o 1 Asia

o 1.1 Ainu

o 1.2 Hmong

o 1.3 Korea

o 1.4 Mansi

o 1.5 Mongol

o 1.6 Orok

o 1.7 Shinto

o 1.8 Taoism

o 1.9 Zen

2 Africa

o 2.1 Bakuba

o 2.2 Maasai

o 2.3 Man Dinka

o 2.4 Voodoo

o 2.5 Yoruba

o 2.6 Zulu

3 Europe

o 3.1 Finnish

o 3.2 Greek (Classical)

o 3.3 Norse

4 India

o 4.1 Buddhist

o 4.2 Hindu

o 4.3 Jainism

o 4.4 Sikh

o 4.5 Seurat Shabda Yoga

5 Pacific

o 5.1 Australian Aboriginal

o 5.2 Polynesian

o 5.3 Hawaiian

o 5.4 Maori

o 5.5 Tagalog

6 Middle East

o 6.1 Babylonian

o 6.2 Bahá'í

o 6.3 Egyptian

o 6.4 Hermeticism

o 6.5 Islam

o 6.6 Judaism and Christianity

o 6.7 Mandaeism

o 68 Zoroastrianism

7 North America

o 7.1 Kiowa Apache

o 7.2 Aztec

o 7.3 Cherokee

o 7.4 Choctaw

o 7.5 Creek

o 7.6 Digueno

o 7.7 Hopi

o 7.8 Inuit

o 7.9 Iroquois

o 7.10 Lakota

o 7.11 Maidu

o 7.12 Navajo

o 7.13 Ojibwa

o 7.14 Seminole

o 7.15 Tlingit

8 South America

o 8.1 Inca

o 8.2 Mayan

9 Modern

o 9.1 Evolutionary Spirituality

o 9.2 Mormonism

o 9.3 Raëlism

o 9.4 Randomness

o 9.5 Scientology

o 9.6 Wicca

A majority of the registered religions are quite ancient; granted very, very few have modern concepts.Simply because it may still be practiced doesn't make it in any way greater than a belief, what someone thinks or omit the fact of 'it'(religion) as an ancient creation.

Myths don’t change, all 59 registered religious subcultures attempt to alter an others perspective..(psychology/religion)....of what is 'right'. Where the only form of 'wrong' is to disagree, because they convey a message; usually about morality ( five of the ten commandments are part of many laws,sha.. ) ..Adjusting (on the mass) a wide variation of reality/absolutes for individuals (psychological doctrine). A true cyclical Gorgon Knot but not unidentifiable as an ancient form of psychology.

The word 'ancient' is used to signify the time in which psychological doctrines developed from the deep past to today, humanity has used these text to sway masses throughout time, not solely for spiritual purposes but precisely as psychological doctrine; even TODAY.

If the (religious) texts are taught as 'psychological doctrines' children can develop better understandings of the variety of nuances in faiths and eventually chose for themselves what to accept. Perhaps a continent a semester? This way would not favor one faith as being more credible than an other.

                     George Carlin

Geeorge wrote this shortly after losing his wife 

People question whether war which is really such a traumatic life -changing experience for the survivors and definitely life -changing for the dead; should be remembered as it is? They were of course shouted down and vilified but seriously do you think they have a point. Should we not teach that diplomacy, compromise and above all else an understanding of the facts is a far preferable solution and war a very absolute desperate last resort?

War is tied to nationalism and my belief that nationalism has brought the world, as we know it, to its knees

Of course we should forget such things, as homage days for the those who were killed in meaningless wars for, although it is hypocritically put on as a show of remembrance it really glorifies conflict.

For instance, in world war one the young men from Australia and New Zealand joined the forces in droves to get to defend a country that enslaved them and tied them to the "British Empire"

They could not wait to travel to see the worst side of humanity, the side that enjoys killing his fellow human beings, for what reason I believe that nobody has put the finger on, for sure.

My own opinion is that to fight and kill or hurt is a part of the human form and psyche. This is based on the fact that in us all there is a rage than can, and does consume us at times, a rage that can turn us against our friends even, for, how quick we are to turn on the temper that we have within us all

We argue and get heated about things that are often so unimportant and inconsequential that it is tragic that we would be willing to lose a friend over, just to be right.

As proof of this, every time this subject comes up I can feel the fire rise up in me and all hell breaks lose in my mind, so strong .... this quirk of human nature

I have seen the people in other countries on Armistice day stand in the rain and cold to, "Honor" their dead and then go to the pub, get intoxicated and then argue and fight over the slightest thing .

Just watch them on the other 364 days when they pass a monument to the dead and see if they bow their heads, salute, or show any emotion at all, no, they reserve it for that one day. I keep well away on that day from this show of hypocrisy that, in my opinion demeans us as people

Those who know me tell me that I am wrong and it worries me not as it is the one time that I say, with confidence, "They have gone to a better place" They must have ,as the battlefield is the place for fools , Prophet/profit's and of violence ...where they go they will find the unconditional acceptance that has eluded them on earth. A new beginning.

As a disabled vet I know what a dreadful scourge the pursuit of war is and I do think that the sacrifice of all the millions of blessedly innocent young on both sides must be acknowledged and not seen as in vain. But at the same time war has to be rejected as a way of solving the world's problems. We have to find a less virulent solution

How can we both hate the war and support our troops? They are half of the problem over there. When are we going to teach our children to stop waving flags and use their reason to think it through to the end.

I dislike the use of the term,"our boys".One trained to kill and one who murders his fellow man is no longer a boy in my book."I'm only doing my job",but it’s a volunteer army, who told you to do it? Its your choice to kill.

Yeah but in situations a soldier finds themselves in ; maybe self-preservation kicks in because it is usually kill or be killed. Although I have to admit that nowadays warfare can almost be conducted as a remote experiment.

No one wants peace more than a soldier, and few understand better how easy it is to waste... one life. When men reduce their world to ‘ two dogs fighting over a bone’ ... the things in life that hold true value ...as a culture , suffer. I think instead of fighting we should consider finding a new ‘bone’, re-evaluate our values as a society starting with money...

I could go on about war but I don’t think it offers anything productive which is why I say ‘thanks but no thanks, I am staying stateside.’

All of us can think of things we are satisfied with and things we aren't. For most of us, the mix varies widely over the course of time, and the causes of the variation are usually both objective and subjective.

If we are in a "good mood", we tend to be in denial about the bad things and engage in wishful thinking about the bad things; if we are in a "bad mood", we may exaggerate the negative aspects of our life and skip over the good aspects.

So isn't it better to consciously direct any soul-searching we do in more constructive directions?

In other words, shouldn't we be asking ourselves,

"What can I do to minimize the bad elements in my life and maximize the good ones?"

Selective breeding and environment, instead of chance beneficial mutation, seem likely to account for the majority of major changes in species over time . I've yet to see any example of any kind of random mutation that actually appears to be advantageous.

But there are so many questions I fumble with during the long nights of video games (Analytical programs) I would like answers to,... like how did the butterfly (or any flying insect, for that matter) evolve their wings?

The life-cycle is such that an egg is laid by an already existing perfect butterfly, which obviously inherited its traits from a much earlier type of butterfly which at one time, would not have had the ability to fly. The egg hatches into a larva, or caterpillar, which eats and eats and eats, spins a cocoon around itself, and transforms into a perfect flying insect.

Now, someone once tried to explain this to me, saying how once the conditions were right the emergence of life was inevitable . initial conditions coupled with the laws of nature make life as we know is a Fiat accomplice.

The primitive insect might have developed 'nubs' which allowed it to hop away from predators and find better sources of food than those without nubs, and over subsequent generations these finally grew into the perfect wings of butterflies we see today. On the surface, this seems reasonable. We don't just have one type of butterfly, there are thousands and then we also have literally millions of different types of insects which also have the ability to fly. Possessing their own variety of perfectly functioning wings, first time.. every time. All with different life spans, diets and routines.

A "mutant insect" would be most likely to not survive, not successfully find a mate to breed with, and most likely to mutate into something more of a hindrance than a benefit. Then, if it is beneficial, and if it does successfully find a compatible mate and passes on the mutation, and the insect finds a niche without too much competition, interbreeds with the offspring of the original parents for long enough, then okay, I can see how a new type of insect may appear. It all just seems way too chancy , to explain the massive variety of virtually perfect flying insects which arose from the same scum-pond as the rest of us monkeys and fruit-bats. Now , how evolution has worked itself out .... amongst almost an infinite number of interactions ; making accurate predictions impossible.

Most people think evolution makes a great deal more sense than creation, When it comes to the logic of life we are thrown back to the logic of how everything behaves as it does :although I do not speak for anyone but myself.

A scientific theory must offer evidence which can show its truth or falsity. Science does not simply make claims based on beliefs or faith, but rather makes claims that can be argued using reason.

If by "creation" one means a literal interpretation of the Bible, wherein 'god' created the earth in 7 days, etc. If ‘god’ did create the world without the species evolving , perfectly ; then there is nothing more to argue about. But there is evidence world wide ,that evolution has been happening for a long time.

At this point, I'd like to mention that only believers in a heavily anthropomorphizing concept of "god" can be called "Creationists" by most of the definitions of the word in common use. A good example would be the Christian Fundamentalists who believe that their "god" created the Universe by what are essentially a series of shamanistic "magic spells", such as saying "Let there be light!" and there was light. Or "fashioning a man out of mud and breathing life into his nostrils with his own breath". A "personal god" of this sort is operationally identical to one of the deities common in Pagan religions.

More sophisticated deists traditionally accept some version of "guided evolution", assuming that "god" directs a gradual process, and that from our present point of view, is still in the process of creating the universe. Yes, many deists of this type believe that "god stands out of time and sees all of the past and future simultaneously", but this is not the same as denying evolution -- it's simply adding a detail that's irrelevant to the creation process itself.

If we aren't talking about a simple and literal interpretation of the Bible alone ; then we don't need to limit "creation" to the Judeo-Christian version. I don't think we necessarily have to choose between ‘this or that’... creation and evolution.

Creation is a matter of definition.

1 - Creation of life on earth began when the first organism distinguished itself from inorganic objects and dead organisms; this being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

OR

2 - The western [biblical] view of creation, Garden of Eden and so forth, which is a mythological story explaining the origin of the species, the way it made sense to people who had no scientific knowledge.

I say that the end goal of evolution is god, and that god didn't "create" the universe, but the universe is the act of the creation of god .

I don't see why there has to be a planner. In fact it is the idea of a "creator" that leads to the ad infinity proposal of "who created the creator?"

I tend to see the development/evolution of the universe in terms of complexity theory, that the "order" that we experience emerged from the structure and form of the universe. Like the ‘plan’ is just evolving itself , kinda like growth.

There are two things going on- what a person thinks and what they believe.

I would like to believe in creation but I don't .Because I am unable to think of any reason to believe in it. I do think that evolution takes place but I don't "believe in" it.

I do believe that scientific inquiry produces better information than mysticism for me to use to analyze my relationship with existence and that that relationship is the essence of (my) spiritualism.

We know that all life-forms are a collection of chemical reactions which more or less miraculously work together symbiotically in such a way that life can exist in a peculiar fashion which should more or less be accepted . But because it does exist, logic tells us that it is not at all miraculous because a miracle tends to describe something out of the ordinary, in fact, so far out of the ordinary that it shouldn't be.

I only see one reality and it includes everything. Your reality is not different from mine. Although your perceptions and your appreciations of reality may not be experienced by me, they are still part of the one singular reality. That reality is all that exists in the eternal 'now'. There are no alternates to totality.

We can't apply logic to things we can't conceive , referring to the alternate realities posed by physicists and dreamers, but, should there happen to be places like that, they would necessarily be part of this reality too. We can't get outside because everything is always inside no matter how far we travel or what convolutions of language allow us to pretend otherwise.

We don't understand how life came to be. How can we presume to calculate odds about its likelihood?

Life seems to be imbued with both beauty and purpose based on experience. Are you experienced? Life, some say ; without a helping hand, should have fizzled out well before it crawled out of the pond. There is too much diversity in life to suggest that it all comes from a common ancestor, or small group of ancestors (you know, plant, fungi, animal etc) petri dish? .

It gets my mind wondering about other ideas.

An idea I'm quite fond of is the idea that everything is nothing more than imagination.

The physical universe may be pure spirit, slowed down enough for us to believe it is real and solid and graspable, but that this is all illusion brought about by the unfortunate act of believing we are real. All manifestations (life) are the effect of spirit becoming matter out of pure thought , before returning back into spirit again after personal death.

Energy and matter are simply different aspects of the same thing. Psychology is discovering how our realities are shaped by our thoughts... even if it takes time for our thoughts to manifest into physicality.

This suggests the possibility, then, there COULD be beings in the vastness of theUniverse ; who possess more pure thought; abilities way beyond ourselves, who can and do (or at least, have) create such things as living, breathing, re-creating entities .

Life is thought, explains the origins of life ; while evolution describes its path. As life only comes from life ; this would appear to be the logical conclusion for how and why some species, using simple thought ; may have originated perfectly the first time, and not after millions of years of spontaneously mutating in beneficial ways.

It is said that we all have a part of our brain which is completely unable to distinguish between what it sees from any other reality, even when we "know" it is not "real".

This opens up the can of worms about what reality is. Are thoughts any less real just because they don't appear as graspable elements of the physical reality? Of course not. Where does the energy come from that is poured into powerful, original thoughts?

Logic tells me that life itself would have had little reason to ever develop beyond the state of harmful and disastrous chemical reactions which would seek out their own kind in order to reproduce.

Even though our thoughts may create our realities, there will always be certain boundaries within which we must act and abide by.

Darwin himself said that "...the theory of evolution did not prove there was no god, only that he was smarter than we originally thought". Evolution dozen’t explain how it all began, or why--that question still lingers at the heart of human existence.

Also, the theory of evolution had been around for a while before Darwin. Darwin's’ theory of natural selection showed how evolution worked

If he/ she, god; is not responsible for mutations, then there must be greater forces at work which shapes the universe.

But when we speak of an "alternative reality" we usually mean what physicists describe as an alternative universe where possibly the laws of nature are not the same as ours( a world we can not enter).If you replace the word "reality"with "experience" it makes sense to me.(one person's experience is different from the next person's experience.)

When we say,"He is not seeing reality 'veriodically' ",we mean the person is not seeing the world as most people do.

If we can accept the veriodical , that evolution did occur to improve each species chances of survival : it would mean the species were not perfect to start with ?

Does evolution relate to perfection?

Does creation have to be mystical in nature, for religions to accept the data?

Just more questions...origin does not matter, what matters is what is.

If humanity would express the same energy trying to understand the nature of EVERYTHING that exist , including humanities survival...

Say heres a thought , why not use a water spray on every 6th down stoke of a gas combustion engine, this creates the reality of utilizing the heat of the chamber , it would be hot enough to expand with enough force to drive the piston... 20% more efficiency to your auto and maybe another 10 miles to a tank of gas.......

instead of WHERE it (oil, life, reality...) came from,

man, the things we could do...

We do have a space station although' not finished yet and it is a long way off becoming a tourist destination.

Journey to the Center of the Earth could be classified as a fantasy .

Remember the giant mushrooms in the movie?

‘They’ recently found fossilized mushrooms as big as that, so it isn't all fantasy

Are things seen as fantasy until they exist and then called a leap of the imagination?

Remember Dick Tracy's wrist watch?

Almost everyone has a cell phone now, again not so much fantasy

Fantasy and imagination are too much the same to carry a discussion,

Fantasy is the human mind exploring different possibilities, this is at least as important as scientific research, it all leads to new things

Imagination is a tool for making things happen or giving new insights.

Imagination doesn't require fantasy to give it 'wings', but fantasy requires imagination or it never gets off the ground.

Imagination is the vehicle that makes an idea a reality.

I have noticed that the folks that are really taken with science, logic, rationality and so on, tend to be impatient with and condescending to others who explore different ways of experiencing life and who look for different connections.

We imagine everything before we do it, after we do it and even while we're doing it. Imagination is what governs our every move

It’s a lot like faith in the way it reduces everything to one method of understanding. Usually those most insecure in their beliefs that hang on to science alone (vice verse /religion)

Maybe it's because some folk are thinkers and others doers? I like to live and think a little bigger than that and maybe I can have some fun along the way.

Einstein claims he came to his conclusions by fantasizing about what it would be like to ride a beam of light, trying to imagine how the world would appear.

We also use our imagination to do new things with something, to change it, to improve it, etc. Anything we invent initially comes from our imagination in some way.

Fantasy is imagination unrestricted by reality. Fantasy can plant a seed that leads to progress or an invention of some kind, but it's really only the spark. It takes imagination and logic to make something a reality.

It’s the connections that lead in new directions . I understand that, for some concerns, empirical evidence is a necessity but I don't want to limit my life or my thoughts just to that.

"Science can often be as dogmatic as anyone else. To cross the line of rigid interpretation is difficult for those that hold tight to the greats of the past . Often in their quest for veriodical answers they ignore the steps others are taking toward their own answers. Peoples needs vary while sharing ideas . " - Santi P

When man started dreaming of flying, it was not fantasy that sparked that particular dream. It was watching a bird. It was his imagination and his ability to expound on that little piece of reality that made it become a possibility. He no doubt fantasized about being able to fly, but the logical process came from observing reality (the bird) and imagining how to adapt that reality to enable a human to fly.

When man looked at the moon and had the urge to go there, it wasn't the fantasy of 'all-you-can-eat-green cheese' that made it happen.

The Concorde was at first a dream ; it took engineers to make the dream real. The original dream had to be dreamt.

We imagined how we could use the plane's design to make a space ship. People probably fantasized about it before it was anything but absurd, but it wasn't the fantasy that motivated the actual reality of building that ship.

So while we may fantasize about something, when it actually comes to the logical process involved, we are using our imagination to build or modify or improve some design that we already have.

Progress and new inventions are usually a step by step process of one idea that begets another and another, based on what is and not what is not yet.

Often fantasy is not involved at all, but imagination always is. Imagination is the creator and the manual labor. Fantasy doesn't get anything done. It takes a logical process to do that.

Tomorrow is in the imagination of those here today. Today's science is the fantasy of the past . Each is as valid as the outcome?

Imagination holds a realistic degree of equality, since imagination is coupled with logic to get things done.

But then I don't think fantasy and imagination are really as similar as they seem.

Imagination is always integrated with reality and fantasy may or may not be.

The greatest change comes from the smaller sub- cultures ; with the fewest people on a veriodical plain (that are not easily understood).

Imagination is integral to growth.

"imagination is more important than knowledge"------

Dr. Masaru Emoto

Many of you have heard, read or studied about Dr. Masaru Emoto and his concepts involving emotions and their vibrational effects on water. We greatly respect and honor the groundbreaking research and photographic techniques that Dr. Emoto is showing and sharing with the world.

Writings from Dr. Emoto:
" Hado: The intrinsic vibrational pattern at the atomic level in all matter. The smallest unit of energy. Its basis is the energy of human consciousness. The theory of 'Ha do' postulates that, since all phenomena is at heart resonating energy, by changing the vibration we change the substance. What has put Dr. Emoto at the forefront of the 'Ha do' phenomenon is his proof that thoughts and feelings affect PHYSICAL reality. By producing different 'Ha do' through written and spoken words, as well as music and literally presenting it to the SAME water samples, the water appears to "change its expression."

-"Our bodies are composed of seventy trillion (+/-) cells - each containing liquid/water. Water is a substance that easily adapts to its environment. Dr. Emoto freezes droplets of water, examining them under a dark field microscope with photographic capabilities. Using various positive and negative thoughts, words, ideas and music, Dr. Emoto's research has demonstrated that water's physical appearance is not the only change - molecular structure also changes. From Dr. Emoto's work we receive visual proof of human vibrational energy. He has gained worldwide acclaim through his groundbreaking research and discovery that water is deeply connected to our individual and collective consciousness."

This sort of stuff makes me wonder just how much our angry words affect ours and others health. But then of course it may also tie in with the power of prayer to affect ill health. Music is of course vibrational and we know how that can affect animals and even plants as much as it can us.

Even I know the importance of prayer , repetition creates focus; focus become paramount , not the words.

But is this the science behind the New Age concept of energy and vibration (and I guess the old age concept of Chi?)?

Lets take a closer look.

Dr. Emoto's research has demonstrated that water's physical appearance is not the only change - molecular structure also changes.

This sounds like new age gobbledygook to me. Sounds fundamental so it must be mysterious and therefore is probably correct ?!

If water's molecular structure undergoes change then it is no longer water!

The molecule comprises 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, hence the chemical symbol H2O and the chemical name di-Hydrogen oxide.

There is a molecule commonly but incorrectly called heavy water, Deuterium. This is in truth really heavy hydrogen. Its occurrence through the Cosmos [approx 0.015% by volume] is evidence that supports the Big Bang Hypothesis.

Dr. Emoto freezes droplets of water, examining them under a dark field microscope with photographic capabilities.

Ripping stuff..........but the text that follows this stunning bit of intelligence tells us nothing of what he sees.

He has gained worldwide acclaim through his groundbreaking research and discovery that water is deeply connected to our individual and collective consciousness.

A perusal of the Wikipedia site will provide a more realistic view of Emoto's work from qualified scientists. James Randi has offered him $1m if his claimed results can be confirmed by double-blind tests. Emoto has declined the challenge so far.

Emoto also freely declares that he is not a scientist, so 'the Doctor honorific' is almost certainly bogus. The vignette to the right of the article is revealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#Water_crystal_work_and_criticism

Why be distracted by either ego? The amazing revelation's by science of the real wonders of the natural world are vastly more awe-inspiring and breath-taking than either ego battling for attention .

When we consider how the mind acts when utilizing common mental exercises like well.... focus is paramount . The words we use or the religions that formed the mantras are inconsequential to the results.

There is mounting evidence that the way we think has a direct relation to our health and environment . Although being me; I don’t think religion is required; to codify prayer as an ancient mental exercise.

Sub cultures are more and more informed . They also outnumber the theocracies that bind them. Greatest change comes from the few . The climate dictates change .

Many field studies on "spiritual" phenomena and para-normal activity have been conducted for some forty years..

Having been a stone mason for years I have come across some interesting ancient stories . Masons have had a relationship with organized religion for thousands of years .

It is common knowledge in the trade : that religious organizations have always preferred to have their structures built out of particular stone, whenever possible .A lot of those ancient structures are reportedly haunted .

It wasn't until modern times has man discovered that granite is slightly radioactive . Radiation is a form of natural radio waves or electricity and all stone (like all matter) is slightly magnetized . Matter has a measurable background radiation . Granite causes a natural electro-magnetic disturbance.

What does that have to do with prayer or ghosts? Well..."..in order to understand your enemy you must understand yourself..."-Tsun Tsu , art of war .

What is man? Billions of cells with billions of atoms , all communicating with a central hub, the brain . How does the brain communicate? Through electro-chemicals in the nervous system .The electro-chemical organism better known as the 'brain' interprets reality through a pattern of chemicals .

Various universities and government agencies have been studying electro-magnetic patterns in the brain and found out that there are certain constants . Basic commands create electro-chemical patterns in the brain, which use a low electro - magnetic charge to communicate : up ,down , left , right and so on . The military has been developing " hands free" flying with a similar device .All are in agreement

During these studies odd happenings would occur. Aberrations would appear and objects would move completely on their own . Then .....this professor from Nevada , who happened to be experiencing and documenting the same effects with his Tesla Coil "s electro-magnetic fields. Producing not only feeling a sense of aw and uncertainty : but other altered realities over a period of exhaustive tests ; he was able to actually manipulate objects physical structure .( Sorry I can't quite recall the professors name just yet )This professor from Nevada suggested that

".. the brain was naturally programed to communicate through electro- magnetic patterns and should those patterns be disturbed; the brain then "tunes in" to any electro-magnetic field thus warping our known reality by scrambling the brains patterns; "

All modern electronics generate this charged field on some level . 'Ghost' chasers understand this phenomena and often a test is run on the electronic equipment to measure the electro-magnetic disturbance generated by the hardware and structure you expose yourself to ; like the way your house is wired and the location of power stations and the type of stone is on your land...

All thoughts in the mind, create a pattern of chemicals in the brain.

There are specific patterns that identify commands like , up down...and interprit reality .

It has been proven that low levels of raidiation disrupts those patterns in the brain ; depending on the level of raidiation and location of the individual...ect..

The early church only knew that certain types of stone had mysterious effects on 'believers' and created a sense of aww and uncertainty .. nothing more at the time

Stone was an ancient example .(one everyone seamed to grab for) I used it. to point out that background raidiation has allways been there and has been used .. Stone is only one material .

In todays modern world the walls are highly charged with electromagnetic raidiation ;electrical wires , computers,microwaves, MRI ...have a much higher level of background raidiation and in doing so have a much higher validity than stone .I am not saying 'stone can capture thought' ; I am saying that a variety of materials influence the 'minds' perspective.

Psycology is at best an educated guess . Even in 'bag theory' , it says that throughout the genus homo certain social chariteristics become identifiable through social interaction. There are three major sets ; alph ,beta and gamma . Each set has a minor sub- set ; prime , neutral and minus . All but one combination ( alpha prime) of major and minor sets can be amalgamated to the prime of thier group : only with an understanding of thier social structure and thier surrounding sub-cultures . Alpha sub-sets detemine ratio of various personalities within a sub-culture .The 'melting pot' seams to identify personalities within the sub-culture . That's the basic 'bag theory' Bagging groups of personalities.

Doesn't allways hold up to scurtiny . The scientific method produces various results when applied to psychology .

For me psycology is just a few rungs higher than mysticism . But that is only my opinion The ground that science uses as a foundation (scientific method ) is sound . Psycology is mainly based on a case by case speculation . Science isn't without change , and isn't a world of absolutes either ; but a firm foundation none the less .

It seems to me that Science , not mysticism or psychology; holds more of a promise for veridical answers

But, what should one consider normal or another consider normal or one that a community or nation considers normal or some religious organization considers normal or what a merchant considers normal or a politician considers normal .... ?There is no 'normal' paradigmn ; ones mans garbage is another mans treasure .

A reality that even puts science on a shakey foundation...tesla coil , alcohol ,thc ,lsd ....electromagnetic stimuli ?

She actually killed herself DURING a manic episode because she just couldn't face coming down off of one more manic to face the ordinary, boring, dreary, day to day existence that she considered her "Real Life" to be.

I once overheard some blaring headphones in the office, the song was 'manic Monday'.

Got me thinking about how much EVERYTHING really hinges on societies perception of normal and acceptable.

I was thinking that if the majority of people had bi-polar type tendencies, then we would be counselling, medicating and ostracizing the minority because of their flat personalities and their over-cautious behavior.

I just wonder how much of the self-destructive part of the 'illness' is a bi-product of shame and censure and how much is a part of the disease itself.

To some extent, I question the idea that it really is a disease

I don't mean to dismiss the difficulty of dealing with the chemical imbalance within the electrochemical organism.

At times I detest what being civilized means.

For instance, if you are excessively animated and you get the urge to take your clothes off and you're four years old, it makes everyone smile. If you took your dozen knives and made a circle out of them or tripped out on something totally fascinating, as a child, it's seen as being imaginative or even creative.

If two adults hold hands and skip down the isle ( not that I would know) in a store singing, eyebrows go up and people think there is something wrong with them.

We are naturally manic and curious and do alot of weird things as children.

As we grow up, there are all these rules, written and unwritten that we have to act a certain way.

Our manic nature is deliberately blunted and controlled.

That works for some people, but others consider it very confining and unnatural.

We are required to see the universe in a very structured way, when if we were really honest, we actually know very little about it all.

We're not supposed to have 'magic' or share our insights as adults with children , unless it is pre-approved. No longer the free speaking child , must grow on their own; if not a parent.

If adults talk about anything that isn't on the 'list', that adult is considered a bit 'loony'.

Out of 'manic' has come some of the most creative masterpieces and thoughts that man has ever had, but it's still not okay in general.

Is it really abnormal to see radiance and feel like 'I am the world and the world is me' or is that just a part of us we're required to let go of or to extinguish?

Isn't that exactly what we feel before we conform?

It is such a short step between not fitting into the required mold and being considered abnormal.

Those who manage to fit in are rewarded with acceptance and those that don't are judged and are forever supposed to struggle and do whatever is necessary to fit in.

You aren't good enough and you need to fix it, according to our society.

I think the truth is that the world is filled with alot of people who are only going through the motions to fit in.

The pressure of trying to fit in, when it's so at odds with who we are actually makes some people ill, take anti-depressants, anesthetize themselves with food, material possessions, etc. the secrets we keep

Isn't it the real truth that there are simply degrees of how we perceive ourselves and the world around us ?

We all fit in from one end of the range to the other, but only a small area in the middle has been deemed to be acceptable.

Is it much different that being too short, too fat, too homely, too ignorant, etc?

I have a couple of friends who are not in that 'acceptable range'. They used to have a much harder time and for them, it seems like their biggest enemy was shame.

As soon as they really accepted themselves, it make a world of difference in their lives.

They still have manic periods, because that is part of who they are, but they don't seem to include the things they used to do that were personally destructive and they don't have as hard of a crash at the end of it.

One of my friends told me , she no longer considers herself or her behavior to be an enemy .

Without the shame she used to feel, there isn't some kind of sub-conscious urge to punish herself.

She has an awesome sense of humor about it now and rather than repelling people because of negative based drama, people seem attracted to her energy and her humor.

Do you think that shame or a person's own negative attitude about who they are, could actually be at the root of some of the more destructive behavior?

Do you think the depression that follows such behavior, is made worse by it? Is there a relation?

If manic attacks were the majority, rather than the minority, I sometimes wonder if the real disease is how civilized and conformed we've become due to an chemical imbalance?

One way our actions directly relate to our electrochemical structure is by what we eat?

People really do hang onto their dull safety zones and are horrified at anyone who doesn't follow the rules.

The isolation experienced by gifted individuals may not be caused by 'giftedness' itself, but by society's response to 'giftedness'. In this culture, there appears to be a great pressure for people to be 'normal' with a considerable stigma associated with 'giftedness' or talent.

To counteract this problem, gifted education professionals recommend creating a peer group based on common interests and abilities...a sub - culture. The earlier this occurs in an individuals life, the more effective it is likely to be in preventing isolation.

Unfortunately this is a personal issue that causes much anxiety , frustration and simple angst in a gifted persons attempts at personal, professional and social interactions.

I tend to think "intelligence" is a reflection of a person's ability to apply their mental faculties to life itself. Intelligence are all these abilities (memory, problem solving, prediction, etc) manifest in the actions and behavior of individuals.

As a general rule, human beings appear to be "smarter" when they are able to apply skills and knowledge they already have to making decisions; than they are when they have to proceed by trial and error. Bumping along, learning to find the correct question to ask.

The branch of psychology known has psychometrics has tried to devise ways of getting around this impasse, usually by measuring the speed at which people learn by trial and error while manipulating symbols according to unfamiliar rules, but I've always felt this is a special talent, similar to the talent for staying on music pitch or making realistic drawings of objects in view.

For example, I'm quite a "slow learner" if judged by this standard, yet most people who've actually known me have considered me to be unusually "intelligent".At first it was a real struggle to get past it, but now I recognize the truth, that for many years my intelligence actually hurt me, that I learned only surface knowledge . I focused on getting the grade rather than actually working towards really learning something.

Since those far off years , I made this shift in my thinking I have had to work harder yes, but I have reaped many rewards for it

Long before modern psychology existed, educators measured "intelligence" in terms of ability to memorize data or to solve problems using some particular method of assembling words, numbers, or other symbols into patterns. However, the former is another special talent, and the latter is simply a set of learned skills.

I Q tests used to be set in England to stream children to different schools. Those who were not in the top 5% or something like that went to different schools where they could learn skilled trades. The top ones went to High school and did the sciences and languages etc.

It does not always mean you were wildly successful in life. A person's worth is not found in their IQ !! It is an artificial standard. Whether you are successful in life , depends on so many other variables , far too many ; like...that of being in the right place at the right time. For a single aspect to outweigh the rest of them

In most cultures, the social contract measures "intelligence" almost entirely in terms of verbal communications ability: how well a person speaks or writes. For example, it's common to say someone is "smart" if they can describe the information in a book they read, or tell someone how to find a place or perform some action.

We don't say, "She's smart because she can swim so well." Now, swimming is just as much a combination of mental and physical skills as speaking or writing, but few human societies acknowledge this or even make the connection .

In any case, I guess if I had to give a general, operational definition of "intelligence", it would have to be related to verbal and written communication skills. Maybe something like, "A smart person is someone who is good at asking the right questions when seeking knowledge and giving the right answers when asked questions."

Each heart that breaks with pain or bursts with joy

The confluence of miracles that swirl in the firmament

Create precious moments , in and out side our lives

Have we not wondered , have we not feared what we can’t control

Have we not shared the hope for a vision of eternity with…

The knowledge that we are left alone with faith in each other

Grows in acceptance with each passing moment …alone

Once I howled like the timber wolf I am, at the moon of ‘god’

In the full measure of time , one uncovers the truth...

night turns to day , The ‘light’ lies within... not without

A hundred years ago , one would have to actively seek an advertisement for goods and services in papers and magazines . The general population would be exposed to fewer advertisements in a lifetime than a modern person is exposed to in a week from a variety of media, merchandise and services.

It is a fact that the more one is exposed to; a lie , a service , a product; that individual will begin to consider what is being presented as having merit . How many times you have seen a particular commercial in a lifetime? Over time it becomes a form of conditioning . The end result ...? To willingly exploit your own ego .’ Keeping up with the Jones’ syndrom . Yet entire countries are vilified for such activity ( USA )

The bankers and merchants that have conditioned the people their entire life through a variety of media, clothing and merchandise, a few minutes at a time, five to six times an hour; to want the ‘new’ or ‘better’ or ‘smarter’ , tangible and intangible product is overlooked.

Television for instance , I was watching the ‘news’ and hearing people speculate how high prices would rise for petrol ; then without missing a beat , a financial ‘reporter’ states that petrol companies are reporting record profits. Afterwards the commercials (sponsors) were of those very petrol companies...

Even social stereotypes are exploited by networks which have as a majority of their sponsors (paying to re-enforce stereotypical behavior year after year) are bankers and merchants .

Look at the political machine . Can you name a politician that doesn’t use merchants and bankers money ? Just who’s interest will a politician defend....the one paying the bills? Odd isn’t it , the names of the people that make up ‘corporate America’ without their company name when they are paying for corporate recognition .IMO

Merchants and bankers are NOT being held accountable for their influence on the public ; yet various countries peoples are being vilified for government actions that clearly only benefit the money changers , not it's people.

No it isn't all bad , but for it to be better , responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of those that can effect change in personality and process...the money changers ability to condition the masses is greater than any governments .The people have not had control in their own long term conditioning outside of religious belief , for some time now.

I may be grasping at straws but it adds up to me. I realize that this issue is really a global one . I was just approaching it with an American perspective .

How do we combat greed? Remove the value by redefining 'money'; put in a simple governor for money, like lets say ; it loses all value after a period of time; say a 'shelf life' of 90 days. In order for capital to continue to develop worth, it must be put back into circulation, and hoarding it would only lessen its value. It might just be able to wipe out poverty with the deluge of ‘old’ money that would have to be returned to the ‘global economy’; but merchants and bankers would never allow it to happen without a fight.

If bankers and merchants are to be held accountable for :

conditioning various populations, paying to re-enforce negative images that imprint on our children , corrupting our forms of governments to the point of various wars ;

how do we do it ?What do you think?