note: science translates as 'knowledge'; religion translates loosely as 'to tie back together'
i feel mad....as if i need to write down all the facts and impressions that make up my world, lest i forget them, lest they fail to make any sense...either is a possibility...
anyway: an interesting take on my previous post. found this
link to harvard's new itunes shop, where one can find free audio lectures! in the 'medical labcast' section, i listened to episode 1, 'the science of social networks'. the doctor interviewed was compiling research about medical effects, called 'interpersonal health effects', within networks of people; a simple example [a network of two, the minimum number for a network] is called the 'widower effect', wherein the death of a spouse seems to somehow facilitate [increases the chances of] the death of the survivor. no surprises here...but what might be is that members of social networks [anyone with friends and/or family...mmm...the jury's out about me] can influence others, separated by as much as 3 degrees [network members], to gain or lose weight, to drink alcohol, to smoke or even to get a colonoscopy!
the research realized that 'birds of a feather, flock together' and attributes the influence of people on each other not to the flocking effect but to social networking effects----by just being connected. so we'd be wise to heed
poor richard's words: 'be slow in choosing a friend; slower in changing.'
interesting ramifications: the other day, i happened upon my dad watching glenn beck, which unfortunately happens every day. there he was, the overstuffed buffoon running around the giant plasma screen in adolescent angst over the sky falling [again---like it seems to do every day, though there's only one sky]...so the manchild was crying wolf and the wolf
du jour was the government health plan's attempt to award certain prevention behaviors and the banning of salt and fat in restaurants. he claimed that it was his god-given
right to eat as unhealthily as his whimsy dictated. after all, he's only harming himself and, golly garsh, that darned government can't tell him what to do [even though it does every day: every law you follow or break, taxes that you must pay, car insurance you must buy, etc].
of course, if you believe that every man is an island and makes himself and is
solely responsible for the outcome, then...naturally solipsism can reign...but what if even science [not even quantum science] proves this false? what if, by your very presence, you can nudge your friends, family and associates towards your behavior [whatever it may be]? the above study would seem to suggest that 'god' gave us something we're only starting to
perceive, never mind
understand.
on another front entirely, malcom gladwell's '
outliers' also punches holes in the 'self-made-man' hypothesis. in his 2009 book, gladwell examines the usually ignored circumstantial effects and not the proprietary personalities or traits of high achievers throughout history and finds that people are definitely
made at least as much as they make themselves.
eknath easwaran would find nothing i'm saying surprising. for the past year or so, i've been working through his massive 3-volume
'bhagavad gita for daily living'. he's convinced me that living as if you were a separate entity---from the ego's limited perspective---is the absolute
wrong path antithetical to life's natural law. my own wasted life serves as an example of this wrongness. i sound the warning now---i've thoroughly tried this exercise in sheer existential nihilism/selfishness in the guise of the artistic life! my constitution?
article one: no one else matters but me.
amendment one: well, and perhaps my friends too...
article two: i only do what i want.
amendment two: well...and whatever i have to do to pay the rent.
i hereby make a motion to tear up this constitution. motion granted. well, it's been granted for some time...but now i'm coming out officially!
