January 15, 2009
- Caffeine -
I drink a lot of coffee. A lot. So these two recent articles on Physorg really caught my eye:
Midlife coffee drinking can decrease the risk of dementia/Alzheimer’s disease (AD) later in life.
Particularly since they discuss dementia, on the one hand, and “hearing voices” on the other. Of course, I’m not saying, “lets all drink coffee until we hallucinate, then we won’t get Alzheimer’s!” nor I am suggesting that hallucinations might be a cure for dementia.
But it still seems to me that an important concept can be pulled from the two articles. The main point to focus on is that caffeine is a stimulant, and therefore that it increases our ability to perceive and react to external sensation.
Too much stimulation (7+ cups a day?) can lead to hearing voices as well as an increase in the production of the stress hormone cortisol in response to stimulation. And stress, while perhaps not a cause of dementia, is definitely related. I know that when I’m stressed, my memory (both for short term attention and long term recall) suffers pretty badly.
On the other hand, the other study found “that coffee drinkers at midlife had lower risk for dementia later in life, compared to those drinking no or only little coffee. The lowest risk (65% decreased) was found among moderate coffee drinkers (drinking 3-5 cups of coffee/day).”
So, it looks like the ideal is to only slightly enhance awareness through stimulation, but to stop from going too far with it. Tying this in with my information is a drug metaphor, a better picture is painted of how much memorization, the actual conscious realization and retention of facts, is necessary.
That is, that our minds act like a stimulant for our bodies. Our conscious thoughts are there to motivate us to action, to gradually change our whole being in one way or another, so as to maximize our ability to be-in-the-world. But the mind must be connected to the all-that-is. Otherwise we’re lost in the field of good and evil, rather than seeing that all good and evil is purely possibility. Rob’s post which I’m linking to here is great, read the whole thing!…including my comment… ;)
So yeah, basically, it seems the whole “reality interaction” thing should not be run on entirely conscious thought, as conscious thought is itself an abstraction of the very reality we are experiencing and interacting with. But obviously we should not get rid of conscious thought altogether, or no awareness is possible at all. Instead, it is our job to bring the two together, Purusha and Prakriti in contant union.
See also:
- My recent focus on learning to meditate properly by balancing between intense concentration/focus and relaxing to follow my breath. I think this is an important thing for me to watch. (see also my note on intention vs will on the research site).
- the interiew with Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, authors of “Nudge”, over at Amazon: “Those who are in position to shape our decisions can overreach or make mistakes, and freedom of choice is a safeguard to that.”
- see Kafka’s rather negative take on it from his Blue Octavo Notebooks. I guess that’s what happens when you insist on separating the two. Personally, I’d rather think of them as one umbilical cord, rather than a couple of chains, and that the “original chaining” is something we happily volunteered for, rather than a mistake. Still, it’s a nice metaphor.
I drink a lot of coffee because I have problems metabolizing sugar. I have pre-diabetes. So if I eat carbs I go into a little insulin coma. So then I drink a huge “big gulp” mug of strong coffee.
I did a lot of research on this. There is some weird thing with creative people with symptoms of ADD and possibly Bi-polar. It all goes together. But anyway thats why I drink a lot of coffee.
Other people have little insulin comas too but their adrenals kick on. But anyway, you may drink coffee because of this, also you may drink coffee because of the need to be on the same wavelegth as others around you. Coffee puts you on Beta waves, whereas you might normally spend more time in alpha.
Being on alpha all the time is like being a lion. You just regally lie around all day until you have to hunt or fight.
My theory is that ADD comes from a Northern European tribe of hunter gatheres that were like lions. They just lounged around all day unless they were killing something or someone. These are the people described in Tacitus’ Germania. Most of them were killed off but some became nobility and Royalty. Eventually there was an excess of people in Europe that could afford to lie around all day when they weren’t making war or hunting. So they came to America.
Many of the Native Americans are designed this way too. The more warlike tribes. Its not just Nothern Europeans, actually the farther you get from the original birthplace of humanity the higher the incidence of ADD. Because we have wanderlust. South America is the highest incidence of it. Thats the farthest Geographically humanity went.
So anyway, if you can’t be a Viking or a wild Indian, you need to drink a lot of coffee in order to fit in.
Comment by Ted — January 22, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Here is a good book about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Edison-Gene-ADHD-Hunter-Child/dp/0892811285
Comment by Ted — January 22, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Thanks Ted, never thought of it that way.
Comment by Ian — January 22, 2009 @ 11:27 am
This is a great book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BLFUgeLSGq8C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=The+davinci+gene&source=web&ots=_AVsqgm6xT&sig=mBkfT5_1Xl_lmovcaIDaPbUtahI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
The gene is called DRD4 7R or something like that. It blunts dopamine reception in the brain.
So that means boring stuff makes you under aroused. Assuming you have this gene. So that means you either need to be consumed with stuff you find facsinating or else drink a shitload of coffee.
So anyway, you can see why the Normans had to conquer England. Because once you are in charge of Normandy what then? Booooring.
But you don’t have to wreak havoc, you can make art and invent stuff, explore philosophy, think deep thoughts. You just can’t be a good peasant. That’s the sad truth. Is it really so sad though?
Comment by Ted — January 22, 2009 @ 11:28 am
A couple of posts here have reminded me of a thing I once read (can’t remember where, sorry) about the possible origins of extraversion and introversion in people, by reference to observations of the animal kingdom (stags in competition for mates, etc.)
The extravert seeks always to gain more resources through competition.
The introvert seeks to gain more resources through /avoiding/ competition… *because competition consumes resources*.
These are clearly two apparent opposites that are ripe for recombining. Walk softly, and carry a big stick…
Comment by speedbird — January 23, 2009 @ 4:56 am
Speedbird, that’s awesome. You’re right, this totally resolves the opposites of introversion and extroversion, showing how both can be used as means to the same end. A total Chariot Card kind of thought! Thanks for bringing that to the discussion. I’ll have to dig around and find a source for that, and please do let me know if you remember anything. Would love to read more along these lines.
I’m having a “quotes” day over at the research site, so I will add yours there, if you don’t mind!
Comment by Ian — January 23, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I have trouble figuring out if I am an introvert or an extrovert. I think maybe their are pack animals, herd animals, hive animals and solitary animals. So maybe the total intoverts are solitary like a wolverine or a bear, but I’m more like a wolf. I like pack sized groups.
Some people are like insects and like being in a big swarm or like sheep in a big herd.
What bugs me about swarms or herds is that there are too many people to keep track of. Its a security thing. So I guess I see people as potentially threatening. But in a small group, I can check everyone out and see if they are OK.
I guess a herd animal feels safe in a big crowd, like at a football game where everyone is wearing the team color. Kind of like being a zebra in a herd of striped peers.
I hate that kind of thing.
Comment by Ted — January 24, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
There is an energy thing with intoverts and extroverts. Like a psychic vampire thing. Extroverts might be like vampires.
In some settings it might not be bad. Not as bad as it sounds.
The question I wonder is how exactly do people get drained? And how to combat it? Can a person do something not to be drained by others?
Enneagram 5 is organized around what Gurdjieff called “cheif feature” which in that case is detachment and also averice or greed because fives hoard large blocks of time and space. They feer being overwhelmed and ddrained by others. They are hoarding recources.
Is it a delusion? Is it true in their context and maybe they can change the context? 5′s move to 8 up the enneagram and 8s take charge and control others.
So it almost looks like fives are right people are trying to suck their energy and control them.
Comment by Ted — January 24, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
> Kind of like being a zebra in a herd of striped peers.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vItQtTZTcAk
Comment by speedbird — January 24, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
@ Ted:
Extroverts take resources through competition, but to classify them as vampires is like classifying a tiger as a vampire because it kills and eats a zebra. Or calling a cow a vampire because it kills and eats grass.
I heard a zen koan thing lately, where the question was “How does one avoid having a mosquito suck your blood?” and the answer was “to donate your blood to the mosquito.”
The point is that people are only taking energy from you if see yourself as having limited energy (a Malthusian point of view), and it’s a problem only if you have no chance to notice them taking the energy and stopping them during the process. You have to be at least a little open to people taking energy from you in order to recognize that you do have energy to give, that you in fact have to give in order to produce more. And you have to have faith in your own ability to recognize when people are taking too much, at which point you just stop them from taking it. It’s your energy, after all!
And “too many people to keep track of” just sounds like a control mechanism. There’s a limit to the number of people anyone can keep track of. Beyond that, faith is required in order to avoid falling victim to paranoid fear. The key is to find a way to exist where that kind of control isn’t needed, but where the “self” doesn’t have to be hidden. It’s impossible to have that kind of control in real life anyway.
Seriously, I mentioned this on Tim’s site, but you should read the McLuhan Playboy interview. I’ll post a link to it.
@ speedbird: I will have to watch that when I get home, but Billy Connolly is always welcome!
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
There are no mirrors on the Serengeti plane.
“Are you a wildebeest?”
“Ah, fuck you kidding me? I’m one of those stripey things over there! If one of those fucking lions looks up at me, I’ll just flap away!”
Awesome.
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
I’m not really putting forth the proposition that my reaction to crowds is the best way to be. Its just how I am. And its easier said than done to just have faith and not be paranoid.
Since I rolled my explorer on black ice a few years ago, its hard not to be paranoid when there is ice on the road and other cars visibly slipping around. But before I rolled it I had a lot more faith that I was never going to get in a serious accident, because you know, I never did before so why shouldn’t things go on as always?
But anyway, if you think of a really paranoid person sitting atop an evil empire of command and control you can get a good idea who the various types of technology we have been talking about can be used for evil.
You say “And “too many people to keep track of” just sounds like a control mechanism. There’s a limit to the number of people anyone can keep track of. Beyond that, faith is required in order to avoid falling victim to paranoid fear. The key is to find a way to exist where that kind of control isn’t needed, but where the “self” doesn’t have to be hidden. It’s impossible to have that kind of control in real life anyway.”
Think of that in terms of DARPA and the “black budget” of the pentagon and so forth and the key word triggers this comment is now tripping on their servers. You states their agenda exactly and the reason they are persuing the technological solutions they are persuing.
Its driven by paranoid fear and total lack of faith in any goodness in the Universe or any real existence outside the ego construct.
Comment by Ted — January 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
That comment pretty much encapsulates the struggle right there.
What is it that causes people to cling to impossible task of defending the ego construct from destruction indefinitely? How do we help create situations that remind people of the inherent goodness of the universe?
Who knows?
Comment by Ian — January 29, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Probably the easiest step is just convincing ourselves, reminding oureslves, people like us that are 3/4 or more convinced (most of the time) that life is more than just clinging to the ego construct with annihilation a heartbeat away any second.
Then encourage the half convinced :)
Comment by Ted — January 30, 2009 @ 11:04 am