The Hidden Synagogue

Reblogged from Playing in the World Game:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Notes:

1. As reader bklyngalinla has pointed out in the comments below, this piece is a contemporary work of art, rather than being from the inquisition or holocaust periods. However, it is based on older pieces, and is in itself still a phenomenal piece of artwork. Here is a link to another blog that gives more information. I, also, am guilty of not doing any research on my own to verify the facts as stated by the original poster.

Read more… 869 more words

Found at Reddit, these are photos of a mind-bending piece of artwork. The contributor described it thusly: “I got this from grandfather before he died. First used by hidden Jews during the inquisition, it is shaped like a teapot, but contains many secret Judaica pieces. The Hidden Synagogue.” The original photos are at Imgur. I cannot adequately express in words how beautiful this is.

Was There Actually a Real Dr. Frankenstein?

His name was Johann Konrad Dippel and there are those who say that he was the model and inspiration for Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, although this claim is ‘controversial’ to say the least.

(Johann Konrad Dippel, b. 1673 –  d. 1734)

Johann Konrad Dippel was born on August 10, 1673, in Castle Frankenstein [1] - a hilltop castle about 5 km south of Darmstadt, Germany, that was built some time before 1650.

After studying theology, philosophy and alchemy at the University of Giessen [2], Dippel engaged in bitter disputes with an influential Reformed Court Preacher, Conrad Broeske of Offenbach.

Dippel’s reputation as a controversial theologian earned him both defenders and enemies throughout all of Europe.

One of Dippel’s former disciples, Emanual Swedenborg, later became a harsh critic and eventually dismissed him as a “most vile devil … who attempted wicked things” and “bound to no principles, but was in general opposed to all, whoever they may be, of whatever principle or faith … becoming angry with any one for contradicting him.” Dippel was convicted of heresy and spent seven years in prison.

Dippel created an oil made of bones, blood and various other animal products, known as Dippel’s Oil, which was supposed to be the equivalent to the alchemists’ dream of the Elixir of Life. He attempted to purchase Castle Frankenstein using the formula to his elixir as the purchase price. His offer was rejected.

(The ruins of Castle Frankenstein as seen from within the outer walls)

There were claims made that during his stay at Castle Frankenstein, Dippel practiced alchemy and anatomy. It was rumoured that Dippel performed gruesome experiments with cadavers in which he attempted to transfer the soul of one cadaver into another. [3] However, while it possible that Dippel pursued similar objectives, there is no direct evidence to link him to these specific acts. Dippel did, however, experiment quite frequently with dead animals, to which he was an “avid dissector.”

In his dissertation Maladies and Remedies of the Life of the Flesh, Dippel claims to have discovered both the Elixir of Life and the means to exorcize demons through potions he concocted from boiled animal bones and flesh. This is the same essay in which Dippel claimed to believe that souls could be transferred from one corpse to another by using a funnel.

(Colin Clive as Doctor Henry Frankenstein)

Dippel became disillusioned with Christianity and eventually abandoned it completely, shifting all of his energy exclusively on his alchemical experiments. He set up a lab near Wittgenstein and it is at this point in his life that historical records are vague on his activities and thus grew folkloric in nature. During this time, at least one local minister apparently accused Dippel of grave robbing, experimenting on cadavers, and keeping company with the Devil.

Dipped died, most likely of a stroke, on April 25, 1734, at the age of 61.

(Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s creation, known simply as The Creature)

While there are many theories suggesting that Mary Shelley had access to the stories of Johann Konrad Dippel [4], none is conclusive.

Regardless, however, of the historical validity of the connection, Dippel’s status as Frankenstein’s prototype seems assured in current popular culture - similar to Count Dracula’s equally controversial interchangeability with the historical Vlad the Impaler.

_____________________________________________________________

This article is my 200th Vampyre Fangs piece for WordPress. Thanks to my many readers, supporters and friends.

[1] No, I’m not kidding. There’s actually a 17th century castle (or rather the ruins thereof) called Castle Frankenstein about 5 km south of Darmstadt, Germany.

[2] He obtained a master’s degree in theology in 1693.

[3] Soul-transference with cadavers was actually a common experiment among alchemists at the time and was a theory that Dippel supported in his writings.

[4] Speculations that she visited Castle Frankenstein during her travels with her husband Percy Shelley, that while in the Rhine district they heard local stories regarding Dippel, that she encountered students from the University of Strasbourg where Dippel was once a student and they may have told her about the infamous alumnus. One of the many other theories – this one by a local historian named Walter Scheele – is that Mary Shelley’s step-mother Mary Jane Clairmont who was a translator of the works of legendary story-teller Jacob Grimm recounted to young Mary the story of the mad scientist Dippel of Castle Frankenstein as transmitted to her in a letter by Grimm himself. Other historians, whether their field of research is Grimm, Shelley, or the Castle Frankenstein, do not see any evidence for this. Scheele’s claimed letter of Grimm is nowhere to be found. And no evidence can be found that Clairmont was considered as the translator for Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Anger, Not Forgiveness, May Be the Key to Maintaining a Healthy Relationship

The folks over at MedicalDaily.com may be on to something!

In a recent article, it states that anger, not forgiveness, may be the key to maintaining a healthy relationship.

The time-honored tradition of forgive and forget may not be the best way to a happy marriage, psychologists revealed.

Instead, they claim that expressing your anger and having a heated but honest conversation could be more effective clearing the air and guaranteeing a long and healthy relationship.

Relationship psychologists at Florida State University said that forgiveness does not always work and could actually cause some major problems in an intimate relationship.

“I continued to find evidence that thoughts and behaviors presumed to be associated with better well-being lead to worse well-being among some people — usually the people who need the most help achieving well-being,” researcher James McNulty said in a statement.

McNulty looked at the potential costs of positive psychology by looking at previous studies and found that that forgiveness in a marriage can have some untended negative effects.

“We all experience a time in a relationship in which a partner transgresses against us in some way,” he said. “For example, a partner may be financially irresponsible, unfaithful, or unsupportive.”

He said that when these problems in the relationship occur, partners must decide whether they should be angry and to hold onto their anger or to forgive.

He discovered that a variety of factors can complicate the effectiveness of forgiveness, including a partner’s level of agreeableness and the severity and frequency of the wrongdoing.

He said that while an agreeable person who believes that their partner is forgiving is less likely to offend their partner, a disagreeable person may actually be more likely to offend their partner.

Furthermore, he said that anger can serve a vital role in signaling to a transgressing partner that their offensive behavior is not acceptable.

“If the partner can do something to resolve a problem that is likely to otherwise continue and negatively affect the relationship, people may experience long-term benefits by temporarily withholding forgiveness and expressing anger,” he said.

However, psychologists note that there is never a single answer to a problem.

“There is no ‘magic bullet,’ no single way to think or behave in a relationship. The consequences of each decision we make in our relationships depends on the circumstances that surround that decision,” he concluded.

Creepy Girls (6): Girl on Railing

A lot of people have a fear of falling. [1]

((((shudder))))

I have something a little different. I get extremely uncomfortable when I see other people in danger of falling.

And because of this deep feeling of discomfort, the above photo is very difficult for me to look at.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

_____________________________________________________________

[1] Actually, it’s not the fall that concerns me. It’s the sudden stop at the end.

Coital Cephalalgia: Not tonight. I have a headache.

An orgasm, the ultimate pleasure? For those suffering coital cephalalgia, or “sexual headaches”, it’s quite the opposite.

A recent article indicates that this rare type of headache occurs in about 1% of men and is characterized by a sudden, severe “explosive” pain at the base of the skull that builds just before or during orgasm. Afterward the intense pain may last for several hours or even a few days.

(They are the 1%!)

(A headache? Seriously?? That’s MY line!!)

Doctors aren’t certain of what causes this disorder. Erectile dysfunction medications such as Viagra could be a malefactor, as it’s estimated that 10% of men using this kind of medication may experience coital cephalalgia. Although these headaches are often benign, it’s always important to seek medical attention if you are experiencing them as in rare cases it could indicate a tumor or worse.

Over-exposure seems to be the best treatment. According to Wikipedia, “a doctor may recommend heavy sexual activity and masturbation for a short period of time ranging from a few days to a few weeks.”

(Thanks, Doc!)

To sooth the pain, it’s recommendable to take medications that prevent such headaches (Propranolol) during this intense sexual period.

(In other words… Take An Aspirin, Buddy!!)

____________________________________________________________

Anand KS, & Dhikav V (2009). Primary headache associated with sexual activity. Singapore medical journal, 50 (5) PMID: 19495503

Experience Taking: How You Subconsciously Become Your Favorite Fictional Characters

The folks over at MedicalDaily.com have uncovered something really interesting!

Psychologists Discover How People Subconsciously Become Their Favorite Fictional Characters

Psychologists have discovered that while reading a book or story, people are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses to that of fictional characters as if they were their own.

Experts have dubbed this subconscious phenomenon ‘experience-taking,’ where people actually change their own behaviors and thoughts to match those of a fictional character that they can identify with.

(Severus Snape, from the Harry Potter books)

Researcher from the Ohio State University conducted a series of six different experiments on about 500 participants, reporting in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that in the right situations, ‘experience-taking,’ may lead to temporary real world changes in the lives of readers.

They found that stories written in the first-person can temporarily transform the way readers view the world, themselves and other social groups.

(Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events)

Psychologists also found that it was critical for the story to reveal characteristics shared by the reader earlier rather than later for ‘experience-taking’ to take effect.

“The early revelation of the group membership seemed to highlight the difference between readers and the character, and made it more difficult for readers to step into the character’s shoes,” researchers wrote in the report.

(The Mad Hatter, from Alice in Wonderland)

The environment also played a major role in determining whether participants will engage in ‘experience-taking,’ according to the researcher.

In an experiment which required participants to read in front of a mirror, researchers reported that fewer readers were able to undergo ‘experience-taking’ because they were constantly reminded of their own self-concept and self-identity.

Researchers said that ‘experience-taking’ can only happen when readers are able to in a way forget about themselves and their own self-concept and self-identity when reading.

(Long John Silver, from Treasure Island)

“The more you’re reminded of your own personal identity, the less likely you’ll be able to take on a character’s identity,” Kaufman said in a news release. “You have to be able to take yourself out of the picture, and really lose yourself in the book in order to have this authentic experience of taking on a character’s identity.”

In contrast, watching a movie does not require viewers to engage any more than as a spectator, which would limit the ability of putting themselves in the shoes of fictional characters.

“Experience-taking can be very powerful because people don’t even realize it is happening to them. It is an unconscious process,” Libby said, adding that the phenomenon could have powerful, if not lasting, effects.

“If you can get people to relate to characters in this way, you might really open up their horizons, getting them to relate to social groups that maybe they wouldn’t have otherwise,” Libby told the Edmonton Journal.

____________________________________________________________

Published by Medicaldaily.com

Early Spring Means More Bat Girls!

As a ‘bat fan’, I looked at the following headline with interest…

Seems that the hopeless romantics over at ScienceDaily.com have gotten into the spring spirit!

“There must be something in the warm breeze. A study on bats suggests that bats produce twice as many female babies as male ones in years when spring comes early. The earlier in the spring the births occur, the more likely the females are to survive and then reproduce a year later, as one-year olds, compared to later-born pups, according to Robert Barclay’s research published in PLoS ONE.”

(The Big Brown Bat, Eptesicus fuscus [1])

“The early-born females are able to reproduce as one year olds, whereas male pups can’t,” explains Barclay, professor in the Department of Biological Sciences. “Thus, natural selection has favoured internal mechanisms that result in a skewed sex ratio because mothers that produce a daughter leave more offspring in the next generation than mothers who produce a son.” Barclay analyzed long-term data on the variation in offspring sex-ratio of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, a common North-American species that consumes insects.

(Is that a 4-bat pile-up or 5? [2])

“In this species, more eggs are fertilized than eventually result in babies, so there is some mechanism by which a female embryo is preferentially kept and male embryos are resorbed early in pregnancy,” says Barclay. But, he adds, the biochemistry behind the skewed sex ratio is unknown. In other words, female bats can choose to give birth to female baby bats… we just don’t know how they’re going it!

Well… a girl has to have SOME secrets! _____________________________________________________________

[1] Brown bats have the ability to select the sex of their offspring, as they produce more female offspring in early springs. (Credit: Photo by Ken Bendiksen)

[2] Credit: Photo by Bull Snook.

What is Love?

What Is Love? [1][2]

(And no, it’s not that ‘A Night at the Roxbury’ song by Haddaway)

We live under a massive cultural delusion about the nature of real love.

Propagated by mainstream media, from the time you’re born you’re inundated with the belief that love is a feeling and that when you find “the one” you’ll sense it in your gut and be overcome by an undeniable sense of knowing. When the feeling and corresponding knowing fade (for the knowing is intimately linked to the feeling) and the work of learning about real love begins, most people take the diminished feeling as a sign that they’re in the wrong relationship and walk away. And then they start over again, only to find that the now-familiar knowing and feeling fade again… and again… and again.

If love isn’t a feeling, what is it?

Love is action. Love is tolerance. Love is learning your partner’s love language and then expressing love in a way that he can receive. Love is giving. Love is receiving. Love is plodding through the slow eddies of a relationship without jumping ship into another’s churning rapids. Love is recognizing that it’s not your partner’s job to make you feel alive, fulfilled, or complete; that’s your job. And it’s only when you learn to become the source of your own aliveness and are living your life connected to the spark of genius that is everyone’s birthright can you fully love another.

It’s a crushing moment when the infatuation drug wears off and they’re left to begin the real work of loving. And it’s even more devastating when this happens during their engagement, a time our culture hammers into their head as the happiest in their life. It’s time to send a different message to young people about the difference between infatuation and love. If we’re going to restore marriage to a place of honor and respect, we must teach that the role of one’s partner is not to save you from yourself and make you feel alive, fulfilled, and complete; only you can do that. It’s time to teach a different message. Let’s begin the conversation here.

_____________________________________________________________

[1] This piece is a re-blogging of most of a blog article by Sheryl Paul in the online edition of the Huffington Post (yeah, I real all kinds of things).

[2] Sheryl Paul, M.A., has counseled thousands of people worldwide through her private practice, her bestselling books, her Home Study Programs and her websites. She has appeared several times on “The Oprah Winfrey Show”, as well as on “Good Morning America” and other top media shows and publications around the globe. To sign up for her free 78-page eBook, “Conscious Transitions: The 7 Most Common (and Traumatic) Life Changes”, visit her website at http://conscious-transitions.com.

How Our Eyes Deceive Us

The Hebrew Scriptures warn us not to follow our hearts or our eyes because they will lead us astray.

Science is trying to understand why and how our eyes deceive us.

Researchers at the University of Sydney have thrown new light on the tricks the brain plays as it struggles to make sense of the visual and other sensory signals it constantly receives.

“We tend to regard what we see as the real world,” said Dr Mareschal from the University’s School of Psychology.

“In fact a lot of it is distortion, and it is occurring in the early processing of the brain, before consciousness takes over. Our work shows that the cells of the primary visual cortex create small distortions, which then pass on to the higher levels of the brain, to interpret as best it can.”

A common example of this that is often exploited by artists and designers is known as the tilt illusion where perfectly vertical lines appear tilted because they are placed on an oriented background.

(In this tilt illusion, the lines in the centre of the image appear tilted counterclockwise, but are actually vertical) [1]

“The brain seeks more contextual information from the background to try to work out the alignment of the object it is seeing.”

“These illusions happen very fast, perhaps in milliseconds,” Dr Mareschal says. “And we found that even the higher brain cannot always correct for them, as it doesn’t in fact know they are illusions.”

This is one reason why people’s eyes sometimes mislead them when looking at objects in their visual landscape.

The brain uses context, or background, to interpret a host of other visual signals besides the orientation of objects. For example, it uses context to tell colour, motion, texture and contrast. The research will help study how the brain understands these visual cues adding to our overall understanding of brain function.

So the old adage is true… don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. Your eyes and brain may be plotting against you.

_____________________________________________________________

[1] Image adapted from University of Sydney image

Study Finds Surprising Arctic Methane Emission Source

And no. It’s not polar bear farts!

It seems that methane gas is trapped under the ice and the melting of the polar ice caps may release all that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere which would contribute to global warming.

(Phew! That was close!!)

According to a recent article by our favourite envirogeeks over at ScienceDaily.com, “The fragile and rapidly changing Arctic region is home to large reservoirs of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As Earth’s climate warms, the methane, frozen in reservoirs stored in Arctic tundra soils or marine sediments, is vulnerable to being released into the atmosphere, where it can add to global warming. Now a multi-institutional study by Eric Kort of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of Arctic methane: the ocean itself.”

Researchers flying low over the Arctic (five times between 2009 and 2010) observed increased methane levels… about one-half percent larger than normal background levels.

But where was the methane coming from?

(It wasn’t me. Promise!)

The scientists ruled out man-made carbon monoxide in the atmosphere (they were flying north of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) and also methane coming from high-latitude wetlands or geologic reservoirs.

Eventually, they pinpointed a source: the ocean surface, through cracks in Arctic sea ice and areas of partial sea ice cover. The cracks expose open Arctic seawater, allowing the ocean to interact with the air, and methane in the surface waters to escape into the atmosphere. The team detected no enhanced methane levels when flying over areas of solid ice.

So how is the methane being produced?

(“Pull my finger!” – ‘No way, dude!’)

The scientists aren’t yet sure, but Kort hinted biological production from living things in Arctic surface waters may be a likely culprit.

(Dodged another bullet!)

 ”It’s possible that as large areas of sea ice melt and expose more ocean water, methane production may increase, leading to larger methane emissions,” Kort said.

Future studies will be needed to understand the enhanced methane levels and associated emission processes and to measure their total contribution to overall Arctic methane levels.

(Did somebody step on a duck?)

Way to go, polar bears. And you’re not totally off the hook yet!

_____________________________________________________________

The study, published April 22 in Nature Geoscience, included participation from JPL and Caltech; NSF, Arlington, Va.; NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colo.; the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder; Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey; Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; and Science and Technology Corporation, Boulder, Colo. JPL is a division of Caltech.

The ScienceDaily.com article was reprinted from materials provided by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory.