So It Appears Darwin (and Mom) Was Right

Recently, there was a discussion of beauty and cosmetics usage, etc. on Sarah's blog, which I found really interesting. So I thought I would post some ideas on the subject today. I've been doing a bit of research on this subject myself, through literature on Natural Hygiene and a couple of lectures and books by genetic psychologists and researchers. I'll try to keep what I've learned fairly brief, with the hopes that I don't leave too much background information out that might hinder understanding. Cos, let me tell you, what I've learned has been surprising.

Hygienically speaking, authorities on Natural Hygiene agree that one of the conditions of optimal health is aesthetic enjoyment--the love of beauty and being beautiful. Making ourselves beautiful and enjoying beauty around us IS delightful and natural to us. I personally believe that's why, as a society, we seem so preoccupied with diet, exercise, tanning, clothes, etc. I believe that deep down in we KNOW we should be the picture of health and beauty (even though we might go about this in really unhealthy and synthetic ways).  

As it turns out, there is genetic evidence for our desire to be beautiful, and our species is pretty specific about what constitutes human beauty. In his book, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright gives us a scholarly description of the criteria for human beauty, which, by the way, is programmed right into our genes. (Despite its intellectual density, this book is a stunner and very revealing. I plan to write more about what I'm learning later.) The findings in Wright's book are supported by some lectures I attended several months ago. 

Before I proceed, I realize that the information I am sharing might be surprising and, in some ways, unsettling, owing to our current cultural values. I admit I was caught by surprise, since on the surface it seems so frighteningly retrogressive. But this is why I want to share it with you. However, this book is extremely well-researched and well-documented and is considered authoritative reading for students of evolutionary psychology. In fact, it's been required reading in universities.  I do hope you'll read on and share your impressions. And if you're so inclined, pick up a copy of the book and read for yourself what genetic research has uncovered.

Since the fundamental objectives of all living species are survival and reproductive success, all species have adapted certain desirable traits to attract and, in certain cases retain, reproductive partners, as well as to ensure survival. (Whether we want to admit it or not, attractive members of society do get a bigger slice of the proverbial pie--genetics helps to ensure this.) We humans are no different, and as it turns out, we are quite specific about what we instinctively (and mostly unconsciously) prefer in a mate.  The following are some highlights, beginning with physical characteristics and then touching on some emotional ones. 

Please note that I am speaking in highly generalized and simplified terms and NOT about any one particular person or group of people here!

While our species has specific ideas about human beauty and attractiveness, they are sexually differentiated; that is, men have their ideas about beauty and attractiveness and women have theirs. They are not alike, but they go hand-in-hand. So, I'll break each description down along gender lines.  But, first, let's start with some common, universal principles. 

What both genders look for in mates

All humans--male and female--are genetically attracted to people who give the impression of genetic fitness. (Apparently, the genes are receptive to being fooled--judicious deception genetically instilled as well.) We naturally incline toward mates who appear healthy and anatomically symmetrical and who seem up to the task of producing and raising healthy offspring. This is regardless of whether you want children or whether you are beyond childbearing years. 

Likewise, we are universally repelled by any overt physical attributes that indicate genetic "unfitness" which might be passed on to offspring--acne and other skin conditions, disease, bad teeth, body odor, offensive bodily noises, deformity, etc. That "ick" response we sometimes feel toward certain people is genetically, not socially, driven.

Both males and females, too, are in search of lifelong mates, since we are a "pair-bonding" species; so genetically generated emotional and psychological elements come into play, too. Specifically, males look for faithful wives and females look for trustworthy husbands, and both genders look for respectability (for themselves and in each other); for these are what humans for millenia have found to ensure long term survival and reproductive success. 

Women's Perspective: What constitutes male beauty and attractiveness?

In general, women are attracted to men with shapely torsos--broad shoulders and chests and slim waists. Women are enormously attracted to--get this--a scruffy appearance (Dr McDreamy?), but only during ovulation; otherwise they want men to look well-groomed and respectable (how ever the society in which they live defines them). Women look for things that indicate a man's prowess, strength, and virility (ie, his ability to protect and provide in the literal sense), as well those things that amplify his "maleness"--thicker, coarser skin, face and body hair, the smell of pheromones, large hands, etc.

Now, an interesting thing about females is that they seem only to be sexually attracted to these traits in three-dimensional form--he's gotta be in person. Male beauty shown in two-dimensional form, as in magazines and photos, do nothing for females. Not so for males--they get excited for the female form in ANY medium they can get it! 

Another notable characteristic of female tastes is that she is very flexible with her man's physical appearance, because she's got many more things to concern herself with when choosing her mate. "Beauty," for a woman is also emotionally driven. Her #1 criterion is his trustworthiness. Is he really who he presents himself as? He is harboring unseen disease? Will he stick around? Male parental investment (MPI) is foremost in her mind. This can be explained by the very obvious fact that she only has one egg a year (contrast with billions of sperm a man has) that could possibly materialize as a child, followed by a lifetime of personal investment. So, she HAS to be choosy. This explains why, compared to men, women are more coy and less eager for sex (enjoyable as it is...). (The book has a lot to say about casual sex, but I'll save that for another time.)

Furthermore, a man has to do a LOT of convincing that he will not wander emotionally. While sexual infidelity is highly undesirable, woman tend to feel most threatened by emotional abandonment, which she rarely, if ever, can forgive.  So--ingeniously--one adaptation females have accepted and encouraged in males is that of showing male emotional fidelity is by plying women with gifts and whispering sweet nothings into their ears. These, in fact, can override practically any physical "beauty" flaw a man might have.   

Male Perspective: What constitutes female beauty and attractiveness?

Robert Wright describes the genetically driven preferences of males, too. He writes that men instinctively seek out women who are younger (longer reproductive potential), although the mere appearance of youth can overcome chronological age (Remember, genes--and humans, as it turns out--aren't averse to being fooled, so long as there's a pay-off); thus, providing strong incentive to, and justification for, women to persist in their quest for beauty no matter what age or circumstance.

Two physical features that indicate a woman's youth are large eyes and a small nose. Evidently, eyes appear smaller and the nose appears larger age we age. ...Didn't know that! I guess that explains the rush to makeup counters and plastic surgeons! 

Another potent reason to be tempted to rush to the cosmetics counter is this thing called "cryptic ovulation." Now, admittedly, this is pure deception at its best, but deception is not a no-no when it comes to attracting and retaining a mate, genetically speaking. Males are especially attracted to women when they are ovulating. This is apparent physically--the color of women's irises deepen, lips go plump, cheeks go rosy, breasts swell, etc. Well, women's genes impel women to "fool" men into thinking they are ovulating even when they aren't, by making women decorate themselves so they appear to be ovulating (hence the term, cryptic ovulation). After all, a guy doesn't consciously know a woman is ovulating unless she tells him! Women having been using this trick since time immemorial, and we're no different today. If you take a look at the types of cosmetics women use, you can readily see that what women are doing is emphasizing those very features that intensify during ovulation: mascara and eyeliner to enlarge and define the eyes, blush to, well, "blush" the cheeks, lipstick to plump and redden the lips, even push-up bras to make the bosom appear perky! So, apparently, there is some deeper genetic rationale going on here...

The other enormous physical appeal is a woman's sensuality--that is, her ability to inspire a man's touch. It doesn't necessarily matter what a woman's weight or shape are (unless they're a gross indication of genetic unfitness), but whether she's "touchable." Especially appealing is touching the curve where her waist and hips meet, and the hips themselves (who knew?) and caressing her smooth, soft skin. (Mental note: pick up that new moisturizer at the store!)

There are emotional and psychological aspects to male attraction as well. The absolutely essential requirement is a woman's demonstration of fidelity--that she won't screw around (and therefore confuse him as to which kids he's supposed to love and provide for). Like women have adapted "anti-deception" genes, men have adapted "anti-cuckholdry" genes that are VERY strong. They reflect on his status, power, and respectably, not to mention his parental role (again, genetically driven impulses). 

Studies show that for a man, an unfaithful mate is THE worst of all repulsion. So, in addition to physical beauty, a woman must demonstrate character traits that convince a man that she'll remain faithful. He looks for modesty and signs of complete, long term devotion to him. Extensive research reveals that dressing modestly and  possessing a "delightful demeanor" toward the male, and to a certain extent toward others (since it is an indication of marital harmony and happiness), are the most potent signs of fidelity. 

Now here's the rub: studies show that when a woman dresses provocatively and shows aggressive body language, males will be attracted, BUT they will moderate the amount of long term investment in the relationship. The same studies show that, when an entire society of women start dressing provocatively and behaving aggressively, they actually influence the amount of investment the men commit as a whole, sending the society into the vortex of increasingly casual sex and decreasingly male marital and parental investment, as well as contributing to social violence. I'm not kidding! 

Of course, this appears to put the onus on women,; but on the flip-side, it shows how much practical influence and power they have in their society...

What I've included here are some specific features that humans find are associated with beauty and attractiveness. But, as you can see, there is a lot of room for cultural interpretation. For example, each society decides for itself what "dressy modestly," "behaving demurely," and "demonstrating trustworthiness" means. And each woman has to decide what devices she'll employ when nature calls cryptic ovulation into play. 

To these ends, as Natural Hygienists, this is where we center our discussions. It's not so much should we beautify and attract--nature already determined that for us; but rather what methods do we find acceptable? Is it "hygienic" to use synthetic makeup and grooming products? [Probably not, if we consider only aspects of physical health, but not so clear if we are suddenly faced with marital crisis...] Moreover, to what extent and frequency of usage do they contribute to our natural impulses without becoming pathological (this is where self-esteem issues come into play)? And how do we pass this delicate balance on to our children? 

And this isn't just a topic for female hygienists, either. After all...how many male hygienists do you know who don't shave? 

What I am coming to conclude is that what matters is highly personal and relative. Each of us arrives at what we find is conducive to our comfort and survival/thrival. And I suppose it will always be a sliding scale, being subtly adjusted as from circumstance to circumstance.

I would really love to hear your input on this topic. Please share with me your ideas!   

Practical Matters: My Fasting Feet

I've noticed a difference in the condition of my feet for some time now, and I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience.

My feet have always been a sore spot with me. They have always been dry and calloused, and I suffered from fissures (deep, dry cracked heels). Not a pretty site, if you ask me! I've worked hard keeping them looking and feeling good, in hopes of turning them into one of my "good" features. It was a lot of hard and constant work to get and keep them in good shape, and I met with some success. Uh...Don't get me wrong. My feet aren't, like, ugly, washer-woman feet or anything. They're pretty decent, looking, except for the dryness and fissures, which I've had to work at to keep under control. (I've tried taking photos of them, so you can see what I mean. But for some reason the photos blacken my toenails. So, I don't have a photo to share yet.)

Well, then, about two years ago, I did my first ever 3-day fast. And I noticed afterward that the fissures had gone away. I concluded that it probably was due to the fact that I had pretty much stayed off my feet for three days and didn't wear shoes during that time.  After several weeks, though, the fissures gradually returned. I experienced this same thing last year, when I did another 3-day fast: three-day fast = disappearing fissures (for a time).

Then, this past November I did an extended fast (just shy of 30 days), and once again, the fissures disappeared. The difference is that this time they haven't returned. That's 5 months running with no fissures! My feet are smooth and soft and normal-looking! 

I could be wrong, but I think there's a pattern here. Somehow fasting is improving the condition of my feet. I read once that poor conditions of the feet are connected with the minerals we eat (or not). The explanation went: minerals are tied to our hormones, and our hormones are tied to the condition of our feet. Or something like that. I've searched for the article, but haven't been able to find it. This is all tied to fasting in that fasting, in addition to many other things, helps to restore the body's mineral balance.  So that's how I've concluded that fasting is improving the condition of my feet.

So, have any of you experienced anything like this? 

One of those eureka moments

First off, it's been a while since I've posted. I think I've been incubating, a lot has been on my mind, lately. I think that's what Natural Hygiene does--it creates great awareness and, sometimes, some really incredible epiphanies--But I'm back and hopefully will be posting with greater frequency.

Secondly, thanks to everyone who has commented or emailed me privately. While I started this blog for my own benefit, it's nice to see that maybe it's helpful to others. For those of you who have been emailing me privately, I am doing my best to reply. So, if you haven't heard from me yet, please be patient. I've committed to getting caught up very soon.

Finally, I've had a bit of a eureka moment that I wanted to share with you. Maybe you'll be able to contribute your thoughts.

I was introduced to Natural Hygiene in the 1990s and it didn't catch my attention at all. It wasn't until 2000 that I stumbled on it again and I was captivated. Sometimes I wish that I would have paid attention to it when I was first introduced to it, cos I fancy that I would be so much further along with it. My first rejection of it has been on my mind and I've been wondering why it didn't "take" with me the first time around. But I think I've realized why.

If you take a look at some of the Natural Hygiene websites, books, etc., the photos of the people look really bad.  Most look emaciated and aged, and although they are smiling and seem to be happy, they don't present a very appealing endorsement for Natural Hygiene, in my opinion. These were among the first glimpses I had of Natural Hygiene and I didn't find it very appealing. I still don't. 

But these types of Hygienists, for the most part, I believe, are stuck in a particular phase of Natural Hygiene--the breaking down part, called catabolism. They seem to emphasize fasting, losing weight, and other aspects of ridding the body of ill-health, but they seem to ignore the building, or anabolic, aspects.  So, they look weak, aged, thin, ashen, and really quite un-healthy. (Later, I discovered other equally unappealing off-shoot groups, so-called hygienists who have the "medical mentality" and prescribe supplements, super-foods, magical foods, like chocolate, etc., which I won't go into). After a little investigation, I learned that there are hygienists out there who believe the hallmark of Natural Hygiene is fasting and catabolism to almost the exclusion of everything else. Apparently, at some point in the evolution of Natural Hygiene, fasting was in vogue, so many people came to believe that the secret attaining was health was in fasting only. 

Believe me, I think fasting is important. I've done a couple of beneficial fasts myself. But the beauty of 'true' Natural Hygiene is it's balanced approach to health, which includes not only fasting and the breaking down of ill-health but also (and more importantly?) health building. Sure, it's important to rid the body of toxins, inferior tissues, etc., but it's equally important to get to the stage of building the body up. To creating fitness and beauty. This is the part that captured my attention in my second introduction to Natural Hygiene and which really pulses with me.  

That's why I was glad when I came upon the teachings of Doug Graham in early 2000. (Excuse the huge plug, but Doug is who really turned me on to Natural Hygiene) Doug promotes a more balanced approach to health where both breaking down and building up play important roles. If you've read any of Doug's books or heard his presentations, you'll see that he works very hard to get people to the stage of building health. He's practically the only hygienist I know who does this. And if you look at him and the people he's coached, you'll readily see the difference. No emaciated people here! They are fit, well-muscled, and glowing--true examples of the hygienic way of life. 

It is so exciting to get up each day with great anticipation for building health. It's a lot more fun, too. I never thought I'd ask myself questions like, "How can I eat more (raw) calories, so I can exercise more?" And "How can I get fitter and stronger?" And "How can I get MORE sleep, and MORE relaxation, and MORE recreation and sunshine?" My former self was always looking for ways to better restrain myself and harness my natural impulses. Not so anymore! Yay!

So, I can see why some people have been turned off by Natural Hygiene, like I was in the beginning. If all they know of it is fasting and denial, and so-called 'cures' and 'therapies', then they are bound to be disappointed and turned off. For me, the Natural Hygiene lightbulb turned on when I realized that true health isn't about denial, but about all this incredible, healthful abundance! (And the beautiful bodies didn't hurt, either!) 

Food for Water

Recently, I went through a couple of days when I was so ravenous that it seemed I couldn't get enough food. All I wanted to do was eat. Even after a meal, I found myself mentally rifling through the kitchen...What can I eat? What can I eat? Finally, for some reason, instead of eating something, I chugged a large glass of water. And you know what? My body prompted me to drink more and more water! After about a liter in all, I was satisfied and....I wasn't hungry anymore! So, all long, what I thought was hunger was actually thirst. I had mistaken my thirst for hunger. 

I doubt I am the only person who has ever done this. And I'm certain this wasn't the first time I ever did this either. So, it got me wondering why I could have confused the two impulses. I came up with a couple of theories about the correlation between thirst and hunger. Tell me what you think.

First, even though we've been taught that hunger is a stomach sensation, true hunger is experienced in the back of the throat near the thirst center; and both true hunger and thirst sensations are characterized by dull pangs.  So it might be that we can easily mistake one for the other.  

Oh, in case you're wondering, those sensations that we take as indications of hunger--stomach pangs, stomach grumblings, moodiness, lethargy, fatigue, thoughts of and cravings for food, etc., are actually impulses coming from food addictions, 'cause, if you notice, when your stomach growls and you decide to eat something, you seek out something in particular. Not just any old food will do. [Doesn't your inner dialog usually go something like this: Hungry, you say? Here eat some lettuce...No, I'm thinking maybe a brownie will do the trick.]   

Another reason is that, anatomically and biologically, humans aren't water drinkers, so, we're not 'programmed' to seek out water. I know this sounds strange, but it's true. If you consider our anatomy alone, you can see that we don't have the anatomy of water drinking creatures--no long textured tongue to lap water from a stream, and no ultra short legs to conveniently and safely put our mouths close to the natural water source. For humans to drink water safely and conveniently in nature, we need to have a cup or other vessel to gather the water and then drink it. And cups don't grow in nature. Or else, we could tip the dew collected on leaves into our mouths, but we'd have to tip an awful lot of leaves to get a decent amount of water.

Like other primates, humans in nature get their water from the foods they eat--fruits and leafy vegetation.  No primate naturally drinks water. Fruits and leafy vegetation are something like 70-90% water, so it stands to reason that, in a natural setting and eating a diet of our biological adaptation, our thirst would be satisfied at the same time we're eating.  So, could it be that when our bodies put out signals for thirst they prompt us to go seek out food, since that is where, for millions of years, we got our water? 

These are just theories, but the next time you get hungry try experimenting with drinking a glass of water first. Maybe you're just thirsty. 

Words of Encouragement

Alright, so from the start of this entry, it's gonna sound pretty cerebral. Just hang in there with me for a moment and, hopefully, all will make sense. 

One of the hallmarks of Western culture is its penchant for "individualism"--the conviction that by concentrating on developing the unique rights and talents of each individual, the outcome will be a healthy community. This idea is in contrast with "communal" societies, which believe that the way to a healthy individual is by promoting, first and foremost, the health of the collective group. [Whoa! Don't let your eyes glaze over just yet! Kinda complex, I know, but I won't get too technical.]

One thing sociologists and psychologists agree on is that our version of individualism is becoming pathological (disease-inducing), because taken to the extreme, individualism is leading many to intense feelings of isolation. Our penchant for individual uniqueness has mistakenly led us to believe we're each in this life alone. Consequently, we feel uncomfortable admitting our own limitations and reluctant to ask others for help and encouragement.  

This type of pathological individualism fails to take two things into consideration: One is that, hands down, behind every successful individual is a host of people who has helped that person succeed. Successful people heartily acknowledge they freely depend on others to get them where they want to be. 

Another is that, instinctively, humans are communal animals. By design, we are gregarious creatures and, not coincidentally, all of human culture is transmitted by teaching. What that means is that the tools necessary for humans to survive--and thrive--are taught to us by people around us. Without others passing on their knowledge, sharing their experiences and expertise, and offer themselves up as role models, human culture as we know it would come to a screeching halt. 

More than that, scholars are coming to identify what makes human beings uniquely human: it's our ability to offer each other encouragement. As it turns out, no other primate has this ability. So, if that is true, doesn't that smack in the face of pathological individualism? I mean, shouldn't we all be giving and receiving an awful lot more encouragement?

I think this is all the more necessary for those of us who are attempting to forge a new and different path, who are opting out of the existing "SAD" way of life with hopes of creating a healthier way of life. With respect to the hygienic way of life, what I find so challenging is that there isn't an available social network in my immediate midst to encourage me onward, to lead by example, to inspire me and help me keep my canoe afloat. At this stage of the Natural Hygiene 'movement,' our social network is far-flung. There just isn't an established community of like-minded people right here that I can easily turn to. In fact, quite the opposite is true. At practically every moment, my social instincts are yanking me (and others, to be sure) back into the direction of unhealthful patterns of behavior. 

All of us, hygienists and not, want very much to be held in high regard; we want to show our affiliation to the group. But without a tangible like-minded group, how do we satisfy these needs? Opportunities to "see" healthful living in action, and to glean healthful behaviors by some kind of osmosis, too, are few and far between. 

Of course, this predicament isn't true only for natural hygienists, but for anyone who is trying to forge something different for themselves in the midst of seeming protests and resistance from loving family and friends. This, added to pathological individualism, makes for quite a challenge, to say the least!

So, what can we do? A solution came to me last night as I was falling off to sleep. We--each of us--have to play our 'encouragement' cards. We have to seek out opportunities to give and receive words of encouragement, so we all can feel much more secure, confident, and connected. It really doesn't matter if people are on the same path. That isn't a criterion. Only kind words of encouragement are. I'm not referring to that fluffy, candy-cotton junky kind of flattery that we're so used to hearing today. I'm talking about helping each other clarify our positive qualities and character traits: "Oh Debra, I really admire the discipline you bring to your karate practice." You can give that kind of approval without know a stitch about karate, can't you? You can solicit such encouragement from others, too...right?

Don't you see these abilities in yourself? When a friend or family member turns to you for advice or emotional support, doesn't your mind immediately go into overdrive thinking of ways you can help, even if you might not possibly understand fully what they're facing?

I consider this to be one of the essential steps to emotional poise. Each of us has to make it a priority to give and gracefully receive kind strokes and words of encouragement, regardless of the path each of us is on. I regard this as a basic human right and obligation. After all, it IS what makes us undeniably human. So, why deny each other something so basic?

Yeah, it's hard to confide in someone our inner most fears and weaknesses, and our special dreams and aspirations. And it seems nearly impossible to solicit encouragement, doesn't it? We're putting our most vulnerable selves out there for the world to see. In addition, because most of us are so unpracticed, it might seem awkward just to walk up to someone and freely give them our approval. But, consider the alternative: How is NOT taking these steps helpful to anyone? Who benefits? No one, that's who!

So, I'm a-thinkin' that...instead of single-mindedly steering my own canoe...it might not hurt if I take some time out of my day to give a little nudge to the canoes next to me. And, maybe, just maybe, some of the paddlers will give me a nudge in return, and on and on and on... 

     

Whose in charge of the paddles??

Okay, before I go off on this zeitgeist, imagine this: me and a hundred monkeys, like these fellas here, in my canoe, all fighting over control of the paddles... You know, sometimes it's just not clear whose steering my canoe...

Oh, what a week I've had! I've been faced with challenges that I won't go into here, but suffice it to say, it has definitely steered my canoe to today's topic: emotional poise.

Emotional poise is what I consider to be one of the "biggies" of the conditions of optimum health, yet it is one of the less-defined, or should I say, less universally specific conditions of health. Each of us has our own unique challenges when it comes to emotional poise. 

In general, emotional poise deals with the way we respond to stressors in our lives and the amount and type of energy we bring to life's challenges. In a nutshell, it deals with one's mental/emotional outlook. 

For a long time, I believed that emotional poise was more or less an outcome of healthful living, and to a certain extent it is: Doing all the right outward things that lead to health--eating right, exercising, getting fresh air, sunshine, sleep, etc.--somehow do naturally lead to a more serene inner life. But then, I had a lightbulb moment. It occurred to me that the achievement of emotional poise is also an "end" in itself. It doesn't just magically happen as a consequence of healthful living, it is one of the oh-so-critical steps to achieving health. That is, just as I set aside time each day to plan my meals and exercise, I must also make time to hone my skills for handling stress and other mental/emotional aspects of my life.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that I have an obligation to bring the healthiest emotional "me" to everything I do.

I cringe when I think about the amount of time and energy I've wasted thinking the worst of myself and the burden it has put on myself (and others). I mean, what right did I have complaining to everyone around me about my unshapely thighs?? Or that I thought my boss was picking on me? Or ungraciously rejecting a compliment? Or--my specialty--subtly putting a damper on a potentially great time because I felt self-conscious in that particular situation?

If I had had a better handle on emotional poise, I would have realized that I had an absolute obligation to bring my supreme best to every situation I found myself in, and that by doing so, I could have effected much healthier and happier outcomes for all concerned.

Oh, believe me, I 'm still working on this one! But I'm seeing more clearly that I have complete control over the monkeys on my back. In fact, I'm just now realizing that I'm the one who put them there! Consequently, only "I" can turn circumstances around and work those monkeys to healthy advantage at every moment. 

Not only that--and I'm going out on a limb here--I've come to the conclusion that it is everyone's duty to get whatever help they need to correct their shortcomings the moment they rear themselves. For example, if my poor body image is a roadblock to living the life I'm meant to live, then I should face it head-on and throw all my efforts to correcting it, so that it's no longer a barrier to my living fully and authentically. 

Likewise, if I harbor resentments against people I believe are inhibiting my functioning fully, then I have to get at the bottom of it as quickly as I can, calling upon whatever resources are available to put a more positive, constructive bent on those relationships. Just as I throw myself (and my available resources) into discovering the best workout routine for my body type, and learning about the optimum diet, so, too, should I bring the same urgency and commitment to better handling my emotional stressors. For the sake of my health and the sanity of others, I am duty-bound to get those monkeys off my back. Well...at least get them to settle down so my canoe doesn't flip over...

To that end, I am currently re-reading a book, entitled "Feeling Good, The New Mood Therapy," by David D. Burns, MD (published in 1980, but recently reprinted). Dr. Burns, one of the developers of cognitive therapy, offers this very simple suggestion: Whenever you feel your mood shift into negativity, reflect back to the thoughts just prior to the shift and examine what you just mentality "said" to yourself. Dr. Burns contends that you'll find that it's not what just happened, but what you told yourself about what just happened, that caused your mood to shift into negativity. It's the defeatist spin you put on the thought or event that makes you feel out of control. 

Today, for instance, I am faced with having to dispute a bill I just received, that is two years old and is completely incorrect (involving $1000). So, when the thought of it popped into my head this morning, I immediately felt the impatience and, yes, rage, welling up in me. My emotions told me to respond this way, and they threatened to make for a very tense morning.  But upon reflection, I asked myself why I chose to react impatiently and ragefully? It's just a mistake, after all, and if I turn off the negativity tape that's playing in my head, I'll be able to bring the best "me" to the situation to effect a constructive, happy outcome. Intellectually, I know all will be well. It's just one of those lousy emotional monkeys rearing itself and attempting to finagle control...(hmmm, sorry if I'm mixing metaphors here!)

But not today! From here forward, I am going to do my best to take each monkey as it comes, and one by one, I'm going to knock him out of commission, cos it's getting awfully crowded in my little ol' canoe. Can't you just see it? Me and a hundred monkeys in this poor little canoe, all trying to wrest control of MY paddles (LOL)!!

I know I'll never get these blasted monkeys off my canoe, but I now realize that I have an obligation to do whatever it takes to hang on to the paddles!

What's for Dinner?

Yum! I can't wait for dinner today. I'm having 5 oranges and 2 cucumbers. This has been one of my favorite meals this whole season. Oranges are soooo sweet right now, and the cucumbers are cooling.

Of course, lunch isn't so bad either. I'm having lots and lots of sweet, creamy bananas and a pound of celery. To many people, I suppose it doesn't seem like this would be appetizing at all, especially since it's not followed by a sandwich or something. But, until you've tried it, you'll never know the supreme satisfaction a lunch of bananas, or a dinner of oranges, brings...

Every season I think Oh! this is my favorite season for fruit! This Winter my diet has been an combination of oranges, papayas, pineapple, bananas, and cucumbers, celery, and tomatoes (when I can get good ones). And I've loved every one of them that I've eaten. But then comes Spring with it's mangoes and strawberries and I get excited all over again.! You should have seen me at Christmastime with the tons and tons of persimmons I ate. Pure heaven.

So, what are you having for dinner tonight?