tar

Random, Sounds good. Like you say, what ever works for you is the way to do it. It does not have to be as anyone else would do it. One of my thoughts runs counter to your method though. Feeling good, the natural ways is quite free and under ones own control. This seems more sustainable and worthwhile an avenue to pursue, than ANY substitute that cost money and is provided to you by someone who is interested in making money off your "use" of their product. Learned a saying when I was young, having to do with drug dealers..."the first is free, the rest you pay". I don't want to have to pay anyone to feel good, when there are so many ways to get to that point without paying a dealer. Not that I have much of an argument, since many of the businesses in the country are designed to help people enjoy life in one way on another...what with amusement parks and movie houses, and restarants, and bars, and sports areana and all, but on a base level, paying someone regulary so that you will feel continually "right" according to their product or service, makes you dependent on that person or outfit, and I don't think dependency is a state that one should seek, in general. Easy for me to say now, after 47 years of smoking...don't know exactly how I rationized that MAJOR dependency, but addiction is a powerful thing. Makes people do, not so wise, stuff. So, while I agree that one should quit using whatever method works, I am thinking now, that an important component of staying quit, is the recognition that you have freed yourself of an addiction and in that have won a substantial victory, which by itself can make you feel good. And to keep an eye out, against replacing smokes with too much food, or gambling, or dangerous or expensive ways of getting that dopamine, is an important side issue to stay aware of. Regards, TAR

iNow, Another week of not smoking, for me. Your delaying tactics are good. Sleep is also a good self defense. My central plan at this point though is to learn to live without nicotine. That is, find the dopamine releases in all the ways that dopamine is released. Cigarettes are a sure and simple, known to work, direct and fast route to dopamine release. Probably similar in chemical ways to many addictions. But drug addiction is expensive and in most cases has a lot of downsides. On the other hand, feeling good, as in having dopamine released, or whatever chemicals are involved in feeling good, can happen, and does happen quite naturally and freely in a myriad of ways. I am talking about winning a game, completing a chore, looking at something beautiful, feeling a warm breeze, snuggling under a blanket, getting or giving a hug, straightening a crooked picture...all the simple and sure ways to actually get to the same "brain state" that a cigarette would offer. In this regard, a "list" of a hundred ways to feel good, would probably be helpful for anyone in my position,( that of having quit smoking,) to put together for oneself. That, along with Spyman's suggestion to stay completely away from nicotine in any form, and Phi's suggestion to put smoking in the "not an option" category, and your delaying tactics, should a crave arise anyway, should put me in good shape to continue to "not smoke" and learn to live without nicotine, in a rather sustainable and therefore permanent manner. Most important for me, at this point, right at my "record" of not smoking, is to not even consider a "reward" or victory smoke. Just not an option. Done with that. Need to find all the other ways of feeling good. That way is NOT AN OPTION. Regards, TAR

Acme, Have not gotten the trig down yet. But am still working the problem. Figured out on Thursday how the diamonds relate to the cube. Drew the diamonds onto the cube. The 8 three points are the corners of the cube, and the 6 four points are located right in the center of the faces of the cube. The center of each edge is the location of one of the 12 balls that fit exactly around a center ball of the same diameter. Each midpoint of an edge is the center of a diamond. Relating a cube to the 12 sections of the globe, the top of the cube would have the top half of 4 diamonds, and each of the bottom halfs of those four diamonds would be on one of the sides of the cube, being the triangle you get when you draw an x corner to corner on each side. The diamonds are thusly "folded" in half by the edge. The long axis of the diamond goes from center of top to center of side, and the short axis of the diamond goes from corner to corner. Works out exactly, internal anglewise. I made two clay figures, a sphere and a cube. Sized them, so the distance from center of cube to middle of edge was approximately the same distance as a radius of the sphere. Then I cut the sphere into the 12 sections, and cut the cube into the same 12 sections, with the same internal angles, so that you could replace a peice of the cube with a peice of the sphere and vice a versa. Pretty neat. Looks like this. Regards, TAR

iNow, Well, that is certainly what appears like what the situation is, but it is that realm of human existence, which is the area or realm in which one "exists", with or without their particular body/brain/heart group. No woo required to be alive, and consider yourself part of life on Earth, and responsible for its maintenance. Even before and after your own life. That is why we by life insurance for the benefit our loved ones, and endeavor to add something to humanity. I did answer crayon, but ill defined gibberish is an area into where one MUST, to some degree wade, when discussing "what it will be like" to be dead. I appreciate your take, and it is very similar to mine, except it MATTERS that life will continue after I die. I am somehow invested in the enterprise, and do not consider that my ownership interest is cancelled or negated when I die. The OP seemed to be suggesting that religion was a false understanding of this ownership interest. By speaking of crayons, I am suggesting that belief in this ownership interest is something we can have, with or without woo. And in either case, ones woo is another's understanding of reality. And in either case, with or without dehydrated dragon pee pee sprinkled on it, death is a tough nut to crack, and worthy of some trepidation. Nobody should really be "looking forward" to being dead. Thing is, that death is the only certain thing (other than taxes) we have to look forward to. So religion for fear is not so plain and simple as considering a reward or punishment being meated out by a anthropomorphic god, as it is a consideration of what your life means to the rest of reality. In retrospect, or circumspect, were/are you good or bad. Your "spirit" or essence, so to speak, is the crayon I am talking about, when I speak of soul. How the world will remember you. BECAUSE you are more than the dust and heat that will be left of you, after your death. Regards, TAR

kristalris, Thanks for understanding my argument. Sorry you are engaged with Mr. Neg rep. I have ignored him, myself. Paradoxical, as I have a rule that I must read a thread in its entirety before a respond to it, and its my thread, and the one person I meant to engage by it, is the one person I have ever had reason to want to ignore. (which I just recently, since this thread found out you could do.) Anyway, be careful. Regards, TAR

iNow, But the question is what happens to you when you die. It is not a clear, understandable thing, where we have reporters telling us, exactly what it is like. Had a turtle when I was young. Y.A.Turtle. (after a NY Giant QB). It died. I didn't understand how it could be my friend, moving around, eating food and such, and then just be still and "dead". Where did the life go? What was it, that was in the turtle the day before, that was no longer in it. It looked pretty much exactly the same, except...it was dead. It was not Y.A.Turtle any more. I have seen a few relatives and friends lying motionless at a viewing. Like they were sleeping. But were not going to ever wake again. The OP suggests that religion proposes some sort of wrong answer to what happened to the life, that was once very much in that body/brain/heart group. What is the "right" answer? Regards, TAR

peterj, Sounds good. Regards, TAR

Another week. Still considering nicotine as "not an option." Having plently of battles, but winning them one by one.

iNow, Well thanks for trying, anyway. Sorry my opinions and tactics and methods are not enjoyable to you. I do tend to try and have it both ways. Rather wet noodleish indeed. Difficult to come up with a statement that would be agreeable to a scientist and a mystic, but that is my general goal. In my own noodle defense, I was trying to use the word fear in a different sense in the two items you quoted. That aspect associated with terror, as opposed to that aspect associated with awe or respectful subjegation. And in the context of the thread, was looking to tease out the nuanced aspects of "fear". Basically believing that the heavy emotions had by a son beaten by his father (not me, the older gentleman I was talking about) are extremely complex and difficult for someone else to unravel. This kind of powerful complexity of thought and emotion between a father and a son,has its possible analogy to people's relationship to the universe in general, as might be apparent by the heavy use of the term father, when referring to God, in several religions I am familiar with. While an anthropomorphic god is not evident, fathers certainly are. And other people form an objective reality for any individual to relate to. Was just now wondering if there is any correlation between how one feels about their father, and how one feels about the universe. But in anycase, if we are talking about religion being used as a comforting blanket, to soften ones "fear" of death, its important to consider exactly what emotions and thoughts are "supposed" to be in place when death is confronted. PeterJ, I don't discount the insights of the sages that I have also come to. I have not, as you point out, had any of them that I have not had, by definition. But I can discount ones they say they have had, that make no sense. There is a requirement, in many Eastern minds, that reincarnation is a reality. A "real" path is supposed to exist, which a soul follows, from focused self to focused self. This path implies that death is not a substantial problem. One just leaves this body, and inhabits another, so death is no big deal, so no fear is required. But this makes no sense, because there is nothing, in actually that ties a particular life to the general world, other than that particular life. I for instance, have no memory of a previous life, the time before my birth is rather blank, in my memory. Basically because my mind/brain had not yet developed. Once I die, whatever signals are currently possible in by body/brain/heart group, will not be possible. My self will not be operational. This I consider very problematic. I do not WANT to lose my self. That would be a defeat, a loss, the end of the run. For me. Life will go on, the world will go on, but it will do it, without me. I am terrified at the prospect of no longer being aware, of no longer existing. Eastern religions suggest that I on purpose should lose my self. Not only does this seem completely ill advised, to me, but is logically and physically impossible. The catholic chuch is believed in, by billions, very smart and good people. Arrogant of me to find their teachings lacking in realism, and being based on pretense. Arrogant as well, for me to be skeptical about the teachings of the sages. But I know what looks and feels like its made up, and what looks and feels like its actual. Difficult for me to bring this all back around through the back door and try to prove that everybody is right about what they are right about, and wrong about what they are wrong about, without excercising a great deal of wet noodle, nuanced, abiguous, "stream of consciousness" writing style. So I will stop here and simply ask, in reference to the fear of death, central to this thread, and in reference to the "secrets" of the Vedas...Do you have any evidence that a human soul is something different than the body/brain/heart group that it belongs to? Any evidence that ones consciousness will continue past their death? Regards, TAR

PeterJ, But the topic here, is fear of death. The Eastern Religions suggest that a particular consciousness is on an eternal journey that the mortal body has nothing much to do with. That you have to deny the flesh, so to speak, to embrace the spirit is also a tenent of Tora/Biblical/Koran teachings. The idea that one can kill in the name of Allah is rather a strange idea for a Moslem to hold, or that such an idea could fuel a crusade from the Christian side. Same logical situation (or illogical) is embedded in the image of a sage, on top of a mountian, knowing the truth, and becoming ONE with the universe, BY HIMSELF. If you pretend that knowing the "secrets" of the Vedas, actually allows a self to be not a self, but one with the cosmos, you can not similtaneously pretend that it is only you that has made the trip. On the other hand, if you assume, in my unambitious way, that the truth is, we are already completely signed up as universe material and energy, and already completely immersed in it and cognizant of it, as conscious humans, aware of this particular place, and this particular time, as our focus, BECAUSE of the self involved, then not only have we already made the trip, but suggesting you could do it, without the body/brain/heart group that is sensing and remembering and holding the model of the thing, is utterly baseless, imaginary, made up, unrealistic pretense. If your lack of fear of death is based on pretense, then you might just as well go along with the rainbow bridge, as with the "sages". Regards, TAR

PeterJ, Not unambitious, just realistic. There is no question that the world is larger and more long lived than I. Following is that there is no question that the world is larger and more long lived than you. Since the world is larger and more long lived than either of us, there is neither one of us that is larger and more long lived than the world. If you and I both, are in and of the world which is larger and more long lived than either of us, than neither of us can be larger and more long lived than the world. A human body/brain/heart group is in and of the world, it senses and remembers the world and predicts and modifies the world, but "contains" the world, only in model and analogy, not in actuality. In actually, the world contains the human. Not that the sages are not correct in their long repeated conclusions, but what is figurative and what is literal, what is actual and what is model, is of utmost importance to maintain and differenciate between, when it comes to being realistic. One of the Eastern tenants is that one must deny the self, to understand the Brahman, but then a sage goes ahead and claims they have reached nirvana, and everybody else is lacking the right idea, the proper attitude, the "secret". How exactly would this claim make any sense. It would be exactly a selfish claim that would negate the possibility that the sage had "actually" become one with the cosmos. I have noticed that when sages reach nirvana, they do not take the rest of us, with them. They go it alone. They do it by themselves. Now, many have felt one with the universe, so its probably a natural condition, especially since there is none of us that is not in and of the universe, by definition. So, why claim special rights? It belongs to us all, already. Regards, TAR

Dekan, Or maybe the deep hole could be shaped in such a way as that cold (temperate) air would fall down the sides of the hole, drawn to the bottom by the "draft" of the hot air rising up a central "chimney". Your copper anchors could be embedded in the rock at the bottom, with fins and baffles, constructed just right to coax the cool air through, heat it up and send it up the chimney. The copper staying hot as the rock, being it has your rods of it attached to the baffle/fin area. Wondering if the draft would be enough to power a wind turbine or two on the way up, and THEN find a way to power a turbine with the super hot air, using steam or whatever is the most efficient at that point. Regards, TAR

iNow, We cross posted. I agree with you that I replaced some bad feelings with good, but I still authentically had the sorrow and loss, and know darn well there is NOT an actual bridge like that. But being authentic is not something I am a foreigner to. I take the grief and the loss, and cry just like everybody else. My general drift, from a logical point of view, when it comes to discussions about religion, and imaginary beliefs, and "ideal" considerations of all sorts, is that from a 30,000 ft view, all people on Earth, are pretty much in the same boat. That is, we can all talk to each other about life and meaning, and reality, because we are all here doing it. Nobody has a "leg up" in this regard. Nobody is "better" at it, than anybody else. Nobody holds the secret to it, or knows somebody else's mind, better than that somebody else, knows their own. Nobody. There is a logical problem with that determination I just made, when it comes to eliteism and people in power, who are normally the people a standard deviation or two out to the right of the bell curve, who might very well really know better than some on the left hand side of the curve, but that is another discussion. To this discussion I would have to add that anybody that is not concerned about their death, is doing others that are alive, a disservice, by suggesting it is possible to be so cavalier about something so evidently crucial. As in, sure I know by Uncle and Cousin are not playing golf in heaven, but as long as that is the way the family is choosing to look at it, for a moment, and a grief releiving laugh, it remains genuine, and does not attept to "skirt" reality. You and I have talked before on this, concerning the ability we have to converse with an unseen other. To put ourselves in the shoes of another, and to rely on the "opinions" of imaginary friends. You know me well enough to know when I am being genuine, and when I am making stuff up. Neither of us can assume though that we know the other 8 billion folk on the planet well enough to tell them when they are being appropriately afraid, or irrationally afraid, nor do either of us, or PeterJ's sages, know enough to rationally, laugh at death. Regards, TAR Inow, We cross posted again. Was talking with an older gentleman just the other day about a father who beat him. Said he could have stood up to him, but did not. Took it out on some others in street fights instead. Yeah, you can love and fear at the same time. But its that respect type of fear. Like when they talk about "fear of God". Even bullies you can "love". Had a situation in front of my highschool where a "hood" picked a fight with a "longhair"(me). The fight was stopped by the loud speaker calling us both to the office. He was always getting in trouble, so I could have easily gotten him into some more, but I said "it was just a misunderstanding". The next day a friend of mine asked why, during the fight, as I was getting punched in the head, every time I got through his defenses I open my fist and "touch" his face. said "that is the way my dad and I would play fight, and that is the way my uncle and I would play fight, and I had no intention of hurting him". After the "fight" we "the bully" and I would say hello in the halls, and the hoods and the longhairs got along better after the incident. So, I think for the purposes of this discussion, we need to know what type of "fear" it is, that the OP is suggesting religion engenders. Regards, TAR

peterj, Well yes you can't both fear and love the same thing, except in the senses of fear that mean respect and awe and revere and such. I am an atheist and explained as much through my tears at my Mom's memorial as I spoke. Said that we held the memory of my Mom in our memories, and that she was being held in the arms of Jesus, whom she loved. Makes no real difference which parts of that statement you take figuratively or literally, I meant the words I said, and everybody there, religious or not, understood the meaning. I know you know this already PeterJ, because we have talked before about this, but I believe the sages and the wise know no better than the fool about life and death, truth and reality. There is no special key required to experience life, that has not already been given to, or taken by, anything alive. Whether a rich man or a butter cup, the "secret" is already out. Regards, TAR My mom was not afraid the days before she died. Her last words to me were "You've been a good son." I don't think I will be so unanxious when my time grows near. Maybe, maybe not, but I would like to be able to look my daughters in the eyes and assure them "it will be alright". I am not now, and probably will not be then, "afraid", of death. But considering that life is the only thing you have, it is at least, really INAPPROPRIATE, that you die.

Mike, OK, But if they are "higher" forms of intelligence, why would they want to converse with us, anyway? I have "communed" with nature from time to time, studied ants going about their business, and looked closely at a moss growing on the bark of a tree, and such, but I never really considered starting up a conversation with a Salamander, nor have I ever considered that a salamander might have asked me a question that I "missed". When I was 18 (at a party and probably high on something or another) a number of us witnessed some lights hovering without any sound, over some high tension wires about a mile away. Others gathered as we watched the lights, and we speculated upon what they were. We were rather sure they were vehicals with inhabitants, and figured them to be alien to the Earth. (we considered Government, and Atlantis as other possible answers, but Alien to the Earth seemed most likely, as when they departed they did so in a manner not condusive to any Earthly technology we knew about.) Subsequent to the event, the only "answer" that makes sense, is that some "other" folk stopped by to refuel. They had no interest in "contacting" us, one way or the other. 'Bout as interested in talking with us as we are interested in talking to the Salamander when we stoop down to take a handful of water from the stream. So, maybe the Universe is teaming with life, but so is the jungle and the sea, and we have little command over, or communication with even that "nearby" life. And that nearby life, has little way or reason to communicate with us, except in the ways, and at the times and places, where it does. The guy sitting on the other side of the Milkyway, might imagine us, and we him, but time and space prevent us from being pen pals. He will be long dead by the time the light from the match I held to the stars when I was 13, reaches him...so it would just be a matter of interpretation as to whether I held that match for him to see, or not. The universe is extremely large in duration and size. Even the "local" galaxy is bigger than can be reasonably concieved "all at once". I doubt there is a being that can hold it all at once, other than the universe itself. Regards, TAR

Stomier, Although I agree that the rainbow bridge is not real, and that it is a comfort, it was still a consideration I allowed, as I read the card sent out by the vet after we put our "Shady" to sleep. Was it "fear" that drove me to imagine crossing the bridge and seeing Shady frolicking in the field and bounding toward me. I don't think so. I was reading Kant a while back, and he mentioned something about life after death. I realized he was not talking about considering his own life after his own death, but considering that others would be alive, after his death. Life after death is something we all consider in this regard. Otherwise it would not be important for us to leave a better world for our children or for anyone that lives after we do. Common for people to worship their ancestors, as it is evident, that the people that came before us, in some large number, sought to make the world a better place for us. But fear? Fear of dying being the only reason for religion? I think not. I think its more like love that fuels religion. And although its difficult to see through the fog and unbelievable that there is what seems like just pure evil in the world, when some guys bury a woman alive for 8,000 bucks, or shoot up a school because they were teased as a child, I would guess that no man or woman alive loves life and their family, and their group and their world, because of fear. The only fear operating in the general sense, applicable to all, would be perhaps the fear of losing life. Evidently this loss is something no good person can abide. Regards, TAR

The R.

Or, Perhaps intelligence is the singlular form of cognition, and wisdom is the collective, or plural form. While we all would like to think we are both intelligent and wise, intelligence we can ascertain about ourselves, on our own. Wisdom is something that requires the use of and recognition of someone else's intelligence. You have to gain wisdom, you are born with intelligence. This is why older people are usually the ones thought to have accrued some wisdom. They have not gotten any smarter themselves, just contain more parts and peices of everybody else's intelligence. Being a male, and having turned 60 recently myself, I am obviously a wiseguy:) Regards, TAR and to acknowledge my own status in both categories...a smartass as well:o

Mike, Well, if there was time travel EVER possible, somebody would have already traveled back from the future to now, and back to 1834, and back to the day before Hiroshima and so on. Since we have no evidence that anybody has done that, it would indicate to me, that no one is going to learn how to do it. Ever. If on the other hand we, in the future, go back and show the Egyptians how to build pyramids, and seed the Earth with humankind and so on, it would force an impossible situation where there never was a situation where humankind came into existence, on its own. To me, the only logical situation, is one in which whatever exists emerged from the previous situation. I have no particular way to prove this, but it requires that everything that is currently happening in the universe is happening for the first time. And what we see happening 196000 miles away, actually happened for the first time a second ago and what we see happening a billion lys away, happened for the first time a billion years ago. So yes, it does sort of trap us into this particular corner of the universe, at this particular moment in time, but it also allows us to see the rest, from here and now. And it keeps us, from being everything at once, which would be rather a vague and useless condition. But perhaps this is way above my pay grade and is asking some existential questions that I really have not even a wish or a guess in the direction of an answer to. Whatever the situation, it appears as if we all, at the moment are in the same here and now, give or take the circumference of the Earth, and the couple of seconds it takes a signal to do the circuit. And given the size of the universe we have yet to explore, I would hardly consider we are trapped. And considering the age of the universe already, and the prospects for it continuing for some time, I would guess we have not yet done everything there is to do...not by a very long, and unconfining shot. Regards. TAR

Mike, Advanced communication techniques? Do we have any that allow us to question and answer at say a relatively short distance of 100 lys? Logically, if one is considering the whole universe, there are two considerations that I think you are making improperly. One, that there has been enough time, for other lifeforms to get "way" more advanced than us, and two, that if there was another species doing something fantastic 100,000 lys from here, they would have a way to notice or care about us. For instance, we have known how to get into space for 50 years, and none of us has left the Moon/Earth system, yet. We have a number of spacecraft/probes out, as far as Mars and even the heliopause, so we are sensing rather far out, but these distances are small, compared to the size of our Milkyway. It takes 14 minutes for light to reach from the Earth to the Mars Probe. Consider if you were the Mars probe, wondering why the people that put you together and sent you on a mission, were so quiet, and refused to answer your questions. If some "other" race was responsible for us, it would really be the earlier manefestations of our race, that would have been responsible for us. And "talking" with them would be similar to "talking" with cavemen, or dinosaurs, or the first mitochondria...as in you can listen to what they have to say, but they are not listening to you, and can not respond. Any conversation we can have with a species on the other side of the Milkyway would have to be a very long and drawn out one, considering the time it takes any impulse, much less peice of matter, to get from one location to the other, and back. If you were to get a message in a bottle (made of 18th century glass, on 18th century parchment, in 18th century English prose and style,), would you wonder why the guy or gal was so silent, when you yelled across the sea "WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT!"? Regards, TAR

Mike, And imagine the "intelligence" that must be inherent in a growing fetus' brain neuron, as it grows and differentiates into not only the right type of cell, but makes the right positional distinctions and connections as it grows, to become a working part of an incredibly complex human brain. Small accidental stuff happening there, large "on purpose" stuff occurring. Regards, TAR

Spyman, Thanks again for your support in this. It is hard, but it is easy, too. As easy as not reaching for one. Pleasure can be had, in other, less detremental ways, than being hooked on an addictive substance. Regards, TAR

Spyman, Most interesting thing I learned in the link was that the nicotine receptors act to release dopamine into the brain. A number of years ago, I remember reading something that the chemicals released in the brain when a gambler wins are similar to those released in the brain by certain addictive drugs. Led me to consider that we like our dopamine, we like the reward, good feeling of "winning". In a certain way, it really doesn't matter what you win at, you will still get some dopamine, and "feel" good. There are other things that I think give the brain a chemical reward, I was talking to a workmate who is considering stopping smoking soon, about how certain things, other than smoking make a person feel good. I was, at the time, looking up at a nearby freshly "leaved" Maple against a blue sky, and it actually "felt" good. Bottom line, if its dopamine one is after, nicotine is not the only way to get it released. Probably winning a game of solitaire or making supper for the family, or watching your team hit a grand slam, provides some of the "good" stuff. I mention it, because after making this connection between "winning" and drug use, I was considering the drug user. feeling invincable and victorious, lying penniless in the gutter in his own filth. To this, I would suggest that the nicotine replacement therapies talked about in the link, are probably not the wisest. The point, for me at least, is to learn to live without the false and easy automatic release of dopamine that nicotine provides. Probably could also be extended to most every addictive drug. If the drug makes you feel good, you are liable to take it. Even if it makes you poor, makes you loose your job, your friends, your spouse, your kids, your freedom and whatever else. Thing is, turns out, dopamine is free and not only not harmful, but helpful, in that you reward yourself when you win, or someone on your team wins. So "learning to live without nicotine" as I am doing at the moment, is something anybody addicted to pain killers, or tobacco, or crack, or meth, or heroine, or cocaine, or alchohol or whatever, has at their disposal, as an option, any time they wake up on a Saturday morning, and spend that first hour, purposefully NOT reaching for the easy high, the automatic release of the dopamine. I am rather sure, they will find that the stuff gets released into your brain anyway, as long as you are winning, or finding something amusing, or completing something, or reaching a goal, or looking at something beautiful. And once you see you can swim just fine without the waterwings, you realize you can swim just fine without the waterwings, and you know exactly where you stand in reference to the waterwings. Once you know this, not wearing the waterwings becomes an option. And then, at any time you can, on your own, without any help, or replacement methadone, choose Phi for All's route, and decide that wearing waterwings is just not an option. Swimming without them feels just fine, anyway. Regards, TAR And as Spyman has pointed out, the withdrawal symptoms are to be expected, but can be handled, if you really want to do without the addictive substance for good reason.

5 weeks, thumbs up.

Happy Mother's day all you Mom's. Saw a thing on my browser just now that said "Celebrate your Mom", "Share something you learned from your Mom." Thought I would like to share a thought or two about my departed mom, and start a thread where others that wished, could do the same. (In the "privacy" of the select group of folk that frequent or pass through Scienceforum.) My Mom was a Mathematician and Teacher, took me and my sister to Presbyterian Church, my father did not attend. She was eccentric, and became more so as she and my Dad diviorced, and she aged. Still substitute taught and moved around throughout the States, Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and "retired" between Charelston and Allentown in her later years. She spent some time as a "bag lady", slept on park benches, and lived in a shack with no heat and such. She went by her own rules. What she taught me, among the Math and logic skills, and the normal Mom stuff, of how to dress yourself, and take care of yourself, and the others around you, and how to always be able to find something useful and fun to do, was a simple dinner table rule that I would like to share. When the serving plate comes around for seconds, never take more than half. With tears in my eyes, and a gentle sob, TAR P.S. And if two people (as in my sister and I) had to share something, the one should divide the thing in half, and the other should have first choice of portion.