Relation of Depression and Self-Centredness

Source: Buddhism @ Facebook

depression

Joshua Bryer

“Having myself experienced extreme, regularly to the point of suicidal, depression, I think I can understand your point of view at least to a certain extent. But on the notion of self-centredness, I’m afraid I have to agree. From my own experience, coming through a massive clinical depression and coming through to the other end, cured, I believe self-centredness to be the very cause of depression. And not just depression, but every ailment in the world as we know it. The irony is, I can only see this NOW, with hindsight, looking back at my mindstate when I was depressed: “ego all the way, me me me, MY problems, MY depression, MY past, MY MY MY MY…” That very self-absorbed, self-centred fascination with my own ego and its agenda mindstate is exactly what kept me trapped in that depression for so long. It’s only when I started to consider that maybe — just maybe — as one of the 6 BILLION people on this planet, other people had problems FAR WORSE than mine, that the clouds began to part. And when I realised that I was being very selfish and WASTING my life in a state of — excuse me, but there are few better terms — mental masturbation.

All I was doing was feeding my ego, indulging its little whims and woes, and feeling sorry for myself. What was I doing for humanity? Nothing. And yes, that is self-centredness in its highest — or should I say lowest — form.

Of course, the great curse of the ever-nourished ego — the root of all depression — is that when you’re IN that state, you CAN’T SEE it for what it is. It’s like the people stuck in the Matrix (the film). They wouldn’t believe it if you told them they were living in a dream. You have to wake up for yourself, then you see it.”

The Old Phone On The Wall

Article Archive: http://www.telephonetribute.com/a_true_story.html


A TRUE STORY

by Paul Villard
Originally published June, 1966 Readers Digest; reprinted with permission in the December 1999 issue of the Singing Wires newsletter, TCI club.

When I was quite young, my family had one of the first telephones in our
neighourhood. I remember well the polished oak case fastened to the wall
on the lower stair landing. The shiny receiver hung on the side of the
box. I even remembered the number – 105. I was too little to reach the
telephone, but used to listen with fascination when my mother talked into
it. Once she lifted me up to speak to my father, who was away on
business. Magic! Then I discovered that somewhere inside that wonderful
device lived an amazing person – her name was "Information Please" and
there was nothing that she did not know. My mother could ask her for
anybody's number and when our clock ran down, Information Please
immediately supplied the correct time.

Continue reading

Some Poems of Love

Why
do we close our eyes when we sleep?
When we cry? When we imagine? When we kiss?
This is because the most beautiful thing in the world is unseen.
 

We
are all a little weird
and life’s a little weird
and when we find someone
whose weirdness is compatible with ours,
we join up with them
and fall in mutual weirdness
and call it love.

 

There
are things that we never want to let go of,
people we never want to leave behind,
but keep in mind
that letting go isn’t the end of the world,
it’s the beginning of a new life.
 

Happiness
lies for those who cry, those who hurt,
those who have searched and those who have tried.
For only they can appreciate the importance
of the people who have touched their lives.

 

A
great love?
It’s when you shed tears and still you care for him,
it’s when he ignores you and still you long for him.
It’s when he begins to love another
and yet you still smile
and say I’m happy for you.
 

If
love fails, set yourself free,
let your heart spread its wings and fly again.
Remember you may find love and lose it,
but when love dies, you never have to die with it.

The strongest people are not those who always win
but those who stand back up when they fall.

 

Somehow
along the course of life,
you learn about yourself
and realise there should never be regrets,
only a lifelong appreciation
of the choices you’ve made.
 

A
true friend
understands when you say, I forgot,
waits forever when you say, just a minute,
stays when you say leave me alone,
opens the door even before you knock
and says can I come in?

 

Loving
is not how you forget but how you forgive,
not how you listen but how you understand,
not what you see but how you feel,
and not how you let go but how you hold on.
 

It’s
more dangerous to weep inwardly
rather than outwardly.
Outward tears can be wiped away
while secret tears scar forever.

 

In
love,
very rarely do we win
but when love is true, even if you lose,
you still win just for having the tingle
of loving someone more than you love yourself.
 

There
comes a time when we have to stop loving someone
not because that person has stopped loving us
but because we have found out that
they’d be happier if we let go.

 

It’s
best to wait for the one you want
than settle for one that’s available.
Best to wait for the one you love than one who is around.
Best to wait for the right one
because life is too short
to waste on just someone.
 

Sometimes
the one you love
turns out to be the one who hurts you the most,
and sometimes
the friend who takes you into his arms
and cries when you cry
turns out to be the love you
never knew you wanted.

 

If
you really love someone never let go,
don’t believe that letting go means
that you love best,
instead fight for your love,
that’s what true love is.
 

Laugh
to your heart’s content;
you cannot go through life without it.

The Time We Thought We Knew


January 1, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Time We Thought We Knew

By BRIAN
GREENE

t was an unlikely place to be at 4:30 a.m., since I’m not much on celebrations and take minimal notice of most every holiday. Yet, a few years back, on a rainy Dec. 31 morning, I stood in Times Square, together with a handful of other early revelers, awaiting images on a giant screen of festivities on Kiribati, the first inhabited place on earth to welcome the new year. I was, as I recognized through the fog of exhaustion and the hazy steam billowing from manhole covers, re-enacting a struggle I’d been engaged in for decades.

Time dominates experience. We live by watch and calendar. We eagerly trade megahertz for gigahertz. We spend billions of dollars to conceal time’s bodily influences. We uproariously celebrate particular moments in time even as we quietly despair of its passage.

But what is time? To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it — but certainly, a few years into the 21st century, our understanding of time must be deeper than that. By now, you’d think, science must have figured out why time seems to flow, why it always goes in one direction and why we are uniformly drawn from one second to the next. The fact is, though, the explanations for these basic features of time remain controversial. And the more physicists have searched for definitive answers, the more our everyday conception of time appears illusory.

According to Isaac Newton, writing in the late 17th century, “time flows equably without reference to anything external,” meaning that the universe is equipped with a kind of built-in clock that ticks off seconds identically, regardless of location or epoch. This is the intuitive perspective on time, so it’s no wonder that Newton’s words held sway for more than 200 years.

In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert Einstein saw through nature’s Newtonian facade and revealed that the passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving relative to one another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in the eye of the beholder.

Numerous terrestrial experiments and astronomical observations leave no doubt that Einstein was right. Nevertheless, because the flexibility of time’s passage becomes readily apparent only at high speeds (near the maximum possible speed, that of light) or in strong gravitational fields (near a black hole), nature lulls us into believing Newton’s rigid conception. And so it’s not surprising that nearly 100 years after Einstein’s breakthroughs, it remains a great challenge, even for physicists, to internalize his discoveries fully.

But the cost of adhering to Newton’s description of time is high. Like believing the earth flat or that man was created on the sixth day, our willingness to place unjustified faith in immediate perception or received wisdom leads us to an inaccurate and starkly limited vision of reality.

For one thing, relativity lays out a blueprint for time-travel to the future. Were you to board a spaceship, head out from earth at 99.999999 percent of light speed, travel for six months and then head back home at the same speed, your motion would slow your clock, relative to those that remain stationary on earth, so that you’d be one year older upon your return — while everyone on earth would have aged about 7,000 years. Or, were you to venture into space again and spend a year hovering a dozen feet above the edge of a black hole, whose mass was 1,000 times that of the sun, the strong gravitational field would slow your clock so much that on your return to earth, you’d find that more than a million years had elapsed.

To be sure, executing this strategy for catapulting yourself forward in time is beyond what we can now achieve, but scientists routinely use high-energy accelerators to propel particles, like electrons and protons, to nearly the speed of light, slowing their internal clocks and thereby sending them to the future. Though unfamiliar, forward time-travel is an unavoidable feature of relativistic reality.

Relativity also upends the way we traditionally organize reality. Most of us imagine that reality consists of everything that exists right now — everything that would be found, say, on a hypothetical freeze-frame image of the universe at this moment. The history of reality could thus be depicted by stacking one such freeze-frame image on top of the one that came before it, creating a cosmic version of an old-time flip-book. But this intuitive conception assumes a universal now, another stubborn remnant of Newton’s absolutist thinking.

Let me explain. Clocks that are in relative motion or that are subject to different gravitational fields tick off time at different rates; the more these factors come into play, the further out of synchronization the clocks will fall. Individuals carrying such clocks will therefore not agree on what happens when, and so they will not agree on what belongs on a given page of the cosmic flip-book — even though each flip-book provides an equally valid compendium of history.

Under these rules, what constitutes a moment in time is completely subjective. This is unfamiliar, and hence hard to accept, because we all experience the same gravitational field (the earth’s), we all travel extremely slowly compared to light’s speed (even the space shuttle never comes close to exceeding a ten-thousandth of light speed) and we all compare our conception of reality to beings who, by cosmic standards, are nearby. But by using our understanding to relax these measures, if only hypothetically, we learn that our experiences belie the truth.

For example, if you and I were sitting next to each other, our
freeze-frame images of the present would be identical. But were you to start walking, the mathematics of relativity shows that the subsequent pages of your flip-book would rotate so that each one of your new pages would angle across many of mine; what you’d consider one moment in time — your new notion of the present — would include events I’d claim to have happened at different times, some earlier and some later.

As we pass each other in the street, this rotation is imperceptibly tiny; that’s why common experience fails to reveal the discrepancy between our respective senses of past, present and future. But just as a tiny angular shift will cause a rocket to miss a distant target by a large margin, the tiny angular shift between our notions of now results in a significant time discrepancy if our separation in space is substantial. If instead of being next to me, you were 10 light years away (and moving at about 9.5 miles an hour), what you consider to have happened just now on earth would include events that I’d experienced about four seconds later or earlier (depending on whether your motion was toward or away from earth). If you were 10 billion light years away, the time discrepancy would jump to about 141 years.

In this latter case, your subsequent flip-book pages, your notion of the present — a notion that agreed with mine until you started walking — would include Abraham Lincoln on the day the Emancipation Proclamation took effect (if you walked away from me), or the victor of the hotly contested presidential election of 2144 preparing for his inaugural (if you walked toward me). That’s not to say that you could save Lincoln’s life or analyze mid-22nd century American presidential politics; at such enormous distances it takes signals, even traveling at light speed, a long time to make the trip. But the point is that even ordinary motion, when considered over vast distances, results in a marked change in our conception of reality, revealing how thoroughly subjective the temporal categories of past, present and future actually are.

In a very specific way, then, this realization shatters our
comfortable sense that the past is gone, the future is yet to be and the present is what truly exists. Einstein was not hardened to the difficulty of absorbing such a profound change in perspective. Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher, recounts Einstein’s telling him that “the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.” And later, in a condolence letter to the widow of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein wrote: “In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me by just a little. That doesn’t mean anything. For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.”

Some physicists and historians see these as declarations laced with poignant hyperbole. Perhaps they are. It’s hard to know whether Einstein was “convinced” to such a deep level that he had remolded his emotional sense of time to reflect his understanding of relativistic reality. But regardless of whether Einstein had succeeded, his remarks articulated the challenge — to allow carefully reasoned and experimentally verified investigations of the universe, however discomfiting their conclusions, to inform our lives with the same force as experience.

When quantum mechanics, the tremendously successful theory of atoms and subatomic particles, is taken into account, the challenge becomes greater still. Quantum mechanics has, at its core, the uncertainty principle, which establishes a limit on how precisely particular features of the microworld can be simultaneously measured. The more precise the measurement of one feature (a particle’s position for example), the more wildly uncertain a complementary feature (its velocity) becomes. Quantum uncertainty thus ensures that the finer the examination of the microworld, the more frantically its physical features fluctuate, and the more turbulent it appears to be.

For subatomic particles, these fluctuations are well understood mathematically and have been precisely documented experimentally. But when it comes to time and space, the fluctuations speak to the very limits of these familiar concepts. On extremely short time intervals (about a tenth of a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) and distance scales (about a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a centimeter), quantum fluctuations so mangle space and time that the conventional ideas of left/right, backward/forward, up/down, and before/after become meaningless.

Scientists are still struggling to understand these implications, but many agree that just as the percentages in political polls are average, approximate measures that become meaningful only when a large respondent pool is canvassed, so conventional notions of time and space are also average, approximate concepts that become meaningful only when considered over sufficiently large scales. Whereas relativity established the subjectivity of time’s passage, quantum mechanics challenges the conceptual primacy of time itself.

Today’s scientists seeking to combine quantum mechanics with
Einstein’s theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) are convinced that we are on the verge of another major upheaval, one that will pinpoint the more elemental concepts from which time and space emerge. Many believe this will involve a radically new formulation of natural law in which scientists will be compelled to trade the space-time matrix within which they have worked for centuries for a more basic “realm” that is itself devoid of time and space.

This is such a perplexing idea that grasping it poses a substantial challenge, even for leading researchers. Broadly speaking, scientists envision that there will be no mention of time and space in the basic equations of the sought-for framework. And yet — just as clear, liquid water emerges from particular combinations of an enormous number of H20
molecules — time and space as we know them would emerge from particular combinations of some more basic, though still unidentified, entities. Time and space themselves, though, would be rendered secondary, derivative features, that emerge only in suitable conditions (in the aftermath of the Big Bang, for example). As outrageous as it sounds, to many researchers, including me, such a departure of time and space from the ultimate laws of the universe seems inevitable.

A hundred years ago today, the discovery of special relativity was still 18 months away, and science still embraced the Newtonian description of time. Now, however, modern physics’ notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with “painful but inevitable resignation.” The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there’s time as understood scientifically, and then there’s time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I’ve struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual’s power, however imperceptible, to affect time’s passage. In my mind’s eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton’s pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I’ve taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization.

Yet my presence in Times Square that rainy morning — losing sleep to mark an arbitrary moment in the passage of what I truly believe to be a derivative concept — attests to the power of convention and experience. Regardless of our scientific insights, we will still mourn the evanescence of life and be able to thrill to the arrival of each newly delivered moment. The choice, however, of whether to be fully seduced by the face nature reveals directly to our senses, or to also recognize the reality that exists beyond perception, is ours.

Brian Greene, a professor of mathematics and physics at
Columbia, is author of “The Elegant Universe” and the forthcoming “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality.”

 

To My Friends

 

 

To My Friends

If you should die
before me, ask if you
could bring a friend.

—  Stone Temple Pilots

If you live to be a hundred,
I want to live to be
a hundred minus one day,
so I never have to live
without you.

—  Winnie the Pooh

True friendship is
like sound health;
the value of it is
seldom known
until it is lost.

—  Charles Caleb Colton

A real friend
is one who walks in
when the rest
of the world walks out.

Don’t
walk in front of me,
I may not follow.
Don’t walk behind me,
I may not lead.
Walk beside me and
be my friend.

— Albert Camus

Strangers are
just friends waiting to
happen.
Friends are the Bacon
Bits in the Salad
Bowl of Life.

Friendship is one mind
in two bodies.

—  Mencius

Friends are God’s way of taking care of us.

I’ll lean on you and
you lean on me and
we’ll be okay

—  Dave Matthews

If all my friends were
to jump off a bridge,
I wouldn’t jump with them,
I’d be at the bottom to
catch them.

Everyone hears what you say.
Friends listen to what you say.
Best friends listen to what you don’t say.

We all take different
paths in life,
but no matter where we go,
we take a little of each
other everywhere.;

—  Tim McGraw

My father always used
to say that when you die,
if you’ve got five real friends,
then you’ve had a great life.;

—  Lee Iacocca

Hold a true friend with both your hands.;

—  Nigerian Proverb

A friend is someone who knows
the song in your heart
and can sing it back to you
when you have forgotten
the words.

—  Unknown

 

劉媛媛:《年輕人能為世界做什麼》

北大才女吐露心聲 她4分鐘的演講,卻讓整個世界都沉默了 喚醒90後的社會責任 【20140620超級演說家第二季 劉媛媛】
劉媛媛:《年輕人能為世界做什麼》

我是一名法學院的學生,我的每一門課的教授都曾經在他的課堂上講過這麼一句話,他們常­常「說法律是這麼規定的,但是現實生活中……」現實生活是一種很神奇的生活,在現實生­活中那些尊重規則的老實人往往一輩子都默默無聞,反倒是那些弄虛作假的人到最後會名利­雙收,於是乎像我這樣的年輕人就經常有那些看著很有經驗的前輩過來拍拍你的肩膀跟你說­「年輕人你還不懂。」我想問的是我們年輕人你能為這個世界做什麼,總有一天銀行行長會­是九零後,企業家會是九零後,甚至國家主席都會是九零後,當全社會都被九零後佔領的時­候,我想問你們九零後們,大家想把這個社會變成什麼樣。

我知道不是每一個人他都能夠成為那種站在風口浪尖上去把握國家命運的人物,你我都是再­普通不過的升斗小民,是這個龐大的社會機器上一顆小小的螺絲釘,讀書的時候每天都被父­母耳提面命說你幹啥你都不要給我耽誤學習;畢業的時候到處投簡歷,淒淒惶惶的等一家企­業收留自己;逢年過節被逼婚,結婚買了房子要花自己年輕的時候的最好的二十年來償還貸­款,讓每一個年輕人都忙著生存,而沒有夢想,沒有時間關心政治,沒有時間關心環境,沒­有時間關心國家的命運,還哪有什麼精力去為這社會做什麼,但是後來我發現還是有一件事­情你跟我都可以做到,這件事情就是我們這一代人在我們老去的路上,一定一定不要變壞,­不要變成你年輕的時候最痛恨、最厭惡的那種成年人。如果將來你去路邊擺攤,你就不要賣­【地溝油】小吃,你不要缺斤短兩;你將來開了工廠當了老闆,你不要偷工減料,生產一些­次品。每一個普通人他在自己普通的崗位上做一個好人是有非常非常嚴重的意義的,因為我­們每一個人生下來都注定會改變世界。

我是一個學法律的,如果我將來是一個公正嚴明的法官,那麼這個社會就因為多了一個好法­官而變好了一點點,我希望大家都記住即使給了你十萬個理由讓你去作惡,你都要保持自己­的操守跟底線,僅僅就因為一個理由,這個理由就是你不是一個禽獸,你是一個人。我更希­望我們所有的九零後們,你們都能成為那種難能可貴的年輕人,一輩子都嫉惡如仇,絕不隨­波逐流,你絕不摧眉折腰,你絕不摧眉折腰,你絕不放棄自己的原則,你絕不絕不絕不失望­於人性。所以我親愛的九零後們,如果將來再是有那些人跟你說「年輕人你不要看不慣,你­要適應這個社會。」這時候你就應該像一個真正的勇士一樣直面他,你告訴他「我跟你不一­樣,我不是來適應社會的,我是來改變社會的。」