This week is National Eating Disorders Awareness Week
A few myths about eating disorders, debunked:
1) you do not have to be underweight to have an ED.
2) EDs are not caused by vanity or pop media (though media is a HUGE risk variable to vulnerable populations.)
3) Affected persons are not "acting sick..." for attention. The most dangerously affected are those who keep their illness a secret (and most affected, do.)
4) People with EDs cannot simply "choose" to stop, or snap out of it.
5) Most people affected with EDs will continue to fight the battle in some sense for the rest of their lives.
Some more facts...
1) men can also develop EDs; the number of afflicted males is on the rise.
2) Among the deadliest consequences of EDs are extreme depression and suicide.
3) The current psychiatric resources for people seeking help with their EDs are VERY LACKING in Canada.
4) There is no single psychological or spiritual cause for EDs--everyone's case is virtually totally unique, making the problem difficult to treat.
WE NEED:
1) increased awareness.
2) Decreased stigma associated with binge-eating disorders and bulimia nervosa.
3) The end to glorification of thinness and anorexia in the media and fashion.
4) MORE RESOURCES AND SUPPORT FOR MEN AND WOMEN WITH EATING DISORDERS.
What to say and not to say when someone you care about has an eating disorder:
1) To voice your concern to a person with ED: do NOT comment on their weight. "You've been losing a lot of weight lately" is not a constructive comment. Remember, anorexia causes people to WANT to lose weight. Don't feed the fire.
2) DO comment on their behaviour; for example, "I noticed you are skipping meals," "I noticed you're always tired."
3) Get the words "You look fine the way you are" out of your vocabulary. "Fine" = "fat" to a person with anorexia. Again, fuelling the fire.
4) Do NOT accuse. Remember, most ED behaviour is impulse-driven and largely involuntary.
5) When talking to a person in recovery: do NOT comment on their weight! "You look a lot better now" will always be interpreted as a confirmation of their weightgain. DO compliment their newfound energy, their enthusiasm, their happiness---all the important side effects of recovery. Remember that EDs are not really about weight, and recovery isn't either.
6) DO tell people why they are wonderful and why they deserve happiness and good health. Compliment their personality. Remind them of their goals.
7) Do let them know---gently---that their behaviour is hurting you.
8) Do not pressure them to... get help---help is useless and recovery is impossible unless the person wants to, and is ready to, recover. Offer your support. Offer to help them find help if and when they are ready to. In no way imply that they are "crazy."
9) This should be obvious---do not attempt to tempt them with fatty foods---it's not going to work, and it's not good for you either! :P
Feb 22, 2011
Jan 27, 2011
In the Petri Dish of Time
I am writing this time
because it is dangerous
to leave these words
festering here.
I keep thinking:
how farsighted of us
to keep these wild sentiments
fermenting here
into some sort of nectar
----do we drink it? it is delirium
-------drunk, drunker delirium
--------even when the glass hasn't touched
---------our lips
how farsighted,
we assumed
that sentiments
and unsaid words
might do what people do
within time's petri dish:
change colours,
change shapes,
morph into something
vaguely familiar
spirited
and fierce.
in the beginning
we created our world,
and we saw it was beautiful.
in the kitchen
we danced on sundays.
we created our emotions;
we saw that they were beautiful.
together we took our rest.
when the cold blue chill of dawn enveloped us,
we looked at our creation.
we looked at the kittens:
we said,
those are not fighting claws;
no, they are not survivors.
we left our unsaid sentiments
alone
to see if they could evolve
into a winged specimen.
*****
Don't you know, it's dangerous to let sentiments ferment and maybe sprout magnificent plumes and tear off with cries of wonderment.
They might carry us away.
because it is dangerous
to leave these words
festering here.
I keep thinking:
how farsighted of us
to keep these wild sentiments
fermenting here
into some sort of nectar
----do we drink it? it is delirium
-------drunk, drunker delirium
--------even when the glass hasn't touched
---------our lips
how farsighted,
we assumed
that sentiments
and unsaid words
might do what people do
within time's petri dish:
change colours,
change shapes,
morph into something
vaguely familiar
spirited
and fierce.
in the beginning
we created our world,
and we saw it was beautiful.
in the kitchen
we danced on sundays.
we created our emotions;
we saw that they were beautiful.
together we took our rest.
when the cold blue chill of dawn enveloped us,
we looked at our creation.
we looked at the kittens:
we said,
those are not fighting claws;
no, they are not survivors.
we left our unsaid sentiments
alone
to see if they could evolve
into a winged specimen.
*****
Don't you know, it's dangerous to let sentiments ferment and maybe sprout magnificent plumes and tear off with cries of wonderment.
They might carry us away.
Science and art: both strive to rescue phenomena from the obscurity of accident by raising them to significant eminence and clarity; no single portrayal of phenomena embraces the whole truth… while some relationships might be enhanced and clarified, others withdraw from view.
“Just as art always presents itself as complete in every single artwork, so should science always show itself whole in every single thing it treats.”
“Just as art always presents itself as complete in every single artwork, so should science always show itself whole in every single thing it treats.”
Jan 24, 2011
sanity vs insanity
How do we define sanity? How about insanity?
Psychology defines insanity as any maladaptive pattern of behaviour which disrupts a person's way of life, deviates from the norm, and causes significant distress.
By those measures, an otherwise "normal" person who undergoes a depressive episode due to a traumatic incident, say, a divorce, is insane. He's always late for work; "normal" people do not cry themselves to sleep; and clearly, he is distressed.
By those same measures, if a person with undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder can maintain employment, and not be overly distubed by-- or even find happiness-- in their delusions, is considered sane.
So, what is insanity?
Insanity has been treated as a cut-off point beyond which the person is deemed "crazy." Everything up to that cut-off point--that crucial diagnostic criterion--is grey area; we watch that person carefully for signs that they are about to go one of two ways.
The other extreme is the elusive concept of "norm" or "typicality." Sanity, even.
There are several problems with this view.
1) Our concept of "normal" behaviour stems from norms. These are measured by artificial, empirical methods from a select sampling, and are then generalized to the entire population. "Normal" means "average." "Average" means "being intermediate between extremes, as on a scale."
2) In layperson terms, "average" means "ordinary." However, our concepts of what is "ordinary" change as our experiences change. Suddenly, "normal" doesn't seem so concrete.
3) Back to the intermediate between extremes: the average is supposed to be a happy median, a resting point between total absence of a given target, in this case, a behaviour; and an excess of a behaviour to the point where it becomes problematic.
4) It is clear that there is a scale implied. However... it's not defined! If "normal" behaviour lies in the middle of a scale, what lies on either side of it? It is easy to assume that on one side, we have insanity. What about the other side? If "average" is in the middle, then it's not the end of the spectrum, now is it. There is something else. Is it "total sanity?"
5) By those measures, "normal" lying in the middle of the scale, the "norm" is that everyone is halfway to the looney bin.
6) By those same measures, "total sanity" is abnormal. It deviates from the norm. It is... insane?
This is an exaggerated and ridiculous example, but I think it illustrates the point--psychology is currently rife with circular thinking.
There is a spectrum for the severity of a flu. Bob's had a 40 degree Celsius fever for three days. Mary has an itchy throat and a slight 24-hour fever. There is a spectrum for personality traits. One person has road rage more often--and more vocally--than another. Similarly, mental illnesses vary on spectrums of severity. This patient has depression, and is more depressed than another patient. Similarly, people's overall states of mind--if they can even be lumped together as such--vary on a spectrum.
I am more prone to delusional thinking than you. You have less control over your fear than I do. I am less delusional than a person diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. You are more "phobic" of spiders than a person who is declared unafraid of bugs of any kind.
We all possess some behavioural, personality, or cognitive tendencies to some degree. At what point do these behaviours become so extreme that they are diagnosable as illnesses or disorders?
Therein lies the problem. Diagnostic criteria set out to outline rules for measuring and analyzing a person's behaviours to determine whether they are extreme enough. When these extreme behaviours occur together in a certain way, they qualify as a certain condition.
The confusion sets in partly when it becomes clear that diagnostic criteria are fluid concepts which evolve frequently. This is because they are human constructs. They are based on mathematical averages, which are prone to skew, misrepresentation, and biases due to a pursuit of linearity.
That is, even with operationally defined concepts of mental illness, disagreements abound on the importance or even necessity of any given criterion.
People are PEOPLE. They all possess certain traits to any given degree--it's important to remember that.
Linearity is not the end-all, be-all solution to predicting behaviour. Just look at chaos theory.
Psychology defines insanity as any maladaptive pattern of behaviour which disrupts a person's way of life, deviates from the norm, and causes significant distress.
By those measures, an otherwise "normal" person who undergoes a depressive episode due to a traumatic incident, say, a divorce, is insane. He's always late for work; "normal" people do not cry themselves to sleep; and clearly, he is distressed.
By those same measures, if a person with undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder can maintain employment, and not be overly distubed by-- or even find happiness-- in their delusions, is considered sane.
So, what is insanity?
Insanity has been treated as a cut-off point beyond which the person is deemed "crazy." Everything up to that cut-off point--that crucial diagnostic criterion--is grey area; we watch that person carefully for signs that they are about to go one of two ways.
The other extreme is the elusive concept of "norm" or "typicality." Sanity, even.
There are several problems with this view.
1) Our concept of "normal" behaviour stems from norms. These are measured by artificial, empirical methods from a select sampling, and are then generalized to the entire population. "Normal" means "average." "Average" means "being intermediate between extremes, as on a scale."
2) In layperson terms, "average" means "ordinary." However, our concepts of what is "ordinary" change as our experiences change. Suddenly, "normal" doesn't seem so concrete.
3) Back to the intermediate between extremes: the average is supposed to be a happy median, a resting point between total absence of a given target, in this case, a behaviour; and an excess of a behaviour to the point where it becomes problematic.
4) It is clear that there is a scale implied. However... it's not defined! If "normal" behaviour lies in the middle of a scale, what lies on either side of it? It is easy to assume that on one side, we have insanity. What about the other side? If "average" is in the middle, then it's not the end of the spectrum, now is it. There is something else. Is it "total sanity?"
5) By those measures, "normal" lying in the middle of the scale, the "norm" is that everyone is halfway to the looney bin.
6) By those same measures, "total sanity" is abnormal. It deviates from the norm. It is... insane?
This is an exaggerated and ridiculous example, but I think it illustrates the point--psychology is currently rife with circular thinking.
There is a spectrum for the severity of a flu. Bob's had a 40 degree Celsius fever for three days. Mary has an itchy throat and a slight 24-hour fever. There is a spectrum for personality traits. One person has road rage more often--and more vocally--than another. Similarly, mental illnesses vary on spectrums of severity. This patient has depression, and is more depressed than another patient. Similarly, people's overall states of mind--if they can even be lumped together as such--vary on a spectrum.
I am more prone to delusional thinking than you. You have less control over your fear than I do. I am less delusional than a person diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. You are more "phobic" of spiders than a person who is declared unafraid of bugs of any kind.
We all possess some behavioural, personality, or cognitive tendencies to some degree. At what point do these behaviours become so extreme that they are diagnosable as illnesses or disorders?
Therein lies the problem. Diagnostic criteria set out to outline rules for measuring and analyzing a person's behaviours to determine whether they are extreme enough. When these extreme behaviours occur together in a certain way, they qualify as a certain condition.
The confusion sets in partly when it becomes clear that diagnostic criteria are fluid concepts which evolve frequently. This is because they are human constructs. They are based on mathematical averages, which are prone to skew, misrepresentation, and biases due to a pursuit of linearity.
That is, even with operationally defined concepts of mental illness, disagreements abound on the importance or even necessity of any given criterion.
People are PEOPLE. They all possess certain traits to any given degree--it's important to remember that.
Linearity is not the end-all, be-all solution to predicting behaviour. Just look at chaos theory.
student life in an internet era
I miss the days when "studying" meant reading books, "assignments" meant handing in papers, "discussions" meant putting your hand up in class, and questions were answered face-to-face. As opposed to scrolling through piles of PDFs, checking compulsively for online announcements, registering in dozens of university websites with dozens of pins, and sitting on bounced emails. At least we're saving trees.
Jan 18, 2011
oxytocin
Oxytocin and vasopressin, the microscopic angels guiding our neocortex into bonding love and light. Chemical extensions of spiritual phenomena--not unlike the subtle energies bouncing off our retinas, projecting lovely nonsense inside our eyelids when we sleep a handful of good friends in a bed. Everything is in the physical plane and the immaterial plane--entangled, dancing in a delicate web of chemistry.
Jan 16, 2011
Tapping the flow
There are plenty of theories out there regarding manifestation and attraction of things into your life.
We all want things--happiness, love, wealth, whatever have you--and the best way to get them is to attract them through visualization and positive affirmation. But even then, there is more work you can do on the vibrational level.
1. Know that you DESERVE these things. Claim what you are entitled to.
2. Practise gratitute every day for the things you DO have, for new opportunities, and for signs.
3. Communicate with the universal force. It is there to protect you. My daily mantra is, "Universe, I work with you, not against you."
4. The universe talks back. She sends signs via dreams, intuitions, visions, synchronicities, and coincidences. Watch those signs. Respond to them accordingly.
5. Never fret. If you are worried about something, you are manifesting what you do not want to happen.
6. Watch your phrasing. If you phrase your wish in the negative, you are attracting that lack.
7. Make your affirmations in the present. If you want a new job, say "I have my dream job" and pretend like you do--bask in that feeling.
8. If you worry or have a negative thought, think "I unmanifest my negative thoughts." Follow it with a good statement.
Remember--stay positive!
We all want things--happiness, love, wealth, whatever have you--and the best way to get them is to attract them through visualization and positive affirmation. But even then, there is more work you can do on the vibrational level.
1. Know that you DESERVE these things. Claim what you are entitled to.
2. Practise gratitute every day for the things you DO have, for new opportunities, and for signs.
3. Communicate with the universal force. It is there to protect you. My daily mantra is, "Universe, I work with you, not against you."
4. The universe talks back. She sends signs via dreams, intuitions, visions, synchronicities, and coincidences. Watch those signs. Respond to them accordingly.
5. Never fret. If you are worried about something, you are manifesting what you do not want to happen.
6. Watch your phrasing. If you phrase your wish in the negative, you are attracting that lack.
7. Make your affirmations in the present. If you want a new job, say "I have my dream job" and pretend like you do--bask in that feeling.
8. If you worry or have a negative thought, think "I unmanifest my negative thoughts." Follow it with a good statement.
Remember--stay positive!
Jan 5, 2011
alex grey's "art psalms"
If I had a wish list, this book would be on the top of the list.
The power of art as a transformative path is the theme of this inspiring collection from internationally known artist Alex Grey. Art Psalms combines poems, artwork, and "mystic rants" that fuse imagination, creativity, and spirituality. Grey’s oracular poetry declares that art, both its creation and its observation, can be a spiritual practice.
A cosmic orgasm
Big-banged us into creation,
Perfect in ratios, rhythms, and forms.
The universe is a storm of light emerging,
Ever birthing, ever dying
Plasma selves, atom selves, molecular selves, cell selves,
Conscious lumps of DNA.
...
Our current artistic dilemma is to wake up
To the truth that we are the One Godself,
Creating the Universe--Every day
You can take a look at this book here on google books.
sacred sex
I came across a very important article today, which has led me to an interesting website (linked below.)
In her urgent article Sacred Sexuality, Liora of Twin Flames writes about the possibility and importance of sacredness in sex. She emphasizes the roles of reverence, abandon, and selflessness in lovemaking, restoring the experience to its true roots: the center of cosmic love, mutual worship, and unity with each other and the universe.
I personally believe that sex has been torn down by society, probably since the advent of agriculture, which allowed patriarchy and class inequality based on personal ownership to take the scene. Once religious doctrines gained momentum, sweeping over the nations with their condemnations of sex for love, sexuality became closeted, restricted in free expression only to the "lowest rungs" of society and thus shamed.
Liora points out that deliberate, sacred lovemaking is cleansed of the "guilt-ridden" and "mechanical" qualities it has acquired over the centuries.
You can read her list of suggestions for a spiritual sexual experience in her article, which is linked below; however, I would like to add one footnote:
If you find that ritual is not right for you or your partner, or if you are unable to engage in a ritual for whatever reason, that's okay. In my experience, ritual is not essential for a fulfilling and deeply spiritual union. While it is liberating to many, it is not necessarily right--or key--for everyone.
It's possible--nay, inevitable!-- to have a mutual transcendental experience as long as you enter the bed with a clear, still mind, a heart filled with love and compassion, and, perhaps most importantly, a playful and generous attitude.
Your partner is a god/dess, and you are too. It is key to keep this in mind. It is key to maintain an exploring touch. Liora writes about this as well.
As long as you go in with a light-hearted attitude and a belief in the sacredness and nature of the act, the act has a potential to crescendo into something beautiful.
The experience has to be shared. It cannot be one-sided. One attitude partly instilled by gender politics is one of conquering. Either the man dominates the woman and consumes her, or the woman seduces the man, conquering his heart or maleness. This is a misled approach to sexuality which creates tension and shame.
To approach each other as equals and sex as a willful, balanced exchange of energy, yin and yang, whatever--THAT is a key ingredient.
In short, there are many techniques to use to restore sex its dignity and cultivate a transcendental experience... but if you don't have a smudge stick handy, simply summon up the qualities you carry within you at all times: sharing, compassion, equality, playfulness, nonjudgment, and love.
To read Liora's article on sacred sexuality in full, along with a lovely list of ideas and guidelines for purifying the mind and space, go to:
The Facebook Article.
Check out her website as well: twinflame1111.com. Liora offers an extensive list of audio resources, an e-book, and her reflections on the meaning of twin flames, self-love, and other important questions.
Jan 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
