To be homeless, a choice?

Before going back to all things disease, something that caught my curiosity recently...

I was walking the streets of a beautiful area in some Northern California city. A beautiful place with cheerful people, lots of trees, blue skies and houses surrounded by varieties of flowering plants. After a day of walking and exploring I was heading towards my temporary abode when highlighted by the dim street lights I could see a couple of people lying in the sidewalk. There was something so out of place in contrast with the beauty of the city, particularly this being a small city. I would expect homeless people sitting/sleeping on the street in New York, in Los Angeles, in Chicago... big cities, but here? Hmmmm, puzzling.

Still puzzled by the question, I asked the owner of my current dwelling about it. He told me that a lot of locals have an active relationship with the homeless, they ask each other about their lives, they give them money, they interact. He was not too happy about it, mainly because he thought that was encouraging them to maintain their homeless status. He kept talking, describing the situation when a question came to mind? Why is it that people in a country where there are so many programs and support, a country that despite the recession, can afford (I'd think) to assist them? I mean, it is not like people in countries like Mexico, Brazil or Peru where the government cannot afford to solve the 'being poor' issue... or is it? Are homeless choosing to be homeless? And if so, what pushes them to be homeless?



Sure, the obvious thing to look at is poverty. It is interesting to note though that the problematic of a country like India would be very different to a place like the US. Still putting things into their context, perhaps homelessness is just a sign of a deeper social problem - whatever that might be. This said, my perception (could be wrong) is that a lot of people in places like the US would be people that either had a career or a job once in their life in comparison to someone that is homeless in some country in Latin America, where the levels of education are so different.

Talking later to a friend he stated that most of these homeless people aren't there because they have chosen to be there but because they have some sort of mental illness or have a heavy addiction to substance abuse that makes it blurry for them to distinguish between living in the streets and living elsewhere. That would explain why one of the people I saw was using a key to scratch his leg so deeply and anxiously that blood was coming out.

A few days later, I was invited to a movie night. The movie is called 'The Soloist' and it's about the relationship that emerges between a journalist and a homeless talented musician that drops out of Juilliard because of a mental disability. This added to the hypothesis that some homeless people do choose (some way or another) to live on the streets and refuse help that would mean changing their lifestyle.

However, that is probably not the case with every one. Some people do fall into the circle of poverty and can't get out of it.

Would love to hear other people's thoughts on the topic...

---

Some statistics on homeless people:

- In 2005, an estimated 100 million people worldwide were homeless.[1]

- Between 150,000 and 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are homeless among the 744,000 homeless population (total homeless population statistic based on data from a 2005 national survey). These 150,000–200,000 individuals are equivalent to the population of such cities as Dayton, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Providence, Rhode Island; Richmond, Virginia; or Salt Lake City, Utah. [2]

More statistics and information:

National Coalition for the Homeless

Homeless Statistics


[1] From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness#Contributing_causes_of_homelessness
[2] From: http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

More on viruses... resources

Something about viruses that makes them quite interesting is how they can only survive when there are cells they can infect. They cannot live on their own and so survive through using cells of living organisms. This makes them so powerful because they attack the fundamental structure of a human body: the cells.

Some great resources and articles on the topic:


Virus or Parasite

An article on how much humans are compared to viruses and the promise of it becoming instead a symbiotic parasite.

Even Viruses Catch Viruses

Aha! Fierce fight of the most apt.

Viruses, the Unknown Frontier

A high school student's still to come research on viruses. Useful on its simplicity to explain what a virus is and how it reproduces.

And of course... wikipedia on viruses, cytokine storm, influenza

What moves viruses?

How fascinating...

I was reading about the outbreak of swine flu in Mexico and how 'experts' fear it becoming a pandemic. Will it?

I find the topic of viruses and bacteria (micro organisms in general) so interesting. How is it that they infect some while not others? What makes someone prone to infection? What is the interaction between these and the cells in the body?

Adenovirus, from wikimedia commons

Sure, these questions can be answered from the medical perspective, but I want to go beyond these answers. For example, I was reading about the etymology of the word Influenza. Wikipedia says:

"The word Influenza comes from the Italian language and refers to the cause of the disease; initially, this ascribed illness to unfavorable astrological influences. Changes in medical thought led to its modification to influenza del freddo, meaning "influence of the cold". The word influenza was first used in English in 1743 when it was adopted, with an anglicized pronunciation, during an outbreak of the disease in Europe...."

This is where things start to become interesting. It says that the original word captured the cause of the disease as the result of 'unfavorable astrological influences'. Did I just read 'astrological influences'? [Smile.]

In the past I used to think that getting sick as a result of a viral influence was like having something parasitic come into my system and lodge there. Like a piece of dirt that can be removed with proper disinfectants. However my views have changed over the years. Sure, a virus is something that infects the body and, when it overpowers the balance systems in the body a person becomes sick. However I couldn't say that a virus is just an 'organism' [1] that comes and stays. Most viruses are highly contagious. The survival fight they launch is fierce. Their power is not necessarily individual but as a group. When they start to infect and replicate they can decimate large populations of people. There are forces behind these little buggers. And these forces are usually quite sharp and intense. In fact, if you have a close look at them, they are only made of information [2]. Look at some of their shapes... they carry something. Some even are extremely beautiful: geometrical forms so tiny and 'perfect', ever ready to attack and infect.

It has been my perception that outbreaks like the one in Mexico are often a sign of something else. Some sort of force (and here, please avoid interpreting my words with some tint of paranoia). I think there is much more to see about viruses and their 'power' than what has been explored so far. What moves these forces behind virus outbreaks? What makes certain people more prone to be infected than other people? Not all viruses infect everyone and maybe these predispositions can hint some answers as much as the fact that there could be astrological forces linked to these outbreaks. After all, despite scientific skepticism, astrology was considered an important influence in many, many ancient traditions - that have shaped what we are today. [3]

Virus are moved by forces that interact with our physical bodies. They can change and modify them through their infection, to the point that malformations and growths can occur. Have a look - if you have the belly for it - at this man's hands and feet infected with the human papilloma virus. Who needs genetic engineers when there are viruses to do the job?

Perhaps that is what Sri Aurobindo meant in the quote I last posted and as long as every cell in the body stops responding to 'whatever forces' except the One Force, then we are all prone to becoming sick.

The question remains, what force is behind this outbreak in Mexico? (Or any other outbreak for that matter...)

[1] The idea of viruses being organisms is still debated as they don't have the ability to metabolize food and lack their own cellular structure.
[2] Comparing the action of computer viruses to 'biological' viruses can be quite interesting from this perspective.
[3] I tend to believe that in the not so distant future astrology will be re-considered as an important source of information for some of these so called skeptics.

Sri Aurobindo on illness

A quote:

"The human body has always been in the habit of answering to whatever forces chose to lay hands on it and illness is the price it pays for its inertia and ignorance. It has to learn to answer to the one Force alone."

Something to aspire too. Definitely.

The universe inside - thoughts and emotions aside

I've been a little sick. Nothing too important, but a hassle when you are traveling, which I have been. Suddenly there is no energy to do what you want and your body claims rest, rest, rest.

On the other hand this has become such an opportunity and a fascinating way of delving into the physical body. The sense that there is something in the body trying to work out itself, trying to come back to balance. A fight that goes on between the good little bits and the not so good ones.

There is so much to see in regards to the physical body. Most of it remains unseen, unnoticed.

Isn't it amazing that all the time there is something going on inside us - thoughts and emotions aside? There is something happening to every single person in this planet: all these interactions happening in our cells to hold some structure that allow us to think that we are individuals... And we are vaguely aware of it. We go on, doing our thing, living our lives and these systems working their magic in the background. Unless something goes wrong, we don't have to think about how to breathe, how to send the air to the lungs and then tell the blood how to extract the CO2; we don't have to think about extracting the nutrients from our food (if any) and send them around to be optimized; we don't have to tell our left leg 'move after the right', so we can walk....

It's just amazing. There is a universe happening inside every second. Movements in all sorts of ways doing all sorts of things with such precision (most of the time) and wisdom. How is this possible?

Wow.

The five senses - part five

My last observation - for now - on the topic has to do with a question.

Which of the five is the most refined?

I found this quote by Robert Delaunay, a French painter labeled as Orphist:

"The eye is the most refined of our senses, the one which communicates most directly with our mind, our consciousness."

I am not sure I agree here. His paintings, for example are almost musical. Interesting that his work was called "Orphic cubism", being Orpheus son of the god Apollo (in Greek mythology - a fascinating tale, btw) and a fantastic poet and musician, who perfected the lyre created by Hermes.

Rhythm, Joie de Vivre

Seeing Delaunay's work is as if he was perceiving visuals as sounds. Which makes me think of synaesthesia.

Synaesthesia is the ability for the senses to be mixed up in the brain, producing for example the perception of a sound as a smell, taste as touch, visuals as sound... or you name the combination. It is often present in artists and people that meditate a lot. Notice that I called it an ability and not something that's wrong with a person - modern psychology labels this phenomena as some sort of problem (sigh). It allows you to perceive your environment in a very deep and fascinating way, making it not just more alive, but also more rich and 'informational'.

So, in not agreeing with Delaunay, I would say that sound is the most refined of all senses. Why, because sound is one of those things that can become very, very abstract. Just think of the connection between music and mathematics...pretty abstract. The fact of not being completely aware of what is happening with the sense of hearing doesn't make it less refined than seeing.

A bit of a digression... Maybe the question here is what is my parameter to call something more refined? What makes something more or less refined? To me something refined has the ability for abstraction and a high level precision. So refined, in this context would equate with precision and abstraction.

Considering the above I'd say that a sound (coming from the external environment) could take someone deeper and higher into abstraction, out of their mind (ordinary mind: the gross block, the blahblahblah), closer to Reality than visuals (coming from the external environment). Since the five senses have to do with the information coming from the outside, I'd insist on saying that the sense of hearing is the most refined of them all.

But, that is just me... what do you think?

The five senses - part four

There is a paradox with the senses.

The senses are the ones that take people out of themselves and into the world. In meditation, for example, if one wants to go deeply and feel oneSelf, the less external stimuli from the outside, the better. I guess that's why in the past some hard core meditators would go into caves and why in the present real meditation means sitting in a silent place as to be able to go deep inside. This means no smells, no sounds, no movement. Stillness and silence.

Then, think of people incapable of feeling. Their minds are usually overactive, very, very noisy. You can almost feel the movements of their thoughts... it is painful. People like this are usually stressed, find it difficult to deeply relax and stay still. More often than not, people like this don't notice the birds sing, the smell of a rose, the sound of a faraway bell, the feeling of the wind caressing their face or how uncomfortable wearing certain synthetic clothes can be. I suppose this is a good thing, if, for example, we were locked in some torture chamber. In this case the mind would be a safe place to escape.

But back to the paradox, to counteract an overly active mind, the remedy would be to feel. Feel, feel, feel... don't run away, feel. Feel the wind, feel the floor you are walking on, feel your shoes... feel the flavor of that tasty (or disgusting) meal you are eating. Feel the sight of the waves crashing in the shore.
Feel what the world does to you, what all these stimuli is perceived by your body and how it makes you feel good or bad, or neutral. Feeling the world can be such a tool, particularly when we can disconnect the judgment and just feel. A tool for what? A tool to be more present.

Think about people that are depressed and unhappy. Most of the times their senses are numb. They have forgotten to feel. Just feel.


Photo by Tiago Fioreze

So, where's the paradox here? Well, when it comes to getting in touch with deeper aspects of oneself, the mind, not the senses, is the one that blocks the process. The senses are those things that take you out of yourself, but only through being aware of them, it is possible to go deeper inside, into the big Silence, far away from the stimuli of the world and into our real Selves.

Try it! Make an intention to feel your environment and see what happens. Do it for a few days, from morning to night... And if you do, let me know how you go. Would love to read your comments.

The five senses - part three

Photo from Wikimedia

A very interesting and beautiful experiment was held recently by The Washington Post in which they asked a well known violinist to play, pretending to be a as street musician, in a Metro station during rush hour.

The music is sublime and the article is beautifully written; the results quite interesting. It says a lot about how much people are really present:

Pearls before breakfast

Talk about feeling...

The five senses - part two

It is well know that sometimes when one of the senses is not functioning properly, other senses take over, becoming more sensitive. Someone that's visually impaired could perhaps be able through touch, sound and smell to recognize details of the environment that not even people with 20/20 vision can.


Photo from wikimedia

The senses are our main source of information when it comes to interacting with the world. If we were not able to see, feel, smell, taste or hear, then how would we know what is happening around us? If we were not able to know what is happening around us, then how would we respond?

Let's imagine a little experiment. Let's suppose we had a funky gadget that would shut off, one by one, our senses for a few days:

hearing -- gone
smells -- gone
visuals -- gone
touch and all sensory perceptions -- gone
taste -- gone

What do you think would happen?

What's one thing that without it people wouldn't be able to interact with their environment?

Actually it is not one, it's five: the senses.

I was walking yesterday trying to figure where an annoying sound was coming from. I first thought it was coming from one direction, but further tuning in showed the origin of that sound. My mind almost instantly imagined the device that could cause such an itchy noise.

This lead to another insight. Somehow I realized that because of the walls surrounding the place I was in, I could not see where the sound was coming from... of course I could not taste, smell nor touch it, either, which couldn't give me any more information on the source. Further into philosophizing about the topic I realized that of all senses hearing and the sense of smell are the ones that can locate things coming from further away. On the other hand touch and taste the ones that are more short range.

Photo from Wikimedia

Amazing what little attention does to our interactions with the world. How many people are actually aware, consciously aware of all the stimuli that the world is offering ALL the time. Maybe this point is the reason why so many aren't (aware). There is soooo much of it: sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and unless you can't use your eyes, visuals. It's like a little machine working all the time (perhaps except while asleep), feeling, feeling, feeling. No wonder why some people are unable to feel... could it be too much?

I mean, some people just switch off and live automatically. Their minds are overly active, disconnecting the feeling. It's as if there was a little command that said... too much information, just grab what it is important and let go of the rest. But, what is important?

Have you seen people on rush hour... they barely look alive, you can feel their minds (ok, I've been there too) moving at the speed of light... blahblahblah... There's a world out there and most people barely notice... it's all in their heads!

In a true aspiration to not succumb...

towards criticizing the affairs of our contemporary world I was trying to find a logical explanation, something that would explain what is happening to the sanity of the world. Suddenly this note found its way to me:

UK launches massive, one-year program to archive every email

Ok, I calm down, breathe deeply and think "well, I am sure their intentions are well meaning and are doing so in case a problem arises". "As the article says they have been able to find criminals as a result of this measure." Still... my other side won this argument: "Really? Is this a good thing?" I doubt it.

Isn't this a bit too much? Is this the beginning of a world where every movement is monitored by the government? Isn't the government also made of people? Who decides this sort of thing? Are people, the citizens even consulted about these measures?

I am baffled and I don't even live there myself... It reminds me of those great science fiction books like 1984 and A Brave New World.

Glad to read that Sweden, for example, "is reportedly ignoring the rule completely". Maybe in the future this will be some sort haven for those lost souls wanting freedom...

Big, long sigh.

Is the world going crazier...

or is it just me?

I was browsing through the newspaper this morning. A quick recap:

- Allergies on the rise (to food, environment...)
- Complaints about government systems that promise to be great but are a hassle in practice
- North Korea launching a missile, but most importantly the controversy that this has generated
- Somali pirates and their successful activities
- Women in Vietnam sold to men in other Asian countries to be married (against their will)
and it goes on and on...

So sure, I am posting only those that aren't too positive, from my point of view. However, I ask myself: do people in the past lived to this level of craziness? or is that we just become informed more easily?


Photo from Wikimedia

My sense is that both. Telecommunications have made it easier to know what's happening on the other side of the world, but also, my perception is that people are loosing it more (perhaps for the same reason).

I really think that the level of craziness is going to go up and up in the coming years (for good and not so good). We shall see...

What do you think?

The role of the media: facts or fiction? Five facts.

I've been following the war on drugs happening in Mexico very closely through the media. Through TV and newspapers there is a sense of Mexico becoming like a war zone... people dying everyday, innocent people killed for no reason, the picture of another Afghanistan... and I found this:

Mexico: The elusive truth about safety

What a breath of fresh air!

While pondering on this, I realized the media instead of informing and presenting facts, just follows hidden (and not so hidden) agendas that have to do little with reality. I was asking myself (and others) when did this happen? When did the media became some 'institution' that serves purposes other than what it was intended to do? Aren't newspapers, reporters, news shows, supposed to relate the facts?

Just look at the economic crisis in the US. Some TV shows reported that it was going to be the worst depression ever and that people should be ready for all sort of catastrophes. A favorite on the topic is this:

Glenn's Beck War Room


A few things come to mind.

1. Facts can be put in a certain order to manipulate the message.
2. Some media 'outlets' do serve certain agendas. If you dig a bit further and not believe everything you hear or read, it is easy to spot them. Just get a few different newspapers (if possible from around the world) and watch different news shows commenting on the same topic and you'll get a more realistic picture.
3. However don't stay with that... sometimes (if possible) talk to people (like in the case of Mexico's violence situation) and get their sense of what is really happening on the ground.
The internet has great resources that present testimonies from actual pictures.
4. Ask yourself questions about what you read (including this blog).
5. If all else fails, turn everything off and down, breath deeply or go and have a bath... :) After all the world will keep going with its craziness and stressing yourself about it won't make it any better.


photo courtesy of wikimedia.org

A note: when I talk about media here I refer to news media, as it is quite obvious that the media in general does have an agenda.