Conference hydra::dejavu

    Amazing, truely amazing!

    Thanks, Jamie.  That was very interesting.
    				todd

                        
    Yes, thanks Jamie.  I enjoyed reading that.
    
    You get an A+.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    It's a little hard to imagine a technique for measuring air-flow from
    the nostrils which you could not similarly dismiss.  Thermsister's such
    as you describe *are* the standard method for making sensitive
    measurments of air flow in engineering, biology and medicine.  The
    problems you speak of are well known and there are standard techniques
    for handling them.  Of course, these will leave the possibility of an
    asymmetric, respiration synchronized change in the nasal lining, but
    a) Occam's razor discourages us from giving too much credence to
    hypotheses of nature engaging in elaborate conspiracies to deceive us,
    and b) within the resolution of the hypothesis we are talking about,
    the difference between asymetric breathing, and asymetric
    breath-synchronized phenomena is negligible.

    Do you have any evidence that the experimenters failed to use the
    standard technology for air-flow properly, or is this simply the old
    cynic's game of assuming gross incompetence for any experimenter who
    comes up with evidence contrary to the cynic's preexisting beliefs?

>    However the changes of the breathing patterns it would appear are a by
>    product of the cycles and most definitely not the cause of them. Thus
>    breathing through one nostril has no effect and any changes that you
>    appear to have are purely imaginary. 

    Other than your already established pre-existing belief to this effect,
    is there any evidence for this.  Certainly nothing in what you
    summarize supports these statements.  (Can we skip the usual pattern of
    these discussions, in which after I point out that you have failed to
    give any support for your assertions, you start claiming that I have
    asserted that there is evidence for their complement?)  Some *very*
    crude measures of asymetric brain activitity showed a correlation with
    asymetric breathing.  Any presumed effect of forced asymetric breathing
    were too small to register with these crude measures -- which is not to
    say that the effects were small in cognitive terms.

    Assuming similar sensitivity in the forced vs non-forced conditions,
    and ignoring some statistical issues which really can't be ignored, we
    can conclude from this that there is not a simple causal relationship
    going from breathing to asymetric brain activity.  This was not
    particularly plausible in any case.  We cannot conclude from this,
    however, that there is a simple causal relationship going in the
    opposite direction.  Much more likely is a complex, multifactor
    relationship with differences in effect for different parts of each
    hemisphere and complex feedbacks with differing delays, effects,
    strengths and signs.  Why is that more likely?  Because that is what
    has been found in virtually every similar circumstance before.

    Conclusion: a relationship between brain state and asymetric breathing
    has been established experimentally.  The ability to modify brain state
    by forced asymetric breathing has been neither established nor rejected
    experimentally.  It has been shown that certain gross measures of brain
    state are not influenced by short term forced asymetric breathing.

					Topher

                                                        
    <---(;^)
    
    Liked that too, Topher.
    
    And now back to my imaginary breathing exercises....
    
    Cindy

    Well Topher I can accept thermistors being used to measure air flow,
    but I think that using them to measure relative airflow on the outputs
    of two heat exchangers, where thermal output is liable to vary, is a bit
    dodgey. I did not think that this was a conspiracy to deceive, I think
    it was a badly thought out procedure.

    I am sure that you can think of many theories that bit the dust when
    they discovered that they were measuring something and assuming it was
    directly proportional to another, but later this did not turn out to be
    the case.

    One most noticeable difference between the Californian research and the
    Canadian was the former was trying to prove a belief while the latter
    was testing a theory. I was not happy with the fact that in one
    Californian paper the results given were only from three of the
    subjects, the rest being ignored. This does smack of deception.

    >Other than your already established pre-existing belief to this effect,
    >is there any evidence for this.  Certainly nothing in what you
    >summarize supports these statements.

    Ok here is the discussion of the Canadian paper. The second paragraph
    contains the comments that performance did not change with force
    uni-nostril breathing. Any typos are mine.

         There is a tendency for subjects exhibiting right nostril
         dominance to perform verbal tasks better (relative to spatial
         performance) than subjects exhibiting left nostril dominance.
         The consistent pattern in 4 separate tests phases reinforces
         this conclusion, and the correlation between airflow and
         performance was significant in two separate test phases
         (before and after uni-nostril breathing) when the results of
         the two experiments were combined. One may question whether
         this correlation is due to within subject fluctuation in the
         nasal cycle, or to between subject differences in nasal
         airflow. That is, the observed correlation might be
         consistent with the claim that individual differences in
         nasal dominance are correlated with individual differences in
         relative verbal vs spatial performance (Levy, Heller, Banich
         & Burton, 1983). Although this statistical comparison alone
         is ambiguous on this point, converging evidence for the claim
         that the performance/airflow correlation is due to the nasal
         cycle is provided by the similar magnitude of the (albeit
         non significant) correlations between performance change in
         airflow change. A more extensive experiment in which
         performance and the pattern of nasal airflow are both
         monitored over an interval of time sufficient to observe one
         or more shifts of nasal dominance will be needed to firmly
         resolve this issue.

         Finally, in this study no effect of forced uni-nostril
         breathing on on relative verbal vs spatial performance was
         observed. This result creates a potential problem in the
         context of the significant correlations between performance
         and airflow. On one hand, our findings with unobstructed
         breathing provide support for the idea (Werntz et al., 1983)
         that the pattern of nasal dominance is correlated with
         asymmetries in hemispheric activation. In particular,under
         the same conditions which produced greater integrated EEG
         amplitudes over the right hemisphere (left nostril dominance)
         we found greater relative spatial performance, and vice
         versa. On the other hand, forced uni-nostril breathing which
         also had dramatic effects on the distribution of EEG over the
         two hemispheres (Werntz et al., 1983) had no effect on
         performance. This apparent inconsistency may depend on
         procedural details. In the Werntz et al. (1983) study EEG
         changes were observed _during_ forced uni-nostril breathing,
         but the exercise did not always produce a lasting change in
         nasal dominance. Thus in Experiment 2, where performance was
         assessed after, but not during forced uni-nostril breathing,
         failure to obtain performance differences as a function of
         which nostril had been blocked is nor a direct contradiction.
         In Experiment 1, performance was tested during forced
         uni-nostril breathing. Further study using both the EEG and
         performance paradigms could help resolve this problem.

    Re .7

    In the Canadian experiment were conducted in small groups well
    separated. As they were being tested for verbal/spatial abilities the
    would be required to be awake. The temperature is no stated and would
    there for be a comfortable room temperature.

    The Californian tests (appear) to have been conducted singly, as only
    one set of apparatus has been mentioned. They sat awake in a comfortable
    chair and again no mention was made of temperature.

    Jamie.
          

RE: .6 (Jamie)

>    Well Topher I can accept thermistors being used to measure air flow,
>    but I think that using them to measure relative airflow on the outputs
>    of two heat exchangers, where thermal output is liable to vary, is a bit
>    dodgey. I did not think that this was a conspiracy to deceive, I think
>    it was a badly thought out procedure.

    There are problems with the technique and standard methods which can be
    used to handle those problems.  I don't know whether or not they used
    them.

>    I am sure that you can think of many theories that bit the dust when
>    they discovered that they were measuring something and assuming it was
>    directly proportional to another, but later this did not turn out to be
>    the case.

    Yup.  And others where later it did turn out to be the case.  It is
    certainly a place to look for problems.  That is a long shot from
    establishing that there are problems.

>    One most noticeable difference between the Californian research and the
>    Canadian was the former was trying to prove a belief while the latter
>    was testing a theory.

    In descriptions of the "scientific method" aimed at Junior High (12 to
    15 year olds) scientists are emotionless, perfectly objective, and
    completely disinterested in the outcome of their theories.  In the real
    world it is very rare that scientists do not have an emotional stake in
    a particular outcome.  Scientists are people -- surprisingly enough.
    Some make an effort in their writing to hide their preferences some do
    not.  Welcome to the real world.

    Generally such preferences are only criticized when the experimenter's
    preference (or what the critic believes is the experimenter's
    preference) is different from the critic's preference and the outcome
    supports that preference (which is not infrequently, I might add, the
    critic's only evidence as to the experimenter's preference).  Basically
    this is ad hominen -- you've got something to complain about when you
    show how the preference resulted in an experimental or interpretational
    error, and then you have something independent of the supposed preference.

>    I was not happy with the fact that in one Californian paper the results
>    given were only from three of the subjects, the rest being ignored.
>    This does smack of deception.

    Deception is too strong a word unless you wish to include
    self-deception in the term.  This is, however, a standard, legitimate
    reporting procedure when done properly.  Done properly essentially
    means that the cases chosen are typical and the data for the complete
    experiment is available upon request (for example, in a privately
    published "technical report").  This allows a degree of depth in a
    report that would take too much space if all the data were used.

>    >Other than your already established pre-existing belief to this effect,
>    >is there any evidence for this.  Certainly nothing in what you
>    >summarize supports these statements.
>
>    Ok here is the discussion of the Canadian paper. The second paragraph
>    contains the comments that performance did not change with force
>    uni-nostril breathing. Any typos are mine.

    Translation of the quoted passage from technaclese: No.  There is no
    support provided for Jamie's conclusions.  In fact, the authors discuss
    some of the problems with interpretting their results that way.  The
    results neither refute nor support Jamie's conclusions.

					Topher

    Re .9

    Well Topher I do from time to time read research papers and after a
    while you get the feel of them. You notice ones that are, how can I
    say, incestuous, they quote themselves and a small directly related
    group, while ignoring any external research that gives results that
    they find embarrassing. The Californian papers are of this type. They
    seem only to be interested in finding a "scientific" reason for
    something that they believe. This is not just my opinion it is also the
    opinion, as I have said, two people who regularly read such papers.

    On the use of thermistors, great care was given to the description of
    their use, none appears to be given to compensating or even detecting
    the presence or absence of the error I suggested.
    
    >Translation of the quoted passage from technaclese: No.  There is no
    >support provided for Jamie's conclusions.  In fact, the authors discuss
    >some of the problems with interpretting their results that way.  The
    >results neither refute nor support Jamie's conclusions.

    On this point I beg to differ. 

    The one measurable difference is the relative spatial/verbal abilities
    and its presence is taken as proof that there is a cyclic swing. 

    Now when they tried to induce the the bias by uni-nostril breathing
    they failed every time. Thus breathing through one nostril does not
    alter your relative spatial/verbal abilities. It does cause some extra
    electrical activity on the opposite half of your brain which will,
    unlike the cyclic swings fade.

    Thus the test for measurable changes in ability did not occur in
    uni-nostril breathing. As this was one of the things being tested I
    would say that the results were quite clear.

    Jamie.
                                  

re: 1631.10 
HOO78C::ANDERSON 


>    while you get the feel of them. You notice ones that are, how can I
>    say, incestuous, they quote themselves and a small directly related
>    group, while ignoring any external research that gives results that
>    they find embarrassing. 

[...]

>   ..............................This is not just my opinion it is also the
    opinion, as I have said, [of] two people who regularly read such papers.

	Wouldn't this fit your definition of a small, directly related,
	biased group ?

	-Art  ;-}

    In general,
    attacking the assumed motives of a researcher as grounds for
    discrediting their writing is hardly objective interpretation,
    in my opinion.
    							todd

    Re .11

    >Wouldn't this fit your definition of a small, directly related,	
    >biased group ?
        
    As a matter of fact for a group of three people we are quite different
    in what we believe and how we view life. We all have different
    religions, or in my case lack thereof. We also have wildly differing
    views of the supernatural and of psychic phenomena. The other two are
    medical consultants and I am a computer engineer. The only point that
    you are correct on, is the size of the group.
                                                
    Re .12

    >In general,
    >attacking the assumed motives of a researcher as grounds for
    >discrediting their writing is hardly objective interpretation,
    >in my opinion.
    
    Well Todd I am entitled to ask what their motives are in conducting
    this research. When I read the papers critically I discover that they
    are trying to find a scientific basis for a belief. I also find that
    they play down things that disprove their argument, in genuine research
    these points should be investigated and explained. On the other hand
    anything that seems to prove their beliefs are concentrated on.

    A few little things as examples that do not seem to be 100%.

    In the first of the three Californian papers they start with 43
    subjects and of these 21 showed no sign of cyclic breathing,that is
    roughly 50%. Of these the final results are based on 3 patients, we
    must presume that these are the best and not a random three. This is
    ignoring things that do not prove their theory while concentration on
    things that do, no explanation is sought into why 50% do not exhibit
    this, they are totally ignored.

    The next two papers have a very reduced number of subjects, 5 and 6. Of
    these, 100% exhibit cyclic breathing, and stranger yet, they show it at
    the same levels as the three in the first paper. It is not stated that
    they were specially selected for this and if you read only the these
    two papers then you would think that cyclic breathing affected
    everyone, which is not the case. 

    Last point, although there are papers that give contrary results, these
    are never mentioned and no attempt is made to repeat the same
    experiments to disprove these papers. Rather other tests are made in an
    attempt to prove their beliefs by other means. Remember a theory must
    fit the facts, all of them, you cannot ignore facts that contradict
    your theory and you must modify your theory to fit the facts and not
    the other way round. 

    Jamie.

    re: .13,
    	I'm just saying that even if their motives
    	are less than pure, it isn't a solid basis for 
    	discreditation in itself, that's all.  
    						todd

    Re .14

    >I'm just saying that even if their motives
    >are less than pure, it isn't a solid basis for 
    >discreditation in itself, that's all.  
    	
    No you have it the wrong way round. What I am saying Todd is, their
    methods of experimentation, references made and omitted, plus the
    conclusions drawn made me question their motives for doing the research
    in the first place. 

    There are many reasons to do research, these range from pure research
    to advance mankind's knowledge, applied research to get to the bottom of
    some particular matter, self glorifying research to push up one's
    reputation, and pseudo research to try to give the appearance of a
    scientific basis to a unfounded belief.

    I think that the Californian papers most firmly belong in the last
    category.

    For an other example of the same sort of thing, read up on the
    Creationist's attempts to prove the universe is only a few thousand
    years old. You will quickly notice many similarities in method.

    Jamie.

         The arguments have been reminding me of "sting" operations...
    you know, where a "shop" is set up, run by confederates, to look
    as though it's "too legit to quit...  ;-)  "  Someone walking in
    from outside feels as though the place has been there "forever"---
    though in *reality* it has only been in place for a short while.
    Well, I view this "grand reality" of mine as being somewhat like
    this...though it appears to have been here a long, long time,
    the greater truth is that it's a moment-to-moment occurrence
    (or is that occurrance...?)  And, for all practical reasons, does
    it really matter?  Not unless we stake all of our claims on a
    long-standing past, then we get real pissed when we find out 
    "hey, I've been cheated!"  Maybe it's safer to see it as a recent
    arrival...and maybe wiser, too.
         If only ONE case exists, out of no matter how many in the 
    "Sample," then it can be shown that there is validity to the 
    existence premise.  Then, rather than spending time anal-yzing 
    all the ones that *don't* fit, more time should be spent studying
    that one or the ones that *do* fit.  Not un-akin to Abraham Maslow,
    who broke with traditional psychologists by focusing not on the
    trauma or whatever is wrong, but rather placed his energy into 
    studying what was "right" with people...and in so doing (By
    determining that only 2% of the population is "self-actualized")
    gave us not only goals but tangible "proof" of ideals in knowing
    that these goals are indeed attainable.  
        You, too, Jamie, can spend your time discrediting or proving
    stupidity or whatever it is you are trying to do ("shit-disturber"
    comes to mind) but I would hope that the "Abraham Maslow's" out
    there will ignore the focus on the trauma and instead focus on
    the kernel of optimism.   "Shoe shine, Mister?  Could change your
    life!"  
    
    Frederick
    

    No Frederick, I just have an inquiring mind, and when I see someone is
    trying to make me believe something is not true, then I tend to question
    their motives for this.

    I never accept anything as being true just because I want it to be true.

    Jamie.

> I never accept anything as being true just because I want it to be true.

An admirable aspiration, but an aspiration, nevertheless, surely not a
statement of fact, n'est-ce pas? Objectivists (or physicalists,
materialists, realists, or whatever one chooses to call oneself) have
no monopoly on immunity to self-deception, if we have any immunity at
all. We might just as passionately want to believe that there is no
spirit dimension, and conveniently discard even our own experience,
becoming all but totally blind to little unexplainable "discrepancies".

Re: .13

>Of these the final results are based on 3 patients, we
>    must presume that these are the best and not a random three.

Jamie, I agree with your assumption that these 3 were not picked at random, but
it has alwasy been my impression that example cases were chosen for their
"averageness" (meaning the results from experiments on these subjects depict the
average result of experiments on all the subjects), not for their "best" results
(I am interpreting your definition of best to mean "closest results to what
the researcher wants to find").

What, in the write-up, leads you to believe the example subjects were chosen for
other than their averageness?

Beth

    Re .18

    >We might just as passionately want to believe that there is no spirit
    >dimension, and conveniently discard even our own experience, becoming
    >all but totally blind to little unexplainable "discrepancies".
     
    I do not passionately believe that there is no spirit dimension.
    However I do think that most of the conflicting theories about it are
    false.

    Re .19

    No absolutely reason is given in the paper. All the figures and graphs
    are for only 3 subjects. Now normally I would expect to see some
    mention of the variation seen over the entire range of subjects tested
    pointing out the maximum and minimum results. Now I suppose that I
    could be really gullible and assume that the three were average but I
    suspect that were specially selected. If they were average, why was this
    not mentioned?

    In the other two papers the subjects appear to have been specially
    selected as the possibility of randomly picking 11 people out all who
    demonstrate an effect which they themselves have proved seems to only
    affect 50% of the population is vanishingly small. Even more
    interesting is the fact that all tested in these papers were reported
    on. If you specially select your subjects there is no need to be
    selective in your reporting of results.

    Jamie.

> However I do think that most of the conflicting theories about it are
> false.

Now this is interesting. "most" are false? Not *all*? Did you say
"most" just to allow for the possibility of some as-yet-undebunked
theory, or have you actually heard a plausible theory or account of
experience or two?

I'm not challenging, here, I'm really interested, because basically, I
agree that many people who believe in a spirit dimension do so because
they want to, and have convinced themselves, selectively accepting or
rejecting elements of their own experience to fit a wishful model. So
if you can recall any theories or accounts which seemed to you not to
have that ring of fanaticism or self-deception, I'm very interested to
hear about them (as, I think, may be a few other people). There are
precious few (in my opinion). Perhaps a new topic ...

    The use of the word "most" was most deliberately chosen, had I used the
    word "all" I would have been jumped on by many in here.

    So far the theories that I have heard tend to require large amounts of
    blind faith, which is something I lack. However as there are many that
    I have not yet heard of there is always the possibility that one is
    correct.

    Jamie.

So it turns out that you really believe that *all* of the theories
supporting the existence of a spirit dimension which you've seen so far
(and, in all probability, which you expect to see) are false, but you
wanted to be careful not to provoke criticism.

However, your statement

> I do not passionately believe that there is no spirit dimension.

is now less credible. Here's why:

> So far the theories that I have heard tend to require large amounts of
> blind faith

This is not, by itself, an effective criticism of any belief system. It
is true of any theory that one must first accept axioms or postulates
on which it's based before one can even begin to consider the merit of
the theory itself. The acceptance of postulates is, in your words,
blind faith. Do you believe that parallel lines can never meet? Do you
believe otherwise? In fact, if you've studied geometry, you don't
believe either. You use postulates, as appropriate, to build different
consistent systems of geometry, any of which are useful for various
purposes and analyses.

In the business of spirit, for us rational thinkers, there is simply no
way to prove or disprove whether a spirit dimension exists or doesn't.
WE WILL NEVER RECEIVE AN UNAMBIGUOUS SIGN FROM HEAVEN (unless you're
really lucky -- remember a song by Seatrain with the lyrics "just give
me a sign and I'll be willing ..."? :-). Spirit is something which must
be taken as a postulate (or not), and a consistent body of theory built
from that point.

I will grant you that a great many of the theories and models which
propose a spirit dimension are half-baked, inconsistent, and otherwise
absent merit, as are their proponents. That doesn't mean they all must
be so. Nor does it change the notion that the existence of spirit ought
to be seen at the level of axiom, not consequence of theory or theorem.

There's no getting around the need to accept it on blind faith before
moving on to consider theories which work from there. But, as in
geometry, one needn't commit oneself to one or the other side of this
axiom. One can consider either side impassionately.

I think, based on my opinion about your entries, that you *are*
emotionally committed to one of the possible axioms, and that you're
missing an opportunity to consider an entire range of "theory" which
can be as consistent and useful as the various systems of geometry that
have evolved since we learned to drop our emotional attachment to the
Euclidean variety. If you were not emotionally committed to one of
these axioms, you would not see the requirement of "blind faith" to be
a problem. In fact, you would not see it as a requirement at all, but
rather as one of a number of possible starting points for further analysis.

    I see that I did not make myself clear. 

    So far the theories that I have heard tend to require large amounts of
    blind faith in things that are either demonstrably not true, are
    claimed to have happened way back in the past and are at the least
    highly unlikely or are totally unable to be proved one way or another.

    All of these require me to accept something on blind faith. If I start
    to question this dogma then the whole thing falls to pieces.

    Also many of these theories are mutually contradict each other. If one
    is true the others are false.

    As none can actually prove itself beyond all possible doubt then I will
    keep an open mind on what I believe until one does.

    Jamie.                
  

    re: .23,
    I enjoyed that, thanks Mike.

Jamie, maybe you should waste no effort even criticizing theories which
are clearly espoused to support dogma, emotion, and positions of
comfort, and instead look for those which are built rationally from the
axiom of "spirit exists". Curiously, some of these may be hidden by
language which seems, at first read, to be "the same old dogma", but
which, on closer inspection, turns out to have remarkable coherence.
Personally, I've found this to be true of material originating in the
Sufis, the Qaballah, Hermetics, Gnostics, Rosicrucians, Knights
Templar, Freemasonry, the Theosophical Society, Cathars and, most
recently (yippee, a new one!), the Golden Dawn (thanks to Todd). Check it out.

Don't waste your effort giving a hard time to people who are apparently
living out some sort of personal fantasy. You should know by now that
you won't convince them of the wrongness of their ways, and you don't
need to convince the rationalists among us. If you're worried about the
small number of people who are, at this age, totally undecided, it's
hardly worth the effort. I think you more get off on winning an
argument of rational discourse than in finding out if there's really
anything to this spirit business. Rationality and spirit are not
mutually exclusive! Rationality is a mode of thought. Spirit is an axiom.

    re: .26 (Mike)
    
         ...yes, and "ego guarantees" are most assuredly the best way
    to miss the boat on anything...
    
    
    Frederick
    

Re: .20

>    pointing out the maximum and minimum results. Now I suppose that I
>    could be really gullible and assume that the three were average but I
>    suspect that were specially selected. If they were average, why was this
>    not mentioned?

I don't consider it being "really gullible" to assume the report subjects are an
average, given that this is the convention.  It seems that you let your personal
bias on the topic affect your belief in the sincerety of the reporting.  The
lack of a statement of "average" may have been an oversight (brought on by the
assumed knowledge of a convention in reporting), although I'm not ruling out
personal bias shading the author's choices on data to present.



Overall, the hard numbers quoted in the various replies seems to point to
a relationship between brain functioning (whether measurable by activety or
machines) and "open nostril" (which nostril has greater air flow), but the
direction of the relationship and the extent of affect is undetermined (although
the data listed, in my opinion, seems to point from brain to nostril, and not
the other way around).

Obviously, to me, not enough research has been done on this.  Why not?  Probably
money - getting financial backing for this kind of research has been tough
enough, and most of it probably goes towards the "flashier" aspects (telepathy,
bio-feedback, etc).

Beth

    >I don't consider it being "really gullible" to assume the report
    >subjects are an average, given that this is the convention. 

    In real research you go to great lengths to remove all bias on the part
    of those doing the tests. You always point out which range in the scale
    your subjects came from. They glossed over this point. They never even
    reported the range. Research papers are meant to be read critically.

    >Obviously, to me, not enough research has been done on this.  Why not? 
    >Probably money - getting financial backing for this kind of research
    >has been tough enough,   

    Well Berth setting up a definitive test would not be hard or more
    expensive than their previous tests, but it is an interesting point,
    why hasn't it been done. 

    I would have assumed that, given the fact that there was a significant
    and easily demonstrable difference in abilities in some subjects in
    verbal/spatial fields then this would be used as a criterion for the
    tests. Alas in the Californian papers this is not the case. They go off
    using evermore obscure methods. Mind you using this technique does seem
    to disprove their theory rather than prove it.

    Jamie.
     

    What the hell is an "ego guarantee"?
    
    Laurie.

>    What the hell is an "ego guarantee"?
    
    I don't know, but based on experience with VCRs, the day after it
    expires, your ego will break down and need repair.  :-D
    
    							todd

Hmmm, probably pretty close to the truth :-).

I'm guessing that what Frederick meant was that when you engage in an
activity for ego reward, you tend to reap only that from the activity,
and pass up other benefits, even when they're readily available.

>>    What the hell is an "ego guarantee"?
    
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	LIKE being defensive, acting with arrogance	
	
	something like that.....

	\')

> LIKE being defensive, acting with arrogance

I don't know whether Frederick had those negative connotations in mind
when he used the expression, but I do know that one needn't be
defensive or arrogant when behaving in an ego-gratifying manner.

We tend to use the word in a mostly negative way these days, but ego is
a necessary feature of humans, neither all good nor all bad, nor even
mostly bad. It has no particular value of its own at all. Like a finger
or a hammer, it can be part of a problem, or part of a healthy,
constructive process.

And it requires care and feeding, like the stomach. Starve it of
attention, or feed it constantly and indiscriminately, and you'll end
up with just as sick a person as if you treated the stomach that way.

There, now, have we digressed far enough from the topic? :-)

> LIKE being defensive, acting with arrogance

>> I don't know whether Frederick had those negative connotations in mind
>> when he used the expression, but I do know that one needn't be
>> defensive or arrogant when behaving in an ego-gratifying manner.

>> We tend to use the word in a mostly negative way these days, but ego is
>> a necessary feature of humans, neither all good nor all bad, nor even
>> mostly bad. It has no particular value of its own at all. Like a finger
>> or a hammer, it can be part of a problem, or part of a healthy,
>> constructive process.

	well, geez, Mike.  Yes, and no...;')

	First, I didn't mean it *negatively*.... I thought it was funny,
	in a light-hearted 'off the cuff way'.

	second, I would *never* attempt to answer for Frederick...

	But in all seriousness, YOU are right. I was just reading my new
	copy of NEW AGE ..and in it a feature on just this very thought.

	From the author of "a course in Mirecles" and this is from her
	new book:

	" We live in a world whose instinctive mental habit pattern is one
	of judmental and attack.  We attack ouselves , we attack our friends,
	we attack our enemies, we attack our planet.  And we've reached the
	point where this is literally threatening our survival on the Earth.
	Its always been dysfunctional, but it has reached the unworkable zone.
	We are so trained in the thought system of *fear* and attack that we
	get to the point where natural thinking - love - feels unnatural and 
	unnatural thinking - fear - feels natural.  It takes discipline and
	training to unlearn the thought system of fear.  It take more than 
	desire; it takes  more than good intention.  It takes willingness."

	take care,

	Meredith...8-)..
	

    close, Mike, very close...
    
    Hi, Laurie, haven't seen your beautiful voice in here in a while.
    How's it spreading, these days?
    
        Ego is "positive" when it does the job of delivering raw data.
    Ego is "negative" when it interprets that data...this is supposed to
    be the domain of the conscious mind (which may then be turned over to
    the sub-conscious or un-conscious mind) but most often isn't.
        A negative ego guarantee is when the ego, in it's negative form,
    insists on proof before it will acquiesce it's stance.  This sounds
    okay at first glance, right Mr. Glantz?  But it isn't okay at all,
    since the negative ego has no intention whatsoever of ever, EVER
    acquiescing.  In other words, "SHOW ME!" is it's stance...and it never,
    ever gets enough proof to change that stance.  "I will [do whatever]
    as soon as you show me why {whatever} is true."  But the greater truth
    is that proof is never sufficient.  What is far more important that
    the "truth"  here is the STANCE.  The hidden agenda, the payoff, the
    righteousness...etc....all outweigh proof.  Reality has little chance
    of changing in view of such strong, tenacious desire/expectation.
         Negative ego guarantee in many ways *does* reflect arrogance
    and defensiveness.  The arrogance is yours.  The defensiveness is the
    negative ego's, which clearly doesn't wish to be exposed for the 
    fraud it is.  Negative ego guarantee, however, is more than just those
    two things.  My comment to Mike earlier was made to reflect Jamie's
    ego's desire for a guarantee...if and only IF we demonstrate {whatever}
    will Jamie give us anything.  In the meantime, it's defiance, it's
    righteousness, it's unadulterated pure time-based logic, it's 
    a confinement not just out of the sake for control, but so severe
    that imagination and creativity would be totally shackled and probably
    attrophied into stagnation and uselessness.  Jamie's lack of desire,
    or should I say, Jamie's ego's display of domination, is not something
    I find appealing, nor would I ever capitulate to the thought of 
    suppression of magic, imagination, dreams, mysticism or other
    far-reaching and unlimited potentials.
         It's the negative ego, loud and clear in its tempestuous glory,
    screaming at the top of it's demonic voice saying "SHOW ME!!!  I DEMAND
    IT!!"
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .36, Frederick,
    
>    since the negative ego has no intention whatsoever of ever, EVER
>    acquiescing.  In other words, "SHOW ME!" is it's stance...and it never,
>    ever gets enough proof to change that stance.  "I will [do whatever]
>    as soon as you show me why {whatever} is true."  But the greater truth
>    is that proof is never sufficient.  What is far more important that
>    the "truth"  here is the STANCE.  The hidden agenda, the payoff, the
    
    Oh, then I guess that asking you to support your position about the
    negative ego --  is out of the question ?   :*)

    re: .37 (Todd)
    
         Sometimes my position *does* need supporting.  So, on those
    occasions, I use a chair, a bed or the floor or, on the best of
    lucky days, another body.  ;-)
         As for proof, just look--can't you see what I'm doing?
    
    Frederick
    

    Personally, I think all this business about positive and negative egos
    is a load of mumbo-jumbo.
    
    Laurie.

	that's nice laurie. which one's mumbo and which one's jumbo?
	
	Jay

>	that's nice laurie. which one's mumbo and which one's jumbo?
    
    Dunno, but I know Dumbo's the one with the big ears.

    Hi Mikki,
    
<<	From the author of "a course in Mirecles" and this is from her
	new book:
    
    Just a small nit.  The women in the New Age article, Marianne
    Williamson, is not the 'author' of A Course in Miracles.  She is a
    student and teacher of the course, but A Course in Miracles was
    received by a woman psychologist in 1965 (Judith Skutch, I think is her
    name, but I can't recall offhand).  This material was channelled and the
    true 'author' is said to be Jesus.
    
    I've read Williamson's book, A Return to Love, and recommend it highly
    and have also studied ACIM for a number of years.
    
    Love,
    
    Ro
    

    re: .40 (Jay)
    
         Mumbo is the one that dances in a sort of Conga/Merengue
    style...Jumbo is the one that flies on 747's.
    
    
    Frederick
    

>>	This material was channelled and the
>>    true 'author' is said to be Jesus.
    
    
	Really, Ro??  Wow, I didn't know that.

	thank you for the correction.  I didn't have the article
	with me, but I did have that paragraph as I am using it
	for a research paper.

	congrats on the NEW car.
	they are 'fun' aren't they??

	Miknik

    In my totally subjective opinion, based only on twenty years experience
    with nostril breathing (just personally getting "high" and experiencing
    both feelings and visualization of internal light/radiance/love, no lab
    tests).....
    
    ....the key factor is your focus of "mental" energy, i.e. on which
    nostril do you focus you attention mentally, not which nostril do you
    open or close physically.
    
    I practice left nostril _focused_ breathing without touching my nose,
    whether or not my left nostril is physically dominant, or clearer at
    the time.
    
    My hypothesis is that the mind can direct left side endorphin
    secretion in the same way the mind can direct raising the left hand. 
    The mechanical blocking of one nostril or the other merely _forces_
    concentration on the particular nostril, but is not necessary to
    achieve the effects of left-side breathing.
    
    Carter

    re: .49,
    
>    todd,
    
    I'm sorry -wal, I believe Jamie Anderson wrote the passages you quoted, 
    not me.  That's why I haven't been responding.  My entries in this
    topic have mostly been incidental side remarks.
    								todd

    re: me in an earlier note
    
         ...and to add just a thought more to the "negative ego guarantee"
    business:  actually, to back it up to the mambo-ing negative ego,
    anytime someone points at someone else and says "I see *their*
    ego, but mine is in check" it is very, very likely that the voice
    doing the talking is the same erstwhile negative ego.  That is,
    it is once again the voice of supremacy "I am better than that,
    I am above them" that *gives away* the presence of the negative
    ego.  Further, pretending that it's a condition held by others
    "but not me" there is an even greater likelihood that the one
    accountable is that same lurking voice insisting on Olympian
    proof.  The separation is so great that only massive and 
    unquestionably (and totally unrealistic--hence the successful
    implementation by the ego) divine intervention and signaling
    will provide adequate proof.  "I don't understand it, they're
    crazy, they have the problem, I am blessed to not have this problem;
    but I'm willing to listen if God provides a miracle right here
    at my feet.  Well, actually, if he does it once, he'll have to do
    it again just to make sure it wasn't an accident...and then again
    when I test Him to make sure he was really talking to me...and then
    again to make sure my powers are still intact...and then..."
        Though this is part of what I said before, this also ties in
    to the mumbo-jumbo portion of metaphysics and spirituality (to say
    nothing of psychology.)  ;-)
    
    Frederick
    

    So far in all the research that I have read on this subject I have
    discovered that the things that they can tests are, increased brain
    activity, an increase in the temperature of the air leaving the nostril
    and the spatial/verbal ability relative shift.

    Now if the person is non cyclic the relative spatial/verbal bit does
    not alter. If the person is cyclic then the spatial/verbal abilities
    follows the cycle. However if you try to induce this by altering
    the breathing the spatial/verbal abilities do not alter, they follow
    the normal cycle. There is a small change in the brain activity which
    dies down after a while, unlike the cyclic change. 

    Thus it is a logical conclusion that the change in breathing is a
    result of the cycle and not the cause of it.

    As to the other claims of changes to the mind by breathing through a
    particular nostril they appear to be unsubstantiated by any research. 

    Jamie.

    Re.53
    
    Jamie,
    
    Do any of the papers mention the effects of this kind of breathing on
    the etheric body?
    
    Cindy

    No Cindy they tended to confine their research to the physical body.

    Jamie.

    The following appeared in the "How & Why" column of the Boston Globe's
    Health and Science section this week.  Just thought I'd include it.

				    Topher

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Q. Why is it that one nostril is clogged at one point during the
        day and then the other side gets clogged?		    M.
							    Brookline

        A. Most people probably don't notice it, but nasal sweilling -- the
        feeling of being clogged up -- actually alternates in approximately
        20-minute cycles throughout the day and night, so that one side
        feels full while the other side feels clear in regular alternation.

        No one knows why this so-called "nasal cycle" happens or whether it
        has any useful purpose, says Dr. Richard Gliklich, and
        otolaryngologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.

        But scientists do know how it happens.  Every 20 minutes or so,
        structures called turbinates inside the nose either fill with
        blodd, swelling to two or three times their resting size, or give
        up blood. The side that fills with blood soon feels stuffy, and air
        passes with more difficulty through the nasal passage.  The side
        that gives up blood feels clear, and breathing is easier.

        If you have a cold, this process may be particularly noticeable
        because nasal tissues are more inflamed to begin with.  The nasal
        cycle may also be more obvious to someone who has a deviated
        septum, which happens when the cartilage separating the two sides
        of the nose slips off center, slightly blocking one side.  People
        who hae other alterations in nasal structure -- which can sometimes
        happen after surgery to the nose -- also may notice the cycle more.

					-- Judy Foreman