While many Americans were aware of and in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), many were not aware that a perhaps more sinister Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) had been signed by our President Barack Obama by executive order back in October 2011. Many other countries also signed on to the International Bill which seeks to force Internet Service Providers to act as "internet police" rather than mere transmitters of information. ACTA was written and signed behind closed doors with little public input and scrutiny and threatens the sovereignty of nations' ability to regulate their own media and communications.
Many other bills have been proposed, such as H.R. 3782, the Open Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN). To be sure, internet piracy is a problem and readers are encouraged to pay for all the digital media they consume. Cyberterrorism is also a concern, yet terrorism and fears have been used far too often simply to take away civil liberties. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) suggested that cyberterrorism was perhaps the greatest threat to America and that "maybe it would have been better if the internet had never been invented".
Can you imagine a modern world without the internet? That kind of comment suggests to me that concern about the "security" of the internet is hardly what the issue is here. Perhaps the real agenda is about controlling the populace and taking away our ability to dissent, which has been largely aided by the tool of the internet. The internet has preserved a free press where larger, open discussions take place unlike that of our conventional newspapers and TV stations.
For all the problems of piracy that the internet's created, it's also undeniably created a lot of business. For all the terroristic capability of the internet, it also helps people to stay connected to deal with problems as they arise. In trying to solve issues that the internet creates, we should not destroy our civil liberties. Some of the bills proposed would make it illegal even to link to copyright infringing websites! That is overkill and overly draconian!
Please stay aware of whatever bills are being voted on and hold your leaders accountable! If your leaders don't serve your interests, help prevent them from getting elected. Campaign for better leaders! You can contact your representatives on house.gov and senate.gov. Please do that and tell your friends and family to do the same. The fate of the internet is in YOUR HANDS!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
How to Dream More, How to Understand Schizophrenia - Hypotheses
Last night I had powerful and intense dreams, which hasn't happened in a while to the same intensity that it did last night! I attribute it to a more extensive winding down period of time before bed and to having calmed myself down a lot using camomile tea. I stumbled upon some kind of understanding about how our brain works, I think, that should both explain schizophrenia more to a conceptual degree and to allow us to dream more, which I think is desirable. I wanted to write here about some of my hypotheses and understandings of our brains and mental illness.
I think that when we "day-dream" we're using the same part of the brain as when we "night-dream". I thus also think that "day-dreaming" or using the "imagination" more should lead to more "night-dreaming". When we "day-dream" or use the "imagination" (these are words for the same thing that we do), we use memories in our brain to create new experiences - a collage of memories, a new miss-matching or re-mix of them. When we use the word "imagination", that, too, is a bit misleading of a word: for it is also an "audio-ination" or way of "re-mixing" sounds, as well as all the other senses. The word "imagination" suggests that it is only images or sight that is what we conjure up; maybe that word was picked because sight is often a dominant thing that we use in our dreamings, whether they are during the day or night.
Daydreams are also LUCID, or more subject to our control. In contrast, night-dreams are often unconscious and directed more by our brain. Many people have been seeking to lucidly night-dream; in another way, it could be understood that this is day-dreaming at night, except that while lucidly night-dreaming there is less of an ability for a person to be aware of the external senses (that I know of). In night-dreams, the body usually cuts off input from the senses.
I think it's important for us to note that our brains, in normal healthy people, are like audio-visual-gustatory-etc. camcorders; we virtually "record" everything during our waking hours. Sometimes it is simply our ability to RECALL the information that we record which is difficult. But our daydreams are kind of like "editing stations" where we re-mix the experiences of our lives to create an emulation of other possibilities and even IMPOSSIBILITIES. Is FOCUSSING, then, partially just the ability to create more detailed memories by using our senses? Are movies and video games, in a sense, just a crystallized form of our brain's day or night dreams?
I think, then, that schizophrenia must be a confusion of daydreams and the input of the senses. Just as we can daydream or use our imagination to cause physical sensations, like someone who might sexually fantasize and become sexually aroused, the schizophrenic has an incredibly vivid blending together of sensual input and the output of the imagination. The psychotic, or one who is "disconnected from the world, must have damage in the brain that allows for sensual input, and this person is more exclusively lost in "daydreams". What if, instead of using medical jargon and esoteric terms like the word "psychosis", we called it "total daydream disorder"? I think that therapeutically we need to find the region of the brain responsible for "dreaming" (day or night) or the re-experiencing of memories, and look how it connects to the senses. In schizophrenics, it would seem that vivid stimulation of the senses in a predictable way would help to "re-connect" them with the world.
Remember when people say about psychotics, "That person's out of TOUCH with reality"? That's because their sense of touch is not being utilized enough - during all hours of normal healthy human beings, we have sensual connection to the world. The schizophrenic and psychotic have a disordered experience of that sensual connection. Stimulating the senses in a healthy, loving, non-violent way might help to re-order their brains especially in cases where the disorders have arisen spontaneously or not strictly due to obvious chemical causes.
While we're at it, too, I wanted to mention that when people fear having "flashbacks" from drug experiences, a flashback must be nothing more than an activated distressing memory. We have positive "flashbacks" every day when we remember an experience from our past that relates to our present moment. I think de-mystifying all of these supposedly strange things would be beneficial to understanding how our brain works so that we can use them better and heal others who have disorders of brain and mind.
To dream more at night, I think we need to use our memories more during the day and also juxtapose our different memories to form new ideas. (An "idea" is just another word for a "memory", physically speaking). We can also wind down before bed and try to remember what we dreamed when we wake up. Exercise and tiring one's self out should be helpful for inducing dreams, as well as drinking relaxing teas that don't interfere with the brain (like alcohol or caffeine might) before winding down and sleeping.
I also believe that during sleep we are somewhat influenced by our surroundings. In high school, I experimented with leaving classical music on while I slept. On nights when harmonic music was played, it seemed I had somewhat pleasant dreams. On nights where the music was chromatic and chaotic, I awoke from gruesome nightmares to turn the music off. This only happened a handful of times, but I think that more people should experiment with conditions and see what's possible. What about burning incense while people sleep? Very dark conditions before bed also seem like they would be beneficial for inducing dreams, in order to boost the melatonin production in the brain that the body naturally secretes in response to darkness at night in conjunction with our circadian rhythms.
Dreams of day and night can provide powerful insights for improving our realities. I believe that we should develop more reliable methods for inducing dreams in the general population as well as understanding physically how the senses relate to our imagination in order to heal the mentally ill.
Happy dream adventures, everyone!
I think that when we "day-dream" we're using the same part of the brain as when we "night-dream". I thus also think that "day-dreaming" or using the "imagination" more should lead to more "night-dreaming". When we "day-dream" or use the "imagination" (these are words for the same thing that we do), we use memories in our brain to create new experiences - a collage of memories, a new miss-matching or re-mix of them. When we use the word "imagination", that, too, is a bit misleading of a word: for it is also an "audio-ination" or way of "re-mixing" sounds, as well as all the other senses. The word "imagination" suggests that it is only images or sight that is what we conjure up; maybe that word was picked because sight is often a dominant thing that we use in our dreamings, whether they are during the day or night.
Daydreams are also LUCID, or more subject to our control. In contrast, night-dreams are often unconscious and directed more by our brain. Many people have been seeking to lucidly night-dream; in another way, it could be understood that this is day-dreaming at night, except that while lucidly night-dreaming there is less of an ability for a person to be aware of the external senses (that I know of). In night-dreams, the body usually cuts off input from the senses.
I think it's important for us to note that our brains, in normal healthy people, are like audio-visual-gustatory-etc. camcorders; we virtually "record" everything during our waking hours. Sometimes it is simply our ability to RECALL the information that we record which is difficult. But our daydreams are kind of like "editing stations" where we re-mix the experiences of our lives to create an emulation of other possibilities and even IMPOSSIBILITIES. Is FOCUSSING, then, partially just the ability to create more detailed memories by using our senses? Are movies and video games, in a sense, just a crystallized form of our brain's day or night dreams?
I think, then, that schizophrenia must be a confusion of daydreams and the input of the senses. Just as we can daydream or use our imagination to cause physical sensations, like someone who might sexually fantasize and become sexually aroused, the schizophrenic has an incredibly vivid blending together of sensual input and the output of the imagination. The psychotic, or one who is "disconnected from the world, must have damage in the brain that allows for sensual input, and this person is more exclusively lost in "daydreams". What if, instead of using medical jargon and esoteric terms like the word "psychosis", we called it "total daydream disorder"? I think that therapeutically we need to find the region of the brain responsible for "dreaming" (day or night) or the re-experiencing of memories, and look how it connects to the senses. In schizophrenics, it would seem that vivid stimulation of the senses in a predictable way would help to "re-connect" them with the world.
Remember when people say about psychotics, "That person's out of TOUCH with reality"? That's because their sense of touch is not being utilized enough - during all hours of normal healthy human beings, we have sensual connection to the world. The schizophrenic and psychotic have a disordered experience of that sensual connection. Stimulating the senses in a healthy, loving, non-violent way might help to re-order their brains especially in cases where the disorders have arisen spontaneously or not strictly due to obvious chemical causes.
While we're at it, too, I wanted to mention that when people fear having "flashbacks" from drug experiences, a flashback must be nothing more than an activated distressing memory. We have positive "flashbacks" every day when we remember an experience from our past that relates to our present moment. I think de-mystifying all of these supposedly strange things would be beneficial to understanding how our brain works so that we can use them better and heal others who have disorders of brain and mind.
To dream more at night, I think we need to use our memories more during the day and also juxtapose our different memories to form new ideas. (An "idea" is just another word for a "memory", physically speaking). We can also wind down before bed and try to remember what we dreamed when we wake up. Exercise and tiring one's self out should be helpful for inducing dreams, as well as drinking relaxing teas that don't interfere with the brain (like alcohol or caffeine might) before winding down and sleeping.
I also believe that during sleep we are somewhat influenced by our surroundings. In high school, I experimented with leaving classical music on while I slept. On nights when harmonic music was played, it seemed I had somewhat pleasant dreams. On nights where the music was chromatic and chaotic, I awoke from gruesome nightmares to turn the music off. This only happened a handful of times, but I think that more people should experiment with conditions and see what's possible. What about burning incense while people sleep? Very dark conditions before bed also seem like they would be beneficial for inducing dreams, in order to boost the melatonin production in the brain that the body naturally secretes in response to darkness at night in conjunction with our circadian rhythms.
Dreams of day and night can provide powerful insights for improving our realities. I believe that we should develop more reliable methods for inducing dreams in the general population as well as understanding physically how the senses relate to our imagination in order to heal the mentally ill.
Happy dream adventures, everyone!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Interrobang‽ Punctuation of the Future
The interrobang (also know as the interrabang) is a symbol that expresses the exclamation point and question mark at the same time, written as "‽". What other punctuation will arise in the future? I think that the comma elipsis has some merit, as well as a comma colon and variations on the semi-colon including the semi-question-colon and semi-exclamation-colon. I think that either more popularly we need to be able to write and type these kinds of characters in normal writing or that it should become more socially acceptable to write ";?" to denote a semi-colon question mark. I've come across instances where these punctuations seem useful, and sometimes I also end up spontaneously using ".!." to indicate a subtler kind of excitement. These things need to infiltrate the formal culture and I suppose will do so by people's use of them.
I always wonder, "What other kinds of punctuation are possible?" It's fun to expand your punctuational vocabulary, a tool for writing and expressing more exactly how you're feeling. I noticed, for instance, on the Wikipedia article for punctuation , there were also something called an irony mark, written "⸮". I imagine the future can give birth to new forms of punctuation which are useful for various different applications. Consider creating them!
I always wonder, "What other kinds of punctuation are possible?" It's fun to expand your punctuational vocabulary, a tool for writing and expressing more exactly how you're feeling. I noticed, for instance, on the Wikipedia article for punctuation , there were also something called an irony mark, written "⸮". I imagine the future can give birth to new forms of punctuation which are useful for various different applications. Consider creating them!
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Top Five Reasons Why I Believe in Creationism
1. There are still "gaps" in the evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated and has always been a stumbling point for atheists. How did something living come from something non-living? If atheists can't demonstrate EXACTLY what happened and yet they want to claim they have "certainty" of their hypothesis, why can't creationists justly appeal to the same amount of mystery? It is quite one thing for evolutionists to claim that something COULD have happened a certain way, but it is an unscientific leap of faith to claim that that's HOW they happened in the past. You can take that leap of faith, but allow creationists to leap in the opposite direction.
2. Hume's Problem of Induction: Just because we've consistently seen white swans throughout our lives, why couldn't there be a black swan? Or green, or blue? Just because we have the evolutionary theory today doesn't mean that a better theory couldn't triumph tomorrow. Hume's problem of induction also makes it impossible to say that, with any confidence, the "laws" of the universe were exactly the same in the past as they were today. So, since the "laws" of the universe aren't known to be inflexible, an all-powerful God could change how things operate over time. Perhaps there was a different biological reality prior to the Fall of Mankind in Genesis in the Bible, one of immortality, and then things were altered when Man biologically ate the tree in the Garden of Eden - maybe it was physical mortal poison, while other foods were immortal foods. Atheists reject any idea of God having super-natural powers because of the limited powers of their own scientific method of pursuing truth, but just because something isn't discovered using the scientific method doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, Paul Feyerabend, in "Against Method", noted that a lot of progress in science has hardly been "scientific".
3. An all-powerful, all-knowing God can create however God desires! Why does God have to use evolution to create humans? Answer: God can do whatever God mysteriously wants, just like a painter can paint a picture in whatever non-scientific way they want to. The painter may make sketches, but it's not clear to me that they "evolve" each painting by growing each tree in the ground before "planting" it in their pictures. God is the Supreme Artist (The Creator) who non-scientifically creates. Evolutionary theory constrains God's freedom to create as God wishes. Put it this way, "Why COULDN'T God create the world non-scientifically, non-evolutionarily?"
4. You can have evolutionary theists, but you can't have creationist atheists. For that reason, I think that creationism and theism go hand in hand more, and that atheism and evolution go hand in hand more. The ongoing impulse to physically describe how the universe started is a scientific one, rather than acknowledging the mysterious ways of God. Evolutionary theism tries to make rational the divine rationality of God and is perhaps as impossible as an ant trying to understand the intelligence of a human being. Evolutionary theory makes us look at God's Creation in a different way and threatens to make it seem random rather than deliberate, arbitrary rather than magnificent, and subject to deterministic scientific development rather than the free creation of a Spirit's will. Evolution threatens to make more and more of God's creation deterministic (out of God's direct control) and makes us think of God as being an inactive observer rather than a fervent participant.
5. Evolution has never been PROVEN to be true or correct, which points to our freedom to believe otherwise. Even Richard Dawkins, top evolutionary atheist, admits this in the creationist film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Dawkins said that he was "99% sure that God doesn't exist". Contrarily, theists feel the opposite, that they're 99% sure that God DOES exist. Anyway, that 1% of uncertainty is [paradoxical] proof that God's existence is neither proven nor disproved, strictly speaking, as is true with evolution. So when a creationist says, "I believe there's probably some unknown explanation for why your scientific evolutionary theory is wrong", that would be about as fair to say as an atheist a few hundred years ago who would say, "I believe evolution to be right, but I don't know the reasons yet…". Maybe if we were more "open-minded", we could see that explanations could arise in the future to refute evolutionary theory. And indeed plenty of super-natural solutions have already been proposed about the mysterious powers of spirits. Yet, the scientific community has become materialistic and denies that there can be any such thing as "spiritual powers". Spiritual powers still sound quasi-scientific even though quite natural powers like electricity weren't even known about hundreds of years ago. So, just because we don't know a power exists, just like we don't know (strictly speaking) that God exists, doesn't mean that spiritual powers or an unknown physical power like electricity doesn't exist.
Bibliography:
1. Hume's Problem of Induction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
2. Expelled: No Intelligence in the Classroom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
3. Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method": http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm
2. Hume's Problem of Induction: Just because we've consistently seen white swans throughout our lives, why couldn't there be a black swan? Or green, or blue? Just because we have the evolutionary theory today doesn't mean that a better theory couldn't triumph tomorrow. Hume's problem of induction also makes it impossible to say that, with any confidence, the "laws" of the universe were exactly the same in the past as they were today. So, since the "laws" of the universe aren't known to be inflexible, an all-powerful God could change how things operate over time. Perhaps there was a different biological reality prior to the Fall of Mankind in Genesis in the Bible, one of immortality, and then things were altered when Man biologically ate the tree in the Garden of Eden - maybe it was physical mortal poison, while other foods were immortal foods. Atheists reject any idea of God having super-natural powers because of the limited powers of their own scientific method of pursuing truth, but just because something isn't discovered using the scientific method doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, Paul Feyerabend, in "Against Method", noted that a lot of progress in science has hardly been "scientific".
3. An all-powerful, all-knowing God can create however God desires! Why does God have to use evolution to create humans? Answer: God can do whatever God mysteriously wants, just like a painter can paint a picture in whatever non-scientific way they want to. The painter may make sketches, but it's not clear to me that they "evolve" each painting by growing each tree in the ground before "planting" it in their pictures. God is the Supreme Artist (The Creator) who non-scientifically creates. Evolutionary theory constrains God's freedom to create as God wishes. Put it this way, "Why COULDN'T God create the world non-scientifically, non-evolutionarily?"
4. You can have evolutionary theists, but you can't have creationist atheists. For that reason, I think that creationism and theism go hand in hand more, and that atheism and evolution go hand in hand more. The ongoing impulse to physically describe how the universe started is a scientific one, rather than acknowledging the mysterious ways of God. Evolutionary theism tries to make rational the divine rationality of God and is perhaps as impossible as an ant trying to understand the intelligence of a human being. Evolutionary theory makes us look at God's Creation in a different way and threatens to make it seem random rather than deliberate, arbitrary rather than magnificent, and subject to deterministic scientific development rather than the free creation of a Spirit's will. Evolution threatens to make more and more of God's creation deterministic (out of God's direct control) and makes us think of God as being an inactive observer rather than a fervent participant.
5. Evolution has never been PROVEN to be true or correct, which points to our freedom to believe otherwise. Even Richard Dawkins, top evolutionary atheist, admits this in the creationist film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Dawkins said that he was "99% sure that God doesn't exist". Contrarily, theists feel the opposite, that they're 99% sure that God DOES exist. Anyway, that 1% of uncertainty is [paradoxical] proof that God's existence is neither proven nor disproved, strictly speaking, as is true with evolution. So when a creationist says, "I believe there's probably some unknown explanation for why your scientific evolutionary theory is wrong", that would be about as fair to say as an atheist a few hundred years ago who would say, "I believe evolution to be right, but I don't know the reasons yet…". Maybe if we were more "open-minded", we could see that explanations could arise in the future to refute evolutionary theory. And indeed plenty of super-natural solutions have already been proposed about the mysterious powers of spirits. Yet, the scientific community has become materialistic and denies that there can be any such thing as "spiritual powers". Spiritual powers still sound quasi-scientific even though quite natural powers like electricity weren't even known about hundreds of years ago. So, just because we don't know a power exists, just like we don't know (strictly speaking) that God exists, doesn't mean that spiritual powers or an unknown physical power like electricity doesn't exist.
Bibliography:
1. Hume's Problem of Induction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
2. Expelled: No Intelligence in the Classroom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
3. Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method": http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
PA Texting Ban Lamentable
Recently, Tom Cobett (the governor of PA) signed legislation that will make it illegal to text message while driving a motor vehicle. I hope that many are outraged and saddened that America is quickly and incrementally becoming more of a police state where the government runs each individual's life rather than serve as a protector of essential liberties. Texting itself while driving is not the problem or issue here, but rather our concern should be inattention to the road and a failure to teach and practice safe driving. It is a shame that such innocuous things like texting while stopped at a red light will become illegal. This policy will be hard for police to justly enforce: for instance, what is the visual difference between a person toggling songs on a music player or the radio and a person who is texting? If this law is just tacked on to crashes that come from texting, all they will do is add insult to injury, rather than seek compassionate healing to offended parties. They will not have prevented the crash in those cases. This pass in legislation only serves to create more paranoia in honest citizens who seek to exercise their God-given liberties and to put burdens on the young who have already adapted to this technological development and enjoy using it. It and similar laws should be opposed by PA residents.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
"Tactile Deficiency Disorder"
We are "out of touch" with reality. The healing power of touch is in much neglect today. Cases of people on the verge of suicide who have been revived simply by feeling the touch of another human being attest to the sustaining power of touch. That we have such a distorted view of the sense of touch today is evident in considering that if I were to say that "I want to touch you" that immediately such a suggestion has negative, immoral, sexual connotations. Yet, in our predominantly audio-visual world, the sense of touch is still VERY IMPORTANT and a life without a sufficient sense of healthy, loving touches is certainly a recipe for disaster.
To the list of "disorders" we could give names to, we could probably also add some other senses like taste and smell. I think generally I remember a more widespread appreciation of the sense of taste in the past, as in giving greater focus and attention to what one was eating. We are perhaps living in such a fast-paced world that we are unable to slow down and appreciate some of these senses and sensations and have mono-culturized our consciousness.
Perhaps a greater sense of loving touch could be used to help with many mental disorders, such as schizophrenia where a person has lost or a distorted connection to the world. Yet, I emphasize the need for LOVING TOUCH, because touch can be used as a weapon of violation and be used to exacerbate emotional wounds. Touch loosens muscles and relaxes the body-mind-spirit.
The power of touch is probably beyond our current scientific understanding; it is a total movement which, when broken down and analyzed, cannot do justice to the full scope of the power of touch. It is sufficient to learn to use it and appreciate its power. Even in sales, the experience of touching another person creates a greater sense of trust and a feeling of less likelihood of being harmed. I would contend that a greater appreciation of the sense of social touch would make it more difficult for people to be prone to violence in the world. It is much easier to harm someone you have not touched or experienced, but harder if you compassionately feel with your senses that another person feels just like you do; it seems like a great curative for narcissism and psychopathology.
Our culture has become touch-averse and it is important that we reflect on the different choices we are making in reaction to the new technological and social developments in our lives. In the Bible, in Romans 16:16 St. Paul wrote, "Greet each other with a holy kiss." It is amazing today that even among Christians and a Christian nation that there is such a shying away from the sense of touch.
So, the next time someone says, "this needs a touch of..." maybe you will think about the literal meaning of the metaphorical statement. Maybe we all need a little "touch of touch".
To the list of "disorders" we could give names to, we could probably also add some other senses like taste and smell. I think generally I remember a more widespread appreciation of the sense of taste in the past, as in giving greater focus and attention to what one was eating. We are perhaps living in such a fast-paced world that we are unable to slow down and appreciate some of these senses and sensations and have mono-culturized our consciousness.
Perhaps a greater sense of loving touch could be used to help with many mental disorders, such as schizophrenia where a person has lost or a distorted connection to the world. Yet, I emphasize the need for LOVING TOUCH, because touch can be used as a weapon of violation and be used to exacerbate emotional wounds. Touch loosens muscles and relaxes the body-mind-spirit.
The power of touch is probably beyond our current scientific understanding; it is a total movement which, when broken down and analyzed, cannot do justice to the full scope of the power of touch. It is sufficient to learn to use it and appreciate its power. Even in sales, the experience of touching another person creates a greater sense of trust and a feeling of less likelihood of being harmed. I would contend that a greater appreciation of the sense of social touch would make it more difficult for people to be prone to violence in the world. It is much easier to harm someone you have not touched or experienced, but harder if you compassionately feel with your senses that another person feels just like you do; it seems like a great curative for narcissism and psychopathology.
Our culture has become touch-averse and it is important that we reflect on the different choices we are making in reaction to the new technological and social developments in our lives. In the Bible, in Romans 16:16 St. Paul wrote, "Greet each other with a holy kiss." It is amazing today that even among Christians and a Christian nation that there is such a shying away from the sense of touch.
So, the next time someone says, "this needs a touch of..." maybe you will think about the literal meaning of the metaphorical statement. Maybe we all need a little "touch of touch".
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Old New Word: "Ambivert" - Between Introverted, Extroverted
Ambivert - between introverted and extroverted, with qualities of both.
I found this in "30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary" by Dr. Wilfred Funk & Norman Lewis, Copyright 1942 and 1970!
Ahh, the joy of archaic words. There are whole treasure troves of them out there to be found in old dictionaries!
I found this in "30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary" by Dr. Wilfred Funk & Norman Lewis, Copyright 1942 and 1970!
Ahh, the joy of archaic words. There are whole treasure troves of them out there to be found in old dictionaries!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
