Date Reviewed: April 21, 2005
Subject: C2S Analysis
Reviewer: Natalia (Los Angeles)
Overall Rating [0-5stars]: 4 out of 5 stars
Overall [Sits Well In The Stomach] Agreement [0% (Disagree) to100% (Agree)]: 65-70%
Single Phrase Summary: "Unique and very interesting: Gives reason to the energies within human relationships"
So, I read the mini-book and found it really interesting.
I would say that overall, I would agree with you on most issues and on the
general idea of the energies that we absorb and reject. For instance, Lynn [a friend]
and I were discussing how we're both attracted to different types of men,
but how even in the moment where the physical energies seem to be right on
and in sync, if someone is arrogant or rude or mean or just boring, the
entire energy from them turns us right off. Simply from their energy and
how it affects us.
Conceptually and scientifically I think that you've got great concepts and
great formulas to prove them.
On the philosophical side, I don't know if you'll need to mention the
philosophies about what makes the self, or at least mention that these
formulas, theories etc. exists, but that you're not incorporating these
arguments because that isn't what you're trying to prove/disprove.
The only other thing that I think may influence your audience is that right
now the book seems to be right in the middle of being extremely conceptual
and extremely scientific. As a curious person, I took the time to go back
and forth and review the formulas and the factors etc., and really
understand how they apply. You'll have to accept that a percentage of your
audience won't be as interested in the formulas and how they apply and may
potentially get confused trying to remember all the factors. On the other
hand, there will be a percentage of your audience who will want to really
apply the science of your theories. Right now I think you're in the middle
- I don't know if this matters at all, or if it would be wise to go to one
extreme or the other.
Overall I really think you've got a great book going here and from what I hear,
there is a lot more information to back it up. It is really interesting.
Good job. And good luck!!
Date Reviewed: May 03, 2005
Subject: C2S Analysis
Reviewer: Mr. O (Chicago)
Overall Rating [0-5stars]: 4.25 out of 5 stars
Overall [Sits Well In The Stomach] Agreement [0% (Disagree) to100% (Agree)]: 90%
Single Phrase Summary: "HT has the potential to solve many of life's conundrums"
Arrogantly speaking, I’m a layman when it comes to chemistry. Conceptually I can comprehend most of the diagrams when laid out before me, but their validity is still in question because of my knowledge base on each particular topic. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting topic.
I particularly find the topic of symmetry interesting. It also reflects balance and how the human nature finds appeal in balance. For there to be balance, there has to be reference and measure to determine whether something is balanced or not. Therefore we can only look into things as being one with totality, a fragment of totality, or dual; meaning broken into two halves.
I agree with your statements on human orbitals for I've felt them south of the equator; strange to consciously take notice of that though.
Your writing style incorporates separation of thought; ex. the "2 sides" of people neurologically and physically. These survive through a symbiotic relationship where neither one could survive without the other. The mind controls the body supposedly, but do the body’s primitive instincts control the structure of human thought? Good question to ask. Can the body's primitiveness transcend societal and universal norms? Totality and awareness transcend duality. With awareness there is no separation. (p. 19)
Sometimes I feel that particles are taken, or internalized to have the same behavior of human beings. The chemical and particle orbitals that can relate to human orbitals seen from satellites. If I were to presume, I would probably guess that they were and are similar in movement. It just seems to me that a lot is invested in the "laws" or if point A is proven in a particular scenario then it must be true in another. Sometimes the fastest line from point A to B isn't always straight when in theory it obviously is (according to p. 22 and the diagrams that follow.)
I think that more has to be established between the understanding of the hypothetical diagrams and the relativity within human relationships; ex. it almost seems that you've taken experiences with your life or other's lives and drawn a diagram reinforcing the validity of the bond. I know this is all theory, but I feel that more continuity needs to be shown or proven. It's not an easy transition from science to scenario if you know what I mean. It's a rapid and sometimes drastic change of pace for the reader. (ex. end of diagrams p.23 and into p.24.)
p. 27 is confusing to me where you say that these people who lose bonds because of cessation need to "work" to re-stabilize following such a vacated absenteeism.
If molecules and humans work chemically; is this work involuntary, or voluntary?
p. 28 through p.29 holds a very good point in my opinion. These bond "ripples" or bond strengthenings do occur and can only be felt through experience. I think that the majority of the readers will relate to this principle or concept and that you'll create more of a human "bond" with the reader through this.
p. 30 brings a good point to mind. Does the bond missed with the parent give the individual that lost the parent more space to grow? Better stated; can this individual become smarter or have more room to grow more intelligent because of the void created with the broken bond? Interesting.
p. 32 check out the context of the usage of maternal grandfather: Did you mean that his grandfather mothered him? Or did you mean his grandmother? Was there a feminine bond between him and his grandfather? First paragraph: ‘free-floating' is a good metaphor for someone's ability to attach to whatever they want. Become influenced by what needs to be influential. Good stuff.
p. 32-5 bring a human aspect to your theories. I felt this lacked in the first quarter of the book, but the relationship between you and the reader is being closer knit by these examples in my opinion. If you could find a "balance" or totality throughout, the interest in the science would heighten and the reader wouldn't want to part with the science "fragment" for common bond or relativity to the humanistic stories. They wouldn't be able to skip over it and the scientific mind wouldn't skip over the humanistic aspect of story for lack of interest either. I feel that the focus should be on interweaving the "sides" so there's no recognizable difference. This would be great.
Shows a great reinforcement of topic before a "merge" in topic occurs. I think it's an appropriate placement for this "story" to be told.
"Star Wars Example"
I actually would categorize this as brilliant as a referral to popular culture and the relativity to this book. The ability to use parallels that can transcend cultural, economic, religious, and generational dynamics shows real potential to the topic and to your writing.
More humanistic bonding. Good examples and relativity to the topic. Can you see the trend occurring in my analysis of your dissertation? Of course I'm leaning towards the humanistic "side" rather than the scientific “factoids" This is my nature I suppose, but like I said earlier, try to interweave these things in harmony. I think you come on to strong with the basic foundation or principles in the beginning of the book. These are very important for comprehension, but I feel that sometimes it's like getting a sip of water through a fireman's hose. You can take in all the information if one is a layman. Just like someone couldn't take in all the water from the hose for a drink; a lot would poor out of the mind like water from the mouth.
I feel you do a fantastic job throughout the rest of the book until this point. Not including the foundation principles that is. I know they're necessary, but build upon them as the book goes. Don't just drop a bomb in the beginning of the book and expect the reader to be able to comprehend the entire piece of information regardless of your perspective of the information given. I know it might not seem like a lot of information to process for "you" on the topic and might be at the most basic level from your eyes. Use the same basis of information and the same depth. Just don't give it all at once. I even caught myself referring to the beginning of the book to decipher some of your diagrams. Just some constructive criticism.
p. 53 is a great question and is universal. Trying to explain this thermodynamically seems to be difficult. I think the explanation is a bit to vague or trite. I think some diagrams to explain would be good to incorporate through this concept. Good ideas though.
p. 54 is just a more "complex" paradigm in relation to its predecessors; good advancement and check for reader comprehension. You'll either gain a future reader or lose them here I predict.
p. 55 media transfers is what I've been waiting for. This is conceptual only. No physical contact needed. It's all an illusion. Interested in what you write. Disappointing but predictable. How can you measure something that only occurs through the conditioning of the sociological mind. The individual can only be measured through personal relationships. I feel that many people have a sub-conscious link, bond, or relationship with their inanimate television set. Strange.
p. 56 I typed before I even read the next section on inanimate objects. Great minds think alike!
p. 57 referring to the Mongolians and their perception of a mirror soul, look to my quote about spirit vs. soul on p. 4; ironically I'm part Mongolian, through ancestral rape of course.
p. 58 best line to define so far. A photo will not repel and will always look back proving the stronger bond between the living and living. Good stuff.
p. 59 I agree through experience here. It took me years to mend this watered down version of my "soul" to a point of understanding and cultivation. My number is no where near the majority of people my age, but for me happens to be many. Good topic of conversation. Try to elaborate more on the topic from the thermodynamic perspective. Good charts though.
p. 60 good question. I don't think thermodynamics will help, but we'll see. Not that it can't help certain individuals who can understand this concept; but I just feel that it can only be popular within certain circles. Awareness and education of self might help the masses though. Your thermodynamics is potentially a key point or "piece' of that totality that is awareness, harmony, balance, or whatever you want to label it as. Maybe simply understanding.
p. 61 I like the ( )'s following a successful judicial process. Nice stab. Where's that coming from? Good comical presence to the adherent reader though.
Good question: "Where is the kingdom of god?" I feel that we as human's can only conceive of what we are. "We only see the world as we are; rather than how it is." How can we see the world as it is? (quote is mine by the way). We can only react; right? Looking back on previous experience and using that as a measuring stick. Therefore the kingdom of god can only be an extension of our personal experience while explaining our thoughts; or answering rhetorically. Good question for the layman, I'm sure that you've got some pretty funny responses, like, (while pointing a finger towards the ceiling) up there. And so on and so forth. Good stuff.
p. 62 all of my responses are while I'm reading the text and before I've read the next page. Luke 17:21 says it better than I ever could. That’s exactly what I meant. Besides the biblical writing style and language filtration of course (by language filtration I mean the transversing from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin and finally to the Germanic languages). I think you'd be interested in the language transversion, but that's for another day. Be aware of literal translation of the bible. I know it says that the kingdom of god is within us all, but some readers might not take that as fact. Maybe not basing theory or practicing scientific method on these theoretical "sayings" or "principles" might be beneficial. Overall very good paraphrasing and relevance though.
Good research on Upanishads. Correct usage of the term within the Vedic religions. Interestingly enough, the Hindus believe that we're made of servedas (sp might be inaccurate) which are the life strands that 'bond' our being. After cessation these 'bonds' are broken and merge or mold with others that are in limbo as well. This limbo might be a parallel to what some Christian denominations call ' purgatory'. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is a brilliant work or worker to say the least. I like the fact that you've used this literary work to explain the Vedic religions. Good work. It states exactly what you're talking about and the relevance is unmatched. I guess it goes with the wise cliché of "your thoughts create your words, your words create your actions, and your actions create your character". Many people who are so far "enlightened" believe that desire is the last hurdle before nirvana. To detach from desire is to see the Buddha as some might say.
p. 63 maybe another good topic would be "original sin" or "created sin" the classic debate between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Catholics believe we're born with sin and many Protestants believe that this is acquired through experience and life in general. Look into that. It would be a good topic of debate within the text. Great explanation of the thermodynamically way to enlighten oneself. I think it holds 'weight' in this discussion. ha ha. I think the light as air brings reference to the layman after all of the previous parallels. Good point.
p. 64 good way to bring all 'sides' together metaphorically or maybe analogously. Is that even a word? By using analogies is what I'm referring to. Riddle of numbers is a fascinating topic. I’ve pondered it many times, but never thermodynamically. Maybe more spiritually and going on intuition without base of fact or summed knowledge. I think thermodynamics can explain a lot of these questions. Good contribution.
p. 65 good question on the measurement of soul or spirit between conception and three years of age. I can honestly say that I've never really tackled that topic. Maybe....through original sin lines, but you bring a different light to it. Interesting that the 22nd week is when a fetus can feel pain and that is when it can sin or have a soul. Why is it that 'we' always see pain as a justification of measure? Strange but true in many circumstances. Good question. When my mother died my senior year in high school, I could actually hear her voice call out my name in my sleep. This was approximately 3:45 AM and I rushed into the hospital room to see her vitals have failed. Explain that! I know she spoke to me through another mean and there was some energy transfer. How would I have known? Good topic.
p. 67 brings up a very good discussion point. Why do galaxies mesh? What is holding them together? Maybe another parallel would be; why do we all cluster into major cities? Why do we all collaborate in times of need? Why do ants live in colonies? I think we need these bonds to accumulate the proper energy needed for mutualism, symbiosis, and overall survival.
p. 68 my Tai Chi instructor explains "chi" or life force, like gravity. You feel it and you know it's there, but without acute awareness to the property; it can easily go for granted.
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon; don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all this heavenly glory" -- Bruce Lee. Meaning, don't concentrate on what things cost for your life, realize what they're worth. The finger might represent a planet or one person, but in "concentrating" on that one thing, all else would be missed. Concentration is the solid or rigidity of the mind. Awareness is fluid and all can then be seen. -- Mr. O. Lao Tzu said it best in the Tao Te Ching by saying that all of the universe can be understood by simply looking out your window. I think he's talking about these types of parallels.
p. 70 I like the question of freewill as you know. I particularly like the question of inanimate object's freewill. To look at this is to personify not only these objects, but ourselves. What's the difference between us and a rain drop if we can only react to stimulus that is also reacting to a previous stimulus and so on and so on? Is it all one chain reaction? Are we inanimate? I guess I'll figure it out when I die. In scenario (2) it might be mentally confusing but only when one fragments oneself to see these things only through the mind. I feel intelligence is the successful combination (or permutation in this case) of both intellect/logic and moral/ethical/emotional sides. The real question is: is the intellect/logic fully and completely conditioned in a reactionary response mode and are these emotions connected to its reactionary human mainframe whether on a micro/individual or macro/mankind level? Which influences which more the individual's projection on society or society's projection on the individual? Symmetry, balance, harmony, and awareness are the forefront to this question. Good research, good questions and an overall good read. I hope it's completed in a few years so that I can see it in Barnes and Nobles.
Date Reviewed: May 17, 2005
Subject: C2S Analysis
Reviewer: D.F. (New York)
Overall Rating [0-5stars]: [not yet rated] out of 5 stars
Overall [Sits Well In The Stomach] Agreement [0% (Disagree) to100% (Agree)]: [more towards disagree]%
Single Phrase Summary: "I am not convinced that laws designed to describe and measure thermodynamic reactions are applicable
So I read the discussion entitled "Hypothesis Regarding the Whereabouts of a Person Following Cessation". There were certainly topics addressed in the work which struck me as worthy of serious contemplation and study. I speak in particular of the analysis of EPD [early parental death] and its effects. This interest on my part is autobiographical, as I am an example of an EPD life, my mother having died when I was 10 years of age. I have wondered many times, and with greater frequency as I age, what effect this has had on my life. While I may be tempted to assess the impact of this element of my existence in terms of broadly drawn energetics of influence, etc., I feel that this might tend to oversimplify what might have been more intricate personality dynamics which might have obtained between my mother and myself. I am sure however that my life would have been profoundly different, as well as my resulting personality and actions, etc. I think that there is a great deal to be understood about EDP, and the issue is truly deserving of serious study.
The issue of defining the 'person':
A frustration I had while reading the book centered on the exact definition of the 'person'. The question of the whereabouts of this entity either before or after death requires that the entity be clearly defined. The challenge of defining the 'person' ('self', 'soul', 'being', etc.) during life would seem to be the necessary first step. In my narrow education [philosophy], this challenge has been addressed most exhaustively and authoritatively by Soren Kierkegaard, who himself was making improvements on the definitions of Descartes. In any case, it seems to me that the challenge to define exactly what the 'person' is in life almost naturally answers the question of the destination of that entity after the end of the physical life. Overall, I don't quarrel with the basic premise that persons leave behind effects on the world by virtue of the persons and things with which they have relations, and by the way in which those relations are conducted.
On the applicability of formulations of Energetics and Thermodynamics to human relations:
A second point of frustration for me was the usage of scientific formulae for purposes of analogy in discussion. To my understanding, scientific theory and formulae are only credited as valid when they can be demonstrated through specifically and objectively measurable phenomena. Thus, for example, formulas for the laws of gravity can be used to predict the speed of falling objects under specific conditions. But it is only after dropping a lot of objects and measuring what occurs that verification is achieved. The use of specific formulae creates and obligation for rigor and verifiability which does not seem to be met in the text that I read.
As a closely related issue, I am not convinced that laws designed to describe and measure thermodynamic reactions are applicable to human relations. This might be exemplified in the way that Newton's laws of Physics become largely irrelevant at the subatomic level, and on this new subatomic scale, new formulations and methods of measure become necessary. In human relations, the most potent forces are abstractions which are metaphysical in nature. These forces, ideas, emotions, and concepts are simply not measured in terms of heat, mass, speed, direction, etc.