Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Dealing with rejection as a writer....
The simple reality is that success and talent are not synonymous and never have been. Good and great writing gets rejected and bad writing gets accepted. It has ever been so. Of course you can learn lessons and you will learn lessons but that does not mean that success will come.
Many of those writers which are now called 'great' were rejected for years; many were not published until after they were dead. In a hoax a few years ago submissions using the work of some great writers were sent to agents and publishers and all were rejected. Can you imagine James Joyce and Ulysses even getting a look-in these days when the fashion is for 'shopping list' writing? He was serially and seriously rejected in his time until someone actually recognised brilliance but today he would be unlikely to be accepted by anyone.
Which raises the other issues which relate to whether or not one is rejected or accepted and first on the list is, taste, or 'fashion.' With the death and dearth of brave and brilliant literary agents and publishers - although the developments online are helping improve this situation - it is the market which drives decisions. In other words, what the agents and publishers believe will sell is what matters, not the quality of the writing.
So your writing may be utterly brilliant, but not to the 'taste' of agents, publishers and the market at this point in time. Rejections will push many to make a decision as to whether or not they continue to write in their own unique and distinct way, no matter if they are never accepted, or whether they will try to change their style to 'suit' the fashion. The latter choice will not gaurantee acceptance either. Which brings me to the other factor at work and that is fate.
Returning to the stark reality that success and talent are not synonymous, and never have been, in any field, takes one to the issue of fate, destiny and plain old dumb luck. There are countless brilliant writers, poets, singers, artists, lawyers, architects - pick a profession or creative skill - out there who will never succeed. There are some who will, alongside lots of mediocre if not incompetent others.
So while there may be valuable lessons to learn which may bring acceptance and success for some, for most there will not. And the only lesson left is to enjoy what you do, speak in your own true voice, gain satisfaction from your creative expression and leave the rest to fate.
My words are for those who are in it for the long haul. Many people do fall in the face of rejection because for some, acceptance may be minimal or even not at all.
Anyone who is called to write and who faces the possibility or the experience of being rejected in the main for decades needs to reach a place of acceptance and dedication to the writing art for itself.
It is not easy to write without the encouragement of acceptance and publication. It is like spending days preparing a fabulous meal and having no-one eat but never telling you why. Too hot, too cold, too salty, too foreign, too plain, too rich. And when someone does like it but wants no more than a taste and is unable or unwilling to 'consume' the whole 'meal' it doesn't really mean much.
It takes enormous courage and dedication, or perhaps pig-headedness, to write without the support of acceptance and in the face of constant rejection. Writing is perhaps unique in that all that effort can be for virtually nothing in any real sense. You can self-publish and put it on a shelf, sure, but even with a painting, sculpture and other creative arts, you can give your work away as a gift, hand it over to someone who sees it and says they like it, hang it on the wall, put it on a shelf and have it receive an occasional admiring look – not so with books of prose or poetry. They must be picked up and read.
My hat goes off to and my heart goes out to writers who write for their soul, with no acceptance and the possibility they will never get it. A sense of humour and a sense of perspective in regard to life is invaluable. :)
At the end of your life, the quality of your creative expression will not be important, no matter how much of a success or failure society might deem you to be; who you were, are and how you lived your life as a person first and writer second will be what matters, to you and to everyone else you touched.
Would you let someone cut the wires to the warning light in your car..?
Would you think that was a sensible solution, after all, the light would no longer be on, or would you think they were mad?
Well, that is the approach most of modern medicine takes to symptoms, the 'warning lights' of the body. They 'cut' the connection with a knife or they 'cut' it with a drug and if the 'warning light disappears' they think and so does the patient, that the job is done.
But what would the result be if that is the approach you took to your car? Eventually it would break down. Little wonder then that serious disease and chronic illness is dramatically on the rise in those societies which have the most medical treatments. People should be healthier, not sicker. Remember the car!
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Selling brand Russell - idiocy writ large.
Brand of course is talking about the US where things are worse and trying to project it onto the UK where he doesn't live and has never voted anyway.
He calls for revolution with absolutely no idea of what mythical, fantastical system can replace democracy - one where no-one has to vote, clearly in his opinion that doesn't work, and where wealth is equally distributed - fall about laughing - who is going to make that happen, particularly in the US where inequality is the greatest and where most Americans are armed to the teeth - and where there is less injustice.
And given that the place most in need of change is the US, which strictly speaking is not a democracy anyway, but a constitutional republic, how on earth does Brand think that change can be brought about without violent revolution? All those guns again. All that fear and hatred of Government which is so particular to Americans. The US is largely ungovernable as it is so just who and how is the current system to be changed if not through voting?
Is he suggesting the rich and powerful will just hand over and share? Is he suggesting that Americans, or anyone for that matter, will say sure, let's end voting and let's ponder what we replace our system with? Is he suggesting that the military take charge - plenty of historical evidence for that - all of it bloody?
Just how, without a system where citizens can register their opinion, a vote, can any system be changed without violence? And never more so than in the US where 300million guns, including military assault weapons, are in the hands of most Americans who live in fear of just such a scenario. Any such move would make most Americans as fanatical as the Preppers.
But in terms of Brand's wishlist, sure, everyone wants a better world, more justice and equality. That would be great - bring it on but the reason no-one has any system which could bring that about is because it is simply impossible. Brand like so many has no perspective on history - at this point in time, the evil, developed, democratic world and the influence it has on the undeveloped world means, more people on a percentage basis live with more freedom and quality of life than at any other time in history.
That would be great - bring it on but the reason no-one has any system which could bring that about is because it is simply impossible. Brand like so many has no perspective on history - at this point in time, the evil, developed, democratic world and the influence it has on the undeveloped world means, more people on a percentage basis live with more freedom and quality of life than at any other time in history.
'But it isn't perfect,' moans Brand. 'No, it isn't but it is far better than it was and far better than in countries where people don't vote.'
Only an idiot calls for revolution, they are never pretty and always violent, without having some idea of what might be put in place after the revolution.
Brand may sound intelligent, and maybe he is, but he doesn't have a shred of common sense which is far more important. Neither does he, living in the US, really have any idea of how well democracies can work in other developed nations.
But, if he makes people think and talk about their society and their political system then all to the good. We do need to improve things but only backward and fear-ridden societies believe it needs revolution. The revolutionary approach was what brought democracy to birth in the first place. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing and never more so than in the mind and mouth of the rich and famous.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Homeopathy is energy medicine
'That Western medicine has not yet embraced modern field theories as fundamental and transforming speaks to a bureaucratically and economically driven medical system, an entrenched politics and a professional conservatism.
Nevertheless, there has been an explosion of research just outside the precinct of conventional medicine that is based on the body as an energy field, affirming that the material structure of the body is a secondary phenomenon of the primary and generative energy field that sustains it.
Some recent research goes so far as to propose that our human consciousness can, in some respects, be considered the field becoming aware of itself.
These sophisticated theories suggest a new description of disease as a field disturbance first and foremost, manifesting only secondarily as a pathology. In other words, illness arises from the field before it manifests in the material structure of the body.
So if we really wish to understand the problem of illness, and want to effect real change in our health, it is at the field level - the energy level - that we must begin.'
The Unbroken Field, by Dr Michael Greenwood. Trained at St. John's College Cambridge and St Mary's Hospital, London, he is also trained in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Meditation.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expects a different result......
In this day and age, particularly in the First World which has no excuses, people should have better health not worse. And the simple fact is people do have worse health and it gets even worse by the day, week, month and year.
Children in particular have never been so sick, have never had such high cancer rates, have never had such high allergy rates, have never had such high asthma rates and have never had such poorly functioning immune systems. Something is very, very wrong and it won't be set to rights until people recognise that something is very, very wrong.
What we call modern medicine, although it has many barbaric and backward qualities, or Allopathy, has been promising for more than a century that it will cure this or cure that or rid the world of this disease or that disease and yet what has happened - all of it has not only come to nothing, but the diseases it told us it would conquer are back and in force. It has failed utterly.
Of course it has brilliant skills, but only where its mechanistic/materialistic mindset can be applied. Reconstructive surgery is thoroughly wonderful; treatment in a crisis or emergency is exceptional, although it may create problems for later down the track, but in the moment of greatest need, it does perform, and, and, and.... well that is about it!
Allopathy treats many things which were once considered untreatable, certainly after the Christian church was instrumental in killing off the women who practised medicine, but it doesn't cure. Or rather, it very rarely cures.
How often do you meet someone who says: I went to the doctor for my arthritis, diabetes, eczema, heart palpitations and I was cured? You don't. You meet people who are being treated for these conditions and who are never cured.
How often does a doctor hand over a prescription and say: You will need to take these for the rest of your life? Often. Too often. That is not medicine. That is not healing. That is seeking to manage a symptom and chronic illness.
And yet with such an approach Allopathy pats itself on the back and maintains its practice of Fear-based medicine and the public swallows the huge pill of delusion, along with the half dozen or more daily pharmaceuticals, and staggers into the unhealthy future.
Why on earth do people put up with it? Because they are frightened. Because they are terrified of taking responsibility for their own health. Because they believe the propaganda spewed out by Allopathy, because that means someone else is responsible for their health and it is easier. Do what the doctor tells you and it will never be your fault.
And much of Allopathy is blame oriented - against the patient that is. It is the patient's fault that antibiotics are abused and overused because the poor doctor has to write out the prescription because that is what the patient wants! Ridiculous. Doctors are very good at saying no when it suits them but not for something like antibiotics. Why not? Even more so now as we face the reality of how Allopathy has squandered this wonderful and life-saving resource. Well, it isn't all their fault, science has played a part encouraging its use in the food production industry but doctors have been out there at the front since antibiotics were first discovered.
Don't get me wrong, Allopathy has brought comfort and new lives to many people where it restores sight, hearing, re-attaches limbs, repairs broken parts - all areas which fall into the mechanistic where Allopathy excels because it is the foundation of the methodology - but when it comes to sickness, beyond the immediate crisis, it fails more often than not.
And one thing it does not do is make or keep people healthy. And since healthy people do not get sick very often then keeping people healthy should be the main focus of any medical methodology. It is of Homeopathy and TCM! And Allopathy says this is what it does but the reality demonstrates the opposite.
All those vaccinations, all those antibiotics, all those invasive tests and procedures and in the First World, where all of those things are most available, and more people see more doctors more often, people are sicker than they have ever been before. Syphilis is back, so is tuberculosis, gonorrhea and now rickets and a host of other diseases which plagued the past - whatever modern medicine is doing it is not keeping people well and in fact is probably instrumental in making them sick.
Why with more medicine, more drugs, more vaccinations, more tests, more procedures is human health deteriorating and Iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced now the third biggest killer after heart disease and cancer?
Why, if modern medicine is all it says it is have cancer rates risen, not dropped, risen from one in ten in 1900 when people actually lived with poorer sanitation and nutrition, to one in two today when people live with better nutrition and sanitation and when modern medicine is supposedly there to help.
Why have chronic illnesses like diabetes increased astronomically? Why have childhood cancers increased at even greater rates than adults? Why have chronic illnesses like asthma increased astronomically, particularly in children? Why are allergies endemic and disabling in the First World - the world which gets the most and supposedly the best medicine?
We live in a time when medicine meddles more than it has ever done before, from birth to death and a time when more people suffer from ill health and spend their lives with chronic illness which is never cured, only maintained, monitored and maybe managed. Something is wrong.
The medical claim is that people live longer but surely the important thing is that people live better and healthier lives. Who wants a long life of chronic suffering? Apart from which the data on which longevity rests in arrogant stance is skewed by higher rates of infant and child mortality in the past caused by poor nutrition and poor sanitation. Health rates began to improve from the moment nutrition and sanitation improved, not from the time modern medicine came into being with its vaccines, pharmaceuticals, tests and procedures.
Tests and procedures I might add, which, with the recent research, are being shown to do more harm than good as often as not. The entire system of testing is yet another aspect of the massive profit machine which is modern medicine. It is also sourced in the narrow and limited mechanistic mindset which makes Allopathy so often ineffective if not destructive.
It is also a part of the Fear and Blame-based nature of Allopathy where you, the patient, are held accountable for your illness because of all the things you have done wrong and you, the patient are appointed to be a security guard to your body, which is in essence, your enemy, the doctor being the soldier/s, and must be watched, mistrusted and feared.
All that time, effort and fear, not to mention guilt, for poorer health than ever. All that money for the science/medical industry!
The nation which has the most vaccinations and consumes most of the world's pharmaceuticals including 80% of the world's painkillers, the US, is also the sickest with the lowest longevity rates.
And surely, if Allopathic medicine was as good as it says it is then hospitals would get smaller, not bigger, because people would be healthier. Hospitals today are the equivalent of the enormous temples and palaces of ancient times - huge edifices which keep rising up faster and faster as people get sicker and sicker.
Logic, pure old fashioned logic and common sense suggest that if doctors really could keep people well then there would be less need for hospitals. And it also suggests that if Allopathy was about health then the system would not now be third on the list of killers. The two others are diseases - one of which Allopathy promised to vanquish decades ago - and for the medical system itself to stand alongside cancer and heart disease as the greatest threat to your life is quite simply, criminal.
Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Modern medicine has been promising to cure this or that and make people healthier for decades and the opposite is the result. Little wonder billions are turning toward traditional medical methodologies like Homeopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine.
The thing which differentiates Allopathy from all other medical methodologies is the one thing which will ultimately be found to have sabotaged its effectiveness and contributed to its often deadly destructiveness - the belief that the human body is no more than material, a collection of atoms, molecules and chemicals, to be approached as one would a car, washing machine or any other mechanical construction.
What science/medicine so conveniently forgets is that cars and washing machines are made by human beings and they can be stripped down and restored in mechanical fashion, very effectively but human beings are not made - as in designed, created and constructed - by human beings and they cannot be stripped down and restored in mechanical fashion as one would a car.
The Allopathic approach to the human body is quite simply ridiculous. As ridiculous as believing we can 'take apart' a cloud, mountain, ocean, plant and put it back together so it 'runs' more efficiently.
Older medical methodologies were never so stupid or so limited. They took and take the view that the human body is a complete organism and nothing happens in isolation - everything is connected and only when that fact is taken into account can there be true and lasting - the operative word here being lasting - healing. That means cured; not in remission, not in a state of chronic ill-health; not on medication for the rest of your life; not having checkups every few months or years - cured, end of story, cured!
Allopathy services bodies in the same way a car is serviced although such an approach works far better with a car than a body. And therein lies the utter failure of so much of what is called modern medicine.
The simple fact is this, if you want to be well, stay as far away from your doctor as possible and take responsibility for your own health; treat your body with the respect and consideration that it deserves, and if you are unwell, unless it is a crisis, explore every other medical methodology first and leave the Allopaths until last.
Iatrogenic Disease: The 3rd Most Fatal Disease in the USA
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The efficacy of Homeopathy
In reality 'word of mouth' is the most important way to get a message across and Homeopathy has always had that and will always have that.
But it is also important to have information to hand which can be presented to inform others about Homeopathy.
The Healing Paradox, by Steven Goldsmith, MD, a psychiatrist and homeopathy is well worth reading, as is The Impossible Cure, by Amy Lansky.
But Dr Goldsmith has put his information in very coherent form and I present some of it here in terms of dismissing the most common claim by naysayers, that Homeopathy only ever functions as a placebo effect:
. remedies have cured infants of innumerable maladies, and infants do not respond to placebos;
. remedies have cured animals (there are even homeopathic veterinarians) which also do not respond to placebos;
. remedies have affected the growth of plants, also not placebo responders;
. remedies have cured unconscious people, who regained consciousness and recovered from their illnesses, and placebos cannot affect unconscious people;
. remedies have cured people of conditions not responsive to placebo, such as cholera, typhus, yellow fever, tuberculosis, tumours, traumatic brain injury, severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia - meaning the patients got well and stayed well;
. remedies have cured many sceptics, who are unlikely to respond to placebos;
. remedies have cured some who have been unaware they have even received a remedy, such as alcoholics, into whose bottles spouses slipped remedies;
. a patient may not respond to a remedy for a chronic condition for one to several weeks, and such a delay is not consistent with a placebo effect, which tends to be immediate;
. before many patients feel better from a remedy, they may have a period of symptomatic aggravation - also not characteristic of a placebo response;
. remedies have cured those not previously cured by conventional drugs or by previous remedies (thus leading to the question, if the patient is a placebo responder and the current remedy is only a placebo, why were the previous ineffective remedies and the chemical drugs not placebos?);
. in multiple provings of the same remedy around the world, different subjects, unaware of the identity of the remedy tested, manifest similar symptoms, an almost impossible coincidence if remedies are only placebos and thus guided in their effects by wishful thinking alone;
. an ever-growing body of well designed research demonstrates the efficacy of homeopathy.
He also cites two reasonably objective and thorough meta-analyses published in respected antipathic medical journals. (Antipathic is the word Dr Goldsmith has coined for conventional or modern medicine and what Homeopathy calls Allopathic Medicine. Allopathic means other and antipathic means against.)
The first appeared in 1991. The authors, a group of non-homeopath Dutch investigators found that in 105 trials with interpretable results, remedies were effective in 81 or 77% of the total. They then analysed the 22 best studies, finding that 15, or 68% showed remedies to be effective.
In another analysis of the medical literature, a group of German and American collaborators rigorously analysed the methods and results of 89 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of remedies. They found that remedies were 2.45 times more likely to help people than were placebos. Unfortunately they grouped the studies in antipathic fashion according tot he type of ailments treated which compromised the results. Homeopathy does not prescribe for a symptom as allopathy does but for an individual.
Don't be a lab rat, eat real food
Many of us, never swallowed (pun not intended) the rot about margarine decades ago and continued to opt for products which were as close to natural as possible, as opposed to the hideous (taste and content) of the chemical concoction produced in a laboratory and called margarine or those chemical hybrids of spreadable butter, and now, yet again, science/medicine begins to change its mind.
Well, it has been changing its mind on margarine for a few years now but the margarine industry has a lot of people well and truly hooked. So is the damage done by science/medicine sourced in the materialistic, mechanistic, data and statistic (remember lies and statistics) driven paradigm.
Go back to butter and enjoy it. And opt for full cream milk and give up those hideous low-fat, non-fat chemical concoctions which are made for lab rats not humans.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Friday, October 18, 2013
Time to save poetry from the 'poets'......
Perhaps the problem is the fact that poetry is so little studied in any general sense by most people and therefore they have less ability to differentiate between what is good poetry and what is bad.
In recent decades poetry has become to mean any collection of words, anywhere from three to thirty thousand, written on a page when much of it is not poetry but prose and some of it akin to shopping lists, bus tickets or delusional dream remnants.
One wonders, with some of the poetry which succeeds or is acclaimed, whether judges are erring on the side of the obscure, as in, they don't really understand what it is saying, if anything, but it sounds clever (sometimes it meanders all over the page and so looks clever as well) and not wanting to admit to their ignorance, being sophisticated intellectuals after all, then they 'stamp' it as good, brilliant, excellent or exceptional.
Erring as we all do, on the side of caution. And one can do that more with poetry than other forms of writing because poetry pretty much never makes money for anyone. Ironically, the same argument should create a situation of higher standards not lesser.
There was in the past a criteria for poetry and generally it was expected to be thematic, rhythmic, musical (rhyme) to some degree, and to actually say something, if not paint a picture in words.
So much poetry, and even those poems which win awards, contain none of the above criteria and would have left our greatest poets throughout history shaking their heads. Does it matter? Yes and no.
Language is like life always in a state of evolution so why should not writing be the same? And if more people feel inclined to write because they don't have to follow any rules at all then that too is a good thing because it is creative expression which is vital for mind, body and soul.
But surely at some point, just as all systems require principles, standards, guidelines and 'rules,' so too does poetry. And if we are to have a world where poetry is again, the finest and highest expression of the bard - the ancient soul workers and guides - then that will need to be pushed not just by those who are weary of so much bad poetry, or prose masquerading as poetry, but by those who can actually tell the difference.
And the only way to tell the difference is to spend more time reading the work of our greatest poets, for therein lies not just knowledge but perspective.