– Pests and weeds have a beneficial ecological role. Pests attract good predators so let it happen.
– Analyse your site to see where the sun is passing. In summer a lot of intense sun will be bad so you can plan shady plants and trees at multiple heights. Same for winter, breeze/winds, etc.
– Where you walk past most often is where you can plant things that need the most attention. Think about design function in this way. Raised beds are easier to reach further in.
– Instead of the usual pets, why not chooks?
– Hi production plants like herbs are better in containers instead of crappy sand.
– TORK soil – Texture (sand/silt/clay), Organic matter like compost/mulch, Rock minerals, Kelp. Fill haft a jar with your soil and the other half with water, shake it up and let it settle. You’ll see the 3 textures so you’ll know what to add.
* Apples don’t just give us fruits. It comes along with birds and bees and beauty and and and!
* Annuals are when you plant something, it grows, then you grow it again after it goes to seed while perennials will be there for 3-5 years so more reward less effort. I’m sure I missed a part about the magic of deciduous trees that give a good shade in the summer and shed leaves in autumn/fall/winter so they are good as other plants get more light.
* SEED SAVING (this one really blew mine mind even though it was pretty obvious). You don’t only save seeds because they’re free or you keep on cycling but you save them because every generation will be stronger and more adapted to the soil. It changes genetically! (I’m so excited to learn this!)
– Talks about water tanks, clay in the soil to hold the same amount of water when it rains. Grey water or access to a bore. Tap water has chlorine which is antibacterial while the soil needs the bacteria so think about other options. Types of drippers. Wicking beds.
– Shade cloths are good pest solutions. Pests and weeds were all part of nature and human life. Also if you kill things like rats in a nontoxic way you can just put it under a tree and you don’t need to get blood and bone. I use a couple of facebook groups to know more about plants and animals. WA gardeners and Insects of Perth & South West Western Australia. So find out what the bugs and things are and then find out natural predators or solutions like getting frogs etc. – Benefits of ponds and Q and A to Z time.
Conversations With God – Book 3 by Neale Donald Walsch
– This book will have Concepts dealing with other realms, other dimensions, and how the whole intricate weave fits together.
Act as if you are, and you will draw it to you. What you act as if you are, you become. In other words, “Fake it until you make it.” Therefore, whatever you choose for yourself, give to another.
– No one is more ill-equipped to raise children than young parents. And no one knows this better than young parents. Most parents come to the job of parenting with very little life experience. They’re hardly finished being parented themselves. They’re still looking for answers, still searching for clues. They haven’t even discovered themselves yet, and they’re trying to guide and nurture discovery in others even more vulnerable than they. They haven’t even defined themselves, and they’re thrust into the act of defining others. They are still trying to get over how badly they have been misdefined by their parents. In most advanced races and societies, elders raise the offspring, nurture the offspring, train the offspring, and pass on to the offspring the wisdom, teachings, and traditions of their kind.
– How men created a male God and Satan because women had power back in the day.
– Death, souls, afterlife, microcosm and macro intertwined.
– 3 choices you have:
1. You may allow your uncontrolled thoughts to create The Moment.
2. You may allow your creative consciousness to create The Moment.
3. You may allow the collective consciousness to create The Moment.
– Think of the Cosmic Wheel as that CD-ROM. All the endings already exist. The universe is just waiting to see which one you choose this time. And when the game is over, whether you win, lose, or draw, the universe will say, “Want to play again?” So if you think it would be interesting for the doomsday predictions of the psychics to come true, focus all your attention on that, and you can draw that to yourself. And if you think you would like to experience a different reality, focus on that, and that is the outcome you can draw to you.
– Who You Are is love. What love is, is unlimited, eternal, and free. Therefore, that is what you are. That is the nature of Who You Are. You are unlimited, eternal, and free, by nature. Now, any artificial social, moral, religious, philosophical, economic, or political construction which violates or subordinates your nature is an impingement upon your very Self—and you will rail against it. What do you suppose gave birth to your own country? Was it not “Give me liberty, or give me death”? Well, you’ve given up that liberty in your country, and you’ve given it up in your Jives. And all for the same thing. Security. You are so afraid to live—so afraid of life itself—that you’ve given up the very nature of your being in trade for security.
– The institution you call marriage is your attempt to create security, as is the institution called government. Actually, they are both forms of the same thing—artificial social constructions designed to govern each other’s behaviour. It is the ultimate announcement of fear. If marriage allowed you to be unlimited, eternal, and free in your love, then it would be the ultimate announcement of love. As things are now, you become married in an effort to lower your love to the level of a promise or a guarantee. Marriage is an effort to guarantee that “what is so” now will always be so. If you didn’t need this guarantee, you would not need marriage.
And how do you use this guarantee? First, as a means of creating security (instead of creating security from that which is inside of you), and second, if that security is not forever forthcoming, as a means of punishing each other, for the marriage promise which has been broken can now form the basis of the lawsuit which has been opened. You have thus found marriage very useful—even if it is for all the wrong reasons. Marriage is also your attempt to guarantee that the feelings you have for each other, you will never have for another. Or, at least, that you will never express them with another in the same way. Finally, marriage as you have constructed it is a way of saying: “This relationship is special. I hold this relationship above all others.” If Who You Really Are is a being who says, “This one relationship—this single one, right over here-is more special than any other,” then your construction of marriage allows you to do that perfectly.
Yet you might find it interesting to notice that almost no one who is, or has been, recognised as a spiritual master is married. It’s because masters cannot truthfully make the statement that your present construction of marriage seeks to make: that one person is more special to them than another. This is not a statement that a master makes, and it is not a statement that God makes. The fact is that your marriage vows, as you presently construct them, have you making a very un-Godly statement. It is the height of irony that you feel this is the holiest of holy promises, for it is a promise that God would never make. Yet, in order to justify your human fears, you have imagined a God who acts just like you.
Therefore, you speak of God’s “promise” to his “Chosen People,” and of covenants between God and those God loves, in a special way. You cannot stand the thought of a God who loves no one in a way which is more special than any other, and so you create fictions about a God who only loves certain people for certain reasons. And you call these fictions Religions. I call them blasphemies. For any thought that God loves one more than another is false-and any ritual which asks you to make the same statement is not a sacrament, but a sacrilege. Religion and marriage the way you have constructed them is what we are talking about here.
Love has no requirements. That’s what makes it love. If your love for another carries requirements, then it is not love at all, but some counterfeit version. That is what I have been trying to tell you here, It is what I have been saying, in a dozen different ways, with every question you’ve asked here. Within the context of marriage, for example, there is an exchange of vows that love does not require. Yet you require them, because you do not know what love is. And so you make each other promise what love would never ask. (Neale and Nancy’s declaratio to each other – http://everything2.com/title/Uncommon+wedding+vows)
– You have bastardised the Word of God in order to justify your fears and rationalise your insane treatment of each other. You will make God say whatever you need God to say in order to continue limiting each other, hurting each other, and killing each other in My name. You have invoked My name, and waved My flag, and carried crosses on your battlefields for centuries, all as proof that I love one people more than another, and would ask you to kill to prove it. Yet I tell you this: My love is unlimited and unconditional. That is the one thing you cannot hear, the one truth you cannot abide, the one statement you cannot accept, for its all-inclusiveness destroys not only the institution of marriage (as you have constructed it), but every one of your religions and governmental institutions as well. For you have created a culture based on exclusion, and supported it with a cultural myth of a God who excludes. Yet the culture of God is based on inclusion. In God’s love, everyone is included. Into God’s Kingdom everyone is invited.
– If you terminate a pregnancy, We terminate a pregnancy. Your will is My will.
– You’re approaching the same point in human history again. It’s vitally important that you understand this. Your present technology is threatening to outstrip your ability to use it wisely. Your society is on the verge of becoming a product of your technology, rather than your technology being a product of your society. When a society becomes a product of its own technology, it destroys itself.
– Because guilt and shame is something which is imposed on a being from outside of itself. It can then be internalized, no question about that, but it is initially imposed from the outside. Always. No divine being (and all beings are divine) ever knows itself or anything it is doing to be “shameful” or “guilty” until someone outside of itself labels it that way. In your culture, is a baby ashamed of its “bathroom habits”? Of course not. Not until you tell it to be. Does a child feel “guilty” for pleasuring itself with its genitals? Of course not. Not until you tell it to feel guilty. The degree to which a culture is evolved is demonstrated by the degree to which it labels a being or an action “shameful” or “guilty.”
“THERE’S A STRONG ASSUMPTION STILL THAT EXERTING SELF-CONTROL IS BENEFICIAL … AND WE’RE SHOWING IN THE LONG TERM, IT’S NOT”
Studies have found that trying to teach people to resist temptation either only has short-term gains or can be an outright failure. “We don’t seem to be all that good at [self-control],” Brian Galla, a psychologist at the University of Pittsburgh, says.
If we accept that brute willpower doesn’t work, we can feel less bad about ourselves when we succumb to temptation. And we might also be able refocus our efforts on solving problems like obesity. A recent national survey from the University of Chicago finds that 75 percent of Americans say a lack of willpower is a barrier to weight loss. And yet the emerging scientific consensus is that the obesity crisis is the result of a number of factors, including genes and the food environment — and, crucially, not a lack of willpower.
If we could stop worshiping self-control, maybe we could start thinking about diluting the power of temptation — and helping people meet their goals in new ways with less effort.
The case against willpower
Many of us assume that if we want to make big changes in our lives, we have to sweat for it. But if, for example, the change is to eat fewer sweets, and then you find yourself in front of a pile of cookies, researchers say the pile of cookies has already won.
“Our prototypical model of self-control is angel on one side and devil on the other, and they battle it out,” Fujita says. “We tend to think of people with strong willpower as people who are able to fight this battle effectively. Actually, the people who are really good at self-control never have these battles in the first place.”
This idea was crystallized in the results of a 2011 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The study tracked 205 people for one week in Germany. The study participants were given BlackBerrys that would go off at random, asking them questions about what desires, temptations, and self-control they were experiencing in the moment.
The paper stumbled on a paradox: The people who were the best at self-control — the ones who most readily agreed to survey questions like “I am good at resisting temptations” — reported fewer temptations throughout the study period.
To put it more simply: The people who said they excel at self-control were hardly using it at all. Psychologists Marina Milyavskaya and Michael Inzlicht recently confirmed and expanded on this idea. In their study, they monitored 159 students at McGill University in Canada in a similar manner for a week.
The students who exerted more self-control were not more successful in accomplishing their goals. It was the students who experienced fewer temptations overall who were more successful when the researchers checked back in at the end of the semester. What’s more, the people who exercised more effortful self-control also reported feeling more depleted. So not only were they not meeting their goals, they were also exhausted from trying.
“There’s a strong assumption still that exerting self-control is beneficial,” Milyavskaya, a professor at Carleton University, tells me. “And we’re showing in the long term, it’s not.”
What we can learn from people who are good at self-control
So who are these people who are rarely tested by temptations? And what can we learn from them? There are a few overlapping lessons from this new science:
1) People who are better at self-control actually enjoy the activities some of us resist— like eating healthy, studying, or exercising.
So engaging in these activities isn’t a chore for them. It’s fun. “‘Want-to’ goals are more likely to be obtained than ‘have-to’ goals,” Milyavskaya says. “Want-to goals lead to experiences of fewer temptations. It’s easier to pursue those goals. It feels more effortless.”
If you’re running because you “have to” get in shape, but find running to be a miserable activity, you’re probably not going to keep it up. That means than an activity you like is more likely to be repeated than an activity you hate.
2) People who are good at self-control have learned better habits
In 2015, psychologists Brian Galla and Angela Duckworth published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finding across six studies and more than 2,000 participants that people who are good at self-control also tend to have good habits — like exercising regularly, eating healthy, sleeping well, and studying.
“People who are good at self-control … seem to be structuring their lives in a way to avoid having to make a self-control decision in the first place,” Galla tells me. And structuring your life is a skill. People who do the same activity — like running or meditating — at the same time each day have an easier time accomplishing their goals, he says. Not because of their willpower, but because the routine makes it easier.
A trick to wake up more quickly in the morning is to set the alarm on the other side of the room. That’s not in-the-moment willpower at play. It’s planning.
This theory harks back to one of the classic studies on self-control: Walter Mischel’s “marshmallow test,” conducted in the 1960s and ’70s. In these tests, kids were told they could either eat one marshmallow sitting in front of them immediately or eat two later. The ability to resist was found to correlate with all sorts of positive life outcomes, like SAT scores and BMIs. But the kids who were best at the test weren’t necessarily intrinsically better at resisting temptation. They might have been employing a critical strategy.
“Mischel has consistently found that the crucial factor in delaying gratification is the ability to change your perception of the object or action you want to resist,” the New Yorker reportedin 2014. That means kids who avoided eating the first marshmallow would find ways not to look at the candy, or imagine it as something else.
“The really good dieter wouldn’t buy a cupcake,” Fujita explains. “They wouldn’t have passed in front of a bakery; when they saw the cupcake, they would have figured out a way to say yuck instead of yum; they might have an automatic reaction of moving away instead of moving close.”
3) Some people just experience fewer temptations
Our dispositions are determined in part by our genetics. Some people are hungrier than others. Some people love gambling and shopping. People high in conscientiousness — a personality trait largely set by genetics — tend to be more vigilant students and tend to be healthier. When it comes to self-control, they won the genetic lottery.
4) It’s easier to have self-control when you’re wealthy
When Mischel’s marshmallow test is repeated on poorer kids, there’s a clear trend: They perform worse, and appear less able to resist the treat in front of them.
But there’s a good reason for this. As University of Oregon neuroscientist Elliot Berkman argues, people who grow up in poverty are more likely to focus on immediate rewards than long-term rewards. Because when you’re poor, the future is less certain.
Researchers want to figure out if self-control could feel effortless
The new research on self-control demonstrates that eating an extra slice of cake isn’t a moral failing. It’s what we ought to expect when a hungry person is in front of a slice of cake. “Self-control isn’t a special moral muscle,” Galla says. It’s like any decision. And to improve the decision, we need to improve the environment, and give people the skills needed to avoid cake in the first place.
(Berkman argues that the term “self-control” ought to be abolished altogether. “It’s no different than any other decision making,” he says.)
The new research isn’t yet conclusive on whether it’s really possible to teach people the skills needed to make self-control feel effortless. More work needs to be done — designing interventions and evaluating their outcomes over time. But it at least gives researchers a fresh perspective to test out new solutions.
In Berkman’s lab, he’s testing out an idea called “motivational boost.” Participants write essays explaining how their goals (like losing weight) fit into their core values. Berkman will periodically text study participants to remind them why their goals matter, which may increase motivation. “We are still gathering data, but I cannot say yet whether it works or not,” he says.
Another intriguing idea is called “temptation bundling,” in which people make activities more enjoyable by adding a fun component to them. One paper showed that participants were more likely to work out when they could listen to an audio copy of The Hunger Games while at the gym.
Researchers are excited about their new perspective on self-control. “It’s exciting because we’re maybe [about to] break through on a whole variety of new strategies and interventions that we would have never thought about,” Galla says. He and others are looking beyond the “just say no” approach of the past to boost motivation with the help of smartphone apps and other technology.
This is not to say all effortful restraint is useless, but rather that it should be seen as a last-ditch effort to save ourselves from bad behavior.
“Because even if the angel loses most of the time, there’s a chance every now and again the angel will win,” Fujita says. “It’s a defense of last resort.”
Nutritional Myths, Intermittent Fasting and High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) with Dr. Mike (Dr. Michael VanDerschelden) … thanks John Bergman
I just want to say I don’t know if it’s cool or if it’s not professional for a Doctor to say things like incisor teeths (pronounced teets) and using hip-hop language like ‘haters’. Yes that is what confused me. Anyway, I’ve summarised the points under each video.
Nutrional Myths with Dr. Mike Part 1 of 2
– Healthiest diet is low-fat. High-carb diet with lots of grains (Myth). The food pyramid is designed to make you sick.
– Restrict salt in order to lower blood pressure and prevent hearth attack and stroke (Myth) Insufficient evidence. Salt took the blame for what fructose should have been blamed for.
– It is best to eat many small meals throughout the day to increase metabolism (Myth). Breaks down the hunters diet and how starvation mode is good.
– Egg yolks should be avoided because they are high in cholesterol which drives heart disease (Myth). There is more evidence of the benefits. The darker deep orange the egg yolk the healthier the egg. Not pale yellow.
– Ancel Keys studies 22 countries and hand picked only 7 to chart high saturated fat intake results when the graph plotted with all countries showed the stats to be really random.
– He doesn’t support isolated proteins as it’s not WHOLEfood.
– People who reduce or stop meat get healthier also because they stopped eating crappy meat so look for grass fed.
– People in France get a baguette everyday because it will get hard quick because it doesn’t have preservatives.
Nutrional Myths with Dr. Mike Part 2 of 2
– Meat is bad for you (Myth). Insufficient evidence. Overcooked meat is cancerous so cook at lower temps and cut off burnt part. Paras note: I love the burnt part! Also processed meats are bad for you and not unprocessed meats. Make sure you get organic and grass-fed beef.
– All hunter gatherer sites showed high meat content. This is his argument for humans being designed to eat meat. The consumption of animal foods is also linked to large and complex brain evolution. Other arguments are the digestive system and acid to break down animal protein and of course incisor ‘teets’.
– Coffee is actually good for you. More coffee less liver cancer. 4 or more cups a day lowered cancer recurrence by 52%. 2-3 cups daily = 31%. It reduced the risk of 11 other cancers. Drinks are less likely to have coronary artery calcium which is a predictor or heart disease. 1-6 cups daily reduces stroke, Alzheimer’s, dementia, diabetes, infections, etc. BUT you need to get the right coffee otherwise you’re going to get all the sicknesses. Get certified organic, fair trade.
– Whole grains are good for you (Myth). None of them are really ‘whole’ because they’re all ground so you get more blood sugar and a faster hit of it. It’s bad for you ‘straight up’.
– Gluten-free means healthy (Myth). Choose things that are naturally gluten-free or you’re just replacing the gluten possibly worse chemicals.
Note: The main reason I’m sharing this is because I’ve been doing it and feel like it’s a good way to go personally but I also feel your diet is like your fashion sense and personal tastes… only you can experiment and figure out what is best for you. I believe some people will not do well without meat (like Michael Clarke Duncan) while some don’t do well with intermittent fasting. It’s all on your epigenetics ;o)
– Not one research article on eating 6 small meals a day.
– You need to go through ‘starvation mode’. Hunters and gatherers did this while hunting which burns your stored fat. It takes 6-8 hours to metabolise the glycogen.
– Goes through a whole load of health benifits. (Time 9:06 – 10)
– Human growth hormone can release if insulin is not being released so fasting helps the process.
– Preserves health of the brain, better memory. Ketones are good for you.
– Insulin sensitivity is improved. You just need a little released but when you lose sensitivity you release more and more. This is what the body does if you do the 6 small meals a day. Paras note: I’ve been doing the 6 small meals for as long as I can remember. Been fine so far. I also switched to intermittent fasting last year and been find this way too!
– Shares his routine and goes into a Q&A.
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)
– Does the usual comparison between a long distance runner and sprinters physique.
– So the study between HIIT and steady-state cardio showed. HIIT achieved 7 x more fat loss and 2lbs more muscle. While steady-state cardio lost 1lb of muscle.
– Your body is not designed to slow run for 60 mins. Hunters ran in sprints then rest. Cardiac risk increases with excessive aerobic activity.
– With HIIT you’re using all muscle fibres. Fast twitch and slow twitch. With aerobic you’re only using 40%.
– HIIT reduces telomere shortening. When the telomere can’t shorten anymore you die so you’re reducing that. Lots of benefits with HIIT.
– The workout. You only workout for 20 minutes. Paras note: I do about 30. You can do any workout from swimming, cycling, walking, weights etc. 1: 3 minute warmup, 2: 30 seconds exercise as hard as you can, 3: 90 seconds rest, 4: repeat 7 more times. (Paras note: I’d say repeat as many times as you feel fit to do so. Give it 2-3 days to recover. Workout about 3 times a week.
– Goes into intermittent fasting.
“Anthropologists have long known that Native Americans reared courageous, respectful children without using harsh coercive controls. Nevertheless, Europeans colonizing North America tried to “civilize” indigenous children in punitive boarding schools, unaware that Natives possessed a sophisticated philosophy that treated children with deep respect.”~ The Circle of Courage
“The Circle of Courage is a model of positive youth development first described in the book Reclaiming Youth at Risk, co-authored by Larry Brendtro, Martin Brokenleg, and Steve Van Bockern. The model integrates Native American philosophies of child-rearing, the heritage of early pioneers in education and youth work, and contemporary resilience research. The Circle of Courage is based in four universal growth needs of all children: belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity.
These traditional values are validated by contemporary child research and are consistent with the findings of Stanley Coopersmith who identified four foundations for self-worth: significance, competence, power, and virtue. These are summarized below:
In Native American and First Nations cultures, significance was nurtured in communities of belonging. Lakota anthropologist Ella Deloria described the core value of belonging in these simple words: “Be related, somehow, to everyone you know.” Treating others as kin forges powerful social bonds that draw all into relationships of respect. Theologian Marty observed that throughout history the tribe, not the nuclear family, always ensured the
survival of the culture. Even if parents died or were not responsible, the tribe was always there to nourish the next generation.
Competence in traditional cultures is ensured by guaranteed opportunity for mastery. Children were taught to carefully observe and listen to those with more experience. A person with greater ability was seen as a model for learning, not as a rival. Each person strives for mastery for personal growth, but not to be superior to someone else. Humans have an innate drive to become competent and solve problems. With success in surmounting challenges, the desire to achieve is strengthened.
Power in Western culture was based on dominance, but in tribal traditions it meant respecting the right for independence. In contrast to obedience models of discipline, Native teaching was designed to build respect and teach inner discipline. From earliest childhood, children were encouraged to make decisions, solve problems, and show personal responsibility. Adults modeled, nurtured, taught values, and gave feedback, but children were given abundant opportunities to make choices without coercion.
Finally, virtue was reflected in the pre-eminent value of generosity. The central goal in Native American child-rearing is to teach the importance of being generous and unselfish. In the words of a Lakota Elder, “You should be able to give away your most cherished possession without your heart beating faster.” In helping others, youth create their own proof of worthiness: they make a positive contribution to another human life.”
Building Without Nails The Genius of Japanese Carpentry
We’ve heard of the genius “technology” used in ancient times to build towering monuments with nothing more than primitive tools like stones and ropes. The Egyptian pyramids of old is a great example.
Back in the far east, Japan had plenty to offer the ancient world as well when it came to resourceful inventions and crafts. Traditional Japanese Carpenters built houses, temples, and castles, without the use of nails, screws, or bolts.
In a documentary interviewing one of the few remaining practitioners of this seemingly lost art of carpentry, an old Japanese master craftsman exclaims “No bolts, no nails. It lasts longer!”. Proudly claiming its effectiveness that no one would be able to argue against its success in the form of several majestic towering temples all over Japan still standing to this day.
After being subjected to harsh weather and clashes of changes in civilizations for well over a thousand years. But with the bold statement comes a clear understanding that the success to this art isn’t because they designed it to withstand “against” nature, instead, it is all about being “with” nature.
Moving his livelihood to New York and sharing his art form of old Japanese wood working to the world, Isao Hanafusa, co-owner of Miya Shoji, has carved himself a unique niche in the competitive market of the furnishing industry.
Sought out and revered by New Yorkers wanting that embrace with nature in their interior decor with a style and durability in craftsmanship that can’t be rivaled by most factory produced alternatives.
All furniture selections in Miya Shoji showrooms are hand crafted, even the types lumber used in all his crafts are hand selected by Hanafusa himself. Isao Hanafusa was a graduate of Industrial Revolution studies of which he states has produced countless wonders for the modern world, but its cold machinery has also tragically killed off individual talent that is supposed to reside in craftsmen.
To this day, he rejects criticisms of his methods being unnecessarily old fashioned, because with all the bold talk of technologically advanced tools and methods used in modern day construction work, the Hanafusa family believes a thousand years worth of talent refinement and mastery should not be thrown away in exchange for mass production convenience.
Nor is it going to back down from the contest that their crafts will last even longer than rigid concrete and metal structures for the simple fact they are not designed to resist against the force of mother nature, but to live with her.