Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Dude, What's Up w/ my Mind??

At the very center of your brain, chillin' in-between the right and left hemispheres, is a small, (grain-sized (5-8mm)), pine cone-shaped  endocrine gland, called the Pineal Gland.  Known to produce melatonin, the substance that spikes in production when one enters deep dream-states, this trippy gland is also known as the "third eye;" the "Seat of the Soul," as Descartes (the "Father of Modern Philosophy") called it.

Apparently, this mysterious gland has become increasingly calcified by Fluoride; the wonderful (reduced form) of Fluorine (basic element) that has lovingly been put in our water supplies.  Quick History lesson:

ALCOA, produces fluoride as a byproduct of Aluminum, had George Bush's Sec of Treas. as a Chairman w/ $50million in stock shares in 2001, arranged back in the 1950's to sell their waste on grounds of health benefits for teeth and water sanitation.  They really had no motivation to conduct heavy research, as greedy minds blind.  Unfortunately for us, the hundreds of millions of tons of Fluoride in our water supply, has been shown in 1998, by the Psych Dept of Binghamton University NY, to create:

"alterations in the nervous system resulting from chronic administration of the fluoroaluminum complex or equivalent levels of fluoride in the form of sodium-fluoride. The rats were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Most pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. The pathological changes found in the brain tissue of the animals were similar to the alterations found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and dementia."

A scientist and researcher Julie Varner said:
"While the present results do not address the causal mechanisms of aluminum-induced neural degeneration, they do demonstrate that ingested aluminum reaches the brain, and in such animals there exists evidence of neural injury." (

At any rate, the Pineal gland is more calcified and Fluoride deposits have been linked to aging. (^ a b Luke, Jennifer. "Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland". Caries Res 2991 (35): 125–28. Retrieved 2009-05-20.) But, this post is hardly meant to be a cynics "conspiracy theory nonsense."  I want to talk about this trippy-ass gland and what it might be for.

 From Tool's album Aenima.

  • The structures of the third eye in the tuatara are homologous to the cornea, lens and retina, though the latter resembles that of an octopus rather than a vertebrate retina. The asymmetrical whole consists of the "eye" to the left and the pineal sac to the right. "In animals that have lost the parietal eye, including mammals, the pineal sac is retained and condensed into the form of the pineal gland."[9 on Wiki]
  • Unlike much of the rest of the mammalian brain, the pineal gland is not isolated from the body by the blood-brain barrier system;[10] indeed it has profuse blood flow, second only to the kidney.[6]
  • Melatonin is a derivative of tryptophan, an amino acid.
    • Related to tryptamines, DMT, hallucinogens.
    • Absorbs Fluorescence between 280nm and 380nm, while the human visible spectrum is 380nm-740nm.  (Anyone interested in expanding their visual range?=])
  •  Melatonin has been shown to protect against neurodegeneration
Now that we have listed that scientific evaluation of the gland, the next post will consider the so-called "mystical, mythical, and meta-physical" notions regarding this peculiar gland in the center of our monkey-mind.

Painting by Alex Gray

Read more ...

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

A New Mode of Understanding

No longer is mentality/rationality a satisfactory method for understanding life.

For those keeping track, you may have noticed that rational thought has a knack for leading one into the bottom of the cracks of existence where frustration and emptiness merge to void. On a more academic level of reflection, it seems that rational thought operates on a false pretense of objective sensification. In other words, it presents itself as objective statement of truth when in fact each mental and rational line of reasoning is nothing more than a "chess move," with a finite metaphorical structure, and a specific assumption that drives its core framework. When people begin to question the framework of their thoughts, they might discover that the thought is not reality - it is a representation that proposes no more than intention of communication and hopes of constructing ideas between beings of consciousness.

The problem with Mentality (especially as known by the terminology of scientific rationalism):

Typically, science is perceived as an investigation into the "external" world that (when correlated as consistent amongst different trials and observers) suggests a "truth" about our "objective reality."  Consciousness is often spoke of as a mere epiphenomenon (secondary condition), a complex emergence of thoughts, feelings, and awareness that is second to the cold and lifeless matter of the universe.  There are several problems with this mode of thinking; a mode of thinking that I believe is held by the masses, and not necessarily most of the astrophysicists of our time.
  1. Consciousness can be said to be primary to us as experience - not the external world
  2. Measurement is a finite system that affects results AND has NO ability to measure things such as consciousness.
  3. Externalization into primary and tertiary "worlds" leads to a paradox or bifurcation of reality that scientists have NOT been able to resolve. (ie the connection between lifeless matter and complex consciousness)
  4. An immense level of reductionism is used to understand the world.  Most don't realize that reducing something to its components does not give you a picture of the whole.  We can not use reduced components to create the whole picture.  While understanding components can be practical and helpful, it's the worldview that is created by this modality that troubles me.
  5. Science tends on the side of objectification which diminishes the relational qualities between things in our Universe. ** I tend to hold relations and relationships as extremely important. *** Though science is improving upon this.  For instance, Newtonian physics saw time and space as separate.  Einstein's relativity shows a level of relational quality.  **** In other words, it might be best to say that science tends to limit relations to reductionistic formulas rather than interactive and integrated systems of connectedness.
The limits of mentality as a system of understanding:
  1.  Tends towards dualistic notions of right or wrong, rather than integral forms of understanding that embrace the whole.
  2. Operates with linguistic ambiguities and tends to use these ambiguities as an arguing point - often due to misunderstanding.
  3. To think one thing is often to deny the other.
  4. The mental system is, well, only a mechanism or a system and is often thought of as a truth of reality rather than a matrix that can be semi-illusory.  Rational thought has a substructure that it does not make us privy to.  There is an underlying meta-environment that any rational approach takes.  It may use spatial wording and operate on spatial frameworks that can be incorrect.  The different levels of reduction taken in rational thought structures often lead to illusory differences between different ways of thinking; modes that often lead to opposition, conflagration, or unintentional misunderstanding.

I am NOT claiming that reason is bad or unhelpful.

That would be seriously foolish because, after all, I am writing (I hope) logically and rationally.   My intention isn't to claim that rational thinking must be ended, but rather, to get people to explore the place of reason, what its pre-suppositions are, what kind of belief structure it creates, and how it affects our lives.  I would be willing to contend that the pre-structures or sub-structures that rationalism and mentality (being used interchangeably) operate on are typically unseen, unknown, and affecting humans without their knowledge.  In a sense then, many have a religious and dogmatic clinging to this method of understanding while being ignorant of what it is.  I imagine that distant ancestors of ours had many religious or mythical beliefs that operated on pre-conceived notions or underlying pre-suppositions that were, and may still be, opaque to everyday perceptual understanding.  Indeed, every system of understanding seems to rest on a foundation of ideas or notions.  I believe it is important for us to make these things diaphanous (or transparent) to us.  I hope the result would be that people would be less controlled by these assumptions and better informed of why and when they CHOOSE to use them (depending upon the task at hand at a specific moment).

The goal then is to make the method of understanding transparent to the being that is conscious and aware.

TBC - writing slowly sigh.
Read more ...