A World Without Pain

Does hurting make us human?

By Ariel Levy

January 6, 2020 (NewYorker.com)

Joanne Cameron experiences suffering mostly as “an abstract thing.”Photograph by Kamila Lozinska for The New Yorker

We like to think that what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger, or more resilient, or . . . something. Deeper. Wiser. Enlarged. There is “glory in our sufferings,” the Bible promises. “Suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” In this equation, no pain is too great to be good. “The darker the night, the brighter the stars,” Dostoyevsky wrote. “The deeper the grief, the closer is God!” We atheists get in on the action by insisting that the agony of loss elucidates the worth of love. The hours spent staring into the dark, looping around our own personal grand prix of anxieties, are not a waste of time but a fundamental expression of our humanity. And so on. To be a person is to suffer.

But what if our worst feelings are just vestigial garbage? Hypervigilance and pricking fear were useful when survival depended on evading lions; they are not particularly productive when the predators are Alzheimer’s and cancer. Other excruciating feelings, like consuming sadness and aching regret, may never have had a function in the evolutionary sense. But religion, art, literature, and Oprah have convinced us that they are valuable—the bitter kick that enhances life’s intermittent sweetness. Pain is what makes joy, gratitude, mercy, hilarity, and empathy so precious. Unless it isn’t.

“I know the word ‘pain,’ and I know people are in pain, because you can see it,” Joanne Cameron, a seventy-two-year-old retired teacher, told me, in the cluttered kitchen of her century-old stone cottage in the Scottish Highlands. Cameron has never experienced the extremes of rage, dread, grief, anxiety, or fear. She handed a cup of tea to Jim, her husband of twenty-five years, with whom she’s never had a fight. “I see stress,” she continued, “and I’ve seen pain, what it does, but I’m talking about an abstract thing.”

Because of a combination of genetic quirks, Cameron’s negative emotional range is limited to the kinds of bearable suffering one sees in a Nora Ephron movie. If someone tells Cameron a sad story, she cries—“easily! Oh, I’m such a softie.” When she reads about the latest transgression by Boris Johnson or Donald Trump, she feels righteous indignation. “But then you just go to a protest march, don’t you? And that’s all you can do.” When something bad happens, Cameron’s brain immediately searches for a way to ameliorate the situation, but it does not dwell on unhappiness. She inadvertently follows the creed of the Stoics (and of every twelve-step recovery program): Accept the things you cannot change.

Cameron, who has white hair and was wearing denim overalls over a purple striped shirt, has a bouncy, elfin energy. She described the closest she’d ever come to experiencing real terror: an incident when her son, Jeremy, a musician, was beaten up so badly at a gig that he had to be hospitalized. “He was defending someone,” Cameron said. “The lead singer was gay—we’re talking a good few years ago, when they weren’t quite as tolerated—and they started calling the gay chappie names, and then suddenly the whole lot of them came on top of Jeremy.”

“They punched him, and kicked him, stamped his head,” Jim, a tall, genial man, with a white beard and a thick brogue, added gravely.

When Cameron got the call, she remembers, “initially, I thought, Oh, God, I hope he doesn’t die—I felt that. Then we got in the car. I wasn’t fretting, I was just thinking, We’ve got to get to him, he needs me.” They drove a hundred and thirty miles on the single-track roads that wind east from their home in Foyers, near the snaky banks of Loch Ness, to Peterhead. “We got to the hospital about four or five in the morning. He looked like an elephant man, my handsome boy did,” Cameron said, laughing. “He looked like nothing on earth!”

In addition to Jeremy, who is forty-two, Cameron has a daughter, Amy, who is thirty. Her experience of motherhood has entailed none of the rumbling terror that most parents feel over their children’s safety. “Some time ago, someone said to me, ‘When the baby comes, the first thing you do is count the fingers and toes.’ I thought, I never looked at anything!” Cameron said. “I never dreamed of there being anything wrong.”

In sharp contrast to her near-inability to feel awful, Cameron has an expansive capacity for positive emotions. She is exceedingly loving and affectionate with her husband. When I first came to the door, she greeted me with an embrace, crying, “Ooh, I’m very huggy!” Her seventeen years as a special-education teacher required great reserves of compassion. “I had a Down-syndrome girl—who was actually quite high-functioning—and she would come in every morning and she’d walk up to me and spit in my face, and say, ‘I hate you, Jo Cameron! I hate you!’ And I’d stand there and say, ‘I don’t like being spat on, but I don’t hate you!’ ” Cameron told me, smiling. “Oh, I’ve had some very difficult students. I’ve been bitten; I’ve been spat on; I’ve been kicked!” Over the years, the Camerons have provided short-term foster care for four children. One of them stole all their vacation money from the cookie jar. “She did take things for the sake of taking them,” Cameron said pleasantly. “It took us years to catch up! When eight hundred pounds is gone from your vacation kitty, it takes a long time to recoup.”“Think of this as intensive training for being in a can.”Cartoon by Victoria Roberts

Even seemingly sorrowful things, like the loss of her mother a year ago, can fill Cameron with appreciation and pleasure. “My mother’s death was the least saddest thing ever,” Cameron declared. “She used to say, ‘I’ve had the most wonderful life.’ And she died after she had an iced lolly and went to sleep.” When the doctor arrived, Cameron recalled, “she said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but that’s the most beautiful corpse I’ve ever seen.’ Then we sat in the kitchen and had a fantastic wake: we toasted Mum with Tia Maria till the early morning.”

Cameron plans to leave her own corpse to science when she dies. “They’ll whisk the body away, and stick us in a drawer somewhere and chop us up, won’t they?” she said. “I don’t mind.” She will also spend a good deal of her remaining time alive being studied by scientists, who hope that her genetics will provide a path to new treatments for anxiety and trauma, as well as for pain management and healing. In addition to her unusual emotional composition, Cameron is entirely insensitive to physical pain. As a child, she fell and hurt her arm while roller-skating, but had no idea she’d broken it until her mother noticed that it was hanging strangely. Giving birth was no worse. “When I was having Jeremy, it was the height of everyone doing natural childbirths,” she said. “My friends would come up to me and say, ‘Don’t listen—it’s murder. If you’re in pain, take everything they give you.’ I went in thinking, As soon as it gets painful, I’ll ask for the drugs. But it was over before I knew it.”

Remarkably, Cameron didn’t realize that she was any different from other people until she was sixty-five. “Lots of people have high pain thresholds,” she said. “I didn’t think people were silly for crying. I could tell people were upset or hurt and stuff. I went through life and I just thought, I haven’t hurt myself as much as they have.”

Devjit Srivastava was an officer in the Indian Navy for a decade—an experience that taught him to stay cool under pressure. Composure is also important in his current job, which is unpredictable and high-stakes: Srivastava is the consultant anesthetist at what he calls a “frontier hospital”—Raigmore, in Inverness, which serves the whole of the vast and remote Scottish Highlands. His first day on call, he was pulled into a helicopter to help with a “field amputation” on a farmer who had got caught in a thresher.Get the best of The New Yorker every day, in your in-box.Sign me upWill be used in accordance with ourPrivacy Policy.

When Srivastava met Jo Cameron, six years ago, she told him that she wouldn’t need painkillers for the surgery she was about to undergo. He assumed that he was just dealing with a kindred imperturbable spirit. “The Scottish are known to be stoic people,” Srivastava said, drinking coffee in the bustling hospital cafeteria. “I thought, She’s just trying to tell me she can tolerate pain very well. And, actually, it’s a busy list, and we have to crack on.”

Cameron was having a trapeziectomy, an operation to remove a small bone at the base of the thumb joint. Though her hands never hurt, they’d become so deformed by arthritis that she couldn’t hold a pen properly. She’d had a similar experience with her hip, which had recently been replaced; it didn’t hurt, but her family noticed that she wasn’t walking normally. She saw her local doctor about it several times, but the first question was always “How much pain are you in?” And the answer was always “None.” (“The third time I was there I think they figured, ‘We’ll just take an X-ray to shut this woman up,’ ” Cameron told me. “Then the X-ray came in and it was really bad. Everything was all distorted and mangled and crumbling. He said, ‘Wow. This has got to be done.’ ”)

Srivastava told Cameron that, Scottish stoicism notwithstanding, he intended to use an anesthetic block during the operation. After she left the hospital, he reviewed her chart: “She had only one paracetamol”—a Tylenol—“immediately after the operation in the recovery area. And that was only because the nurses give everybody a paracetamol after surgery. I checked the full records of hip replacement the previous year: after hip surgery it was the same thing—nothing taken for pain. That’s when I called her in.”

He remained slightly skeptical until Cameron let him perform a maneuver that anesthesiologists use on patients who are having difficulty regaining consciousness after sedation: they press hard on the inner edges of the eye sockets, and the pain shocks people awake. Cameron, of course, felt only pressure.

Srivastava was surprised that no doctor or nurse had been curious about her pain insensitivity before. (Cameron told me that she didn’t think it was particularly notable: “They’ve got so many people demanding their attention, screaming—they’re the ones you focus on.”) Srivastava recognized that her case was extraordinary—“This doesn’t fall into every anesthetist’s life,” he said—and also that understanding it would require him to supplement his own expertise. He developed a research protocol, and enlisted highly regarded scientists from around the world to try to figure out what caused her condition.

Cameron is beguiled by the idea that she can help alleviate others’ suffering—she remembers the terrible migraines that tormented her mother. Her father, however, was pain-free. “I never saw him take an aspirin,” Cameron said. “I’m convinced he was the same as me, because I never heard my father complaining about any pain, ever. He died suddenly, of a brain hemorrhage—I think other people would have had a warning.” She continued, “He was the kindest man you’ll ever meet. Every morning he’d wake us with a cup of tea and a carrot from the garden and tell us a poem.” Then he’d accompany Cameron to school, hand in hand and skipping all the way.

The scientists who took on Jo Cameron’s case were working in a young field. Geneticists have been studying congenital insensitivity to pain only since the nineteen-nineties. In that time, several hundred cases have been reported; presumably there are others, but no one knows how many. The condition is almost always caused by neuropathy, an interruption in the transmission of painful sensation along nerve fibres. People with severe congenital neuropathy tend to die young, because they injure themselves so frequently and severely. (Without pain, children are in constant danger. They swallow something burning hot, the esophagus ruptures, bacteria spill into the internal organs, and terminal sepsis sets in. They break their necks roughhousing. To protect some patients, doctors have removed all their teeth to prevent them from chewing off their tongues and bleeding to death.) There are also people whose neurons stop working, as the result of a disease: syphilis, lupus, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis.

In recent years, advances in genetic science have made it possible to link particular variants of pain insensitivity to mutations in specific genes. Six members of the Marsili family in Italy, for instance, share a mutation in the gene ZFHX2; consequently, they rarely sweat, experience pain only fleetingly, and are completely insensitive to heat. “We live a very normal life, perhaps better than the rest of the population,” Letizia Marsili, the matriarch of the family, said in 2017. (She once broke her shoulder while skiing in the Italian alps; she continued skiing without any pain for the rest of the afternoon, and got around to seeing a doctor only days later, when it was convenient.) There are downsides, though, to what’s been named Marsili syndrome. Letizia’s mother suffered multiple fractures in her youth without noticing them; her bones were never set properly, and they healed awry.

In 2006, Geoff Woods, a geneticist at Cambridge, published his findings on members of several families in a remote region of northern Pakistan, who share a mutation in the gene SCN9A, which renders them both pain-free and unable to process smell. (Since then, people with the same mutation have been identified all over the world, but the Pakistani patients were an ideal group to study: they were all the products of cousin-to-cousin marriages, making their gene pool unusually easy to map.) “The lack of a sense of smell is really helpful, because it provides us with a simple question we can ask new patients,” James Cox, a former researcher of Woods’s who is now a prominent geneticist at University College London, said. Cox has been studying Cameron’s DNA for five years, and has co-authored a paper with Srivastava about her case, which was published last March, in the British Journal of Anaesthesia. “Jo is quite unique,” he said.

Cameron does not have neuropathy: she can feel all the sensations the rest of us do, except pain. The most striking difference between her and everyone else is the way she processes endocannabinoids—chemicals that exist naturally in every human brain. Endocannabinoids mitigate our stress response, and they bind to the same receptors as the THC in the kind of cannabis you smoke. Normally, they are broken down by an enzyme called fatty acid amide hydrolase, or faah. But Cameron has a mutation on her faah gene that makes the enzyme less effective—so her endocannabinoids build up. She has extraordinarily high levels of one in particular: anandamide, whose name is derived from the Sanskrit word for “bliss.”

About a third of the population has a mutation in the faah gene, which provides increased levels of anandamide. “That phenotype—low levels of anxiety, forgetfulness, a happy-go-lucky demeanor—isn’t representative of how everyone responds to cannabis, but you see a lot of the prototypical changes in them that occur when people consume cannabis,” said Matthew Hill, a biologist at the University of Calgary’s Hotchkiss Brain Institute, who was a co-author of the Cameron paper. The faah gene, like every gene, comes in a pair. People who have the mutation in one allele of the gene seem a little high; people who have it in both even more so. Jo Cameron is fully baked.

“When I met Jo for the first time, I was just struck by her,” Cox, an affable forty-year-old with a scruffy beard, told me, one afternoon in his lab at U.C.L. “She was very chatty. Did you notice that?” (It’s hard to miss.) “I said to her, ‘Are you worried about what’s going to happen today?’ Because she was meeting our clinicians to have a skin biopsy and do quantitative sensory testing—pain-threshold tests. She said, ‘No. In fact, I’m never worried about anything.’ ” Cox told me that it was difficult to get through everything in the time they’d allotted, because Cameron was so friendly and loquacious with the scientists, even as they burned her, stuck her with pins, and pinched her with tweezers until she bled. This imperviousness to pain is what makes her distinct from everyone else with a faah mutation. They, like even the most committed stoners, can still get hurt.

Cameron had the same faah mutation that many other people have—but there had to be something else at play. The scientists started their inquiry by isolating DNA from her blood, and then analyzing the protein-coding subset of her genome—the part that’s traditionally considered to be significant. “We didn’t really find anything,” Cox said. “So we decided, O.K., why don’t we look across the whole genome for bits that are deleted or duplicated? And, at the time, this new chip was just available, which enabled us to scan the whole genome and look for deletions”—snippets missing from her genetic code. “It was a lucky strike: we found that there was this deletion. But it was distinct from faah. It was away from faah, just downstream.”

The scientists noticed that the right edge of the deletion overlapped “a gene that was annotated as a pseudogene,” Cox said, and frowned. “Which is a term I don’t like.” A pseudogene is what’s been thought of as genetic detritus—a copy of a gene that’s just sitting there, not doing anything productive. One biochemist I spoke to likened a pseudogene to a rusted-out car you stumble on in the forest—only, in Cameron’s case, they put a key in the ignition and the car turned on. “To call it a pseudogene is misleading, because this is a gene that is expressed—it makes a product, a sequence in the DNA,” Cox said, with excitement. “It’s a real fascinating class of genes which have been severely overlooked in genetics until very recently.” Cox and his colleagues named this particular pseudogene—“It’s nicer to call it a gene,” he insisted—faah out. “It was a wordplay, really,” he said sheepishly. “The challenge now is to understand what it’s doing. Jo is the first person in the world that we know of with this.”

Cameron’s case is important in genetics, partly because it may supply evidence that pseudogenes are more significant than they were previously thought to be. Moreover, if scientists can replicate her neurochemistry they might be able to develop treatments that alleviate the opioid epidemic. They could potentially treat otherwise intractable anxiety and depression. Perhaps we could all be a little more like Jo Cameron: joyful, compassionate, unperturbed by all the nasty, roiling feelings that turn us, from time to time, into goblins.

I asked Matthew Hill—a renowned expert on cannabinoids and stress—if there was any downside to Cameron’s biology, and he laughed out loud. “Yes! From an evolutionary perspective, it would be tremendously destructive for a species to have that,” he said. Without fear, you drown in waves that you shouldn’t be swimming in; you take late-night strolls in cities that you don’t know; you go to work at a construction site and neglect to put on a hard hat. “Her phenotype is only beneficial in an environment where there is no danger,” Hill asserted. “If you can’t be concerned about a situation where you’d be at risk of something adverse happening to you, you are more likely to put yourself in one. Anxiety is a highly adaptive process: that’s why every mammalian species exhibits some form of it.”

Unlike other pain-insensitive people, Cameron has made it into her seventies without getting badly hurt. Sometimes she realizes that she’s burning her hand on the stove because she smells singeing; sometimes she cuts herself in the garden and sees that she’s bleeding. But none of that has been severe, and Cameron did raise two children safely into adulthood.

“The human brain is very capable of learning, ‘This is what’s appropriate to do in this situation,’ ” Hill said. Cameron’s relative cautiousness may have developed imitatively. “And there may not have been that much threat presented to her—she’s lived in a rural community in Scotland,” he concluded. “Maybe she hasn’t had to deal with that much that would physically or emotionally harm her.”

Scotland is notorious for “one of the vilest climates under heaven,” Robert Louis Stevenson, who was born in Edinburgh, wrote. “The weather is raw and boisterous in winter, shifty and ungenial in summer, and a downright meteorological purgatory in the spring.” But the week in autumn when I visited was blissfully sunny. Farmland rolled under a gleaming blue sky for miles around the Camerons’ property, green and gold and dotted with sheep. Behind their cottage, they grow vegetables in little plastic greenhouses, and their chickens peck about in a modest orchard of pears, apples, and plums. “We look after the hens very well,” Cameron said. (She is a vegan; her husband is a vegetarian who sometimes indulges in an egg.)

The Camerons “do everything together,” Jo said. They make wine, and take weekly trips to Edinburgh to visit Amy; they’re in a local theatre troupe, for which Jo is the stage manager. (She doesn’t act, because she can’t remember the lines. As we were walking through the garden, a pizza was burning in the oven: Cameron had forgotten that she was making one for lunch.) “I love Jim to bits,” Cameron said. “He’s smashing—I’m so lucky. Having had a marriage before where . . .” She trailed off, thinking about her previous husband. “I mean, I loved him. But you never knew what you were coming home to.”

Cameron’s first husband, Phil, died after a prolonged battle with mental illness. “He’d either be full of fun and laughter, or he’d be so depressed he’d be curled up in the corner in the fetal position,” she said. “He was like this—” She mimed a seesaw going violently up and down. “Bipolar.”

They met when they were both university students near Birmingham, England, where Cameron grew up. “He was lovely,” she said. “But he always had a dark side. He would get down, and I would be the one that would bring him up again. You know, there’d be a game going: ‘Oh, it’s not that bad, come on.’ ”

Phil had his first major episode as the family was on its way to a vacation in Sardinia, when Jeremy was little. “He just cracked,” Cameron said. “On the plane, all the way there, he was kicking me, pinching me.” (It’s impossible to say how hard; it didn’t hurt.) “We got to the hotel, and I said, ‘Can someone please come and help me? My husband is having a breakdown.’ ” She recalled the difficulty of finding a flight home on short notice, of thinking of an excuse to give Jeremy. “He always had it under control,” she said. “But suddenly he couldn’t control it.” Phil tried a variety of medications and saw several psychiatrists over the years. “I always went to every session,” Cameron said. “The last time he went to see somebody, the doctor said to me, ‘This is terminal, you know. At some point, he will . . .’ And six months later, sure enough, he did.”

I asked Cameron what she felt when the psychiatrist said that. (And I imagined how I would feel: desperate, heartsick, powerless, distraught.) “I looked at the state he was in, and I thought, Maybe it’s good,” she said. Cameron was back at work the day after the funeral. “It sounds cold. But you say to people, ‘I’m not being cold! Look, horrible things happen.’ I’m not in airy-fairy land. Horrible things are going to happen. You have to cope with it. You have to say to yourself, ‘I can’t help that person.’ You help them as much as you can, but when you can’t help them anymore, then you have to help everyone else.”

Amy was a year old at the time, and Jeremy was thirteen. “We all went to the beach every weekend after Phil died,” Cameron recalled. “I said to Jeremy, ‘What we’ll do every Sunday is we’ll put Amy in the back of the car, and you get a map’—because he loved maps—‘and I won’t know where we’re going, just direct me.’ He’d go, ‘Turn left, now turn right, go along here.’ And we’d turn up in all sorts of places, and we’d have Sunday lunch. We had a great time doing that.” Whenever I pressed Cameron for details about a seemingly devastating occurrence, she wasn’t evasive; she was mystifying—always ending up on a lovely memory, via a route so unforeseeable it was as if it, too, were determined by a child with a map.

Cameron began dating Jim, who was teaching science at the time, and had known her late husband from their village chapter of Roundtable, a kind of Scottish Rotary Club. Five years later, they married, and Jim adopted Amy. (Jeremy was already a young adult.) Cameron said of her daughter, “She’s geometrically opposite me. She worries about everything.” From an early age, Amy demonstrated talent as an artist, and her work has been exhibited across Europe. Her portfolio includes sculpture, earthworks, and intricate, realistic drawings, often interspersed with text. In one piece, above the image of a sleeping baby, float the words “feeling/the sacrifice/cut through/and sectioned/kept alive by/these unfortunate animals of emotions—fear, disgust, anger, etc. Odder still people feel nothing.”

Amy finds her mother’s equanimity confounding. “She’ll say, ‘Why can’t you be a normal mom?’ ” Cameron told me. When Cameron asked, “What’s a normal mom?” Amy replied, “Well, it’s not you. They shout!” Cameron shook her head at the memory. “I sometimes think to myself, I’m being horrible. If someone is really in a rage and really upset, and you’re saying, ‘It’s all right!,’ then they get angrier. I can be very annoying—especially when you’re a teen-ager and you don’t want your problems solved. You just want someone to shout at.”

Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale and the author of the book “Against Empathy,” maintains that relating to suffering has little to do with the capacity to be helpful and kind. He has published research suggesting that compassion, not empathy, drives altruistic behavior. (Most research on the subject blurs together empathy and compassion, but Bloom argues that this is a failure of experimental design: “The standard measures suck.”) “Empathy can actually get in the way—if you are in terrible pain and I feel so much empathy for you that, being with you, I feel it, too, I may decide to stay home,” he told me. “The Buddhists knew this. There’s all this teaching that says, ‘Don’t get sentimental. Joyously and lovingly help others, but don’t get in their heads.’ ” Cameron, he told me, was a perfect illustration of his point: “She’s my dream girl. She doesn’t feel the pain of others, so she doesn’t feel empathy per se. But she cares for others.”“It’s a pretty good piece of fiction. I’m surprised he couldn’t get it published in his lifetime.”Cartoon by P. C. Vey

For nearly a decade, pharmaceutical firms have tried, without success, to create medications that act on faah. In 2016, the Portuguese company Bial Pharmaceuticals abandoned one such drug after a Phase 1 clinical trial in which six participants were hospitalized, and one died. (Scientists believe that there may have been a dosing accident, or that the drug had “off target” effects—it ended up binding to a receptor other than faah.) Pfizer gave up its own attempts at a faah inhibitor in 2012, because the drug didn’t work. Recently, though, it started research again, and Vernalis funded a study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston, which is undergoing peer review. The prospect of a breakthrough is too promising to relinquish.

Opioids, besides being addictive, don’t always work: some kinds of chronic pain don’t respond to drugs that target the opioid system, or to other analgesics, such as ibuprofen and corticosteroids, which operate on the prostaglandin system. Cameron may provide the key to a new class of drugs that operate on the endocannabinoid system. Srivastava told me that the paper he worked on with his colleagues was just the beginning. “You realize that this is sort of nature revealing its secret to you,” he said, “and you only worked on part of that secret, but if you worked on the full secret, so to say, it could be astounding.”

For half a century, scientists have accumulated evidence that pain is not simply the result of a one-way flow of sensory information from an injury to the brain. Before the brain gets involved, “gates” in the spinal cord modulate the way we feel pain—whether it is fast-travelling information, as in a stab wound, or the dull, slow-moving kind that characterizes chronic pain. These spinal gates can be opened or closed by a variety of factors. A distracting physical sensation can temporarily close them; when you bump your head and instinctively rub that spot, you are overriding the nerves that register pain with the nerves that register rubbing. Your emotional state, too, can have an effect. It’s evolutionarily advantageous for pain gates to be wide open when you’re stressed: if you were anxiously evading a predator, your body would want to let you know if you were stepping on something sharp that might hinder your ability to escape. Conversely, if you are very relaxed, your gates are less apt to be open. One of the things Srivastava and his colleagues want to explore is the extent to which Cameron’s pain insensitivity is the result of her peaceful state of mind—and vice versa.

The second phase of Srivastava’s research will include Cameron’s son, Jeremy, who has the faah mutation on one but not both alleles of the gene, and who has a high tolerance for pain. (Unlike many faah people, Jeremy, who declined to be interviewed, is painfully shy.) “But this goes much beyond genetics,” Srivastava continued. “We are deconstructing pain mechanisms in Jo.” Because she has sensation but no pain, she presents unique possibilities for research. “We know this nerve carries that, this is how it is done, bit by bit we have progressed—but here is a golden opportunity to do it all at once, and confirm, rebut, or come up with new findings,” Srivastava said. He has been contacted by doctors and scientists in Sweden, France, England, and the United States, who want to collaborate. Srivastava, who is fifty, is an impassive man, but he looked a little fretful as he talked about the research. “I feel slightly overwhelmed,” he admitted,“like I don’t have enough time in this life to properly do it.”

One complicating question is how much of Cameron’s Cameronness is really a consequence of her faah mutation and faah out deletion. She has plenty of other genes, after all, and her upbringing and her early environment also played a role in making her who she is. Since the paper was published, Matthew Hill has heard from half a dozen people with pain insensitivity, and he told me that many of them seemed nuts. “If you had this phenotype and weren’t a generally pleasant person like Jo—maybe you’re, like, a douche-y frat boy—the way that you would process this might be entirely different. Our whole perception of this phenotype is explicitly based on the fact that it was Jo who presented it.”

Srivastava is intent on solving the scientific riddles that Cameron poses. But, in a wistful moment, he suggested that the work also raised profound social questions. “Spending time with her, you realize that if we only had more people like Jo—who are genuinely nice, pleasant, do not give in to anger . . . well,” he said, “you know.”

Misery may not be all it’s cracked up to be. Paul Bloom, who is writing a book about suffering, told me, “There’s a big movement in psychology to say, ‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.’ People talk about ‘post-traumatic growth.’ I think a lot of it is bullshit. Look at the data: bad things are bad.” You aren’t healthier after you have cancer or fall down a flight of steps. And it’s only in the movies that getting hit by a bolt of lightning turns you into a superhero; in life, it turns you into a fritter.

The entire time I spent behind the wheel in Scotland I was suffering what psychologists call an aversive experience—that is, I was afraid for my life. The Scots drive on the left side of the road, which is already a challenge, but in the Highlands near Loch Ness there is only one lane. When another car comes barrelling at you, you’re supposed to pull over on the (nonexistent) shoulder, but this can be hard to remember when you come around a sharp curve—which happens roughly every two seconds—and find yourself in the glare of rapidly oncoming headlights. I was pretty sure that one of these encounters would send me over a cliff, plummeting toward the dark water like Toonces the Driving Cat.

I relaxed slightly when I was back in Inverness, where my only foes were the baffling roundabouts, with their unique Scottish etiquette. I had just navigated such a rotary and was on a seemingly easy stretch of highway when I felt an explosion underneath me, then heard the hideous sound of metal scraping asphalt. I’d hit the curb with such force that I’d popped my front left tire.

I felt my blood pumping and my skin prickling, and I whipped my head around to see how many people I’d killed. In the process, I scratched my forehead on the sharp corner of the seat-belt mechanism, and it hurt. There was nowhere to pull over, so I rumbled loudly onward, afraid that something worse was about to happen—mind racing, pain gates open, tire rim scraping the street. I felt panic about getting to the airport, followed by irate self-recrimination (why am I such a bad driver?), then by irate spousal recrimination (why didn’t he get his stinking passport renewed in time, so he could come with me on this trip and drive?). I was a wounded, furious, frantic goblin.

Then I thought about Jo Cameron, and what she would do in this situation. She would keep going until there was a place to pull over, and she wouldn’t worry about how far that might be or what might happen before then, because there’d be nothing she could do about it. She’d park, call the rental-car place, and take it from there—calmly, kindly, without losing her mind or her sense of humor.

Gradually, my heartbeat slowed, and I saw in the rearview mirror that the scratch on my forehead hadn’t even broken the skin. I remembered something that Matthew Hill had said about how a stress response is biologically designed to reallocate energy for survival—the goblin feelings are just a weird side effect. “Cortisol’s main job is to boost your blood sugar, and adrenaline’s main job is to jack up your blood pressure, so you have fuel and a delivery method to sustain your muscles and brain in dealing with an aversive threat,” he’d explained. “But we have so rapidly out-evolved the requirements of those processes they are almost like an evolutionary throwback. When we check a Facebook page and find out our partner has cheated on us, our brain still mounts that same biological response, even though it has zero value to us anymore.” Even Hill—who told me how disastrous it would be for human beings to float through life without anxiety—conceded, “Maybe Jo is the next evolutionary step.” ♦Published in the print edition of the January 13, 2020, issue, with the headline “World Without Pain.”

Dumb Tourists In Paris Gawking At Splendor Of Greatest Architectural Feats In Human History

Portrait of a happy loving couple traveling together in Paris and pointing away by the Arc de Triomphe

January 8, 2020 (theonion.com)

PARIS—Stopping every few blocks to tilt back their heads in wonder, idiotic hick tourists on their first visit to Paris made utter fools of themselves this week by unabashedly gawking at the timeless splendor of some of the most beautiful examples of architecture in human history. “Check out these dopes goggling at this breathtaking testament to the melding of engineering and human creativity,” said Eiffel Tower tour guide Henri Bergeron, disdainfully pointing out a large group of vacationers clearly dumbstruck by the zenith of mankind’s structural accomplishments. “Oh, what, they’ve never seen a heart-stopping tribute to humanity’s potential before? Year after year, these vulgarians come to Paris to clog our streets, mangle our language, take up too much space in cafés, and openly marvel at the stunning achievements of the human mind and spirit. Typical Americans.” Bergeron added that he doesn’t come to their small towns and gawk at their stupid triplexes.

UK’S FIRST ASTRONAUT: ALIENS DEFINITELY EXIST, MAY BE ON EARTH

Alien landing (or taking of)

JANUARY 7TH 2020 by KRISTIN HOUSER (futurism.com)

100% Certainty

On Sunday, The Observer published an interview with Helen Sharman, the first British astronaut. In it, she details everything from her childhood to her experience in space — as well as her firm belief that Earth isn’t the only source of life in the universe.

“Aliens exist,” the astronaut insisted, “there’s no two ways about it.”

Numbers Game

Sharman doesn’t claim to have seen any extraterrestrial life during her jaunts to space. Like many others, she believes that the universe is just too massive for Earth to reasonably be the only place where life exists.

“There are so many billions of stars out there in the universe that there must be all sorts of different forms of life,” she told The Observer.

Among Us

In the interview, Sharman also notes that the forms of life that exist beyond our planet might be nothing like the life found here on Earth. The astronaut even suggests that the differences could make aliens invisible to us — meaning that they might already be on Earth and we just don’t know it.

“Will they be like you and me, made up of carbon and nitrogen? Maybe not,” Sharman said. “It’s possible they’re here right now and we simply can’t see them.”

David Hume: Natural, comfortable thinking

Jane O’Grady explores the beautiful, paradoxical philosophy of David Hume

By Jane O’ Grady (reddit.com)

Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), 1766

Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), 1766

Footnotes to Plato is a TLS Online series appraising the works and legacies of the great thinkers and philosophers

David Hume, a master of paradox and wit, is often said to be the greatest English-speaking philosopher who has ever lived. He was a figure of the eighteenth-century Scottish Enlightenment, and yet, like the Romantics, he deflated the status of reason, and elevated that of emotion, the natural, and human animality. Once regarded as the great arch-sceptic, he is now considered to be a naturalist, incorporating humans into empirical enquiry, as part of, rather than transcending, nature. He treated the human mind as a scientific specimen to be explained, and his diagnosis – that we are driven by unconscious mental mechanisms, habit and emotion – influenced DarwinFreud and cognitive science, Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Logical Positivism and the philosophy of science.

Hume was born in 1711 near the English–Scottish border. According to Lord Charlemont who met him in middle age, no one looked less like their real character – Hume’s obesity conveying more “the idea of a turtle-eating alderman than a refined philosopher”. But he had been skinny and “raw-boned” (his own description) when, after leaving Edinburgh University without a degree, he “found a certain boldness of temper [which led him] to seek out some new medium, by which truth might be established”. In pursuing this for the next three years, he was “infinitely happy”, until, at the age of eighteen, an unknown, almost-symptomless malaise (probably depression) deflected him from study. After one of his several intermittent spells of unsatisfactory employment (he was, respectively, a merchant’s clerk, librarian, tutor to a mad marquis, secretary to a general and to an ambassador), he went to France in 1734. While staying at Descartes’s old college La Flèche, and amicably quarrelling with the Jesuits, he wrote the Treatise of Human Nature. The first part of it was anonymously published in 1738, when he was twenty-seven, the second in 1740, and, as a whole, it “fell deadborn from the press, without even reaching such distinction as to excite a murmur among the zealots”. There is much dispute over whether Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) and Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) were intended to re-formulate or replace the Treatise. He twice applied for philosophy professorships, and was each time rejected, mostly on the grounds of his (denied) atheism; and he was chiefly renowned for his essays (several of which critiqued religion), his histories of England and his wit. Much loved and feted in Edinburgh, London and Paris, he died (probably of bowel cancer) in 1776. Adam Smith, one of his many illustrious friends, declared him “approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit”.

About a hundred years later, a partial translation of the Treatise woke Kant from his (self-described) “dogmatic slumbers” – he realized that, according to Hume’s intricate dissection of human thinking, metaphysics was impossible. Descartes had claimed that the mind is what we know best, and that it is free – exempt from the causation that governs the material world. Hume wrote that “the essence of mind is equally unknown to us with that of external bodies”. Extending Descartes’s “mechanical philosophy” into the mind, he set out to discover the mental equivalent of Newton’s laws of physics. Descartes, Locke and other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers (impressed by the discovery that sound, rather than being “out there”, is in fact the result of vibrations interacting with our ear drums and auditory nerves) held that what we actually perceive are not things around us but the “ideas” that either accurately copy, or somehow systematically represent, those things; our knowledge, therefore, consisting of the combination of “ideas”.

Hume disliked the way “idea” lumped together raw, instantaneous sensory experience with concepts and memories. He used the term “impressions” for the immediate elements of sensibility – our perceptions of colour, taste, shape, for instance, and of emotion and desire – in contradistinction to the “ideas” which (he said) are fainter but more lasting copies of these impressions, and which, in turn, “return upon the soul” to produce new impressions. Having received an impression of pain from touching a thistle, for instance, you form and store a less vivid idea of the pain, and that idea is reawakened into an impression of aversion whenever you come within touching range of a thistle.

“Impression” suggests the metaphor of an imprint on malleable wax by something outside it, but Hume was more consistent than other empiricists who claimed that our ideas are all we perceive, while simultaneously claiming that those ideas resemble, or fail to resemble, the things we can’t perceive. He was non-committal as to what, if anything, causes impressions.  Instead he concentrated on working out what the mental mechanisms must be by which (the way he envisaged it) little units of experience and thought are pinged into different channels and combinations.

Hume postulated three “principles” (a notion of resemblance, of “contiguity” and of the cause and effect of present impressions) which move the mind from one impression or idea to some other idea – although not ineluctably, merely by “a gentle force”. We can, of course, combine, augment and modify our ideas as we please in imagination, but we cannot choose whether or not to believe these imagined notions: our beliefs cannot be “commanded at pleasure”. Depending, instead, on the forcefulness with which ideas strike us, our beliefs are more visceral than rational. And, in order to qualify as genuinely constituting knowledge, a combination of ideas has to be ultimately traceable back to the impressions from which it was first copied (which could, as with Julius Caesar’s recorded account of crossing the Rubicon, be someone else’s impressions). Apart from verbal definitions and logical “relations of ideas” (which, if true, are non-contradictable), “facts” that are not based on original impressions are not facts at all; books containing them, Hume wrote, should be thrown on the fire.

The corollary of Hume’s system is that, because we lack the impressions that are required to be the initial foundations to our ideas, our most fundamental beliefs are baseless. We have impressions (and subsequent ideas) of colours, shapes, etc, but lack any impression of their continuous and self-standing existence when not perceived – so why are we so confident that there is a world beyond our experience? Similarly, when we introspect, we encounter numerous fluctuating impressions (“of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure”), but an impression of self eludes us; therefore our idea of it is invalid. “Ourself, independent of the perception of every other object, is in reality nothing”, just “a bundle of perceptions”, or something like “a republic or commonwealth”, the citizens of which are only nominally united.  Again, we see one type of thing or event constantly preceding another type of thing or event, and say the first causes the second, but however many times we experience that sequence of things or events, nothing new is added to our initial experience of it. The first time we witness a conjunction of events/objects is no different from the next and the next; each is just a repetition of the same kind of impressions we’ve already had; and, if one instance of cause and effect doesn’t show us necessity, then many such instances won’t either. We have no impression of what makes the second follow from the first; yet, without an impression of the necessity that connects them, we have no basis for believing in causation. In any case, just because up until now bread has always nourished us, or we have incessantly seen medium-sized things fall when let go of in mid-air, what reason do we have to assume that these hitherto “constant conjunctions” will go on happening? To argue that the future will be like the past because it always has been is “taking that for granted, which is the very point in question” – why should it be? There is “no known connexion between [a loaf’s] sensible qualities and [its] secret powers”, for instance. Why assume that, because certain sensible qualities are now, and have always been, attended with the power to nourish, they always will be? “Your appeal to past experience decides nothing in the present case”, said Hume.

It is no help in escaping Hume’s iconoclasm to say that we now know far more than eighteenth-century scientists about, for instance, bread’s then-“secret powers” – that it contains carbohydrates, and that the hydrogen and oxygen in the carbohydrates decompose to release energy. Hume is surely right that any such knowledge “only staves off our ignorance a little longer”. However far down we go in studying nutrition or anything else, the connection between disparate things and events remains unnecessary and unknown, which means that ultimate explanation eludes us. Induction – inferring from repeatedly observing similar particular instances of an object or event to general laws about it – is the very lynchpin of scientific enquiry, but thanks to Hume, it has become a problem, and none of the claims to solve it is successful.

If the external world is so dubious, where is everything? “Where am I, or what?” cried Hume in the Treatise. He was more rigorously sceptical than the original Sceptics – unlike theirs, his degree of scepticism, and of scepticism about his scepticism, fluctuated according to mood, food and weather, he said, and couldn’t be continuously sustained. Not just because, whenever feeling himself “inviron’d with the deepest darkness”, in “philosophical melancholy and delirium”, he would go out, dine, play backgammon, and be “merry with [his] friends”; but because he always found himself forced to “yield to the current of nature, in submitting to my senses and understanding”.

Although, as a philosopher, he doubted causation, induction, the external world, the self, “as an agent, I am quite satisfied” about them, he said. Like a boat that glides forwards due to momentum, our mental mechanism, without our awareness or volition, seamlessly bridges the gaps in our (in fact discrete) perceptions, so that there seems to be a continuous world of things existing independently of our perceiving them.

Each observation of “constant conjunctions” – that is, pairings of things/events that stand in an apparent causal relation – is, strictly speaking, the same. Yet something does change – after we have witnessed a few examples, we come to believe that the second half of the pairing necessarily follows from the first: when we see one billiard ball shooting straight towards another, we come to feel that the second must move on impact. We infer that the ball will roll away, not from reasoning but because our “natural instincts” – our imagination, twinned with custom or habit – “determine” us “unavoidably” to draw that inference. “The necessary connexion depends on the inference, instead of the inference’s depending on the necessary connexion.” As for continuity of the self, Hume, with the liberality of a great philosopher, admits that he is baffled by it, but “’Tis evident, that the idea or rather impression of ourselves is always intimately present with us”, and is clearly the “object” to which both pride and humility are directed. At any rate, it is not (à la Descartes) up to us to “assert” or not assert the truth of the ideas we have. The units of experience are involuntarily moved by forces that we have no access to.

Heralding modernity, Hume argues that reason is not our essence – that, as Arthur Schopenhauer would say, “we are not winged cherubs without a body” but rooted in the natural world. Where Descartes says that any beliefs without rational justification should be rejected, Hume argues that just because we have no rational grounds for many of our beliefs, it does not mean that we have no reason to hold them. Our beliefs are species-specific, not non-perspectival and absolute. Descartes’s project for a purely objective conception of the world is impossible. Indeed how fortunate that we rely on non-rational instincts that work “infallibly”, unlike the “fallacious” (in practice) deductions of reason.

But isn’t Hume being rather devious? Even as he speaks of things (the external world, self, necessary connection) seeming a certain way to us, he concurrently says  that they don’t in fact (perceptually) seem that way. If our “impressions” are the ultimate units of experience, then surely the first sort of “seem” is illegitimate. He speaks at times of reason as an inferential instinct, a sort of “mechanical power” that we have in common with “the beasts”, but elsewhere he speaks of it as if it were a nature-transcending periscope, at odds with our survival instinct, and luckily thwarted by it. And while claiming that we have no impression of a “necessary connexion”, and therefore nothing on which to base a valid idea of it, he relies on causation to explain how it is that we come to have the (unjustified) sense of necessary connection (and of much else as well).

Is there, then – even though it is impossible for us to gain reliable empirical evidence for it – an external world? Does it contain our minds, and thus the “principles of connexion” which cause us – even though we never experience them as such – to believe in the existence of causal necessity, a material world and our selves? How, anyway, is Hume entitled to pontificate about the impressions and ideas, and their “principles of connexion”, in his own mind or anyone else’s except by reasoning about how they must operate? He talks as if mental units are propelled towards one another like tiny balls in a game of bagatelle, as if he can observe them from the outside, as it were. Whereas surely, when they are his, he only observes their content – what they are of (colours, smells, constant conjunctions). He has to infer how they function, and that other people’s impressions and ideas work similarly to his own. In neither case can he observe the little units that (in his metaphor) act as containers of experiential content, or the operations that propel them.

Hume dances daintily between paradoxes, extracting truth from between the teeth of contradictions. He does the same in his moral philosophy. Any moral system he’d encountered, he said, makes it seem that moral prescriptions are to be deduced from factual observations – that we derive “ought” from “is”. But this is to ignore that to rise from “is” into “ought” requires a take-off from a descriptive type of discourse and behaviour to speaking and acting in a quite different dimension.  The “therefore” in “She is starving therefore I should feed her” is not a logical one. And where, Hume wondered, when we witness an act of “wilful murder” or of generosity, do we find an impression of the respective wickedness or virtue in either act? As with necessary connection, the impression we are looking for is not an “external” impression (an observable part of an act of generosity or of wilful murder) but an “internal impression” – a visceral feeling of approval or disapproval which results from observing such actions. Why? Because for all of us the desire for happiness, and aversion to suffering, are our ultimate motivations; and, unlike Bentham (whose Utilitarianism Hume inspired), Hume provides a mental mechanism (“sympathy”) that shifts us from self-interest to concern for others. He is not begging the question by using an already-moral term to explain morality naturalistically. “Sympathy” in his terminology is a pre-moral faculty for sensing viscerally, as well as deductively, the feelings of others as these are demonstrated in their behaviour, so that as with a violin’s vibrations transmitted from one string to another, observing (the evidence of) other people’s emotions plucks at our own. We naturally tend to be discomfited by seeing someone else’s suffering (unless he is our enemy) and prefer vicariously to enjoy his ease and pleasure. This automatic sensitivity to others’ feelings is our impetus to morality; and is not just an individually subjective feeling but more-or-less universal among the human species. It may not be rational, but, said Hume, “reason is inert”; by itself it can’t persuade us to move from is to ought. “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.”

Hume does enlist reason to smooth out the partiality and localization to which sympathy is prone, and, like Adam Smith, he invokes an impartial observer. Not entirely consonantly with the rest of his emotion-based morality, he also claims that we perceive moral values analogously to how we indirectly perceive sounds, tastes, colours, etc; not because they are as such in the fabric of the world but because our own human nature makes us apprehend certain features of reality in a certain way. No one denies the existence of moral distinctions, Hume said, except out of affectation, and the attempt to appear clever. Who could genuinely think all characters and actions to be equally likeable and commendable? Everyone “must often be touched with the images of Right and Wrong”.

What Hume says in his epistemology is equally applicable to his moral philosophy. “When we see that we have arrived at the utmost extent of human reason, we sit down contented; tho’ we be perfectly satisfied in the main of our ignorance, and perceive that we can give no reason for our most general and refined principles, beside our experience of their reality.” Belief has to be “founded on something natural and easy”; it tends not to be whole-hearted when “the posture of the mind is uneasy” or “forc’d and unnatural”. Strained philosophical reasoning may give us a view that is accurate but also – as in the clear-sighted bleakness of depression – diseased and abnormal. Our inadvertent, comfortable commonsensical beliefs are probably wrong, but, despite reason, we are compelled to hold them. We unwarrantedly believe that things are (mostly) real, connected and all right, and this normal maladjusted vision is healthy, and conducive to our own, and the species’, survival.

Clearly Hume himself often distorts his mind into uncomfortable positions, which is how he produces his beautifully convoluted and paradoxical philosophy. Hume reveals wheels within wheels, and where the wheels are is uncertain. But, as he said, “an object can exist, and yet be no where: and I assert, that this is not only possible, but that the greatest part of beings do and must exist after this manner”.

Jane O’Grady taught philosophy of psychology at City University, co-founded the London School of Philosophy and writes obituaries for the Guardian. Her book on Enlightenment philosophy will be published in January

2020 Astrology Forecast (Video 1 of 4) Once-in-1000-Year Dragonrider Portal is Open All Year!

Matthew Stelzner Please visit my website at www.stelz.biz and sign up for my mailing list to receive my newsletter, notices when new blog posts go live, and special promotions. I have a special promotion going right now, so sign up and you can get a special discount on my fees for private sessions.

In this series of videos I focus on a very rare alignment of three outer planets that has already come into alignment, but will become more precise over the next few weeks and then remain very powerful all year and extending into early 2021. I’m referring to a triple conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto, and they have already moved within fifteen degrees of each other in the same part of the sky. They will be within ten degrees by February. They have not all been within this range of each other since 1981, and then they were only at that close range for about a month. Our incoming alignment will get as close as 4 degrees of precision, and will stay within an 8 degree range for a full 10 months, from March through the end of December. Prior to 1981 the last time all three were this close was in 1445, but again only for about a month. The last time we had an alignment as sustained and potent as our incoming one was over seven hundred years ago, in the year 1285. After 2020 there is not another close triple conjunction of these three outer planets until the year 3151. This alignment is an overlapping configuration of three cycles of time, (the Jupiter-Pluto cycle, the Jupiter-Saturn cycle, and the Saturn-Pluto cycle) each with their own independent range of meanings, but when combined creating a range of unique potentials. Throughout 2019 we experienced the first year that Saturn and Pluto came into exact conjunction since the alignment of 1981-1983. This configuration can be quite challenging and often brings both collectives and individuals into direct confrontation with Shadow material. It can bring a collective journey to the underworld and profound encounters with repressed contents of the human psyche. As Jupiter joins the alignment for the whole of this year it brings its gifts of expansion, upliftment and positivity. It can bring a smile into dark territories, and can help us see the hidden gifts in life’s suffering. This is an alignment that can help us see that life contains both comedy and tragedy, and that our pain can be redeemed by joy. What Saturn and Pluto can bring down low, Jupiter can raise back up. It is not uncommon for alignments like this to bring powerful swings from the depths to the heights, profound reversals where we move from defeat to triumph. There was a similar alignment (Jupiter in conjunction with Pluto and both 90 degrees square to Saturn) when Tolkien’s final book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Return of the King, was published at the end of 1955. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the world has been heading towards Mount Doom this last year, but I have a lot of hope that we will find many unexpected allies to return us safely back home. We can see a consolidation of great power and wealth on the one side hoarding resources, and on the other a source of moral power reforged and strengthened like Aragorn’s sword Anduril. This energy feels like the mountains, beacons and castles of Lord of the Rings. It is time to light the beacons of Gondor, and receive the light of Earendil. Who is your fellowship for 2020 and who are your guides? This is definitely a mountaineering alignment, and I think it is a great time to be heading out on your own Mt. Everest expedition.These first couple months of the year its like you are heading towards base camp and building your strength. As we get into March and April everything really kicks in when Mars forms a tight quadruple conjunction with Jupiter-Saturn and Pluto. These four planets together are perhaps the best configuration for tacking big projects, excavating deep foundations that endure, and then slowly building your success with steely determination. This year there is incredible access to huge amounts of energy that can be directed with disciplined focus. This is the year we all can discover just how much energy we can martial towards our biggest goals. It is also a year we can adjust our goals with the wisdom that comes from knowing what is possible with our unique resources, and within the known boundaries of our limitations. It is important to not over-stretch or aim too high. We must draw on our life experience and set realistic goals from this grounded awareness. For me, it is all about staying on the middle path beyond extremes. There’s a safe zone we have learned to live within, where we remember our inner-child at really take good care of ourselves. Having said that, however, the middle path has many potentials and this is a year where the larger possibilities of your life might come to fruition. I wish you safe travels and send you many blessings.

Massive Solstice-Eclipse Super Portal Right Ahead! Wide Open Through January 24th 2020.

Matthew Stelzner Please visit my website at www.matthewstelzner.com to see my availability for intuitive readings and to sign up for my mailing list to receive my newsletter, blog, and special offers. Please check out my previous videos: Very Rare Planetary Conjunctions: December 2019 to December 2020: https://youtu.be/CgWpnCpWkf4 The Portal of the Expanding Heart is Wide Open: https://youtu.be/h_5RuTOcpcU Very Rare Portal of Profound Love is Open: https://youtu.be/eW92GcNAHjM

There are several powerful and rare astronomical events occurring. First we have a New Moon that is in exact conjunction with the planet Jupiter. This can only happen at most once a year, but for it to be as exact an alignment as this one, it is more rare, and for it to align with the Solstice, rarer still, at most once in twelve years. In researching the rarity I found that there has not been an exact New Moon Jupiter triple conjunction this close to the Solstice since 1995, and before that, 1924. For there to also be a Solar Eclipse as is happening today, we’d have to go back even further to the previous century. This alignment is even more unique as it aligns at the start of a new decade. The power of all these factors coming together I feel makes it a perfect time for setting intentions for positive new beginnings and for ritual celebrations of abundance and hopeful visions of the future. With this alignment we have many cycles that are both ending and beginning. It is an opportunity for both integrating what is coming to completion as well as visioning the possibilities of new cycles and aligning with new timelines. The New Moon and the eclipse are exact at 9:15 pm California time today, which is when I would see the portal as being fully open, but I feel the portal entry period, as I discuss in this video, extends all the way until the next New Moon on January 24th. When a new moon is in conjunction with another planet, astrologers see it as an imprint for the entire month ahead, and so for this one to be in exact conjunction with Jupiter means that the first month of the new decade will carry its mark. Every month at the new Moon we mark the beginning of a new cycle of self care, the balancing of the light of day with the mysteries of the night, the integration of radiant selfhood and the nurturing of both self and others. It is an opportunity for fresh starts and the clearing of the old to make space for the new. For this New Moon to happen within days of the Solstice and the beginning of a new season makes this feeling of fresh starts even more potent, and for it to happen at the ending of a decade makes it a powerful opportunity to turn within and integrate all you have achieved and overcome over the past ten years, and also envision and set intentions for the decade ahead. That this special alignment is being supported by Jupiter brings an opportunity to make your own unique contact and find your own meaningful relationship with this planet. For astrologers, Jupiter is a mighty ambassador of hope, joy and abundance; of gratitude, generosity and good will. It is very much in alignment with the true spirit of these holy days of Solstice time. This time where we remember to laugh and come together with family and friends to express our gratitude and love towards each other. To cuddle up and be merry, to move out of resentment and into peace, kindness and hopeful visions of the future. Every year for two weeks the Sun is conjunct Jupiter, this means that when you look in the direction of the Sun, and I feel this is especially potent at sunrise and sunset, you can imagine that directly in your line of sight, way out past the Sun, Jupiter is moving through time-space and combining with the consciousness of the Sun to pull you towards the timelines of abundance and hope, the timelines of optimism and the capacity to find humor even in the midst of life’s challenges. The Sun Jupiter cycle of time is the one where we get to honor our achievements and see ourselves in a positive light. It is the cycle that takes us higher in the direction of good fortune, and it is an opportunity to navigate towards our lucky star. Let yourself be pulled onto positive timelines and remember that there are silver and gold linings that are sometimes not available to our rational minds, but often can be seen from higher perspectives. When Jupiter is conjunct the Sun it is also at it’s farthest distance from the earth, and it is a good to time to travel there in our imaginations and receive the most expansive perspective on our lives. It has been twelve years since Jupiter was last in this position, so think back over the last decade and then go back just a bit more. Where were you for the Solstice of 2007, and can you see how far you’ve come? Do you feel pride in all that you have achieved? If you do not, then you’ve got to climb higher. Find a higher frequency perspective and you will see yourself in a better light.

Everything is Connected — Here’s How: | Tom Chi | TEDxTaipei

TEDx Talks Tom Chi認為「萬物都有相關聯」或「事出必有因」的說法,其實不只是純粹哲學的形上思考,而是有各種科學根據證明這個理論的。而找出這個現象象徵的意義是什麼,或許就能解開人類之所以存在的秘密….? Tom Chi has worked in a wide range of roles from astrophysical researcher to Fortune 500 consultant to corporate executive developing new hardware/software products and services. He has played a significant role in established projects with global reach (Microsoft Outlook, Yahoo Search), and scaled new projects from conception to significance (Yahoo Answers from 0 to 90 million users). His current focus is delving into human development issues with social entrepreneurs around the globe, rebooting the fundamental frameworks of entrepreneurship itself, and teaching a limited number . . .

Book: “Meister Eckhart, from Whom God Hid Nothing: Sermons, Writings, and Sayings”

Meister Eckhart, from Whom God Hid Nothing: Sermons, Writings, and Sayings

Meister Eckhart, from Whom God Hid Nothing: Sermons, Writings, and Sayings

by Meister EckhartDavid O’Neal (Editor) 

This introduction to the writing and preaching of the greatest medieval European mystic contains selections from his sermons, treatises, and sayings, as well as Table Talk, the records of his informal advice to his spiritual children.

(Recommended by Jerry Mayor)