|
|
Addiction.
I
have made the statement that we are made addicts inside our own
skins.
And,
I am fairly certain that most people reading that remark are quite
certain that they are not! Especially if they are careful of their
diet and habits of mental and physical hygiene.
But,
I say again: we are made addicts inside our own skins.
And,
what's more, we are addicted to our emotions.
Curiously,
the ones who resist that idea most strenuously are very much like
an alcoholic who vigorously and vehemently declares that he is
NOT an alcoholic.
Alcohol.
Alcohol
is everywhere. Tens of millions of human beings experience the
consequences of alcohol addiction, from decreased job performance
to liver damage to spouse and child abuse, to total breakdown
of social concepts and constraints ending in the proverbial "skidrow
bum" looking every day for his MD 20-20 - or even a can of
Sterno.
And
that is just alcohol. We aren't even going to list the statistics
for other drugs as it would be tedious and pointless. You have
the idea.
Alcohol
and other drugs have the ability to do what they do in our systems
because they act because they are "fixed;" they are
synthetic ligands; they bind to our receptors and, in various
ways, produce their effects. It is the nature of these specific
effects that we now want to examine.
When
an ovulating female boar is exposed to a pheromone from a male
boar's saliva, the scent travels along the olfactory nerve directly
into the amygdala, stimulating the release of neurotransmitters,
the result of which is that she becomes immediately and completely
paralyzed in a spread-legged mating posture! Naturally, this fact
has led to the marketing of a number of pheromone based men's
colognes designed to produce the same effect in the human female!
(Nice try, guys!)
If
you give rats in a cage access to both food and cocaine, the rats
will consume the cocaine and ignore the food. And they will end
up starving themselves to death with a limitless supply of food
available. And, of course, that makes us think of the alcoholic
who has gin for breakfast, bourbon for lunch, and brandy for dinner
- ending up in the hospital with a severe case of malnutrition.
Caffeine
is the most frequently used drug of all. In his Coffee Cantata
of 1732, J.S. Bach wrote:
Ah!
How sweet coffee tastes! Lovelier than a thousand kisses, sweeter
far than muscatel wine!
A couple of centuries later, Isak Dinesen wrote:
Coffee...
is to the body what the word of the Lord is to the soul.
Caffeine
has a strong effect on nearly every animal species. Rats being
taught to navigate through mazes learn their lessons faster after
being given coffee. Not only that, but they remember better. Competitive
cyclists have discovered that they can pedal 20% longer if they
drink caffeine an hour before racing. Some of them even go to
the extreme of using caffeine suppositories before racing - sort
of a "time release" kick in the behind!
Following
ingestion of caffeine, even sperm get a "kick." They
swim faster and wiggle more vigorously increasing their ability
to "hit the spot!"
And,
for most people, caffeine is generally safe. After years of searching
for negative side effects, there is no real evidence that moderate
consumption of caffeine does us any harm. If it gives you the
jitters, just cut back. It's one of the perks of 3d density experience,
in my humble opinion!
What
we want to know here is, how does caffeine work?
As
our neurons process information, they produce cellular waste including
a buildup of molecules of adenosine. Adenosine is a ligand that
binds with the adenosine receptor sending a message deep into
the cell that it is time to sleep. As the production of adenosine
continues throughout the day, as a byproduct of cerebral activity,
more and more adenosine is produced, binding with more and more
receptors, sending more and more sleep messages into more cells.
And little by little our brain cells become more and more sluggish
until we just simply must go to sleep. We literally can't remain
conscious. We yawn; our eyes water and try to close and we just
want to curl up and let the lights go out.
So,
we have a cup of espresso. The caffeine molecule just happens
to be the right "shape" for the adenosine receptor.
It hops on and binds, thereby blocking the real adenosine which
sends the sleep message. Apparently, caffeine sends a different
message, or at least prevents the sleep message from being sent.
It interrupts the sleep signal.
This
is just a small example of how dramatically chemicals can affect
the brain.
We
have already mentioned the rats who were implanted with electrodes
for self-stimulation who would push the button until they were
exhausted. Well, there were additional experiments done along
this line. It seems that if the electric reward is doled out only
when the rats learn a new trick - such as navigating a maze
- the little critters will go to work like crazy to get the job
done so that they can get their "buzz." As long as the
rewards keep coming, the rats will keep working - even mastering
incredibly complex and seemingly impossible mazes that humans
would find nearly impossible!
But
it's not the learning they love. We already know that, given the
opportunity, they will forget everything - food, mates, friends,
whatever - to push that damn button until they collapse in mindless
ecstasy!
Now,
in the human being, (as in other creatures), the sensation that
is experienced as orgasm is the same release of chemicals that
stimulate the same part of the brain that makes the rats so happy.
Some scientists refer to this in technical jargon as the "do-it-again"
center. [cf. Burnham and Phelan.] When this center is stimulated,
whatever activity is associated with it will be sought again and
again.
We
have, it seems, a lot of "do-it-again" chemicals with
a lot of "do-it-again" receptor sites all over our bodies.
Certain foods in different people act in this way. Some people
feel euphoria when they achieve victory over a rival in some sort
of competition. Aside from the most obvious example of sex, these
are examples of other things that can cause the secretion of these
"do-it-again" chemicals.
By
having such a "pleasure system" in our bodies, we have
a built in reward system by which we can be manipulated to pursue
any number of activities that may or may not be good for us;
mostly based on - you guessed it - early imprinting. And, we are
generally unaware of it; we simply engage in certain behaviors
because it "feels good" and we want to do them "again."
We were rewarded for them as infants and small children, and we
constantly seek that "programmed behavior" in order
to receive the reward. Never mind that our early programming may
have been for behaviors that completely block the true expression
of our "essence," or that they are based on "fairy
tales" or unrealistic perceptions of life.
Now,
drugs "short circuit" these centers. The ways that drugs
work are interesting, but in our context here, we just want to
look at them as a sort of path to understanding the body's own
chemicals..
When
we take certain drugs, our brain acts as if the "natural"
neurotransmitter were flooding the system. The brain thinks we
have done something really great such as finding food or warmth
while, in reality, we may be hunkered down in a flophouse with
a hypodermic of heroin in our arm. Our pleasure centers know only
that they are bathed in chemical bliss. Never mind that the first
time we tried it, we were disgusted and repelled by the setting,
the process, all the external elements. Once we have received
that reward, we are convinced that this nasty setting, this ignominious
behavior that is clearly damaging to the self, is "okay"
and "desirable" for the reward we are going to get.
Now,
let's take a look at this in a practical way. Psychologist Barbara
De Angelis writes:
Falling
in love is a magical and powerful experience. Each kiss, each
conversation, each moment in the beginning seems so right, so
perfect. But soon attraction and infatuation become a "relationship,"
and we are brought down to earth with the challenging realities
of sharing our life with another human being. And as those first
enchanted weeks turn into months, one day we find ourselves asking:
"Is this person right for me?" ...Since my first serious
relationship at seventeen, and, until recently, I fell in love
without giving serious consideration to whether the person was
right for me, let alone whether they loved me enough. Someone
showed up, and if he had something lovable about him, I would
start a relationship. I'd convince myself he was "the one,"
only to find out that we were incompatible and watch the relationship
fail. ...After too many heartbreaks, I was forced to face the
sad truth: In spite of my experience, education, and my intense
desire to be happy, I continually chose partners who were not
right for me. I was falling in love with the wrong people for
the wrong reasons.
Such
situations arise because of the "fairy tales" we are
taught as children; the examples of "lying to ourselves"
about our true feelings that are set because we are told and shown
that rewards only come when we suppress our true feelings and
follow the "rules." Dr. De Angelis continues:
Ask
most people why they fell in love with their partners, past or
present, and you'll probably hear answers like this:
I met Kathy at the gym where I work out. Something about the
way she got so into that aerobics class and gave it so much
energy really appealed to me.
[All
Kathy's boyfriend knows about her is that she has a lot of physical
energy and he is programmed by his particular socio-cultural
system to believe that physical energy is very good and will
be rewarded. Thus, somebody who has a lot of physical energy
is "lovable." He may also have had very positive experiences
with someone in his childhood who had a lot of physical energy,
and who regularly made him feel loved.]
Donna was a bridesmaid at my cousin's wedding. She looked so
beautiful in this pink strapless dress - I knew on the spot
I was going to fall in love with her.
[All
Donna's boyfriend knows about her is that she looked good in
pink chiffon. We might think that the color pink has powerful
associations in his amygdala.]
Jo
Anne and I knew each other since we were kids. Everyone always
said we'd probably get married when we grew up, and I guess
I never even questioned it - it seemed like the right thing
to do.
[Jo
Anne's husband has been so influenced by what his friends and
family think that he doesn't even know why he loves her. We
might think that "obedience to the family" has received
some very positive reinforcement in his life. Conversely, thinking
for himself may have received a great deal of negative reinforcement.]
Alex
and I were assigned to work together on a project in our office.
I think it was watching him problem-solve - he is so creative
- that attracted me to him.
[Alex's
girlfriend is enthralled with his business skills but has no
idea what his emotional skills are. Creativity in solving problems
may have been well rewarded in her home environment as a child.
She may also have been exposed to highly creative "problem
solvers" as male role models, receiving regular rewards
from them. Thus, she associates these skills with love.]
I've
always been a sucker for music, so when I heard Frank play the
guitar at a friend's house, I knew he was the one for me.
[Frank's
partner has fallen under a musical spell - she knows nothing
about him except for the romantic personality she assumes all
guitar players have. And why does she assume this? Because it
is programmed into her amygdala!]
This
sounds terrible, but I always had this fantasy of a tall, dark-haired
man with a mustache. Dennis looked exactly like that, and nothing
else really mattered.
[Dennis's
girlfriend likes the way he looks - she is attracted to a fantasy,
but doesn't know anything about the person underneath. And where
did she get the fantasy? A program.]
None
of these people thought they were making the wrong decision.
They all sincerely believed that they were making intelligent,
sensible choices in their partners. But, the frightening truth
is that many of them will discover in a month, or six months,
or six years that they are in a relationship with the wrong
person.
Most
people put more time and effort into deciding what kind of car
or video player to buy than they do into deciding whom to have
a relationship with.
Love
myths are beliefs many of us have about love and romance that
actually prevent us from making intelligent love choices. ...Consciously
and unconsciously, we base our decisions in relationships on these
Love Myths. An example is: If I love my partner enough, it won't
matter that:
he
drinks
our sex
life isn't great
she criticizes
me all the time
we fight
constantly over how to raise the children
he is
a strict Catholic and I am Jewish
I'm not
really sexually attracted to her
he doesn't
have a job and hasn't worked in two years
she has
a terrible temper and blows up all the time
he constantly
flirts with other women
I don't
get along with her children
he has
a hard time telling me how he feels
his family
doesn't accept me
I want
children and he doesn't
she still
hasn't gotten over her ex-boyfriend
One
way to tell if your relationships are simply "running the
program" is to examine how you "prove" to yourself
that you are really "in love." Do you dwell on the intense
connection of chemistry of the beginning, trying always to recapture
this, and fail to examine the rest of the relationship?
Have
you ever convinced yourself that you love your partner to justify
continuing to have sex with them, even though the fire has long
ago gone out?
Conversely,
have you ever been in a relationship where the only place you
got along together was in bed?
When
we believe the Love Myths, we inevitably become involved with
people we are not really compatible with. We feel constantly empty,
and none of our needs are fulfilled. And, at the same time, even
if we are trying to fulfill their needs, they always seem to know
that it is an effort to get them to fulfill our needs, and the
relationship has nowhere to go but down.
And
then we are faced with the next Love Myth problem: We stay in
the relationship longer than we should and have trouble letting
go of a partner who, in moments of cold clarity, we realize are
NOT right for us. We do this because we are taught to do it. We
see the examples set for us as children; we are rewarded for not
being a "quitter," and are inculcated in the belief
that "a promise is a promise," and keeping promises,
at whatever cost to us, is rewarded, and breaking them will result
in dire consequences. The family pressures of our social and cultural
beliefs come into play strongly here, and we are convinced that
we must always sacrifice our wants and needs for those of others.
We must "suffer" to be "good," and to be "rewarded."
We live our lives like Dicken's Oliver saying: "I want more."
And we want more because we are starved and drained, and manipulated
to suffer so as to be "food" for 4th density STS.
Now,
let's look at a real-life situation that plays out the drama exactly
as the theorists have predicted:
Some
time back I received correspondence from a reader who wrote to
me describing her years of suffering; her dreadful childhood,
her marital unhappiness, suicidal feelings, and on and on. She
described her father as: "a highly intelligent and spectacularly
manipulative individual, endowed with psychic energies and a very
heavy 'presence'," and her mother as "beautiful, clever,
unhappy, terrorized by my father - as was I - and learned to like
alcohol."
She
described her first marriage, children and divorce, increasing
health problems and finally meeting her present husband who "was
the first person I knew who was willing to accept me and my children.
I was not "in love" with him though I found him attractive. I
thought love would come later. ... Later we had two children of
our own."
The
next remark is particularly telling considering the description
of her father as "highly intelligent and spectacularly manipulative
individual, endowed with psychic energies and a very heavy 'presence'..."
She wrote:
My
husband also has strong intuitive and psychic abilities... My
husband and I bickered almost from the start, and it only grew
worse. Not a day has gone by in over 30 years of marriage that
we have not been at each other's throats, or without raised
voices. Our life together has been chaotic, moving constantly,
no coherent thread to my life though it doesn't seem to affect
him much. He loves to travel, and I did too at first. Now I
am numb. Our misadventures along the way would make a saga.
I have always turned them into comedies, but underneath there
is a great waste of a life. My life.
But
notice: even though she describes her husband as "psychic,"
reflecting the programmed imprint of the father, and clearly she
is looking for a father because she was not "in love,"
but she married him because he accepted her and her children,
she does not ascribe to her husband the same "heaviness"
of the father, nor the "spectacular" manipulativeness.
She has made a conscious effort to NOT "marry the father."
And yet... she did. Not only that, she "became her mother."
No, she is not "terrorized" by her husband, not in the
overt way her father did it - but the result is exactly the same.
You could even say that it is a form of unconscious manipulation
through poverty as is clear in the following remark:
And
strangely he once said he wondered if I brought him my "bad
luck," for our life together has been an unending series of
bad choices, bad decisions, financial catastrophes. Even our
friends over the years have shaken their heads in mystification.
Apparently,
this husband is a far better manipulator than her father was -
mainly because he is not even conscious that he is manipulating.
One of the clearest clues to being manipulated is feeling "guilty."
I
am consumed by guilt which has been my overriding emotion
for all the years of our marriage. Guilt over what I can't
imagine. The failure to make another happy? But why can't he
see I am dying by inches? ...I have not accomplished what I
need to in this life, and I never will as things are. ...why
had I always put off my own path and tried to please everybody
else and live up to their own agendas?
So,
even though we read in these words the fact that this woman clearly
has all the answers to her problems right there in her own psyche,
she cannot SEE them. The soul inside her is dying to live. But her
programs are too strong. The "belief in the Love Myths"
is dominating, and the clear and present danger of the predator
is not even suspected.
I
have lost all interest in anything except the natural world
I see on my daily walks. I must have wept gallons of tears in
the past several months. Anything will trigger me off. I look
at a cloud and start weeping. Yet my husband notices nothing.
Nothing at all, save for the fact I am a little ......... undemonstrative.
I long for solitude, for inner freedom, for tranquillity. The
thought of saying this to my husband is terrifying. ...Every
day I fade a little more.
Why
is it "terrifying" to tell her husband what she is feeling?
Remember, she has married someone who is not terrifying, someone
she can fight with and talk back to... not someone like her father
who "terrorized" her mother. Yet, she is no less terrorized!
Two
of my children - who love their father by the way - agree with
my assessment of him as an overbearing human 'steamroller.'
But,
even with the agreement of her children, they are all in agreement,
so it would seem, that this is a "burden to be borne"
because of "love." Nevertheless, it is a certainty that
this "spectacularly manipulative" husband of hers "senses"
that he is losing his grip on her, and the manipulation takes a
new turn: health. You can't abandon a sick man, for sure, or society
and everyone else will punish you and reject you and you definitely
won't get your emotional "fix" by being a "good girl."
Last
fall my husband was diagnosed with Hodgkins' Lymphoma. He almost
died. He was away in the hospital for 3 months and I was here
alone. For the first time in 30+ years I felt lighthearted,
as if a weight were lifted off me. I was totally happy. I knew
I could never tell him so. My mind became sharp again and I
actually gained weight (I had grown gaunt). Now he is back and
ending his chemotherapy. And I have become deeply depressed,
talk myself out of it for several days, then once more think
of death - and hope my body will respond to my wish.
And
here we have the greatest clue of all as to the machinations of
the "feeder lines" of 4th density STS: they must be in
proximity to work. With the absence of the husband, everything changed.
And, of course, it was an "absence" that was not due to
her actions - at least not apparent to her, though it is exactly
as likely that he is suffering inside as much as she is, with less
ability to articulate it. Her proximity to him stimulates the chemicals
of suffering in him that makes him a good meal; and conversely,
his proximity to her stimulates the release of the chemicals that
make her a good meal. It's a two-way street. But, of course, this
period of respite helped her to come to a realization:
I know I must leave him, though it will hurt him terribly. He
has always loved me, and never understood why I am not more
demonstrative. I have tried, but my heart is nowhere.
And,
the problem here is the fact that, just as she is living in a
Love Myth, so is he. Her myth says that he will suffer terribly
if she leaves; and his myth says that he will suffer terribly
if she leaves. Problem is, they are both myths. She ended her
letter with:
If
the C's can shed any light on this issue, or point out
for me what I do not see clearly, it might save my life
- if not in the physical sense, certainly in the greater
sense. ... I leave it up to you.
Well,
as the reader has probably already figured out, it didn't take
the Cassiopaeans or even a rocket scientist to figure this one
out. I did think about one woman who advised me against my own
divorce by telling me: "the devil you know is better than
the devil you don't know." The idea was, that if I divorced,
I might make the same mistake again, and be in an even worse situation.
But, my response to that was that the devil I knew was well enough
known that I didn't need to learn anymore about him to know that
being alone was a better option.
I
was, of course, hesitant to "give advice." That's always
a dangerous path to tread, even if the person really seems to
be asking. More often than not, they are looking for something
that will bring on a "shakedown" in their lives, which
they can then blame on you. Nevertheless, it seemed pretty desperate
and heartfelt a plea, and I responded:
I saw your situation completely when you first wrote to me.
It was very much my own with slight variations and yours has
lasted longer.
What
is the difference?
Everything
you have said, I could have said myself in one way or another.
The same descriptions of the husband, the same descriptions
of the relationships... etc etc etc... What is the difference?
...I
started to READ the clues. And you have the SAME clues I had.
I noticed that my health improved and my mind was clear when
my ex was absent. I noticed that "fortunes" improved when, and
ONLY when, I was in charge of what happened. I noticed that
HE was also declining in health and that was a clue that I was
as "bad" for him as he was for me. And by these small, subtle
clues, put alongside all the "lessons" I was being led through
by C's and my life... I made a decision that went against everything
that had ever been taught to me by my religion, my culture,
my philosophy and so forth.
I
knew that there was no way to do it "easy" and that a clean,
complete break was the only answer for both of us and that can't
be done in the "slow and gradual" way. I knew that he would
want an explanation, and the one I saw that would make the break
the cleanest and fastest was to tell him that I never cared
for him, that I made a big mistake, and everybody was suffering
from my mistake, including him... and it was all MY fault. And
I let him lambaste me and say all the terrible things he wanted
to say, and said 'yes, you are right - I'm a lousy person.'
And I held my ground no matter HOW painful it was.
So,
that is what is different.
I
stopped living in the illusion that I could make anything better
or different than it WAS.
What
is more, I chose to SEE it as it WAS, coldly, clearly, without
emotion.
Then,
I DID something about it.
And
the whole Universe changed.
That
is the power of such as we are. If we only access it. It isn't
easy. It flies in the face of all our human programming and
all the emotional "vectoring" we live under. But the bottom
line is: you cannot be "unequally yoked." If you are, the effect
is that of two mules harnessed ass to ass pulling in opposite
directions - spiritually, karmically, and even literally. Your
life, your environment, your experiences REFLECT the state of
your soul. Poverty, illness, instability, and so on... all
are reflections of what is being done to you spiritually BY
YOUR CHOICES. And your choices are being manipulated
and influenced by early damage which was done for the very purpose
of [making you food.] That's the bottom line.
But
again, what I am saying is something that has to be TESTED.
There is NO PROOF!
I
had no proof, just the small clues - all of which I was clever
enough to explain away for many years; most of which explanations
had to do with the idea that I could do more, I could try this;
I could cut off another arm or open my figurative veins and
give more of my lifeblood to "fix it."
Well,
I finally stopped making excuses. I stopped blaming myself for
anything except that I had made the wrong choice and now I needed
to make a different one - a LIFE changing choice based on clues
that were so subtle that I couldn't even explain them to anyone
at all.
Well,
that isn't true. My friend Sandra ... gave me a gift. She told
me that I must make a list of the clues. I must NEVER forget
them. When I felt weak, when I felt like I wanted to go 'back,"
when I started to forget WHY I was doing what I was doing, I
should take out my list and remember all the horror, all the
pain, all the suffering and that I should remind myself over
and over again until it sank in that all of this was the BIGGEST
part of my marriage and my life. The little "happinesses" or
"good times" were few and far between and never sufficient to
balance the negative.
...
So, I hope this helps. As the C's once told us: If you have
the courage of a lion, you don't have the fate of a mouse.
This
poor woman truly made my heart bleed. And, it seemed that, perhaps,
my words had helped her. She wrote back:
Thank
you. I don't want the fate of the mouse. There is a lion somewhere
in the back of the cave, it has been sleeping for many years.
The
next day she wrote again:
I
woke up the lion this morning, and what you described is in
full process. I don't need to give you a picture. Perhaps the
difference is that we have been together 33 years, and there
is a very strong bond between us. However it is like an umbilical
cord that has to be cut for further growth to happen, and he
cannot see it. For once I am being totally selfish, and my only
pain is to see the pain he is undergoing. Thank you for giving
me the impetus to go through with this.
Her
description of her view of the process told me that she didn't
really "get it." She was still living "in the Myth."
She was already excusing the "difficulty" of the situation
by the length of time together. Then, she described the connection
in nurturing terms as an "umbilical cord," instead of
what it was: a 4th density STS feeding tube. And, finally, she
described her actions as "totally selfish" resulting
in pain from seeing what "he was going through." She
just simply didn't realize that both of them were experiencing
"withdrawal," and that it was purely physical and based
on associations in the amygdala. She didn't get it that, in the
deepest of terms, what she was doing was as much FOR him as it
was for herself. He was as much an addict as she was.
Well,
a couple of days went by and I was inclined to think that she
was not going to "make it," but I was leaving it open
as a possibility. She finally wrote back:
For
36 hours I created hell for myself and everybody around me (my
husband) and within telephone reach. By that time I was so exhausted
I forgot the reason I wanted to leave and went to bed, as did
my husband, and we both slept a long long time. We have reached
a new understanding and to my surprise he respects my courage
and realizes he must take me more seriously than in the past.
He is now being supportive of my goals, and the constant tension
and resentment between us has dissolved.
This
was not a surprise. And, it should not have been a surprise to
her, either. I am sure that she went through a minor version of
this scenario with every fight and argument they had over the
years, all ending in "agreement" to continue the addiction.
And, we also see an example of what I already described: an addiction
to the whole "reward system" of fighting and making
up. People are programmed to suffer because it feels so good when
it's over! It is almost a deliberate creation of "risk"
so that the rush of dopamine can come when the danger has passed.
Now,
the most interesting thing is that it was clearly not apparent
to this woman that her very life and relationships had also programmed
her children to the same behavior, i.e. manipulation and addiction!
The "programs" kicked in BIG TIME:
The
next day I called back my daughter who was sleeping off a drunk
from not being able to bear the thought of her mom and dad separating.
Then I called her brother who likewise had a bad hangover for
the same reason, and was mighty relieved to hear I had changed
my mind. Then I called my other son who was happy he didn't
have to come pick me up with my considerable belongings. Then
I e-mailed several friends to whom I had announced the sad news.
By then I was tired again, but calm.
The
point is that I discovered I am part of a family network , not
just a solitary item responsible only to myself. I had never
looked at it that way. ... perhaps it's a combination of things:
economic (I have literally no money of my own), the logistics
of it all, and last but not least the fact that it tears me
apart to give such pain to so many people. I seem to be divided
into many selves all of which are a part of someone else. My
strongest motive was perhaps the desire to find someone with
whom I would feel more sexually/spiritually compatible. It is
possible to achieve the former with my husband but not both
together. ...Am I chickening out? ...Probably. But then is it
all worth the upheaval? ...My husband now knows I am capable
of what I never seriously threatened to do before, and he greatly
respects my frankness. I was astonished at his reaction. I will
tell you that he was my first husband/mate/whatever in my first
life on this Earth, and we have been together for many many
lifetimes. I also know this is the last one, for we have taught
each other all the lessons each needs to receive. I think my
next life will be a more harmonious one, for in this one I have
lived several lifetimes.
So,
we see an enormous number of rationalizations coming together
here. Will any of them change the situation? Not likely. For the
moment, the "control" is in the hands of my correspondent;
and perhaps this is what she was really looking for: a way to
manipulate the situation herself. Perhaps this was a repeating
dynamic on a lesser scale throughout their lives; I don't know.
And,
in the end, it reminds me of certain remarks from the movie The
Matrix
The
Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us; even now in this
very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when
you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to
work; when you go to church; when you pay your taxes; it is
the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from
the truth: that your are a slave. Like everyone else, you were
born into bondage; born into a prison that you cannot smell
or taste or touch; a prison for your mind.
...The
Matrix is a system... That system is our enemy.
When
you are inside [the Matrix] you look around; what do you see?
Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters; the very minds of
the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people
are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy.
You
have to understand: most of these people are not ready to be
unplugged; and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent
on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
...We
never free a mind once it's reached a certain age - it's dangerous
- the mind has trouble letting go.
Now,
even though the movie is an allegory that portrays the Matrix
as a computer program, there are many things about this analogy
that can be highly instructive. For example, when Neo is being
introduced to the Matrix, he touches a chair and asks wonderingly,
"This isn't real?" And Morpheus replies:
What
is real? How do you define real? If you are talking about what
you can feel, what you can smell and taste and see; real is simply
electrical signals interpreted by your brain. ...[The Matrix Reality]
is a neural interactive simulation ... a dreamworld created in
order to change a human being into ...
And,
I insert in place of the battery that Morpheus holds up: FOOD.
Let
me quote it one more time: The Matrix is a neural interactive
simulation...
And
it is in this way that we are "programmed" to engage
in damaging behavior via 4th density control systems. If our chemicals
are stimulated while we are "being led down the primrose
path" in any of a number of situations, the brain will "set
a circuit" to repeat this behavior in order to feel the pleasure
chemicals released at the end of the behavior, regardless of the
painful process by which the chemicals are ultimately obtained.
Now,
let's go back to synthetic ligands: drugs, to see if we can glean
any more clues.
When
cocaine is snorted up the nose, it heads straight for the dopamine
re-uptake sites and blocks them. The "feel good sensation"
is not, however, from the drug; but from the fact that dopamine
is flooding your cells, binding with the dopamine receptors like
crazy, unable to be reabsorbed. And the brain only knows one thing:
this feels GREAT! Crack cocaine reportedly produces a more intense
sensation of pleasure than any natural act, including orgasm!
And, take note that it is from the body's OWN chemical that this
pleasure is experienced!
Morphine
and Heroin work in a slightly different way. They mimic endorphins
which trigger the release of dopamine. So, instead of the sensation
occurring because the natural flow of dopamine is not reabsorbed,
it occurs because there is too much dopamine to be absorbed!
But,
there is something very curious about this: it seems that with
repeated use of cocaine, heroin or morphine, the "fake endorphin"
that binds with the opiate receptor and sends a signal into the
cell body to release more dopamine, the body reacts by reducing
the number of receptors! With fewer receptors, the effects of
the drug - as well as the body's normal ability to bind dopamine
that is naturally present - plummets. And, without the normal
flow of dopamine into a normal number of receptors, the brain
experiences "withdrawal" which is interpreted quite
literally as "pain." It is the agony of a mind that
can feel no pleasure at all. Clinicians describe it as:
Abrupt
discontinuation of cocaine, heroin or morphine leads to a state
of dopamine depletion, which can cause the intense depression
and agitation experienced during the crash phase as well as the
subsequent anhedonia, dysphoria, lethargy, somnolence and apathy
that can be present for six to 18 weeks after discontinuation
of cocaine. [Daly
and Salloway, Psychiatric Times, May 1994]
But,
more serious than that is the fact that dopamine plays an important
role in controlling movement, emotion and cognition. Dopamine
dysfunction has been implicated in schizophrenia, mood disorders,
attention-deficit disorder, Tourette's syndrome, substance dependency,
tardive dyskinesia, Parkinson's disease and so on. Of course,
the situation is a lot more complex because at least seven types
of dopamine receptors have been identified.
The
dopamine cells of the hypothalamus project to the anterior pituitary.
In this area, dopamine acts directly to inhibit the release of
prolactin. Prolactin possesses a myriad of effects with the most
noticeable being lactation.
Now,
going back to our "programs" and "body chemicals,"
we begin to see how it is possible that anything that causes more
dopamine to be released into the system will very likely manifest
the same result as cocaine, heroin and morphine: we will go back
to the behavior over and over again because the imprint of the
way that pleasure is to be achieved has been "set" in
the mind of the child.
Now,
I have not been able to find any studies that suggest that the
more dopamine secretion a person experiences from the body's own
chemicals in the "normal" way, that the number of receptors
diminishes. However, the very fact that the "high" of
cocaine is the body's own chemical might suggest that this is
so. This means that each time a person succeeds in some way in
attaining that "feel good" moment - no matter how it
is achieved - the more will be required to experience that same
level of feeling again. This may be why "love states"
so rapidly diminish and turn into battles to produce threat of
loss so that it can be averted and thereby produce the "rush
of dopamine." That is to say: the more that is experienced,
the less it CAN be experienced; so it becomes a physiological/psychological
"carrot on a stick."
But,
even in such situations, the point arrives when the body simply
can no longer meet the demand and nothing works anymore. How soon
this point is reached depends on many factors, and I am sure the
reader can think of any number of situations of their acquaintance
that will demonstrate the great variety of ways these scenarios
can play out.
Another
feel good body chemical is seretonin. The antidepressants, Prozac
and Zoloft block seretonin re-uptake sites causing the brain and
body to be flooded with seretonin. People are happy because seretonin
is lighting up the "do-it-again" center like a Hollywood
Marquee!
In
the early 1980s, clinical investigators discovered a link between
serotonin and eating disorders. ... Richard and Judith Wurtman
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) had already implicated
serotonin in eating disturbances. They theorized that dietary
starch is converted to sugar, sugar stimulates the pancreas to
release insulin, insulin raises brain levels of the amino acid
tryptophan, tryptophan is a precursor of serotonin, and serotonin
regulates mood, producing a sense of well-being. Therefore, obese
people load up on carbohydrates to elevate mood.
According
to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease
Control, more than 30% of Americans are 20% or more overweight,
and one third of women and more than one quarter of men are trying
to lose weight at any given time. They have good reason to lose
weight: obesity is severely stigmatized in our society. The health
hazards of being moderately overweight are exaggerated (excess
mortality is not seen until body weight is more than 40% above
tabulated weights on life insurance tables), but it is a definite
social no-no to be fat.
Anorexia
nervosa and bulimia nervosa are psychiatric syndromes whose underlying
pathology has been described as the relentless pursuit of thinness.
The two diseases are separate entities, although there is considerable
overlap; about 50% of anorectics binge and purge. Both diseases
occur primarily in adolescence and young adulthood, they run a
long and protracted course, and they interfere with normal development
(social maturation, separation from family of origin, and career
decisions).
Anorexia has been described in the psychiatric literature for
more than a century, but bulimia has only been recognized as
a clinical entity in the last 16 years. Patients are challenging
and difficult to treat. Indeed, it seems that to be effective,
any treatment must ultimately produce thinness. In other words,
if a bulimic could achieve thinness without having to vomit,
then that patient would be "cured" of bulimia. If an anorectic
could achieve thinness without having to starve, that patient
could be "cured" of starvation.
The
typical patient with anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa is
female, young, single, and of middle-to-upper socioeconomic
status and has previously shown a tendency to obesity. Depressive
and obsessional symptoms are common, as are a strong family
history of affective disorder. Depression is sometimes attributed
to the starvation, which can produce the same psychological
profile as that seen in mild to moderate major depression. However,
true major depression (either before or after the emaciation)
is far more prevalent in anorectic patients than in the general
population. Although anorexia and bulimia are more often seen
in females, both disorders also occur in males. Sharp et al.
described the clinical features of 24 men with anorexia nervosa.
Bingeing and vomiting were common (50%, the same as in females).
Also remarkably common were depressed mood, early wakening,
obsessional symptoms, and a family history of affective disorders
and alcohol abuse. Age at onset (18.6 years) and at presentation
(20.2 years) was older than in females. The men were mostly
single and of higher socioeconomic status and had a premorbid
tendency towards obesity. Laxative abuse was less frequent in
males than has been reported in females, and excessive exercising
was more frequent. (Sharp CW et al. Int J Eating Disorders.
1994; 15: 125-134.)
And,
as it turns out, increasing the "seretonin" bath in
the brain by administering a seretonin reuptake inhibitors seems
to help in controlling symptoms of bulimia. Increasing the seretonin
in the brain also seems to produce improvement in depression,
carbohydrate craving, and pathological eating habits. The only
problem with this is that these reuptake inhibitors have been
seriously implicated in both valvular heart problems and primary
pulmonary hypertension.
Prozac
is a seretonin reuptake inhibitor that produces many side effects
which include: nausea, headache, nervousness, insomnia, drowsiness,
diarrhea, weight loss, dizziness, and anxiety. It also causes
a side effect that we need to think about for a moment after learning
what we have about the reduction of dopamine receptors with repeated
use of drugs. You see, one of the side effects of Prozac is an
inability to have an orgasm.
The
street drug "Ecstasy," is the common name for MethyleneDioxyMethAmphetamine,
or MDMA. Ecstasy is a central nervous system stimulant and it
is thought to work by boosting the levels of seretonin and dopamine.
Immediate
effects of ecstasy can include increased feelings of self confidence,
well-being, and feeling close to others; a rise in blood pressure,
body temperature and pulse rate; jaw clenching; teeth grinding;
sweating; dehydration; nausea and anxiety. Higher doses of ecstasy
can produce hallucinations, irrational behavior, vomiting and
convulsions.
Now,
since we already know that using such drugs reduces our dopamine
and possibly our seretonin receptors, it's not surprising that
Ecstasy also produces "tolerance."
Ecstasy is known as 'the love drug' and commonly makes users feel
warm and loving, even towards people they may not know well. Ecstasy
can also heighten sexual desire and intensify the sexual experience,
as well as decreasing inhibition. Lab results with animals have
suggested possibilities of long-term brain damage arising from
the reduction of seretonin and dopamine receptors and the ultimate
failure of the brain to produce seretonin at all!
So,
in a roundabout way, we have come around to the fact that it is
very possible that our addictions to our own chemicals may, ultimately
lead to permanent inability to feel any pleasure at all. And we
all know that, as we age, our ability to be "amused"
by simple things diminishes.
I
am torn between being shocked and amused by the spate of recent
commercials for "sexual stimulants" that promise to
"revive the love nature." I think the funniest one is
promoting a product called "Top Gun." But the problem
it suggests is not very funny. It seems that in our sexually permissive
society, where for the past 20 or 30 years everyone has been encouraged
to "claim their natural right" in terms of more orgasms,
better orgasms, extended, multiple and repeaters, and so on may
be at the root of the present problem with achieving any orgasm
at all for so many people.
The
bottom line seems to be: if it feels good, you will want to do
it again and again and more and better. And, if you do, you will
be less and less able to do it at all; and in the end the imbalances
will lead to more pain and suffering and feelings of inadequacy.
And we know what all that is: Lunch!
Now,
nicotine is a most interesting drug. Nicotine mimics one of the
body's most significant neurotransmitter, acetylcholine. This
is the neurotransmitter most often associated with cognition in
the cerebral cortex. Acetylcholine is the primary carrier of thought
and memory in the brain. It is essential to have appropriate levels
of acetylcholine to have new memories or recall old memories.
Now,
let's go off to the side here for a moment. I cruised the net
for sources on acetylcholine and the results were positively amazing
as you will see from the following excerpts:
Acetyl-L-Carnitine
(ALC) is the acetyl ester of carnitine, the carrier of fatty
acids across Mitochondrial membranes. Like carnitine, ALC is
naturally produced in the body and found in small amounts in
some foods. ...Research in recent years has hoisted ALC from
its somewhat mundane role in energy production to nutritional
cognitive enhancer and neuroprotective agent extraordinaire.
Indeed, taken in its entirety, ALC has become one of the premiere
“anti-aging” compounds under scientific investigation, especially
in relation to brain and nervous system deterioration.
ALC
is found in various concentrations in the brain, and its levels
are significantly reduced with aging.(1) In numerous studies
in animal models, ALC administration has been shown to have
the remarkable ability of improving not only cognitive changes,
but also morphological (structural) and neurochemical changes.
...ALC has varied effects on cholinergic activity, including
promoting the release(2) and synthesis(3) of acetylcholine.
Additionally, ALC promotes high affinity uptake of choline,
which declines significantly with age.(4) While these cholinergic
effects were first described almost a quarter of a century ago,(5)
it now appears that this is only the tip of the ALC iceberg.
[Gissen, VRP's
Nutritional News, March, 1995]
It
turns out that Alzheimer's, a veritable epidemic in our country,
is directly related to low levels of acetylcholine. In Alzheimer's
disease, the neurons that make acetylcholine degenerate, resulting
in memory deficits. In some Alzheimer's patients it can be a 90
per cent reduction! But, does anyone suggest smoking and exercising
the brain as a possible cure?
Nope.
Another
interesting little snippet found in a doctoral dissertation by
Galen
Knight says:
Thyrotropin
is the single most important modulator of thyroid function.
However, several of its effects are mimicked by neurotransmitters,
acetylcholine and catecholamines...
Which
suggests to us that low thyroid function can be partly ameliorated
by nicotine as the Cassiopaeans have already stated in so many
words!
The
next excerpt is the most interesting. It is a from a Bioelectromagnetics
Research Laboratory,paper
first presented at a workshop to discuss possible biological and
health effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic waves. The workshop
was held by the Department of Bioengineering at the University
of Washington, Seattle. The paper was later presented to "Mobile
Phones and Health, Symposium," October 25-28, 1998, University
of Vienna, Austria. What they are talking about here is the effects
of cell phone towers and the use of cell phones and pagers, etc:
...We
carried out a series of experiments to investigate the effect
of RFR exposure on neurotransmitters in the brain of the rat.
The main neurotransmitter we investigated was acetylcholine,
a ubiquitous chemical in the brain involved in numerous physiological
and behavioral functions.
We
found that exposure to RFR for 45 min decreased the activity
of acetylcholine in various regions of the brain of the rat,
particularly in the frontal cortex and hippocampus. Further
study showed that the response depends on the duration of exposure.
Shorter exposure time (20 min) actually increased, rather than
decreasing the activity. Different brain areas have different
sensitivities to RFR with respect to cholinergic responses [Lai
et al., 1987b, 1988b, 1989a,b].
In
addition, repeated exposure can lead to some rather long lasting
changes in the system: the number of acetylcholine receptors
increase or decrease after repeated exposure to RFR to 45 min
and 20 min sessions, respectively [Lai et al., 1989a].
Changes
in acetylcholine receptors are generally considered to be a
compensatory response to repeated disturbance of acetylcholine
activity in the brain. Such changes alter the response characteristic
of the nervous system. Other studies have shown that endogenous
opioids are also involved in the effect of RFR on acetylcholine
[Lai et al., 1986b, 1991, 1992b, 1996].
Since
acetylcholine in the frontal cortex and hippocampus is involved
in learning and memory functions, we carried out experiments
to study whether exposure to RFR affects these behavioral functions
in the rat. Two types of memory functions: spatial 'working'
and 'reference' memories were investigated.
Acetylcholine
in the brain, especially in the hippocampus, is known to play
an important role in these behavioral functions. In the first
experiment, 'working' memory (short-term memory) was studied
using the 'radial arm maze'. This test is very easy to understand.
Just imagine you are shopping in a grocery store with a list
of items to buy in your mind. After picking up the items, at
the check out stand, you find that there is one chicken at the
top and another one at the bottom of your shopping cart. You
had forgotten that you had already picked up a chicken at the
beginning of your shopping spree and picked up another one later.
This is a failure in short-term memory and is actually very
common in daily life and generally not considered as being pathological.
A distraction or a lapse in attention can affect short-term
memory.
This
analogy is similar to the task in the radial-arm maze experiment.
The maze consists of a circular center hub with arms radiating
out like the spokes of a wheel. Rats are allowed to pick up
food pellets at the end of each arm of the maze. There are 12
arms in our maze, and each rat in each testing session is allowed
to make 12 arm entries. Reentering an arm is considered to
be a memory deficit. The results of our experiment showed that
after exposure to RFR, rats made significantly more arm re-entries
than unexposed rats [Lai et al., 1994].
This is like finding two chickens, three boxes of table salt,
and two bags of potatoes in your shopping cart.
In
another experiment, we studied the effect of RFR exposure on
'reference' memory (long-term memory) [Wang and Lai, submitted
for publication]. Performance in a water maze was investigated.
In this test, a rat is required to locate a submerged platform
in a circular water pool. It is released into the pool, and
the time taken for it to land on the platform is recorded. Rats
were trained in several sessions to learn the location of the
platform. The learning rate of RFR-exposed rats was slower,
but, after several learning trials, they finally caught up with
the control (unexposed) rats (found the platform as fast). However,
the story did not end here. After the rats had learned to locate
the platform, in a last session, the platform was removed and
rats were released one at a time into the pool. We observed
that unexposed rats, after being released into the pool, would
swim around circling the area where the platform was once located,
whereas RFR-exposed rats showed more random swimming patterns.
To
understand this, let us consider another analogy. If I am going
to sail from the west coast of the United States to Australia.
I can learn to read a map and use instruments to locate my position,
in latitude and longitude, etc. However, there is an apparently
easier way: just keep sailing southwest. But, imagine, if I
sailed and missed Australia. In the first case, if I had sailed
using maps and instruments, I would keep on sailing in the area
that I thought where Australia would be located hoping that
I would see land. On the other hand, if I sailed by the strategy
of keeping going southwest, and missed Australia, I would not
know what to do. Very soon, I would find myself circumnavigating
the globe.
Thus,
it seems that unexposed rats learned to locate the platform
using cues in the environment (like using a map from memory),
whereas RFR-exposed rats used a different strategy (perhaps,
something called 'praxis learning', i.e., learning of a certain
sequence of movements in the environment to reach a certain
location. It is less flexible and does not involve cholinergic
systems in the brain).
Thus,
RFR exposure can completely alter the behavioral strategy of
an animal in finding its way in the environment.
...What
is significant is that the effects persist for sometime after
RFR exposure. If I am reading a book and receive a call from
a mobile phone, it probably will not matter if I cannot remember
what I has just read. However, the consequence would be much
serious, if I am an airplane technician responsible for putting
screws and nuts on airplane parts. A phone call in the middle
of my work can make me forget and miss several screws. Another
adverse scenario of short-term memory deficit is that a person
may overdose himself on medication because he has forgotten
that he has already taken the medicine.
Lastly,
I like to briefly describe the experiments we carried out to
investigate the effects of RFR on DNA in brain cells of the
rat. We [Lai and Singh 1995, 1996; Lai et al., 1997] reported
an increase in DNA single and double strand breaks, two forms
of DNA damage, in brain cells of rats after exposure to RFR.
DNA damages in cells could have an important implication on
health because they are cumulative. Normally, DNA is
capable of repairing itself efficiently. Through a homeostatic
mechanism, cells maintain a delicate balance between spontaneous
and induced DNA damage. DNA damage accumulates if such a balance
is altered. Most cells have considerable ability to repair DNA
strand breaks; for example, some cells can repair as many as
200,000 breaks in one hour. However, nerve cells have a low
capability for DNA repair and DNA breaks could accumulate.
Thus, the effect of RFR on DNA could conceivably be more
significant on nerve cells than on other cell types of the body.
Cumulative
damages in DNA may in turn affect cell functions. DNA damage
that accumulates in cells over a period of time may be the cause
of slow onset diseases, such as cancer. ...Cumulative damage
in DNA in cells also has been shown during aging. Particularly,
cumulative DNA damage in nerve cells of the brain has been associated
with neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's,
and Parkinson's diseases.
Since
nerve cells do not divide and are not likely to become cancerous,
more likely consequences of DNA damage in nerve cells are changes
in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate
the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Double strand
breaks, if not properly repaired, are known to lead to cell
death. Indeed, we have observed an increase in apoptosis (a
form of cell death) in cells exposed to RFR (unpublished
results).
However,
another type of brain cells, the glial cells, can become cancerous,
resulting from DNA damage. This type of response, i.e., genotoxicity
at low and medium cumulative doses and cell death at higher
doses, would lead to an inverted-U response function in
cancer development and may explain recent reports of increase
[Repacholi et al., 1997], decrease [Adey et al., 1996], and
no significant effect [Adey et al., 1997] on cancer rate of
animals exposed to RFR.
Understandably,
it is very difficult to define and judge what constitute low,
medium, and high cumulative doses of RFR exposure, since the
conditions of exposure are so variable and complex in real life
situations.
Interestingly,
RFR-induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks
in rat brain cells can be blocked by treating the rats with
melatonin ... [Lai and Singh, 1997]. Since it is a potent
free radical scavenger, this data suggest that free radicals
may play a role in the genetic effect of RFR. [Lai and Singh,
1998].
Well,
isn't that just fine and dandy!
What
did the Cassiopaeans have to say about the use of cell phones and
cell-phone towers?
Q:
(L) Can you give me an approximate number of aliens currently
interacting with, or on, or under our planet as a whole?
A: "Aliens?" What constitutes such?
Q: (L) Okay. Well then, non-human beings. Extra- terrestrials,
Ultra-terrestrials, and so forth.
A: These bases have naturalized the inhabitants. Anomalies occur
as much because of where the bases are chosen to be located
as any other factor. Magnetic faults and their inherent portals,
you know!
Q: (L) This [source on the Internet] thinks that there is a
rather limited number of aliens, and that people ought to get
together and resist this threat because our numbers are greater.
Is that, in fact, correct?
A: Not point. The question of the hour is: what is the motive?
Build a house step by step, and when it is finished, you can
move into the neighborhood and out of the motel.
Q: (L) Oh jeez. So, these are a bunch of aliens hanging out
in 'motels' waiting for their house to be built. That does not
sound good.
A: Many of you have recently become "bedazzled" by the "information
superhighway," and its accompanying computer hardware. Gee,
we wonder why?
Q: (L) Well, you told us to network. We have been networking
like crazy, digging up information, reading and comparing. Yes,
there is a ton of garbage out there, but if we don't ask, how
will we know?
A: Point was: who is manipulating thee? Not so much you specifically,
but the others? So many kids and kids-at- heart are thunderstruck
by techno-sensory toys. Those cellular phones, those pagers
and the Christmas toy computers... They are like, so cool!
Q: (L) So what are you implying about these techno toys?
A: Ponder.
Q: (L) Give me a clue.
A: Fuzzy jello-brained kids.
Q: (L) Are you saying that pagers and cell phones, and techno
toys that kids get for Christmas can have effects on them that
turn their brains to jello?
A: In a figurative sense. All this technology represents a Brave
New World. Like Huxley said: Woe is to those who have been led
to eat their brains for lunch.
Q: (L) My kids have pagers. Are pagers, in particular...
A: What do you think comprises the signal content?
Q: (L) I don't know. What does comprise the signal content?
A: Microwaves.
Q: (L) What do these microwaves do to the individual?
A: Contour brain cell structure.
Q: (L) Do they emit a signal continuously, or only when they
are being used?
A: Wave cycle low to high.
Q: (L) Well, that's not good. How close does the pager have
to be to you to have this effect?
A: Four meters. Cell phones too and television and computer
screens can be transmitted through thusly.
Q: (L) When you say 'contouring brain cell structure,' what
would be evidence or results of such effects?
A: Increasingly narrow outlooks and being unable to employ discriminatory
thinking.
Q: (L) Confusion?
A: No. Just lack of depth and breadth to one's mental and psychic
abilities.
Q: (A) Now, about pagers... we were told that pagers emit some
radiation which can be detrimental up to a distance of four
meters. As far as I understand a pager is a passive device,
a receiver. It is not emitting anything. How can a pager be
detrimental?
A: Microwave "bounce effect."
Q: (A) So, they bounce from the receiver... I see.
A: Cell phones too.
Q: (L) Is there any kind of device that we can build or purchase
that can emit a blocking signal?
A: Knowledge protects.
And
it is here and now that we are learning how true that statement
is in just about every sense of the word! So, let's get on with
it.
Work
in the Laboratory
of Neurochemistry at the Barrow Neurological Institute principally
concerns molecules critically involved in such signaling called
nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR). nAChR act throughout
the brain and body as "molecular switches" to connect nerve
cell circuits involved in essential functions ranging from vision
and memory to the control of heart rate and muscle movement.
Defects
in nAChR or their loss cause diseases such as myasthenia gravis
and epilepsy and can contribute to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
diseases and schizophrenia.
nAChR
also happen to be the principal targets of tobacco nicotine.
...nicotine-like medicines show promise in the treatment of
diseases such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
and Tourette’s syndrome and in alleviation of anxiety, pain,
and depression, suggesting involvement of nAChR in those disorders.
...We
have shown that numbers and function of diverse nAChR subtypes
can be influenced by many biologically active substances, ranging
from steroids to local anesthetics, and by agents acting on
the extracellular matrix, the cytoskeleton, on second messenger
signaling, and at the nucleus. We also have shown that chronic
nicotine exposure induces numerical upregulation of many
diverse nAChR subtypes via a post-transcriptional process that
is dominated by effects on intracellular pools of receptors
or their precursors.
Some
current studies are testing our hypothesis that chronic nicotine
exposure, as occurs with habitual use of tobacco products, disables
nAChR and the nerve cell circuits they subserve, thereby contributing
to long-lasting changes in brain and body function. [Lukas,
1999]
Now,
notice in the above account how tricky they were when they said
that nicotine ..." That is jargon for "it increases the
number of receptors" as well as the amount of acetylcholine.
But, of course, the AMA wouldn't let them get away with any of their
work if they weren't adding that they have a hypothesis that "habitual
use of tobacco products... disables acetylcholine." Never mind
that in the beginning they are proposing it as a therapeutic drug
for some of the very problems that have risen to almost epidemic
numbers in the present time.
Let's
say it again: Research shows, however, that daily infusions of
nicotine actually INCREASE the number of acetylcholine receptors
by up to 40 %. Some researchers, such as the above, brush this
finding off by saying "regardless, their function diminishes."
But that is not empirically observed. Most people who smoke find
a "set point," and once they have reached it, it does
not take more and more and more to satisfy it.
How
does nicotine act?
There
are two major types (or classes) of acetylcholine receptors
in the body, and they are commonly named by the other drugs
which bind to them: nicotine and muscarine. Muscarinic acetylcholine
receptors (mAChRs) can bind muscarine as well as ACh, and they
function to change the metabolism...
Acetylcholine
acts on nicotine acetylcholine receptors to open a channel in
the cell's membrane. Opening such a channel allows certain types
of ions (charged atoms) to flow into or out of the cell. ...When
ions flow, there is an electrical current, and the same is true
in the nervous system. The flowing of ions, or the passing of
current, can cause other things to happen, usually those "things"
involve the opening of other types of channels and the passing
of information from one neuron to another.
Nicotinic
AChRs are found throughout the body, but they are most concentrated
in the nervous system (the brain, the spinal cord, and the rest
of the nerve cells in the body) and on the muscles of the body
(in vertebrates).
We say that nicotine acts like ACh at the receptors to activate
them, and both substances are called agonists. The opposite
type of drug, something that binds to the receptors and does
not allow them to be activated is called an antagonist.
...When
a substance comes into the body that can interfere with ACh
binding to muscle nAChRs, that chemical can cause death in a
relatively short time (because you use muscles to do things
like breathe). A class of chemicals in snake and other poisonous
venoms, neurotoxins, do exactly that. If you are bitten by a
krait or a cobra, for example, and enough venom gets into the
blood, there will be enough of their neurotoxin in your body
to shut down the diaphragm muscle expands your lungs. Without
that muscle functioning, the person ceases to breathe and dies
of asphyxiation.
One
of the reasons we know so much about these receptors is precisely
that--plants and people have used substances [acetylcholine
antagonists] which cause paralysis and asphyxiation for a long
time. Plants use them to prevent being eaten by herbivores.
Animals use similar substances to paralyze their prey. At least
one human neuromuscular disease is related to nAChRs, and that
is myasthenia gravis...
So,
as you can see, nAChRs are important to life. ...All known nicotinic
receptors do share some common features. They are composed of
5 protein subunits which assemble like barrel staves
around a central pore. ...When the ligand (ACh or nicotine)
binds to the receptor, it causes the receptor complex to twist
and open the pore in the center. [Pugh]
Now,
aside from noting that acetylcholine has our magic number 5, did
you notice that it says that "animals use similar substances
[acetylcholine antagonists] to paralyze their prey? We have to
wonder about the oft reported conditions of paralysis associated
with "alien interactions."
Keep
acetylcholine in mind because we will be coming back to it!
Now,
let's go back to alcohol. Alcohol is a great pretender and can
fool at least four types of receptors. It blocks the acetylcholine
receptors... However, unlike nicotine which also binds to
the acetylcholine receptors, alcohol doesn't do anything useful
while there. It simply sits there and blocks the ability to think.
It also acts like cocaine in that it blocks the dopamine reuptake,
flooding the brain with "feeling good." Alcohol stimulates
the release of endorphins, thus resembling morphine and heroin
to a greatly lessened extent, and it modifies and increases the
efficiency of the seretonin receptors.
All
that in one brew! Gee, it almost makes you want to go and have
a few beers!
And,
if you could just have a few once in awhile, or a glass of wine
with dinner or a single cocktail in the evening, it would be fine.
But for some people, it doesn't work that way with alcohol.
Generally
mammals - from monkeys to dogs and cats - avoid alcohol. If you
give them a choice, they will drink water instead. In some human
beings, there is a genetic variation that results in decreased
desire for alcohol. Scientists, however, have managed to breed
rats with a taste for liquor. Rats that like to drink also, interestingly,
produce abnormally low amounts of serotonin. And, recent research
has indicated that human beings who are alcoholic have fewer dopamine
receptors genetically. A large percentage of smokers also have
an unusual copy of a gene called D2, which causes their bodies
to make about a third fewer dopamine receptors. They get their
buzz from acetylcholine. Keep that in mind, also.
Just
saying "no" to drugs, clearly, is not going to work
considering our understanding of how they operate in our bodies.
And, more importantly, we have to think about the fact that these
drugs only work because they imitate natural substances that produce
the same states of mind. That emotions or "feelings"
can be so easily imitated chemically should give us pause when
we say "I FEEL..." anything. Do YOU really feel it?
Or is the feeling being stimulated in you by some signal from
your environment. And what kind of signal, how it was programmed,
and where it might come from is open to any number of possibilities.
Our
inability to control our emotions is as difficult as saying "no"
to drugs. And it lies not in personality defects, but in the sheer
strength of the physiology - the Predator's Mind. The golfer,
John Daly, was willing to pay three million dollars for a drink.
A crack addict who had been arrested 31 times, who had been subjected
to repeated fines and imprisonment, said "once that compulsion
is there, it doesn't matter what the penalty or threat is."
Subtle
differences in the way our brain is wired make us more or less
susceptible to chemical manipulation. Most of us don't go to the
extremes of paying 3 million dollars for a drink, nor are we willing
to risk prison, but our inner cravings for the "fix of emotions"
leave us helplessly at their mercy.
Because
our internal chemicals are used to stimulate the genetic "pleasure
pathway," the battle we fight is with ourselves. When our
neurons experience the euphoria of a dopamine bath, our brain
is in heaven. Never mind that whatever it is we are doing will
lead to disaster or, at the very least, another day of heartbreak
and misery in a miserable relationship; or a faith that takes
our money, gives us promises, and leaves us unable to cope with
real life, we come back for more.
How
can we stop the behaviors that provide our brain's highest reward?
Neuroscientist,
Dr. Joseph LeDoux, professor of Science at New York University
Center for Neuroscience has examined the way the brain shapes
our experiences and our memories. His studies have unraveled the
workings of emotions in general. He discovered that many neural
pathways "bypass" the higher thinking parts of the brain.
The
brain mechanisms that generate a given mental state, or what we
choose, for the sake of convenience to call emotion, also give
rise to certain measurable physiological states, such as pulse
rates or brain waves, as well as observable behaviors such as
running away or smiling. "Feelings," by contrast, are
a conscious, subjective labeling of the individual's state. One
person may say "I feel excited," and another may say
"I feel afraid," and both will exhibit the same physiological
symptoms and characteristic brain waves. So, trying to work
backward is problematical. Dr. LeDoux writes:
...Fear
is pervasive. ...Fear is a good emotion to study [because] it
is at the root of many psychiatric problems. The so-called anxiety
disorders - panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder - make up about half of all the psychiatric
conditions that are treated every year, not including substance-abuse
problems.
...The
brain system that generates fear behavior evolved to help animals
stay alive and has been preserved for millions of years, across
a variety of species. The way that we act when we're afraid
- the way the body responds - is very similar to the way that
other animals act when they're afraid, even though we aren't
reacting to the same things. A rat would never be sent into
a panic attack by the news that the stock market had crashed,
and a human is not,, ordinarily, afraid of a cat. But the way
our body responds to the news of a stock market crash is very
similar to the way the rat's body responds when it sees a cat.
This is critically important, because it means that we can study
the behavior of other animals, and the processes in their brains,
to learn how the human fear system works.
...[We
study fear with behavior tools] techniques and methods for studying
such specific behavior... And we also need good neuroscience tools,
method that allow us to study what is going on in the brain when
the animal is behaving in a fearful way.
One
important behavior tool is known as classical fear conditioning,
which is a version of what Pavlov described as the conditioned
reflex. The process of classical conditioning involves pairing,
or associating, an innocuous stimulus - a sound or a flash of
light, something that is essentially meaningless in itself - with
something that is meaningful to the animal. In the case of Pavlov's
dogs, the meaningful stimulus was food; the meaningless stimulus
was the bell. Food is not a useful stimulus if we're interested
in studying fear, however. So, using laboratory rats as subjects,
we might pair a sound with, for instance, a mild foot shock. (We
keep the shock as weak as possible to allow the experiments to
be performed, and we administer it as infrequently as is feasible.)
I
don't know about the reader, but I don't believe this last remark
for one minute! Not after reading about Candace Pert decapitating
orgasmic guinea pigs! But, even if we are repelled by what they
are doing, we need to realize that this is the knowledge that
the other side has and USES; and the only way we are going to
deal with our situation on this planet is to learn what they know!
Meanwhile, back to Dr. LeDoux:
On
the basis of these kinds of pairings, the sound becomes something
that the rat learns is associated with danger. Thus when the
rat hears the sound, it reacts immediately: It freezes in anticipation
of danger. This is a conditioned reflex, as is Pavlov's dogs'
salivating at the sound of the bell, in anticipation of food.
An
animal in the wild usually doesn't have the luxury of trial
and error in learning what's dangerous; it doesn't get to practice
until it gets things right. If it's lucky enough to escape once,
it had better remember the sight of the predator, the smell
of the predator, the sound of the predator, and so forth. In
the laboratory, we need to apply the shock with the sound only
once if it is sufficiently aversive.
When
something like this occurs - the sound that's been paired with
the shock - it activates a variety of responses that are identical
to those that would occur in a real-life situation. Television
tapes of the bombing during the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta,
for example, reveal that when the bomb went off the first thing
that happened was that everyone flinched; this was the startle
reflex. But then the next thing they did was freeze: They just
hunkered down and held still for about two seconds. That's evolution
buying us a little time... Predators respond to movement...
So we freeze when we're in a dangerous situation, because our
old evolutionary fear system detects danger and responds to
it in an automatic way.
...In
a situation of danger, a variety of physiological responses
occur. Blood is redistributed to the body parts that are most
in need (the muscles). This results in changes in blood pressure
and heart rate. In addition, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal,
of HPA, axis is activated, releasing stress hormones. In addition,
the brain activates the release of natural opiate peptides,
morphine-like substances that block the sensation of pain. Called
hypoalgesia, this reaction is an evolutionary carryover that
allows a wounded animal to keep going. It's often seen in wartime,
where wounded soldiers don't react to their injuries until they're
off the battle field. All of these things happen in the rat
when it perceives a natural threat such as cat, or when it hears
the sound that's been paired with the shock. And all of these
fear responses are easily measured.
In
addition to behavioral tools, we also need the tools of neuro-science
to understand how the brain's fear system works. ...One is called
a brain lesion, a small hole made in brain tissue to interrupt
the flow of information between neurons.
Well,
we knew it was coming. He went from "mild shocks" to
poking holes in rats' brains... Next he is going to be decapitating
them...
By
blocking the flow of information in a given pathway with a lesion,
we can determine whether that pathway is involved in the behavior
we're studying. That is, lesions in some areas will have no
effect on the behavior, and lesions in other areas will interfere
with the behavior, thus implicating that area. People with strokes
or tumors have natural lesions, which typically are not very
precisely localized.
And
we are sure there are SOME folks who are certainly studying humans
with "precisely localized" lesions - to use the jargon.
Knowledge protects!
Considerable
research has produced precise maps of the brain of the rat, and
of many other animals as well.
No
doubt. And I expect that some of those "animals" stand
on two feet!
As
a result, we can go into a specific region of the rat brain
on the basis of three coordinates - left/right, up/down, and
front/back - and make a lesion by releasing a small amount of
current or injecting a chemical.
The
brain maps are also useful when we want to measure the electrical
activity of a particular region. Because communication between
neurons is based on electrical activity, we can insert electrodes
attached to amplifiers to record responses in a given area of
the brain. ...If neuron A activates neuron B, neuron B will
fire... which tells us that neuron B is part of the brain circuitry
involved in the behavior we're studying.
Finally,
we can trace actual connections in the brain - determining whether
area X sends its axons to Area Y or to Area Z - by tracking
chemical activity. ...We inject a tracer substance into Area
X ...The tracer is taken up by the neurons in the area injected,
then hitches a ride on molecules that are being shipped down
the axon. We can then stain or dye the brain to see where the
substance appears next; the region will stain brightly enough
so that we can see it under the microscope. This tells us which
areas AreaX talks to.
Once
we have conditioned the animal to respond to a sound - or that
the sound produces freezing behavior, changes in blood pressure,
heart rate, and so forth - the next step is to trace how the
sound, coming into the ear, reaches the parts of the brain that
produce these responses in the body. The strategy is to make
a lesion in a certain part of the brain to determine whether
damage to that area interferes with the fear conditioning. If
it does, we then inject the tracer substance there to see which
areas that part of the brain communicates with. Then we systematically
make lesions in each of those downstream areas to see which
one interferes with the fear conditioning, inject tracer substance
at that point, look to see where it goes, and so on. We can
then record electrical activity to see how cells in the area
respond. In this way, we can walk our way, point by point, through
whatever pathway of the brain we want to study...
Years
of research by many workers have given us extensive knowledge
of the neural pathways involved in processing acoustic information,
which is an excellent starting point for examining the neurological
foundations of fear. The natural flow of auditory information
- the way you hear music, speech, or anything else - is that
the sound comes into the ear, enters the brain, goes up to a
region called the auditory midbrain, then to the auditory thalamus,
and ultimately to the auditory cortex. Thus, in the auditory
pathway, as in other sensory systems, the cortex is the highest
level of processing.
Does
the sound have to go all the way to the auditory cortex in order
for the rat to learn that the sound paired with the shock is
dangerous?
When
we made lesions in the auditory cortex, we found that the animal
could still make the associations between the sound and the
shock, and would still react with fear... Since information
from all our senses is processed in the cortex ...the fact that
the cortex didn't seem to be necessary was both intriguing and
mystifying. WE wanted to understand how something as important
as the emotion of fear could be mediated by the brain if it
wasn't going into the cortex, where all the higher processes
occur. So we next made lesions in the auditory thalamus, and
then in the auditory midbrain.
...What
we found was that lesions in either of these subcortical areas
completely eliminated the rat's susceptibility to fear conditioning.
If the lesions were made in an unconditioned rat, the animal
could not learn to make the association between sound and shock,
and if the lesions were made on a rat that had already been
conditioned to fear the sound, it would no longer react to the
sound.
But
if the stimulus didn't have to reach the cortex, where was it
going from the thalamus? Some other area or areas of the brain
must receive information from the thalamus and establish memories
about experiences that stimulate a fear response. To find out,
we made a tracer injection in the auditory thalamus and found
that some cells in this structure projected axons into the amygdala.
This is key, because the amygdala has for many years been known
to be important in emotional responses. So it appeared that
information went to the amygdala from the thalamus without going
to the neocortex.
We
then did experiments with rats that had amygdala lesions...
We found that the amygdala lesion prevented conditioning from
taking place.
...So
the amygdala is critical to this pathway. It receives information
about the outside world directly from the thalamus, and immediately
sets in motion a variety of bodily responses. We call this thalamo-amygdala
pathway the low road because it's not taking advantage of all
the higher-level information processing that occurs in the neocortex,
which also communicates with the amygdala.
...Say
that a hiker is walking through the woods and sees something
on the ground. The image gets to the thalamus, which sends a
very crude template to the amygdala; the amygdala, in turn,
activates the heart rate, gets the muscles tense and ready to
go. At the same time, the stimulus is making its way through
the cortex, which is slowly building up a complete representation
of - a snake. Now, the thalamus doesn't know if it's a snake
or just a stick that looks like a snake, but as far as the amygdala
is concerned in this situation you're better off treating the
stick as a snake than your are treating a snake as a stick.
The subcortical brain is over generalizing for the opportunity
to stay alive in the presence of the snake. By getting the amygdala
going instantly, it buys you time. If the object turns out to
be a stick instead of a snake, nothing's lost; you can turn
the fight-or-flight system off. But if it turns out to be a
snake, you're ahead of the game: You've activated the amygdala,
and your body is ready to respond effectively.
The
low road, or the thalamo-amygdala pathway, is a quick and dirty
system. Because it doesn't involve the cortex at all, it allows
us to act first and think later. Or, rather, it lets evolution
do the thinking for us, at least at the beginning, buying us
time.
The
cortex - the high road - also processes the stimulus, but it
takes a little longer. You need the cortex for high-level perception
in order to distinguish one kind of music from another... or
to distinguish between two speech sounds But you don't need
the cortex to carry out some of the emotional learning involved
in the fear system. Thus we can have emotional reactions to
something without knowing what we're responding to - even as
we start responding to it. In other words, we're dealing with
the unconscious processing of emotion. This is a neurological
demonstration of at least part of what Freud was trying to get
at when he talked about the unconscious.
...What
we're saying is that unconscious emotions are probably the rule
rather than the exception.
We
all know that there are many times in normal, day-to-day experience
when we don't understand where our emotions are coming from
- why we feel happy, sad, afraid. For example, let's say you're
in a restaurant having a meal with a friend and you have a terrible
argument at the table, which happens to be covered with a red-and-white
checkered tablecloth. The next day you're walking down the street
and you have this gut feeling that the person walking toward
you is someone you don't like. You've never seen the person
before, but you know you don't like him. We often hear about
"gut feelings" and people say "you have to trust
your gut." But maybe in this case the reason you feel you
don't like this person is simply that he's wearing a red-and-white
checkered tie. This visual input is going in through your low
road, activating your amygdala and causing you to have an unpleasant
reaction to the person. You might attribute your reaction to
the way this person looks or walks or acts, but in fact it's
just the low road ...the unconscious activation of the amygdala.
Some
of the time ...these low road reactions are useful. Certainly
that was the evolutionary goal: to protect us from danger. But
these can also be harmful, or at least counterproductive. As
in the case of the red-and-white checkered tie/tablecloth, an
unconscious response may not be revealing some sort of inner
truth but may instead be doing nothing more than reviving past
emotional learning. "Listening to your gut" ...might
simply mean you are responding to past learning.
...Other
areas of the brain provide input to the amygdala as well. Information
about what we might call sensory objects - a visual object such
as an apple, or complex sounds like music or speech - comes
from the sensory cortex.
Other
parts of the cortex are involved in higher cognition. For example,
a cortical area called the hippocampus is involved in such higher-order
aspects of cognition as long-term memory and the processing
of the context of events, that kind of information that allows
us to say where and when something happened, along with other
elements of the scene, such as whether it was raining. If you
damage or remove the hippocampus in rats, for instance, the
animals are not longer able to recognize a familiar place; they
are unable to distinguish whether the test chamber they're in
is one where they've been conditioned to midl foot shocks. As
a result, they express fear responses in all similar chambers.
Let's
say, for example, that you regard all snakes as dangerous, but
you know that you needn't fear a snake in the zoo as much as
you might a snake that you happened upon in the woods. Ordinarily,
your hippocampus and cortex would recognize the context (are
you in the woods or at the zoo?), and you would react appropriately
to the sight of a snake. But if you had a hippocampal lesion,
you might have trouble suppressing a strong fear reaction even
at the zoo.
Another
important player in the fear response is the prefrontal cortex.
In rat studies, as well as in human experiments, when you give
the sound over and over again, without the unpleasant event
occurring, it eventually loses its ability to elicit the emotional
fear reactions. This process is called extinction. But if the
medial part of the prefrontal cortex is damaged, emotional memory
is difficult to extinguish. So, for example, a rat that has
a lesion in the prefrontal cortex tends to continue to respond
to the sound as if it were still associated with the unpleasant
event' the learned response is resistant to extinction.
However,
it's important to know that even without damage to the prefrontal
cortex, fear memories are hard to extinguish completely. Many
studies show, for example, that weeks after a rat has ceased
to react to a sound that had been paired with a shock, it might
suddenly react fearfully to the sound again. Of if the animal
goes back into the chamber where it had the conditioning experience,
the fear behavior can be reactivated. Stress can reactivate
extinguished fears in humans as well. A patient with a phobia
can be treated, apparently successfully; then something happens
- say the patient's mother dies - and the phobia comes back.
What
certain types of therapy can do - and what the extinction process
does - is train the prefrontal cortex to inhibit the output
of the amygdala. This training doesn't eliminate the unconscious
fear; it simply holds it in check.
Therapists
find this both depressing and informative; they now understand
that fear memories can't be completely eliminated, but at least
they know what battle they're up against. ...I don't know of
any animal that can't be conditioned ...and in any animal that
has an amygdala, that structure seems to be involved in fear
conditioning. The fear system, therefore, is probably a very
basic, fundamental learning mechanism that's built into the
brain.
In
this sense then, we're emotional lizards. We're running around
with an amygdala that's designed to detect danger and respond
to it. This system is very efficient, and it hasn't changed
much in terms of how it works. What has changed, of course,
are the kinds of things that will turn it on, the things that
humans [are taught and conditioned] to respond to that have
the same effect on us that seeing a cat has on a rat. [LeDoux,
States of Mind, 1999]
The
hippocampus in involved in the system whose job is to create the
memories we mean when we say "I remember." You remember
your first day at school, your vacation last year, Sunday dinner
last week, and so on. These are your memories and they involve
the hippocampus.
Now,
suppose you are driving down the street and you are involved in
an accident. The horn gets stuck and is blasting while you are
suffering pain and thinking that you might die. Sometime later,
a horn sounds and stimulates you to remember the accident. The
whole scene of where you were and the series of events parade
through your mind as a series of facts. It happened. But these
facts are cold and hold no emotion. This is a memory about an
emotional experience, but it is not the emotion.
However,
it is very unlikely that this will happen in this way because
the sound of the horn will also go through the amygdala which
will, at the same time that you are remembering from the hippocampus,
cause the autonomic system to crank into action; your muscles
will tense up and you may re-experience the whole gamut of "fight
or flight" right there and then.
The
important thing to understand is that these two memory systems
are separate, even if they generally operate in tandem.
People
with damage in the hippocampus have poor "conscious"
memory. There is a famous case of a woman who had severe amnesia.
Every day when her doctor came to see her, he had to reintroduce
himself because the woman couldn't remember having seen him the
day before. If he left the room for even just a few minutes, she
would forget having met him. One day, the doctor came in and held
out his hand for the oft-repeated reintroduction. But, this time
he had a pin in his hand which he used to prick her hand. She
jerked her hand back immediately. The doctor left the room for
a few minutes and then returned, offering his hand again. But
the woman refused to take it. She had no conscious memory of the
doctor, but her amygdala remembered, and she protected herself.
Conversely,
people who have damaged amygdala's and intact hippocampuses, can't
be "fear conditioned." They may know all the details:
that the doctor was in the room, that they were stuck with the
pin; but they won't hold back their hand when the doctor offers
his.
The
hippocampus and the amygdala mediate different kinds of memory.
Normally, they work together so that emotional memories, and memories
of emotion are fused in our conscious mind so tightly that we
cannot dissect them by introspection.
In
a traumatic or stressful situation has separate consequences for
these two memory systems. When stress hormones are released into
the body, such as cortisol, they tend to inhibit the hippocampus,
but they excite the amygdala. In other words, under stress or
during trauma, the amygdala will have no trouble forming an emotional,
unconscious memory of the event - and will, in fact, form even
stronger memories because of the presence of cortisol - but these
same chemicals will interfere with and prevent formation of a
conscious memory of the event.
This
has a strong bearing on our early childhood programming. It is
thought that the hippocampus is not fully formed and functional
in early childhood, and, as a result, we are unable to develop
long-term, conscious memories before that time.
Yet,
the amygdala is fully formed and functioning. And it is for this
reason that abused children form very strong emotional memories
that cause them to react strongly to many things, while having
no access at all to any conscious understanding of why they feel
as they do. Unconscious emotional memories affect us all our lives,
powerfully, and it is extremely difficult to work through them
without conscious recall. The mere sight of anything that is associated
with an early tramatic or stressful event can activate the emotional
response, whether it is of a positive or negative nature.
More
than this, these unconscious memories can generalize as we have
already described in an earlier section.
Now,
all animals have the fear-learning mechanism which enables them
to survive. They can detect danger and respond to it appropriately.
But these animals don't have what we call fearful feelings the
same way that human beings can "feel afraid." When the
basic "fear program" system is activated in a brain
that also has self-consciousness, a new phenomenon occurs: subjective
feelings. Feelings of fear are what happen in consciousness when
the activity generated in the subcortical neural system involved
in detecting danger is perceived by certain systems in the cortex,
especially the "working memory."
A
conscious feeling of fearfulness is not necessary to trigger
an emotional fear response. The low road can take care of this
just fine. That is, we can produce responses to danger without
being consciously afraid, as when we jump back up onto the curb
to avoid being hit by a car. IN a situation like that, as people
so often say, we don't "have time to be afraid." ...At
other times we will first have some kind of response in our
body and only later be able to name what the feeling was: anxious,
sad or angry. In many cases, though, even if we can say that
we feel anxious, we don't know what generated those feelings.
Indeed, we see this again and again in the various disorders
of the fear system, such as panic attacks and phobias.
Why
is it so difficult to eliminate such fears? Once the amygdala
is turned on, it can influence information processing in the
cortex from the earliest stages onward, but only the later stages
of cortical processing affect the amygdala. In other words,
even though communication goes two ways, it's not equally effective
in both directions. In general, the projections from the amygdala
to the cortex are much stronger than vice versa. If we think
of the routes from the amygdala to the cortex as superhighways,
then those from the cortex to the amygdala are narrow back roads.
Once the emotions are activated, they can influence the entire
working of the cortex, whereas the cortex is very inefficient
at controlling the amygdala. So, using thinking to overcome
emotion is like using a back road or side street from the cortex,
while the amygdala is bombarding the cortex with input via the
superhighways. [LeDoux, 1999]
But
thinking with the cortex, it turns out, is basically a way to
rewire your brain. It is like working on the back roads to develop
them into the commanding interstate system of the brain they were
meant to be. Research shows that changes in the brain are the
result of learning experiences, and it seems that learning - acquiring
knowledge - is the path of rewiring the synaptic connections in
the brain.
It
seems that the key to this is the fact that learning, hard thinking
and pondering, requires that certain brain chemicals - usually
acetylcholine - be squirted out at just the right place and in
the right quantities. It is becoming clear that the molecules
of memory are blind to the kind of memory - whether it is conscious
or unconscious - that is occurring. What determines the quality
of different kinds of memories is not the molecules that do the
storing but the systems in which those molecules act. If they
act in the hippocampus, the memories that get recorded are factual
and accessible to our consciousness. If the chemicals are acting
in the amygdala, they are emotional and mostly inaccessible to
conscious awareness.
So,
what happens is that even if we don't know what has triggered
a given emotional response until after the fact, we do have an
awareness that we are "feeling" a certain way. This
awareness is called our "working memory."
Working
memory, or awareness, involves the frontal lobes of the brain
just above and behind the eyebrows. This is what we use when we
want to remember a new phone number just long enough to dial it,
or to remember what we went to the kitchen for long enough to
get it! It is also the place where many different kinds of information
is held simultaneously while we are comparing one thing to another.
We can have all kinds of things going on there at once. We can
look at something, hold this image in working memory along with
the memory of something that we have pulled out of long term memory
which we wish to compare it to; sounds, smells, and even the ongoing
physiological input from our system as we are considering this:
does it make us feel peaceful, happy, sad, afraid?
All
of these elements come together simultaneously. However, this
working memory can only do one thing at a time, even if that one
task is multi-factored. A classic example is when you try to remember
a new phone number and someone asks you a question before you
get to dial it. The number flies out the window as you answer
the question and you have to go back and look it up again.
It
seems that this "working memory," or "awareness,"
is - if not consciousness itself - at least a window to it.
It
is in working memory that "conscious feelings" occur.
In working memory, three things come together to create conscious
feeling: present stimuli, activation of the amygdala in some way
and activation of conscious memory in the hippocampus.
Present
stimuli might include standing inside a church. This would arouse
the amygdala so that the unconscious memories of the many experienced
in church - the flooding of the receptors with neurochemicals;
and this would activate conscious memory of the last time you
were in church, or several memorable times will pass through the
mind. When all these things come together in working memory, with
the body now activated with chemistry and past history, this is
perceived as "feeling."
The
same thing can occur in any kind of encounter as we have already
described. Something that is present now will turn on the chemicals
which will arouse conscious memories that are related to those
chemicals, and then the present moment will be interpreted in
those same terms.
Since
what we are looking at here is the fact that unconscious, chemical
imprints, have a much greater ability to influence thinking than
vice versa, we realize that we are face to face with an age-old
debate between reason and emotion, logic and passion, knowledge
and faith.
When
you are aroused emotionally whether by fear or pleasure or sexual
attraction, it is a cold hard fact that emotion dominates thinking.
Philosophers
going all the way back to Plato have endlessly analyzed this fundamental
schism. The body fills us with passions and desires and fears
and fancies and foolishness and fairy tales made up to justify
these chemical reactions. Plato opined that the true philosopher
was one who could master his emotions by the use of reason. Socrates
said "Know thyself," by which he meant that we had to
understand our emotions in order to be able to control them.
The
vast majority of philosophers and philosophical writers throughout
man's recorded history have believed that in order to be truly
human - as opposed to just an animal - we must activate reason.
Descartes didn't say "I FEEL, therefore I am." Thinking
seems to be the distinctly human thing that humans do which separates
them from animals. But, as Theodore Dreiser wrote:
Our
civilization is still in the middle stage, scarcely beast in
that it is no longer guided by instinct, scarcely human in that
it is not yet wholly guided by reason.
The
prime example of this is, of course, Star Trek's
Dr. Spock. Captain Ahab, the hero of Melville's Moby Dick
was just the opposite. Melville wrote: "Ahab never thinks,
he just feels, feels, feels." Perhaps the mindless pursuit
of a white whale is a good metaphor for the result of living by
emotion.
However,
I am not advocating domination of cognition; merely balance. There
is, at present, such an imbalance between the amygdala's input
to the cortex and the very sparse control of the cortex over the
amygdala. Even though thoughts can readily trigger emotions by
activating the amygdala, it is very difficult to willfully turn
off emotions.
As
it happens, the cortical connections to the amygdala are actually
far greater in primates than in other animals. It seems that more
balanced cortical pathways are the evolutionary trend. It is my
opinion that we will develop them or perish. A more harmonious
integration of emotion and thinking would allow us to both know
our TRUE feelings, and why we have them, and to be able to use
them more effectively.
The
key is in learning. Knowledge Protects. And if you haven't already
begun to put the pieces of the puzzle together about the advantages
of expanding and working the frontal cortex, perhaps what we are
going to look at next will finally make the whole thing clear.
Let's
take a walk in the backroads of the frontal cortex.
Chapter
41
FAIR USE NOTICE This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in
our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here that is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication is offered
with the caveat that the reader ought always to research on their own. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either
possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind
will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
Cassiopaean materials Copyright © 1994-2009 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a
registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become
the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication
and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly
prohibited without prior written consent.
You are visitor number [TextCounter Fatal Error: Could Not Write to File _cass_wave13h_htm].
|
