How to Fight Depression and Anxiety

What's the best way to deal with depressiona and anxiety? Quickly and definitively. Whatever kicks them off, depression and anxiety both are maintained by styles of thinking that magnify the initial insult and alter the workings of the brain in such a way that the longer an episode exists, the less it takes to set off future episodes.

Anxiety and depression are probably two faces of the same coin. Surveys have long shown that 60 to 70 percent of people with major depression also have an anxiety disorder, while half of those suffering anxiety also have symptoms of clinical depression.

The stress response system is overactive in both disorders. Excess activity of the stress response system sends emotional centers of the brain into overdrive so that negative events make a disproportionate impact and hijack rational response systems. You literally can't think straight. You ruminate over and over about the difficulties and disappointments you encounter until that's all you can focus on.

Researchers believe that some people react with anxiety to stressful life events, seeing danger lurking ahead everywhere—in applying for a job, asking for a favor, asking for a date. And some go beyond anxiety to become depressed, a kind of shutdown in response to anticipated danger.

People who have either condition typically overestimate the risk in a situation and underestimate their own resources for coping. Sufferers avoid what they fear instead of developing the skills to handle the kinds of situations that make them uncomfortable. Often enough, a lack of social skills is at the root. Some types of anxiety—obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and social phobia—are particularly associated with depression.

The fact that anxiety usually precedes the development of depression presents a huge opportunity for the prevention of depression. Young people especially are not likely to outgrow anxiety on their own; they need to be taught specific mental skills.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) gets at response patterns central to both conditions. And the drugs most commonly used against depression have also been proved effective against an array of anxiety disorders.

Although medication and CBT are equally effective in reducing anxiety/depression, CBT is better at preventing return of the disorder. Patients like it better, too, because it allows them to feel responsible for their own success. What's more, the active coping that CBT encourages creates new brain circuits that circumvent the dysfunctional response pathways.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy teaches people to monitor the environment for the troubling emotional landmines that seem to set them off. That actually changes metabolic activity in the cortex, the thinking brain, to modulate mood states. It works from the top down. Drugs, by contrast, work from the bottom up, modulating neurotransmitters in the brainstem, which drive basic emotional behaviors.

Treatment with CBT averages 12 to 15 weeks, and patients can expect to see significant improvement by six weeks. Drug therapy is typically recommended for months, if not years.

Exercise is an important adjunct to any therapy. Exercise directly alters levels of neurohormones involved in circuits of emotion. It calms the hyperactivity of the nervous system and improves function of the brain's emotion-sensing network. It also improves the ability of the body to tolerate stress. What's more, it changes people's perception of themselves, providing a sense of personal mastery and positive self-regard. It also reduces negative thinking.

However, just telling a distressed person to exercise is futile, as depression destroys initiative. The best thing a loved one can do is to simply announce: "Let's go for a walk." Then accompany the person out the door.

Source: Click Here
Copyright Sussex Publishers, LLC. 2006. 

If there was ever a time to dare,
to make a difference,
to embark on something worth doing,

IT IS NOW.

Not for any grand cause, necessarily...
but for something that tugs at your heart,

something that's your inspiration,



something that's your dream.


You owe it to yourself
to make your days here count.

HAVE FUN.
DIG DEEP.

STRETCH.

DREAM BIG.

Know, though, that things worth doing seldom come easy.
There will be good days.
And there will be bad days.

There will be times when you want to turn around,
pack it up,
and call it quits.

Those times tell you
that you are pushing yourself,
that you are not afraid to learn by trying.

PERSIST.


Because with an idea,
determination,
and the right tools,
you can do great things.

Let your instincts,
your intellect,
and your heart,
guide you.

TRUST.

Believe in the incredible power of the human mind.
Of doing something that makes a difference.
Of working hard.
Of laughing and hoping.
Of lazy afternoons.
Of lasting friends.
Of all the things that will cross your path this year.

The start of something new
brings the hope of something great,

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

Source: Click Here

Freedom and Islam

Recently, I read an article, “Women in Islam” describing the liberation of women by Islam and Prophet (s). In reality women cannot travel alone to Hujj or visit Mecca (the safest place for any one), and women cannot drive a car in Saudi Arabia. It is not a secret that Muslims in general and Muslim women in particular in the world are the least free and least educated. So, I wonder: Oh Islam! You are a great theory but no practical value, unless you live in the West.

After all, only one thing matters in Islam. Faith is a matter of exclusively personal and private experience. We embrace faith individually just as we confront our death individually. An Iranian Muslim philosopher, Souroush, correctly said it that we have communal actions and but not communal faiths. We can express faith in public but the core of the faith is mysteriously private. The preeminence of Islamic faith is for the hereafter where people are judged individually: "Everyone of them will come before Him all alone on the Day of Resurrection. Surely A-Rahman will show love for those who believe and do right." [19:95-96]. There is no Original Sin that transcends over the goodness of whole mankind in Islam. Therefore, the only things that matter on the Day of Judgment are actions at the individual level. Community actions are useless.

Similarly, the Qur’an states: “Say (Muhammad it is) truth from the Lord of you all. Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (Koran 18: 29) “And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; thy task is only to exhort: thou cannot compel them to believe.” (Koran: 21-22). “O Prophet.!…Thy duty is not more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours.” (Koran 13:40). These verses teach that a roof made out safety and liberty is an absolute necessity to develop faith in the hearts. These verses demand Muslims to guarantee freedom and safety for all. Therefore, if governments, Imams, enforced Fatwas, demand any public or outward obedience and submission, such outward appearance is not faith. When law, power, force, and tyranny enforce religion, they are taking control of the body not the soul. Unfortunately, many Muslims want to make reign over body the most important tenet of Islam even though the Qur’an rejects their craving for power over body: “It is not your meat or blood that reach God: It is fealty of your heart that reaches Him” (22:37).

In Muslim-majority nations, people are forced to confess Islamic faith and behave in one voice in religion; but they forget that the rulers cannot fill the heart with genuine faith. I believe that faith chosen freely at the individual level without coercion and without forced conformity is the genuine faith. In a world where the hearts with freely chosen faith, not by forced compliance, pervade, the true religious spirit come alive to establish an ideal society by free choice of the people. This is proven by Muslim history in the first 6 centuries. Muslims helped Jews to create their Golden Age and liberate Christians from tyranny of Roman church. Muslims philosophy and science promoted the Enlightenment and Renaissance of the Europe. We also created the experimental science. In those days, we educated anyone who came our way without force-feeding our faith. Now we have governments that have taken control of our body claiming to send our “meat and blood” to God while Muslims have to beg from non-Muslim societies for their daily bread to keep their body alive.

Prophet Mohammed struggled to establish a free society. Similarly, Muslims must struggle hard peacefully to establish a free society where no totalitarian government, no Imams, no predominant group control us or decide for us. Everyone is equal. If any one wants to be a believer, let him/her be. If anyone wants to be an apostate let him/her be safe to live the life of an apostate. So-called Islamic government is myth created by power-hungry people to control Muslim mind and body. There was no such thing as Islamic government. Government is only a means to execute the will of people. The individual members of the government can have Islamic values and faith. Prophet Mohammed ruled as a democratically elected ruler following the invitation by the people of Medina. He never forced a decision upon his community even when he believed that majority decision on a particular secular matter was a mistake as happened in the case of the disaster of Uhud war. A minority including him wanted to fortify the Medina and fight the Meccan forces. But he agreed to go along with the wishes of the majority to fight the Koreish in the open instead of from fortified Medina even though the strategy of the majority was wrong in his opinion. So, Islam demands Democracy, not tyranny by ullamahs, kings, self-appointed presidents, and military generals.

The concept of so-called Islamic government is an oxymoron unless it means a government with Islamic values that the community has accepted, not by the opinion or fatawa of an Imam but by totally free discussion in a free press, without coercion and intimidation. Some of the so-called Islamic values that exist in contemporary Muslim society are the values of some Imams that had never grinded through and experienced a free press. The self-righteous terrorists, and oppressive governments among Muslims want to control the “meat and blood” with the aid of the values of Imams that were not debated in the free society with a free press. However, they neglect the soul that sustains the body. Let democracy rule our bodies with a free press and let the free choice build our faith. Let us get rid of from our thoughts the enforced forms of outward Islam that demand the conformity and control from our “meat and blood”

The verse 33:5 states: “There is no sin upon you for what mistakes you commit unintentionally, but there is sin what your hearts have intended.” Unintentional mistakes happen much less if mind is exposed to free press, public opinion, and dialogue with reason as guiding principle. A hadith states "God has not created any thing better than reason." So, any Muslims who oppose a free press and reasoning are committing a sin knowingly because he/she refuses to listen to the merit or demerit of opposing points of view. The Koreish of Mecca rejected Prophet Mohammed because they refused to listen to reasoning. Muslims must reject the Jahilliyah paradigm that pervades in our community and in our mind.

Let Imams and scholars issue fatwas freely without power to enforce over the community. Reject any conformity by force. Reject totalitarianism and kingdoms that want to rule our body. Let the heart and mind fly free to see what is out there. Democracy draws inspiration from the Qur’anic axiom that human being are free. The American constitution reflects it as it states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.”

This is candidly stated in verse: “We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light…Later, in the train of prophets We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which has been send down before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light. …Unto to you [O Muhammad] this writ (Koran) and a way and a pattern of life, confirming what were revealed before…Unto everyone of you have We appointed a different law and way of life. And if God had so willed He could surely have you all made one single community professing one faith. But He wished to try you and test you. So try to excel in good deeds” (Koran: 5:44-48).

The existence of different kinds of faith and religion competing each other doing good work is the will of God. So, freedom without the enforcement of conformity in religious matters is Islamic. The so-called Islamic governments of the self-righteous violate Qur’anic principles and tyrannize people of all faith including Muslims. Islam will always remain a dream and an excellent theory with no practical value until faith rules the hearts and liberal democracy with a free press rules the bodies. Finally, I thank God for creating America where I do not fear about government taking control of my body and at same time my heart can fly freely to choose my faith.

Source: Click Here

DEVELOPMENT OF EGO AND PERSONALITY

From childhood onwards we accumulate experiences which affect us in our thoughts, feelings and actions so that we develop a specific personality. It may be an orderly, comfortable personality or it may be the opposite. The personality is formed by the interplay between our attempts to protect, satisfy and express ourselves and the world in which it finds itself. It is never independent of the social, cultural conditions under which one grows up and lives. Thus, personalities may harmonise more or less well with the surrounding world and people vary as to the degree of inward harmony and fruitful outward relationships. Persons whose characters are formed in one society can therefore have major problems adjusting to having to live in another, while a relative misfit at home may thrive abroad.

Much investigation on the growth of the ego has been done in modern times, even to the virtual exclusion of any higher aspects of personality. The very extensive and diverse results and viewpoints in psychological research can hardly be summarised here, but some salient features of the ego can be noted, as seen from the viewpoint of the higher psychology.

The origin of the ego is sought in identifications made in very early development and in how these have taken part in forming the particular personality and character. The ego-feeling arises with the first assertion of 'I want', of possessiveness, and its growth is closely connected with the need to feel pleasure and avoid pain.

The normal human identity is developed in part precisely through perceiving and learning distinctions between 'I' and 'the other', between 'mine' and 'not mine'. The sense of 'me, mine and I' are obviously unavoidable in the growth of the normal human person, though personal growth eventually stops if these identifications are not later transformed. Conditions of extreme psychic unbalance - from alienation, identity crisis, intense withdrawal to certain states of depression and amnesia - usually involve a self-negating disruption of normal processes of ego-affirmation, especially in early life.

A basic thesis of modern developmental psychology is that "some sense of self does exist long prior to self-awareness and language. These include the senses of agency, of physical cohesion, of continuity in time, of having intentions in mind and other such experiences..."1

Controllable experiments combined with well-grounded inferences have shown, contrary to most previous psychological opinion, that a subjective sense of self is present at least from birth onwards as the infant gradually relates to its body, its surroundings and to persons as being other than itself. That is to say, the infant is not a passive object of external stimuli that gradually generate a sense of self and experiences connectedness of things, events and actions so as slowly to form the ego or personality, but is from the start an active participant in the organisation of the personality.

The natural and healthy development of the ego-feeling from early childhood, attendant on the growing discovery of self as 'me/mine', relates identity to body, possessions, abilities and thought (mind) in a progressive discovery of selfhood ('I'). Early on the ego-identity becomes related to the body, yet whether the sense of 'I' as subject is or can be present prior to these body-identifications cannot be tested definitively, not least due to the child's lack of language at that time.

Unbalanced parental reactions to a baby's burgeoning desires to control its environment - when to feed, sleep, move etc. - can stunt the growth of a healthy ego-personality. The mean between over-indulgence and unreasonable discipline has to be found. The process of allowing babies to learn self-regulation and to behave within a reasonable sphere of autonomy furthers the establishment of a more harmonious ego. The drives on which the ego is founded can be wrongly diverted into unusual channels, giving rise both to feelings of inadequacy, and compensatory egotism. Undue frustration or regulation of these drives leads to destructive tendencies and/or undue passivity and can lay the ground for complex inferiority and superiority feelings.

One is not born with the sense of me and mine, but with the capacity for developing it, along with the mind and the ego. Even the reflexive idea 'my body' does not arise until the child is many months old.

The ego is the worldly identity resulting from three main desires: the urges to be, to know and to experience pleasure (joy).2 The desires are (presumably) not personally articulated at birth, but receive specific form and structure from the growing person's interaction with the environment, physical, social and spiritual. This does not mean, however, that one is not born with predetermined tendencies of a psychic nature. Vedantic thought insists that we are born with 'tendencies' (vasanas), karmic inheritances from the previous existence of our souls. This accounts for the controlled observations showing marked differences between individual children at very early ages indeed, differences that are not explainable by any known environmental influences. Whether or not these are formed by genetic means, as for example in the case of genes which are shown to predispose some people to impulsivness, and whether underlying karmic conditions are also at work cannot be demonstrated.

The genetic hypothesis that traits are exclusively the result of biochemical mechanisms has a sound physical basis, yet it has so far been unable to account for the specific qualitative differences in very early personality characteristics between babies that both experienced parents and child psychologists recognise. The Vedantic view is that these are 'carried over' from the end of the preceding existence in the form of the life principle (prana). Symbolised as the breath, the life principle or subtle pranic energy bears our karmic tendencies. The 'last breath' at death allegedly contains the cumulative effects of the actions (karma) of the individual (jiva), which in turn are the determinants of forthcoming tendencies in the next birth(vasanas). There exists a wide range of evidence to support the rebirth thesis.3

The sense of identity and patterns of behaviour that sustain and protect it can be said to form an 'ego-structure', which may for example be more or less weak/strong, rigid/flexible and so on. How a person reacts to whatever opposes the satisfaction of desires or to what hinders straightforward personal development will influence the particular kind of ego-structure. This raises issues like whether there is a need for so-called 'defence mechanisms' to protect the ego when (felt to be) threatened. This again leads to the question of the origin of personality disturbances and pathological states caused by irregular ego-development.

Many studies have been carried out on the role of the environment in the development of specific patterns of personality, including the ego. It is likely that the more harmonious and less prone to conflict the family, local environment and society in which one grows up, the less likely that strong self-defensive and dominating ego traits will be required and hence developed. Also, the earlier in life that difficult emotional and social burdens have to be borne, the less likely a well-balanced ego pattern with good self-control can be developed.

An ego-structure refers to those personal characteristics by which the individual's identity is established, known and asserted through words and actions, whereby this structure becomes indirectly accessible to empirical study. The ego comes to expression in and through the social environment, where it can be studied through reconstruction. For example, an ego-structure can include strong possessive attachments to certain persons and properties, negative and fearful feelings about other persons, difficulties in expressing positive feelings verbally and a tendency to criticism, back-bite and slander. Many fine distinctions between differing ego-structures can be made according to one's purpose.

One can distinguish a continuum between the strong, assertive ego and the weak, self-denigrating ego. The types of ego at these extremes are generally less suited to positive developments than those types in between, according to psychological researches. The overbearing ego, with its sense of possessive attachment, often disturbs learning and its related processes such as perception, judgement, memory, capacity to abstract and symbolise etc. Extremely egocentric behaviour includes manipulative psychopathic tendencies and other mental derangements. The ego is also the main cause of most kinds of projection onto others of one's own emotions and thoughts or distorted variants of these.

The alternative to ego-centered living with 'defences' against whatever is perceived as a threat to the fulfilment of desires, is self-experience without defences, that is 'being oneself'. What being oneself implies depends in each case upon the individual and the stage of self-fulfilment reached.

How we best may control or transform a (developed) egocentric tendency and its likely motivations includes questions of self-discipline, social control, self-knowledge, self-transformation and eventual self-mastery through transcending the ego-feeling.


Source: Click Here

If one thing can be said to be common among all people, it is the desire to be loved. No other desire is shared by all people the world over. Some people want to change the world while others don’t care. Some want to make it onto a basketball team, and others hate sports. Some strive for acetic purity in fasting, others are forever consuming food in gluttonous delight. But the desire to be loved is the one common thread, and even the hermit cannot ignore his wish to be a meaningful component in some scheme beyond himself.

So it would seem that humans would have figured out the secrets of love long ago. But when we go and read the ancient texts, the correspondences of the ages, the longings, the ever painful searching quests for true loves, we often see that the goal of eternal bliss in the arms of love are so rare. For every king who built a palace for his true love, there were a thousand kings with thousands of women of no importance to their hearts. For every knight who saved his damsel and rode off into the sunset of happiness, there were countless tyrants who stole away women and committed them to unhappy slavery.

Now, in an age where the dominance of man over woman has diminished markedly, it might seem that love would be more common. Such is not the case, as we find that our literature is still just as filled with longing, with a sorrowful cry for that mystical enchantment called love. Our music still reminds us that we are alone too often, that we have failed to make that lasting friendship that is the goal of life. Our art almost focuses on the erotic as a way to remind us of a piece of love, but the heart of our art is often meaninglessly hollow: it has little anchored in the actual experience of our nightly dreams.

Wherein lies our tormented inability to find love? Is this world so truly harsh that a dream in us all is but a mocking phantom sent to haunt us and cause agony? Do we desire, above all things, something that is not real? Or is it just that we have striven to find love before we knew where to look?

Realism states that love has been missing from the lives of the masses. In this reality it paints a picture drenched in pessimism. It would make the more weak souls ask what purpose is there to live when they cannot have what they want most. For the stronger, it merely gives them a bitter satisfaction in surviving against a foe that is so great as to be timeless; for them, at least they did not fall to the monster of despair, although life lacked fulfillment.

But there have been those cases where love was real. The king who gave away his kingdom for a single woman, the woman who ran away from her world to live with a man. There are times when two people find each other and they are overwhelmed with a chemistry that cannot ever be removed. They find that they are happy just to exist side by side, that suddenly days are filled with laughter and fun. Many people can have fun, and love, but this type of relationship where the fun does not stop, where the sparkle in the eye and the smirk of frolicking joy never fades, is so immensely rare. Precious, it does occur.

This love is not impossible. This love is available to all of us, I say. But it is not something that can just happen—it is something that occurs only after given requirements are met. Why so many people cannot find the love of their life is because they have failed to find love for themselves. Those people bitter, those people with a sorrowful heart, depressed about existence, cannot ever give life to another person. The woman forever sad about all things does not fill the heart of a man with joyous excitement, and a man bitter at the world cannot make a woman feel special. They can walk a while and share their suffering, but they have nothing to add to one another. If they do not love themselves, they have nothing to radiate, nothing they want to share about themselves.

You will find that those happiest in life are those same people who love themselves. You will find that the most beautiful woman is she with the quick smile that is a response to her inner understanding that she should be happy to live. You will find that the man most charismatic is he who feels that he has something about himself that is intrinsically valuable. These people will be happy, and they will find love.

By Shawn Olson

How Sunlight Can Affect Your Whole Life

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

- Anais Nin


There is no way to couch this in cutesy, comfy language. The way you see the world around you reflects the state of your mind. Your world view is how you are.


The same world that some people see as dangerous, cutthroat, self-serving and frightening is seen by other people as compassionate, helpful, kind and generally moving forward in a way that is positive for the human species.


Are both groups extreme, perhaps crazy or self-deluded? No, in fact some people see their own families along the same range. And the people they work with. The state of their lives and their health shows their view of the world around them.


Health itself can play a huge role in a person's view of the world and in how they perceive and relate to members of their family and the people at work. People who live north of a line running roughly through the middle of the temperate zones then toward the poles from there may easily suffer from depression due to insufficient vitamin D from sunlight during the coldest three seasons.


Only during the summer season (and then only if they expose their skin and their eyes to it for 10 to 15 minutes per day) is there a sufficient amount of direct sunlight that can strike the human skin enough to cause it to produce vitamin D from it. Opportunities for sufficient exposure during spring and autumn are slim. During winter, no amount of exposing of skin to sunlight is sufficient because the rays come in at the wrong (low) angle.


We can't produce our own vitamin D alone. We need sunlight or a vitamin D supplement--and then a supplement that is sufficient for our personal needs. In winter in the northerly half of the northern temperate zone and the southerly half of the southern temperate zone human skin cannot get enough direct sunlight to create the vitamin D we require.


We call it SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) when people suffer from depression or long periods of sadness or lack of cheerfulness during winter. What we don't take into account is how a deficiency of vitamin D can affect our mood or our view of life and the people we love. That varies from peson to person and little study has been done on it.


Vitamin D deficiency is not like a light switch, either on or off. It can have varying degrees of effect on how we feel at any time of any day. Like any other kind of deficiency in the human body, the effects cannot be good.


If a person who is suffering from a deficiency of vitamin D is grumpy or miserable or hard to please, it could simply be a matter of correcting a vitamin deficiency.


Note that the most powerful political and economic centres in the most powerful nations in the world all fall within that winter sunlight deficiency zone. How does that affect how countries treat each other? How does it affect how the leader of one country perceives the leader of another, and how he persuades his government to perceive the other nation as a whole? We don't know for certain. It might affect how the political system works, especially in winter.


What we do know is that a person's attitude can be affected by his health and a person's approach to the world around them reflects his attitude.


It certainly will not solve all the world's problems for world leaders and government representatives to all take vitamin D supplements during the times of year when they get too little direct sunlight on their skin each day. But it wouldn't hurt for them to know about this potential problem and its consequences so that they could take measures to protect themselves (and us) from the damage of vitamin deficiency.


And it won't hurt you and me either to take action to make our own lives and those of our loved ones better during the colder months of the year.

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8103/How-Sunlight-Can-Affect-Your-Whole-Life

Love as Emotion Complex

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity: “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover's being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):
Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved's temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved's emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one's overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved's well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved's character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one's emotional responsiveness to one's beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one's emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one's beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover's identity. This is partly Rorty's point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love (above). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “dynamically permeable” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person's character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other.[14] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love's continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship require that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment.[15] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6, especially the discussion of fungibility).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved's embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love? Again, proponents of the emotion complex view need to provide a clearer, principled account of the relevant kind of pattern of emotional responses constitutive of love.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/#5.2

Love as Emotion Complex

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity: “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover's being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):
Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved's temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved's emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one's overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved's well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved's character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one's emotional responsiveness to one's beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one's emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one's beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover's identity. This is partly Rorty's point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love (above). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “dynamically permeable” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person's character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other.[14] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love's continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship require that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment.[15] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6, especially the discussion of fungibility).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved's embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love? Again, proponents of the emotion complex view need to provide a clearer, principled account of the relevant kind of pattern of emotional responses constitutive of love.

Ludwig van Beethoven

Ludwig van Beethoven was baptised on December 17th 1770 at Bonn. His family originated from Brabant, in Belgium. His father was musician at the Court of Bonn, with a definite weakness for drink. His mother was always described as a gentle, retiring woman, with a warm heart. Beethoven referred to her as his "best friend". The Beethoven family consisted of seven children, but only the three boys survived, of whom Beethoven was the eldest.

At an early age, Beethoven took an interest in music, and his father taught him day and night, on returning to the house from music practice or the tavern. Without doubt, the child was gifted, and his father Johann envisaged creating a new Mozart, a child prodigy.

On March 26th 1778, at the age of 7 1/2, Beethoven gave his first know public performance, at Cologne. His father announced that he was 6 years old. Because of this, Beethoven always thought that he was younger than he actually was. Even much later, when he received a copy of his baptism certificate, he thought that it belonged to his brother Ludwig Maria, who was born two years before him, and died as a child.But the musical and teaching talents of Johann were limited. Soon Ludwig learned music, notably the organ and composition by renowned musicians, such as Gottlob Neefe. Neefe recognised the how extraordinarily talented Beethoven was. As well as teaching him music, he made the works of philosophers, ancient and modern, known to Beethoven.

In 1782, before the age of 12, Beethoven published his first work: 9 variations, in C Minor, for Piano, on a march by Ernst Christoph Dressler (WoO 63). And the following year, in 1783, Neefe wrote in the "Magazine of Music", about his student: "If he continues like this he will be, without doubt, the new Mozart".

In June 1784, on Neefe's recommendations, Ludwig was appointed organist of the court of Maximilian Franz, Elector of Cologne. He was 14. This post enabled him to frequent new circles, other than those of his father and friends of his family. Here he met people who were to remain friends for the rest of his life: The Ries family, the von Breuning family and the charming Eleonore, Karl Amenda, the violinist, Franz Gerhard Wegeler, a doctor, and a dear friend who also went to Vienna, etc.

At home, little by little, Ludwig replaced his father. Financially first of all, because Johann, often under the influence of drink, was less and less capable of keeping up his role at the court. The young Beethoven felt responsible for his two younger brothers, an idea he kept for the rest of his life, sometimes to the extent of being excessive.

Prince Maximilian Franz was also aware of Beethoven's gift, and so he sent Beethoven to Vienna, in 1787, to meet Mozart and to further his musical education. Vienna was, after all, the beacon city in terms of culture and music. There exist only texts of disputable authenticity on the subject of this meeting between Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart is thought to have said "Don't forget his name - you will hear it spoken often."!

But a letter called Beethoven back to Bonn: his mother was dying. The only person in his family with whom he had developed a strong and loving relationship passed away on July 17th 1787.

Five years later, in 1792, Beethoven went back to Vienna, benefiting from another grant, for two years, by the Prince Elector, again to pursue his musical education. He never went back to the town of his birth. His friend Waldstein wrote to him: "You shall receive Mozart's spirit from Haydn's hands"...
At Vienna, the young musician took lessons with Haydn, then with Albrechtsberger and Salieri. He captured the attention of, and astonished, Vienna, with his virtuosity and his improvisations on piano. In 1794, Beethoven composed his opus 1, three trios for piano. The following year, Beethoven made his first public performance at Vienna (an "Academy") whereby each musician was to play his own work. Then followed a tour: Prague, Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin before leaving for a concert in Budapest.

Beethoven made numerous acquaintances at Vienna. Everybody in the musical and aristocratic world admired the young composer. These music-lovers were Beethoven's greatest supporters. He became angry regularly with one or another of them, often making honourable amends soon afterwards. His talent excused his excessive, impulsive behaviour.

In 1800, Beethoven organised a new concert at Vienna including, notably, the presentation of his first symphony. Although today we find this work classical, and close to the works of Mozart and Haydn, at the time certain listeners found the symphony strange, overly extravagant, and even risqué. This genius, Beethoven, who was still a young, new composer, was already pushing the established boundaries of music.In 1801 Beethoven confessed to his friends at Bonn his worry of becoming deaf. At Heiligenstadt, in 1802, he wrote a famous text which expressed his disgust at the unfairness of life: that he, a musician, could become deaf was something he did not want to live through. But music made him carry on. And he wrote that he knew that he still had many other musical domains to explore, to discover, and to pass on. Beethoven did not commit suicide, rather, knowing that his handicap was getting worse and worse, he threw himself into his greatest works: exceptional sonatas for piano (notably The Storm, opus 31), the second and the third symphonies- The Eroica - and of course many more.

Beethoven wrote this third symphony in honour of a great man, Bonaparte. He was seen as the liberator of the people, opening, from the French Revolution, a door to hope. When the First Consul declared himself Emporor, Beethoven became enraged and scowled out Bonaparte's name from the score.

On April 7th 1805 the Eroica symphony was played for the first time.Meanwhile, Beethoven had finally finished his opera, Leonore, the only opera he ever wrote. He wrote and re-wrote four different overtures. The name of the opera therefore changed to Fidelio, against the wishes of the composer. November 20th 1805 was the date of the opening performance … before a thin audience of French officers. This was because Napolean, head of the army, had captured Vienna for the first time. This happened again in 1809.

In the years that followed, the creative activity of the composer became intense. He composed many symphonies, amongst which were the Pastoral, the Coriolan Overture, and the famous Letter for Elise. He took on many students, those he found young and attractive, and he therefore fell in love with several of them. The Archbishop Rudolph, brother of the emperor, also became his student, his friend and eventually one of his benefactors.

In 1809, Beethoven wanted to leave Vienna, at the invitation of Jérome Bonaparte. His long-standing friend, the Countess Anna Marie Erdödy, kept him at Vienna with the help of his wealthiest admirers: the Archbishop Rudolph, the Prince Lobkowitz and the Prince Kinsky. These men gave Beethoven an annual grant of 4 000 florins, allowing him to live without financial constraint. The only condition was that Beethoven was not to leave Vienna. Beethoven accepted. This grant made him the first independent composer. Before this contract musicians and composers alike (even Bach, Mozart and Haydn), became servants in the houses of wealthy aristocratic families. They were thus part of the domestic staff, with no more rights than any other, but with the added task of composition and performance. Thus, for the musician of the day, Beethoven had outstanding circumstances: he was free to write what he wanted, when he wanted, under command or not, as he pleased.In 1812, Beethoven went for hydrotherapy at Teplitz, where he wrote his ardent letter to "The Immortal Beloved". This letter which was found in a secret draw with the Heiligenstadt Testament, has not stopped the theories and suppositions of researchers and biographers ever since. Numerous women amongst his students and friends have been, in turn, proposed as the recipient of this letter. Unless a new document is discovered (perhaps within the possessions of a private collector) it is likely that the truth about this mysterious woman will remain a secret.

At the end of July 1812, Beethoven met Goethe, under the organisation of Bettina Brentano. These two great men admired each other, but didn't understand each other. The composer found the poet too servile, and the poet last estimation was that Beethoven was "completely untamed". Beethoven admired Goethe, he put to music several of his poems. I always regretted not having been better understood by Goethe.

Then one of his benefactors, the Prince Lobkowitz, fell into financial difficulty, and the Prince Kinski died from falling off his horse. Kinski's descendant decided to put an end to the financial obligations towards Beethoven. Here started one of the composer's many attempts at saving his financial independence.

The Czech Johann Nepomuk Maelzel took up contact with Beethoven. Inventor of genius, and probably inventor of the metronome, Maelzel had already met Beethoven and had created various devices to help Beethoven with his hearing: acoustic cornets, a listening system linking up to the piano, etc. In 1813, Beethoven composed 'The Victory of Wellington', a work written for a mechanical instrument made by Maelzel, the "panharmonica" (or "panharmonicon"). But it was above all the metronome which helped evolve music and Beethoven, who had taken interest straight away, noted scrupulously the markings on his scores, so that his music could be played how he wished.
The Academy of 1814 regrouped his work, as well as the seventh and eighth symphonies. This was also the time of the re-writing of Leonore as Fidelio, Beethoven's only opera. This work eventually became successful before the public.

Then the Congress of Vienna met, which brought together all the heads of state to decided the future of Europe after Napoleon. This was one of Beethoven's moment of glory. He was invited to play many times, bringing him recognition and admiration of which he could be truly proud.

On November 15th 1815, Kaspar Karl, Beethoven's brother, died. He left behind his wife, whom the composer referred to as 'The queen of the night' due to the pastimes of the widow, as well as a son, Karl, who was 9. Here Beethoven's life was to change dramatically. His brother had written that he wished Karl's guardianship to be exercised by both his wife and his brother Ludwig. Beethoven took this role very seriously, but the 45 year old celibate who could no longer hear found it difficult to live with and understand a child, and then a young man. This cohabitation was the cause of a new trial against the mother of the child, a generation conflict and numerous troubles.

In 1816, Carl Czerny (future teacher of Franz Liszt and once Beethoven's student) became Karl's music teacher, but didn't find the talent in the boy which Beethoven hoped him to posses. At this time , he ended his cycle of lieders 'To the distant loved one'and drafted the first theme for his ninth symphony.

Two years later, the Archduke Rudolph became Cardinal and Beethoven began composing his mass in D. It was never ready for the intronisation, but the work was rich beyond compare.

Gioachino Rossini triumphed in Vienna in 1822 where he met Beethoven again. The language barrier and Beethoven's deafness meant that they could only exchange brief words. The Viennese composer tolerated Italian opera only in moderation - he found it lacked seriousness.The ninth symphony was practically finished in 1823, the same year as the Missa Solemnis. Liszt, who was 11, met Beethoven who came to his concert on April 13th. He congratulated the young virtuoso heartily who, years later, transcribed the entirety of Beethoven's symphonies for piano.

May 7th 1824 was the date of the first playing of the ninth symphony and despite musical difficulties, and problems in the sung parts, it was a success. Unfortunately it was not financially rewarding. Financial problems constantly undermined the composer. He always had money put to one side, but he was keeping it for his nephew.

Then began the period of the last quartets, which are still difficult even for today's audience, which knows how to interpret his other works. He started to compose his tenth symphony.

In 1826, Beethoven caught cold coming back from his brother's place, with whom he had rowed again. The illness complicated other health problems from which Beethoven had suffered all his life. He passed away encircled by his closest friends on March 26th 1827, just as a storm broke out.
The funeral rites took place at the church of the Holy Trinity. It is estimated that between 10 000 and 30 000 people attended. Franz Schubert, timid and a huge admirer of Beethoven, without ever having become close to him, was one of the coffin bearers, along with other musicians. Schubert died the next year and was buried next to Beethoven.

The actor Heinrich Anschütz read the funeral prayer written by Franz Grillparzer, (a great writer), in front of the doors of theWähring cemetery (now Schubert Park).

Source: http://www.lvbeethoven.com

True Love and Chemistry: Exploring Myth and Reality

When you think about the qualities found in a true "soul mate" relationship, what one word comes up most often on the top of your list?

Is it CHEMISTRY? Probably.

Just the mention of this term conjures up powerful feelings and images for anyone who has ever been in or seeking a love relationship. It is often described as a feeling that leaves you breathless, excited and weak in the knees. Palms sweat, the heart races and the body tingles with nervous anticipation.

It is believed by virtually everyone that true love cannot exist without chemistry. Therefore, the conclusion most would-be lovers come to is that if they experience these intense feelings towards someone, they have the basis for an ideal and lasting relationship.

Right? Maybe not. For this definition of chemistry is limited to one's physical response to another person. It lacks an entire dimension that resides in our values, beliefs, personalities and worldview.

In order to know you have the right connection with a potential (or existing) partner, it's important to have a basic knowledge of what real chemistry consists of, instead of embracing only the myths that surround it. This can be difficult to do. This intense, physical passion is the stuff that Oscar winning movies and best-selling books are made of. So, take a step back for a minute and see if you recognize yourself in the following.

Sarah is a thirty something, very attractive and successful, professional female. She has been in a relationship for over a year with a man who is unfaithful, disrespectful and incapable (unwilling) to make any commitment to her. Yet, when he makes late night "booty calls", forgets her birthday, or stands her up repeatedly - she remains available and willing, in spite of her general unhappiness and upset over their "relationship". Why? "I think I have mistaken great sex for love. I feel this intense chemistry and physical intimacy when we are having sex, even though he offers me nothing else. Over time, it has left me unhappy and feeling badly about myself."

John is an attractive, intelligent, 30 something male who owns his own successful business. He's dating a woman that he thinks he is in love with. He has knowledge that she has been out with other men. She cancels dates and is often critical and emotionally distant. She refuses to discuss commitment or taking the relationship to the next level. Yet, she turns to John for emotional, physical and financial help whenever she feels she needs it. Why does John continue to see her? "She's beautiful and the sex is great". We have such strong physical chemistry. It's almost like an addiction for me. My friends can't stand her and even I know she's not really a "keeper", but it's hard to walk away.

These vignettes are great examples of how physical chemistry can be mistaken for the real thing. The attraction on one level is strong, yet these are not relationships that have the right elements to grow into happy and satisfying partnerships.

So, what is missing?

Kahlil Gibran defines it as "spiritual affinity". It's the hidden element of chemistry. It's when two beings meet and connect on a deeper level. It can only be felt in the heart and soul. It's about friendship, respect, humor and the feelings of warmth and contentment that come when you are in his/her presence.

People often report finding one without the other. This is understandably a cause of great frustration and confusion about whom should we choose and why. In order to understand this better, it is helpful to know how and when each facet of chemistry occurs.

Physical attraction (or lust) generally begins during our first contact with someone. It can DEVELOP into something more over time, yet some pull is there from the beginning. The chemical that results from this attraction (and intensifies it) is phenyl ethylamine - or PEA. It is a naturally occurring substance in the brain. Essentially, it is a natural amphetamine. It stimulates us and increases both physical and emotional energy. The attraction causes us to produce more PEA, which results in those dizzying feelings associated with romantic love. Another substance that is released by PEA is dopamine. This chemical increases a desire to be physically close and intimately connected.

When these chemicals are being secreted in larger doses, they send signals from the brain to the other organs of the body. If you wonder why you or someone is attracted to the "wrong" person, it may be because you are high on the physical response to these substances, which overwhelm your ability to use your head and exercise "good judgment and common sense".

"Spiritual affinity" develops over time and repeated contact. When these feelings begin to emerge, the brain produces endorphins. These are more like morphine and result in an increased sense of calm that reduces anxiety and helps to build attachment. As relationships move into this phase they are characterized by more comfort, commitment and friendship.

Generally speaking, all "soul mate relationships" require at least some measure of each of these. The important thing to remember is that they come in stages, which is not to say that the physical attraction passes as one moves into a deeper connection. However, it changes. We cannot sustain those intense emotions as we travel down the road to commitment and a shared life. However, in healthy relationships those moments of intensity can and do occur for brief intervals at intermittent times.

Remember not to confuse great sex or deep friendship with romantic love. Instead, look for a measure of both of these in your feelings for another. For then you have the ingredients that lasting love is made from.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q. I am an attractive, professional and intelligent female. I see myself as someone who has good common sense and judgment. Yet, I have gotten myself into a relationship (of sorts) that is making me miserable. I have been seeing a guy for over a year. We have a fantastic sex life. We really connect and are in tune with each other this way. We also have fun together and seem to relate well on a number of levels. The problem? I have found out that he has been with two other women since we have been going out. I was under the impression that we are a couple and was shocked by this information, which came through a friend.

What do I do? I really like this guy and even have feelings of love. I know he cares about me, but has not wanted to discuss the issue, which has led us to an impasse. I don't understand why he feels the need to be with other women. I feel like a fool for not just dropping him and moving on. Any help with this would be appreciated.

A. His refusal to discuss it is a bad sign. I think you know this only too well. It appears that your impressions of how well you get along and relate to each other are accurate, at least on a certain level. You are very attracted to one another, etc. So, what's the problem? HIM.

There could be a number of possibilities that have to do with not only who he is, but also to his past experiences and views of commitment, etc. But the only issue that you need to focus on is his (apparent) inability to remain monogamous- at least with you. This is only a hunch, but there's a strong possibility here that he is one of those individuals who crave the feelings that come with the early and more physically exciting stage of attraction. This early time in a relationship brings that rush of adrenaline that causes the heart to race and produces a feeling of being "high".

Some people cheat on loving partners- whom they sometimes care deeply for- because of their addiction to those intense feelings. This is how some "good" marriages come apart or why some people report a lack of control over a behavior that they know is destructive to them and to those they love.

Regardless of why he does this- unless he sees this as a real problem that he wants to change- you have no control over his behavior. Therefore, you need to focus on your own physical and emotional well-being. Continuing an intimate relationship with him could be dangerous to your health and your self-esteem. I recommend that you take a break and give yourself some time. When you are ready to date someone new, you will know it. Until then, you can spend some time thinking about what you desire and need from a relationship and what you must have and won't tolerate from a future partner.

END NOTES

This issue was written to help you to have a clearer understanding of what REAL relationship chemistry is. When you have a good understanding of how you choose potential partners, it should help you to evaluate your choices better and make the right one for you. It is also helpful in understanding any problem you may be having in a present relationship.


by Toni Coleman, LCSW

Love on the Other Side of the Fence

We all have heard the old cliché, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." So how do we feel about love on the other side of the fence? Is love on the other side of the fence better? In some cases, it is, but in many cases, it is not.

I have encountered many people, over the years, who find themselves in a new relationship after searching in greener pastures. These same people, however, eventually miss their old partner whom they know, in their heart of hearts, was the one for them. I recently read a letter, penned to Ann Landers by "Heavy-Hearted In Philly," who said:

"I would like to share my story because I know a lot of people think of their lives the way I thought of mine. Sometimes you feel lonely and unloved in a marriage, even after 23 years. You feel as if there has got to be more to life, so you set out to find someone who can make you blissfully happy. You believe that you have found that someone and decide he is exactly what you want. So you pack up and say goodbye to that 23-year marriage and all the friends you made when you were part of a couple. You give your children the option of coming with you or staying with their father. You live the glorious life for a few years and then a light bulb goes on in your head. You realize that you have exactly the life that you had before -- the only difference is that you've lost your friends, your children's respect and the best friend you loved and shared everything with for 23 years. And you miss him. You realize that love does not just happen; it must be nurtured through the years. You cannot undo what has been done, so you settle for a lonely and loveless life with emptiness in your heart. Ann, please print my letter so others will not give up something that is truly precious and let them know that they won't know how precious it is until they have thrown it away."

This woman from Philly, after 23 years of marriage, set out to find someone new to make her "blissfully happy." In my opinion, this is a very unrealistic expectation. We cannot expect a relationship or another individual to make us "blissfully happy." We have to be happy within ourselves, first and foremost. Establishing a relationship with the right person should only enhance our happiness in life. Philly says something very significant that I am sure she wished she had realized at the early stages of her marriage: "Love does not just happen; it must be nurtured through the years." If you are currently exploring the question, "Am I happy in my current relationship?" If you are currently single and asking yourself, "Am I ready for a relationship?" You need to understand what took this woman over 23 years to realize, so that you do not make the same mistake. We have to incorporate the art of loving into our daily lives, as individuals, and as part of a couple in a loving, committed relationship. We have to understand, as she found out much too late, that: "love does not just happen, it must be nurtured through the years." With this understanding, and while practicing the art of loving, you will be able honestly to answer some very important questions to yourself: "Are you the one for me?" and "Are you not the one for me?"

by Paul Mauchline

Islam Between East and West by Alija Izetbegovic

Nature has determinism, man has destiny. The acceptance of this destiny is the supreme and final idea of Islam. Destiny -- does it exist and what form does it take? Let us look at our own lives and see what has remained of our most precious plans and the dreams of our youth? Do we not come helplessly into the world faced with our own personality, with higher or lower intelligence, with attractive or repulsive looks, with an athletic or dwarfish stature, in a king's place or in a beggar's hut, in a tumultuous or peaceful time, under the reign of a tyrant or a noble prince, and generally in geographical and historical circumstances about which we have not been consulted? How limited is what we call our will, how tremendous and unlimited is our destiny!

Man has been cast down upon this world and made dependent on many facts over which he has no power. His life is influenced by both very remote and very near factors. During the Allied invasion of Europe in 1944, there was, for a moment, a general disturbance in radio communications which could have been fatal for the operations under way. Many years later, the disturbance was explained as a huge explosion in the Andromeda constellation, several million light years away form our planet. One type of catastrophic earthquake on the earth is due to changes on the sun's surface. As our knowledge of the world grows, so does our realization that we will never be complete masters of our fate. Even supposing the greatest possible progress of science, the amount of factors under our control will always be insignificant compared to the amount of those beyond it. Man is not proportional to the world. He and his lifetime me not the measuring units of the pace of things. This is the cause of man's eternal insecurity, which is psychologically reflected in pessimism, revolt, despair, apathy, or in submission to God's will.

Islam arranges the world by means of upbringing, education, and laws. That is its narrower scope; submission to God is the broader one.

Individual justice can never be fully satisfied within the conditions of existence. We can follow all Islamic rules which, in their ultimate result, should provide us with the "happiness in both worlds"; moreover, we can follow all other norms, medical, social and moral but, because of the terrific entanglement of destinies, desires and accidents, we can still suffer in body and soul. What can console a mother who has lost her only son? Is there any solace for a man who has been disabled in an accident?

We ought to become conscious of our human condition. We are immersed in situation. I can work to change my situation, but there are situations which are essentially unchangeable, even when their appearance takes a new look, and when their victorious power is veiled: l must die; I must suffer; I must fight; I am a victim of chance; I get inevitably entangled in guilt. These basic conditions of our existence are referred to as "the border situations."[1] Sure, "man is bound to improve everything that can be improved in this world. After that, children will still go on dying unjustly even in the most perfect of societies. Man, at best, can only give himself the task of reducing arithmetically the sufferings of this world. Still, injustice and pain will continue and, however limited, they will never cease to be blasphemy."[2]

Submission to God or revolt -- these are two different answers to the same dilemma.

In submission to God, there is some of every (human) wisdom except one: shallow optimism. Submission is the story of human destiny, and that is why it is inevitably permeated with pessimism: for "every destiny is tragic and dramatic if we come down to its bottom."[3]

Recognition of destiny is a moving reply to the great human theme of inevitable suffering. It is the recognition of life as it is and a conscious decision to bear and to endure. In this point, Islam differs radically from the superficial idealism and optimism of European philosophy and its naive story about "the best of all possible worlds." Submission to God is a mellow light coming from beyond pessimism.

As a result of one's recognition of his impotence and insecurity, submission to God itself becomes a new potency and a new security. Belief in God and His providence offers a feeling of security which cannot be made up for with anything else. Submission to God does not imply passivity as many people wrongly believe. In fact, "all heroic races have believed in destiny."[4] Obedience to God excludes obedience to man. It is a new relation between man and God and, therefore, between man and man.

It is also a freedom which is attained by following through with one's own destiny. Our involvement and our struggle are human and reasonable and have the token of moderation and serenity only through the belief that the ultimate result is not in our hands. It is up to us to work, the rest is in the hands of God.

Therefore, to properly understand our position in the world means to submit to God, to find peace, not to start making a more positive effort to encompass and to overcome everything, but rather a negative effort to accept the place and the time of our birth, the place and the time that are our destiny and God's will. Submission to God is the only human and dignified way out of the unsolvable senselessness of life, a way out without revolt, despair, nihilism, or suicide. It is a heroic feeling not of a hero, but of an ordinary man who has done his duty and accepted his destiny.

Islam does not get its name from its laws, orders, or prohibitions, nor from the efforts of the body and soul it claims, but from something that encompasses and surmounts all that: from a moment of cognition, from the strength of the soul to face the times, from the readiness to endure everything that an existence can offer, from the truth of submission to God. Submission to God, thy name is Islam!

====================================

[1] Karl Jaspers, An Introduction to Philosophy
[2] Albert Camus
[3] Gasset
[4] Emerson

One third of Americans say under extreme stress

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Worries about work and money are causing one-third of Americans to suffer from extreme stress, driving them to overeat, drink, and smoke.

In an online survey for the American Psychological Association (APA) nearly half of the 1,848 people questioned believe their stress levels have shot up in the past five years, taking a toll on their personal relationships, work productivity and health.

"We see stress as being an increasing problem," Dr Russ Newman, the executive director for professional practice at the APA, told a press briefing.

Nearly three-quarters of people blamed work and money as the main sources of stress in their lives, followed by workload and children. Low salaries, too much work and a lack of opportunity were the main reasons for stress at work.

An equal number said they suffered from physical and psychological symptoms ranging from headaches, fatigue and muscle tension to anxiety, irritability and lack of sleep.

And about one-third of the people questioned said they had difficulty balancing family and work responsibilities. More than half said stress had caused friction in relationships with family and friends.

"While stress may be unavoidable, particularly in this day and age as we are seeing, I think the good news is that it is manageable," Newman said.

But many people admitted they had difficulty dealing with stress which led to unhealthy habits. Seventeen percent drank too much when stressed and 66 percent of smokers said their cigarette quota shot up on difficult days.

Stress caused some people to skip a meal but 43 percent said they found comfort in overeating, particularly high-fat and high-sugar foods such as candy, chocolate, ice cream and cookies.

Nearly half also lost sleep because of stress.

"This is a perfect example of the mind-body connection," said Beverly Thorn, a professor of psychology at the University of Alabama.

While short-term stress can be a motivator for some people, Thorn said chronic stress takes its toll on health by contributing to high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and other disorders.

She stressed the importance of breaking the vicious cycle of stress, which leads to bad habits and poor health and then more stress.

Newman advised people to take a closer look at what is causing stress as a first step to dealing with it better. About half of people who participated in the poll conducted by Harris Interactive found reading, listening to music and exercising useful in relieving stress. Forty percent said spending time with family and friends helped, and 34 percent prayed.

The crying game: male vs female tears

NEW YORK - "Please, please, please, just give the dog back," Ellen DeGeneres wept on national TV last week. It was a moment that quickly established itself in the pop culture firmament, less for the plight of Iggy the adopted terrier than for the copious crying itself.

Setting aside the question of whether those sobs were 100 percent genuine, tears are a natural human response, and public figures are obviously not immune. But some who study this most basic expression of feeling will tell you that in this day and age, it can be easier for a crying man to be taken seriously than a crying woman.

In politics, it's a far cry (OK, pun intended) from 1972, when Sen. Ed Muskie's presidential campaign was derailed by what were perceived to be tears in response to a newspaper attack on his wife. Whether he actually cried is still up for debate. But decades later, an occasional Clintonesque tear is seen as a positive thing.

Bill Clinton, that is.

"Bill could cry, and did, but Hillary can't," says Tom Lutz, a professor at the University of California, Riverside who authored an exhaustive history of crying. In other words, the same tearful response that would be seen as sensitivity in Bill could be seen as a lack of control in his wife.

But there are additional rules for acceptable public crying. "We're talking about dropping a tear," Lutz notes, "no more than a tear or two." And it all depends on the perceived seriousness of the subject matter. Thus Jon Stewart or David Letterman could choke up with impunity just after 9/11. But a dog-adoption problem is a whole other matter.

In a recently published study at Penn State, researchers sought to explore differing perceptions of crying in men and women, presenting their 284 subjects with a series of hypothetical vignettes.

What they found is that reactions depended on the type of crying, and who was doing it. A moist eye was viewed much more positively than open crying, and males got the most positive responses.

"Women are not making it up when they say they're damned if they do, damned if they don't," said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study. "If you don't express any emotion, you're seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on 'Star Trek,'" she said. "But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you're labeled as overemotional, out of control, and possibly irrational."

That comes as no surprise to Suzyn Waldman, a well-known broadcaster of Yankee games on New York's WCBS Radio.

Earlier this month, she choked up for several seconds on live radio after the Yankees had just been eliminated from the playoffs. She was describing the scene as manager Joe Torre's coaches choked up themselves, watching him at the podium and foreseeing the end of an era.

Her tearful report quickly became an Internet hit, and she was mocked far and wide, especially on radio, with her voice, for example, played over the song "Big Girls Don't Cry."

"This turned into something pretty ugly," Waldman said in an interview. "I don't throw around the word 'sexist,' but this was as sexist as it gets."

She also wrote a passionate editorial in Newsday defending her brief display of emotion. "While the anger and sarcasm that I can and do display is all right with people," she wrote, "the occasional tear is scary and is ridiculed. Why?"

While Waldman notes that female anger in the clubhouse, is OK — it makes her seem tough, she says — one recent study indicates that perceptions of anger, too, differ according to gender.

"When men express anger they gain status, but when women express anger they lose status," Yale social psychologist Victoria Brescoll, who conducted three experiments on how people perceive female anger, said in an interview. Her study is to be published in the journal Psychological Science.

For a little historical perspective, says Lutz, author of "Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears," it's helpful to look back to the 19th century, when skillful politicians like Abraham Lincoln used tears as a natural part of their oratory.

The tide later shifted against male crying, but in the last 30 to 40 years male crying has gained in acceptability. "Every president since Ronald Reagan has used tears at some point," says Shields, the Penn State psychologist.

As for women politicians, many remember the 1987 incident in which Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., had to defend herself against charges of weakness after she wept while announcing her decision not to run for president. "I think it's a sign of compassion," she said later.

Military figures have cried at critical moments. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf cried at a Christmas Eve ceremony in front of his troops, and when interviewed by Barbara Walters, Lutz notes.

There seem to be few limits on crying if you're an entertainment figure. Johnny Carson's tears were touching on the second-to-last night of his career, while serenaded by Bette Midler. As for awards shows, aren't we even a little disappointed (and bored) when a winner DOESN'T cry?

But in DeGeneres' case, along with the strong support from fans and many dog lovers, she also endured some criticism and mockery, especially from fellow comic Bill Maher. (To recap: DeGeneres had adopted Iggy from a rescue organization, then given it to her hairdresser's family when the dog didn't get along with her cats. That was against the rules, and the rescue group took the dog back, prompting her emotional appeal.)

Maher decided to respond on behalf of an entire gender: The opposite one.

"At this moment when the entire nation is saying 'Hmm, can we have a woman president? Maybe they're too emotional,' I don't think this is helping," Maher said on his talk show.

"If I was a woman," he added, "I would be embarrassed right now. I would be embarrassed for all womankind."

Source: Yahoo!

Brain regions responsible for optimism located

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Imagine receiving a big chunk of cash in the future. Or winning a prize.

Chances are, such optimistic thoughts are coming from two places in the brain that play an important role in enabling people to, as the old song says, accentuate the positive, New York University scientists said on Wednesday.
Pinpointing the brain regions involved in optimism and positive thinking about the future, the researchers said, may also have shed light on what might be going wrong in people with depression.
The researchers used sophisticated brain imaging to track brain activity in 15 young adults -- seven men and eight women -- while they asked them imagine future scenarios. They included getting a lot of money, winning an award, going to a birthday party or ball game or the zoo, being lied to, the end of a romantic relationship, going to a funeral and others.
When scenarios filled with optimism were imagined, two brain regions -- the rostral anterior cingulate and amygdala -- lit up with activity in the brain scans, the researchers said.
"What's interesting is these two regions that we saw that were involved in projecting optimistic futures are also the same two regions that we see affected in depression," Elizabeth Phelps, an NYU professor of psychology and neural science involved in the research, said in a telephone interview.
It had been unclear what was going wrong in these two regions that might contribute to depression. "But our data would suggest that one of the things they're doing is making it hard to think about things optimistically. Of course, one of the primary symptoms of depression is pessimism," Phelps said.
Phelps said the findings had the potential in the future to help guide new treatments for depression.
The research was published in the journal Nature.
OPTIMISM BIAS
The rostral anterior cingulate is part of the brain's frontal cortex that may be involved in regulating emotional responses. The amygdala is an almond-shaped brain structure in the medial temporal lobe involved in emotion.
"Understanding healthy optimism is important because optimism is related to mental and physical health and to success. We can have people who are not necessarily depressed but have different levels of optimism," said another of the researchers, Tali Sharot of University College London who was at NYU when the study was conducted.
Phelps said the research team is not saying these are necessarily the only brain regions involved in optimism.
The researchers said they examined how the brain generates what some scientists call the human "optimism bias."
"Humans expect positive events in the future even when there is no evidence to support such expectations," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.
"For example, people expect to live longer and be healthier than average, they underestimate their likelihood of getting a divorce, and overestimate their prospects for success on the job market," they wrote.
Phelps said the researchers had a hard time getting the volunteers to think of purely neutral events in the future.
"They tended to make them positive," she said. "We sort of stumbled upon this optimism bias that psychologists have talked about before."

Sourcs: Yahoo News!

Mishandling Salary Negotiations (Tips)

Many people think that once they have landed and aced an interview, all of their work is done. But, sometimes deciding whether or not to accept a job offer can be just as stressful and time-consuming as getting to that point in the first place. One point of contention is salary negotiation. This process can be overwhelming, particularly for job seekers without a great deal of experience. Negotiating a fair and practical salary is a critical step in the job search process, and one that can be navigated smoothly if you know what to do -- and what not to do. Beware of common mistakes.
Not doing your homework. Before you go to an interview, you need to determine your desired salary range. It is impossible to do so if you do not know your industry. Research typical salaries for someone with similar experience in your industry. There are a wide variety of resources available that can help you determine median salaries and ranges for your position and years of experience. Without doing this, you will be virtually unarmed to present a case for the salary you request.
Neglecting to think carefully about your needs. Just as researching your industry is important, it's also vital that you do a bit of self reflection. If you never stop to think about what income you need, you may end up taking an offer that leaves you pinching pennies. Before interviewing, ask yourself some important questions. How much do you need to pay your basic expenses, such as rent or mortgage, groceries, utilities, and car payment? What kind of salary do you need to live a comfortable life that allows you to enjoy yourself? What is the lowest salary you will consider? How much do you need to be able to save for the future?
Laying all of your cards on the table. Negotiating a salary is like playing a card game. You need to gauge the other person's intentions without giving away all of your secrets. While job applications and interviewers may ask you to name a salary requirement, always avoid providing a number. However, many prospective employees feel pressured into doing so in an interview. That's why you need to be prepared to answer the question: "What kind of salary are you looking for?" Try to use answers such as "I'm sure that if I do receive an offer, it will be fair and reasonable," or "I will consider any reasonable offer." If pressed for a number, give a range rather than a specific. The bottom of your range should be the minimum you must make, with the top being a bit higher than your ideal.
Forgetting about other benefits.When you receive a job offer, it is important to consider the offer in its entirety. This means paying attention to the company's medical and dental plan, vacation package, retirement benefits, and other perks. If the company cannot meet your salary requirements, it may be able to make it up to you in other ways, such as stock options or additional vacation time.
Believing that you don't have the right to ask for more. A company is not going to offer you the highest salary they'd be willing to pay right off the bat, and most companies expect candidates to come back with a counter offer. If you have done your research and have supporting information to back up your salary wishes, don't be afraid to let the company know that you would like something higher. However, don't make the mistake of playing hardball, thinking you are irreplaceable, or being unwilling to negotiate. If you receive a low offer, thank the company for the offer, let them know that you are excited about the position, and politely and respectfully request a higher salary. The worst the company can say is no, and you never know what will happen until you ask.
The bottom line is that salary negotiations, like anything else, need to be done respectfully and kept in perspective. But if you do your research, set your boundaries, and always know how to handle the tough questions, chances are you will end up with an offer that works for you and the company.

Kate Lorenz, CareerBuilder.com Editor