Tannishblog

What strikes me about Buddhism in general, and specifically Zen, is - to the Western mind - it seems to contradict itself. This is because we in the West tend to view the words as we view most things, as immutable. That is not the case. What the Zen beginner often struggles with, among other things, is a paradigm-shift in thinking hitherto stifled by Western mores; that words are insufficient to convey the ideas, but those are the best tools we have. As example, I give you two quotes below, seemingly contradictory, but in fact both statements are correct in the Zen view:

The willow is green; the flowers are red. 

and…

The flower is not red; nor is the willow green.

Have I lost you? These statements illustrate the fluidity of thought necessary to take the first steps in Buddhist thinking: While the first statement, verifying color of the objects, is obviously true - on a conventional level - the second statement reminds us that without the mind to interpret, compartmentalize, and aggregate concepts, neither the objects (the willow and the flower) nor their properties (their respective colors) can exist.

Why bother to differentiate this? Because the knowledge of mind as a necessary and inseparable factor in viewing our world leads to the understanding of how important it is for us to try to temper our minds. Adding the mind into our empirical equations reminds us that a calm mind produces better results than a turbulent mind; that our very perceptions can shift dramatically as our mental state changes. It is therefore our first priority to understand the workings of our minds.

How is this done? Sitting in meditation, without distractions, allows one to gain focus on how the mind's discourse can lead us, instead of us leading our mind. The results can be fascinating, but it takes perseverence - and a touch of courage. 

Raw Story has a scoop about a program championed by Illinois' Dick Durban (D) allowing 27 cities across the nation to administer manufactured blood substitute to trauma patients without their knowledge. Loyola University Hospital, near my hometown, is on the government's list of approved suppliers.

After recovering from my initial squeamishness, I ponder that our nation has a prolonged deficit of blood donors resulting in a shortage of blood. Combine the logistics of storage and distribution of the stuff, and we see a real potential problem.

Fake blood, if it works, can be a viable answer to saving many lives, most especially our injured soldiers, who need all the help they can get. But the previous trials were failures, and the a web site run by UCSC, one of the participating hospitals lists the following pros and cons:

What are the potential benefits of participating in the study?

• PolyHeme® may increase the likelihood of survival after traumatic injury.

• Patients might avoid the risks of blood transfusion.

• Patients might avoid a reduction in the function of internal organs that sometimes follows blood transfusion.

• This study may help patients in the future.

What are the potential risks of participating in the study?

• Rash

• Temporary, non-life-threatening increase in blood pressure

• Transmission of hepatitis and HIV viruses

• Kidney or liver damage with some resulting loss of kidney or liver function has occurred in patients who received other free hemoglobin products, but so far has not been found in patients who received PolyHeme®, however there is a potential risk that this may occur with PolyHeme® also.

• Unforeseen happenings

Unforeseen Happenings: like turning them into Zombie Cyborgs, or something…

What bothers me is the patients will be unaware of receiving the synthetic substance. Granted, trauma patients aren't usually capable of making decisions in times of need. Likely their families are in a state of shock or stress, and the delay caused by paperwork red tape could literally kill the patient. Reality dictates that there isn't time for such details in trauma cases. Still, it rankles.

In the lengthening list of what constitutes progress and of which technologies advance civilization and improve quality of life, this may make it's mark. It surely has promise. I can't help wondering., however, if Christian Extremists will ban the substance because modern medicine is "trying to play God."

For both the clinical trials and the public reaction, only time will tell.

I just found an old article (end of May) at rawstory.com about apes, presidents, and decorum. Interested? Read: "George, ya big Ape!" As a further teaser. this snippet:

It’s my husband," that female silverback told those that tried to deny her entry to the operating room in Dallas. "His blood, his brains are all over me."

Meanwhile, my polar friend, Badtux is looking into his Crystal Herring and seeing the future of America in the today’s Louisiana. Warning: not for the progressively-impaired.