technique that is currently being worked on that was mentioned in your article is confusing and will cause potential problems for families and give them false hope that their family member may come out of this vegetative state. I feel physicians should work on a very precise way to diagnose someone who is in a vegetative state that will determine whether they will ever be able to come out of it or not. Even though I feel the decision to pull the plug should be up to the family they should be given a clear understanding of whether their loved one is clinically brain dead or if there is a potential for them to come out of their state. Thank you for writing about this issue. There is a lot more that should be done concerning these patients.
Sincerely,
Ashley Hintz

Bipolar Disorder and Law Enforcement

The article that I proceeded to take an interest in is an article from mental-heath-today.com. The name of the article is Bipolar Disorder and Law Enforcement. This article attempts to coorelate bipolar disorder and law enforcement. It's purpose is to differentiate bipolar disorder from antisocial personality disorder (a criminal mind), and how these two disorders get mistaken for eachother. The article states that bipolar and antisocial personality disorder can project similar actions or behaviors, but they are completely different in that bipolar disorder is a mental disorder can be treated; whereas antisocial personality disorder is more complex and almost impossible to treat. These disorders both produce aggressiveness, rage, anger, and violence which usually leads to criminal activity that's eventually reprimanded through law enforcement. The problem is that most of these "criminals" actually have bipolar disorder and should really be treated through a mental evaluation, behavioral modification, or through a controlled dose of medication as oppose to jail, where individuals with antisocial personality disorder should reside. For example, -The US Department of Justice reported in 1999 that 16% of all inmates in state and federal jails have a severe mental illness. 283,000 people with serious mental illnessess were in jail or prison - more that four times the number in state mental hospitals. The average daily number of patients in state and county psychiatric hospitals has steadily dropped from 592,853 in 1950 to 71,619 in 1994.

I believe that there is a lot of truth within this article and that these issues need to seriously be addressed. It seems as though too many individuals with mental disorders are being convicted of these crimes, but the steps to correctly evaluate and treat these individuals are being completely overlooked. These individuals are being sentenced and held in jail, when in reality, they need to be mentally evaluated and HELPED! These individuals have mental disorders that will only become worse in a criminal habitus. They deserve the opportunity to obtain professional help to actually solve the problems as opposed to encouraging and facilitating the existing problem. If we could implement programs that could differentiate these mental disorders, I believe that many of these notorious "criminals" could be helped and even prevented.

Global What-ing?

In reading an article from the New York Times titled Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up In Deep Freeze. This article debates the effect that global warming has had on our planet. This debate was brought back into attention because of the record amounts of snowfall that hit the east coast in the last couple of weeks. Anti-Global Warmingists say that because of the record amount of snowfall on the east coast global warming is not occuring. My problem with this statement is that snowfall in a certain region of the planet does not prove that global warming isnt occuring, it just proves that there is record snow fall on the east coast. From what i know, global warming is that the average temperature planet has risen faster and to a higher degree than it normally would.

Reading the article Climate-Change Is Heating Up In Deep Freeze I came across a common problem that I notice amoung my fellow peers. The term global warming is just that, global. It seems that the idea of global warming has become a very local phenomena. Many people now believe that if there is a heat wave, or a large snowfall it is or is not because of global warming. However, global warming deals with the average rise in temperature throughout history around the world, not just in one particular area or one particular blizzard, per say. This confusion has caused me to have many arguments with friends and family, and i dont think that the distinction between global warming and local, maybe somewhat extreme weather, is made clearly enough.

Bored to Death

I am writing my response to an article in the Star Tribune titled, "Bored stiff? Experts warn that being bored at work could increase your chance of dying early".

Basically what is said is that boredom shows a relation to increased heart problems. One study showed that people reporting boredom at work between 1985 and 1988 were two and a half times more likely to have died from a heart problem by 2009, when the researched checked in on them. It says in the article:

...boredom alone isn't likely to kill you — but it could be a symptom of other risky behavior like drinking, smoking, taking drugs or having a psychological problem.

This is where my issue lies. Even though there are asides stating that boredom alone is not likely that deadly, boredom is discussed (especially in the title) as if it were a disorder, and not solely a byproduct of an unhealthy or unstimulated lifestyle.

Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to your article, "Bored stiff? Experts warn that being bored at work could increase your chance of dying early." While this is an interesting and relevant topic, and while there may be a correlation between boredom and heart ailments, I think this article was misleading.
The intention of the article in question, as to be judged by the title, seems to be to tell readers that the scientific community has found yet another cause for heart problems: boredom. In the very first complete paragraph is the sentence, "...experts say there's a possibility that the more bored you are, the more likely you are to die early." Immediately 'boredom' is being treated as if it were causal. Even though it goes on to say that boredom is a symptom of risky behaviors like drinking, the tone has already been set.
By giving boredom the quality of being a cause instead of an effect, you are shifting attention from the real culprits of heart problems. I think you should be more clear about the relationships between these three things (alcohol/drugs/inactivity, boredom, and heart issues) so that people remain clear on how to address their problems.

The 'Obesity' shock value

1. The Star Tribune did an article titled Obese Kids Face Twice The Risk Of An Early Death, Study Finds. My problem with it is that even though the article ties itself to the entire American population, the study was done specifically on American Indian children. Also, the article leads you to believe that childhood obesity is this terrible mystery and that even doctors can't fix it, when in truth, it's not so much 'childhood obesity' but pre-diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance.

2. Dear Roni,

I recently read your article on childhood obesity. There were a couple of things that I found to be misleading. The study done with American Indian children was very interesting, but I didn't think it was completely justified to say that all American children are susceptible to premature death. According to the US Census Bureau in 2008, American Indians and Alaskan Natives only make up 1.6% of the total population. I think representing all children with that 1.6% is a stretch. Furthermore, the last paragraph saying that even though doctors say your kid looks OK, obese kids should "still warrant our attention". This made me feel that you wanted people to fear obesity as if it is some dark mystery. I suppose being a bit skeptical with doctors isn't all that bad--but it isn't necessary to make obesity into this incurable para-normality. The real problem here isn’t obesity, it’s—like you said—impaired glucose tolerance and prediabetes. Doctors are able to diagnose this and treat it. The point is, not every obese kid will die before 55. Your article leads me to believe this. You might have loss some shock value by leading readers to the real concern—prediabetes and glucose intolerance—but we would have been more informed.

Sincerely,

Alex Hathaway

Obesity

In an article from the Star Tribune titled, "Obese kids face twice the risk of an early death, study finds," Rabin points out a study gathered from Pima and Tohono O'odham Indians whose rates of type 2 diabetes and obesity were an issue before Americans faced this crisis. This study followed children into their adult life and found that many are suffering premature death. The health problems are those that have become common in the United States - high cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose levels and body-mass index. These health issues are bringing on pre-diabetes.

I found this article to be extremely relevent to issues we have discussed in class. Because of the articles about apotemnophilia and limb-lengthening, we have emphasized that society sets a standard that we feel the need to meet. The standard that has typically been discussed is that seen in the magazine of tall, slender women. Although apotemnophilia does no directly relate to the desire to meet this standard, it does relate to a body image issue to some degree. When paging through the Star Tribune, I'd anticipate finding an article about adult obesity rates or teens facing eating disorders which is why I feel that this problem is important enough to address.

Dear Editor,

I am writing concerning the article, "Obese kids face twice the risk of an early death, study finds." When reading this article, I find you suggesting that child obesity is more common and life threatening than other eating disorders that many children and teenagers battle. You state that the heaviest children are more likely to die prematurely than the thinnest. I understand that this is an increasing problem in the United States but does it deserve more attention than the other, also life threatening disorders? Children are plagued by the standard that is set by the media and often do whatever they can to meet that.

Teens And Breast Implants

The article that I read and feel I need to express my thoughts on is in the pioneer press and it’s called, “Teen breast implants slowed as economy slumped”. The article talks about how teenagers getting breast implants is slowed now because of the economy. It also talks about how that it differs from doctor to doctor and some doctors are saying that the number of teenagers requesting breast implants now if higher than ever. I feel like that is absolutely ridiculous that girls that young want breast implants and that the doctors and society are letting it happen. In my letter I will hopefully be making a good point as to why this is not acceptable and either society had to change or the doctors have to change it themselves.
Dear Editor,
I’m writing concerning the article called, “Teen breast implants slowed as economy slumped”. My main concern is the statistics saying 18 and 19 year olds getting breast implants has increased 388 percent since 1998, and girls under 18 years old getting breast implants has increased 343 percent from 1998. To me this is absolutely ridiculous and has to be stopped. Although the FDA doesn’t approve minors getting implants, there are no restrictions or laws against it. There needs to be, girls aren’t even fully matured until at least well into their 20’s. If we let these young girls change their bodies for the “super model” look we are only feeding the problem. There are no studies done on the long term affects of minors and these surgeries, so besides the unethical and societal issues it can also be very dangerous. There has to be laws against this and we need to stop doctors from doing these surgeries.
Dillon Grant

Robotic Surgery Best For Whom?

The article I thought was interesting was an article by Gina Kolata in the Star Tribune, "Is a robot's arm better than a surgeon's hand?" Elliott states quite clearly in "Better Than Well" that psychopharmacology is heavily influenced by the drug companies' drive to increase profits, and they will do everything they can to maximize their profits. It stands to reason that every company out there working to improve medical technology would have that same drive to spread their technology everywhere.

There have been so many reports about doctors having been wooed by pharmaceutical companies, whether it's through expensive trips or a bunch of free shit, all on the company's dime. The article mentions "Oh, patients are really wanting this and are really susceptible to aggressive marketing" but it doesn't connect that with the description of how patients reject doctors who aren't using this technology. Where are patients hearing about how it's so much better? From watching House on television? The last sentence of my article is basically my position, that people have to be careful about what they're buying in the medical industry, because doctors don't just have your best interests at heart anymore -- even if they still think they do.

__________

Robot-Assisted Surgery Best For Whom?

Gina Kolata's article about the replacement of live prostate surgeons with robotic arms failed to bring up an important point, in regards to the relationship between the industries of medicine and technology. Patients were said to be responding to "assertive marketing" in requesting a robotic surgeon. The makers of the robot are likely the ones marketing the surgical tools, but what exactly are they telling patients about the surgical tools that makes them so irresistible? The chief surgeon from GWUMC implied that despite its increased price, the robot didn't seem to do that much better a job than he is able to do on his own. And it can't be that they've heard about statistical studies of patients who have or haven't undergone the robotic surgery, because there has been no truly definitive study done to decide whether it's worth the extra cost. So there's not really anywhere a patient could have heard about it.

This wave of robotic surgery is likely not being marketed directly to patients at all; instead it's being marketed towards the surgeons, each of whom has an incentive to appear better than the competition by having the most modern technology. If that's true, then just as patients should assess the risks and benefits of every new wave of medical advances, so they should take a look at why robotic prostate surgery is even an option, and then decide whether it's an improvement worthy of your money.

New Technologies- Not always beneficial

In the article titled “Is a robot’s arm better than a surgeon’s hand?” in the Star Tribune, the author is explaining the rise in popularity of the use of a robot in removing the prostate. The use of this robot causes the surgery to be much more expensive and there is no evidence of improving the surgery.
The issue I have with such advances is the motive for developing and publicizing such a robot that has no benefit. I believe that many new techniques and technologies are solely developed for the corresponding business that would be profiting. If the robot does not produce a better result, what is the point to develop it and pay more for the procedure? Another question is who will end up paying for the increase in expense? Insurance companies should not pay for the increased price for the same result.
Scientific progress has enabled us to develop and enhance human life. Sometimes, the scientific progress gets too far ahead of our needs. It is neat to see such an intricate machine but there is really no need for it.

Dear Editor,
I am writing concerning the article “Is a robot’s arm better than a surgeon’s hand?” about the new robot to remove the prostate. I am skeptical of the motive for such a publication. Such advances should seriously be questioned by the general public. Are these advances being publicized and popularized for the benefit of the company producing such robots or for the benefit of the human population? Many of times, I believe that it is a business adventure more than anything.
This specific procedure costs much more than the traditional surgeon technique and has no clear benefits.
One of the biggest questions that needs to be addressed is: who pays for this extra expense, when it seems to be very unnecessary? Insurance companies should not be responsible for this when the same procedure can be done for much less. The robot is being publicized for being so innovative but there is really no benefit for such a procedure.

"Aspies"

1. What a coincidence here, with Jack Stine's letter to the editor concerning the changing of names for children with a certain type of bipolar disorder. The publication I'm going to be writing to is the Star Tribune, in response to an article written about how Asperger's syndrome will no longer be classified as a separate diagnosis from Autism. The article outlines the key differences between Autism and Asperger's, it even goes so far as to use the nickname "Aspies" for those with Asperger's syndrome, and even though this is a nickname they gave themselves--I almost feel as though using the nickname both in the title and in the article is an invasion of their space, which stigmatizing in it's own right, showing to the whole world that they are, in a sense, outcasts from the rest of us. Essentially, I saw it as a mockery to them. The tone of the article seems less sensitive to their individuality and seems more focused on creating roused opinions rather than focusing entirely on the issue at hand.

2. Dear Ms. Tanner

I'm writing concerning the article published on the 11th of February about the "Aspies" and the proposed change to have all patients with Aspergers Syndrome listed under the diagnosis of Autism. I found the way in which you presented this matter quite unfair: the article seems to call to attention many different opinions on the topic, but my problem is with the free use of the nickname "Aspies". When I first read the title, I saw it as a mockery, and as I read the article, I saw it as an invasion of space. A reporter using that kind of a nickname (and I'm assuming it was used without "permission" from those included in the Aspie group) creates a kind of stigmatization against the group from the get-go. Perhaps you should rethink your choice of words before assuming that it is naturally OK to use such a personalized term for a group of which you have no part.

Megan Kelly

Temper Disregulation Disorder

1.

The publication that I chose was a piece from NPR News on All Things Considered titled "Children Labled 'Bipolar' May Get A New Diagnosis.'" I know that this is not a local piece but it was too good not to do, it is a perfect example for what we have been talking about in class. The report, in a nut shell, says that in the new DSM there will be a new disorder called Temper Disregulation Disorder (TDD), for children who would otherwise be diagnosed with bipolar disorder; except the new title goes to children with tenancies toward violence during their lows. TDD is considered a biological trait, but unlike bipolar disorder, is not considered a life long condition. The treatment will be the same medications used for bipolar disorder, which have shown to be the only treatment for both disorders.

My problem with this new title is that even though the treatment is going to be the same, this new title brings on a slew of potential problems. Bipolar disorder is already in the DSM and is covered by all medical insurance, where as the medical insurance companies would have to decide whether or not they will pay for TDD to be treated. What if a child who is labeled TDD can't get his insurance provider to cover his bills, where as if he was just diagnosed bipolar he would be covered. Another problem is the title, Temper Disregulation Disorder, sounds like the polite way to say uncontrolibly violent at times. Even if these children do get more violent than the average bipolar sufferer, why give them a title which would allow them to be destructive self fulfilling prophecies.

2.

Dear Michelle,

I was listening to your report on how children with bipolar disorder with more violent tendencies will be getting a new title called Temper Disregulation Disorder. Because TDD was recently added to the DSM it could bring on some troubling problems for families whose children will be labeled with TDD. Insurance companies must decide whether or not they will cover TDD, during this time I am worried that families would not receive coverage for TDD children. I also worry that children diagnosed with TDD will be treated with a prejudice by schools, future employers, and other people in general. Bipolar disorder is already well recognized and accepted, so adding a new title to a disorder with the same treatment seems unnecessary and dangerous to these kids. It makes no logical sense to divide these children from the rest of the bipolar group, just to give them a new title.

Sincerely,

Jack Stine

Blog Posting #3 (due Sunday 2/14, 11:59 P.M.)

This week, we'll use the blog as a place to develop letters to the editor and improve each other's work. The required posting, thus, comes in two parts:

1) Identify, in a few sentences, the publication you're looking at (something local, in the Twin Cities area -- can be online or in print), the problem you see in the way science is being deployed there, and why you think it's a problem you think it's potentially dangerous or harmful enough to merit your time in addressing it. The point of writing this little meta-commentary, before writing the text of the letter itself, is to inform your colleagues about what you're trying to do, so they can best evaluate how well you did it.

2) Write a draft of your letter to the editor.

(For easy reference, here's the text from the assignment sheet: "Write a letter to the editor of that publication, in which you describe that problem, explain and analyze it, and propose a corrective. (Note: letters to the editor are, of course, for a general reading public. This is part of the challenge—how to communicate ideas such as semantic contagion, legitimation, biopolitics, and Cartesianism effectively, without using any jargon? And they are short­—150-200 words maximum!)")

Finally, in your comments this week, offer some suggestions to help your colleague improve their letters -- what can be clearer? how could the arguments be strengthened? how might something be worded better? Let's make these as good as they can be!

Brave New World, or, the State of the Union

For those of us in class who were on the side of the Savage, this article on current events might be of interest. The power of the State in the UK is expanding; the government will be able to watch everyone at all times who steps foot outside, and soon the machines doing the watching will be equipped with so-called "nonlethal" weapons. The US is working on the exact same project, which is seen as a solution to thi problem: how can people be stopped from doing things the State doesn't want them to do, that doesn't necessitate the murder of a whole bunch of civilians? Article from Wired.co.uk via Alex Jones' InfoWars.

In the UK surveillance helicopters are being replaced by modified military aircraft drones. The drones will at first perform exactly the same duty as the helicopters, except of course the surveillance will be ramped up to be watching everyone in public at all times. But because a drone can't stop any wrong-doing by mere observation, the UK drones are being outfitted with loudspeakers, so a person watching what the drone is capturing can verbally scold wrong-doers.

But sometimes a scolding is not enough -- so the drones are also being outfitted with nonlethal weapons, such as the LRAD or Long-Range Acoustic Device, to drive people away from a location. The LRAD emits incredibly loud, piercing sounds and make excellent deterrents when focused directly on groups of people, such as US civilian protesters. Of course the makers of the LRAD (American Technology Corp.) have preferred to call the LRAD a "device" rather than a weapon, and use terms such as "deterrent tones" and "influencing behaviour" to describe its function, but as the LRAD can cause hearing damage and incapacitates anyone that isn't wearing heavy-duty ear protection, to not call it a weapon is trivializing its nature. (As an aside, by pretending it's just a device, ATC can get around the ban on selling arms to China.) So, if you're thinking of protesting, be sure to bring your ear protection.

But sometimes being driven away is not enough -- you have to catch the bad guys sometimes, right? -- so the drones are also being outfitted with high-intensity strobe lights which "can cause dizziness, disorientation and loss of balance making it virtually impossible to run away." If you're doing something the State doesn't like, you can now be completely incapacitated by a robot! According to the Wired article the US is already in the process of putting these strobe lights on unmanned helicopters i.e. modified drones. So you should bring dark goggles to the protest along with your ear protection.

But what if incapacitation by strobe light isn't enough to stop the baddies? The drones may be outfitted with such "nonlethal weapons" as tear gas, rubber bullets, and taser stun guns. ...Nonlethal? Tear gas is poisonous (lachrymators can cause blindness in high doses) and has been demonstrated to have lasting negative impacts on human health; rubber bullets aren't "nonlethal" especially if they're aimed at the head, and drones don't have the capability to aim at anything less general than "at your body"; and taser stun guns have killed more than 351 people since June 2001, when US police forces started using them as methods of forcing submission (instead of just as a last resort before using lethal force).

Scary? Nah -- just don't publicly do anything the State doesn't like (whatever that happens to be this year) and don't act even mildly suspicious, and they promise to keep you safe & free from terrorism. This excursion into a brave new world is for your own good, after all.

Mind separate from the Body

Being an observer of the world, I've noticed that as we get older we separate our minds from our bodies. I think we get trapped in our heads so much--maybe to the extent that we feel like we are alone and there's no one like us--or at least anyone that can see what you're thinking in your head. I noticed that everyone seems to have turned the volume down on there bodies and almost forgot to acknowledge your body.

I'm not saying we need to be like guerillas and beat on our chests to show superiority (that would be freaking sweet), but we have gone to the other extreme were we almost depend too much on words and thoughts. As kids, we do weird things with our bodies and express our selves in bizarre ways--but some how I know that these bizarre ways are true and honest because kids are simple and honest. This change and separation of the mind and the body may occur because we your brain develops as you get older so you naturally use it more, society disapproves of 'loud' bodies that are too expressive, or maybe because were are a more intelligent creature that is based largely on language, literature, and speech.

However, even though our brain gets stronger, better, more developed (whatever you want to call it) as we get older, so does our body. Our body grows, changes, becomes stronger just as much. If we kept using our bodies to express thoughts think about the crazy things we might do now. I guess you wouldn't be following society's standards--but when has that, especially in this class, been that much of a factor? People sneak around those standards regardless. And as far as an intelligent species go, that shouldn't hinder us. With a solid mind body connection, we could be like this crazy-smart Star Trek species or something.

Descartes talks about the mind and body being clearly distinct--an accepted truth--yet, they're unified. Regardless of how separated they become, they are extremely close in terms of proximity. So are we just souls trapped in flesh? Is it divinity enslaved in a mortal prison? Or are we just animals with upgrades? Maybe living in our bodies instead of minds is an evolutionary trait we've dropped or no longer express. And if this connection has been broken, can it ever be rejoined?