Treatment options for blood clots Essay Example for Free

Treatment options for blood clots Essay The option in treating blood clots is a case to case basis whether the clot has developed in an artery or a vein and creates stroke or heart attack. During emergencies, thrombolytic treatments-clot busters- may possibly used to suspend the blood clot. These treatments are applied to some selected patients in accordance to an extensive protocol. In order to be efficient, they are provided no less than one hour of the heart attack or in three hours of the stroke. Thrombolytics are normally applied when there are huge clots which cause severe and life-threatening signs. These can create abrupt and unexpected bleeding. There are many invasive methods that can also be used. One of these is the catheter-directed thrombolysis. It is a method which the catheter proc\vides thrombolytic enzymes straight to the blood clot. Throughout this process, greater enzymes’ concentrations could be utilized and may possibly have lesser side effects compared when the enzymes are supplied subcutaneously no less than two days. Thrombolytic method is followed by a treatment that has anticoagulants to stop more blood clots from formation. Anticoagulants could be advised to patients that have great risk of a blood clot. Researchers are really trying very hard to different catheter-based procedures to cure stroke rapidly. One of the experimental procedures which included is the use of a tiny â€Å"corkscrew† device which rapidly reverses the injury created by a stroke. The said device is directed to where the blood clot is; where it removes the obstruction. Another procedure depends on a special laser catheter which utilizes light energy to suspend rapidly the blood clot. These latest therapies can be accessible to a patient that cannot bear clot-busting drugs (see â€Å"Treatment options for blood. † Blood Clot, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006). Furthermore, when a blood clot develops in a leg vein, there is a risk that a pulmonary embolism will form. A pulmonary embolism may possibly be a life-threatening in which blood clots break away from its location and passes through the bloodstream and stay in one of the blood vessels of the lungs. To avoid and stop a pulmonary embolism, the present blood clots in the legs may cured with a mixture of heat, thrombolytics, painkilling treatments, elevation of the injured area to lessen swelling and anticoagulants. This procedure relies on the clot’s size and the seriousness of any current symptoms. When a patient does not react to anticoagulants, the physicians will decide for a process which uses a catheter having a special device named as vena cava filter. The vena cava filter is inserted in the large vein which transports blood from the legs up to the heart and lungs (vena cava). Additionally, the vena cava filter is a kind of a device which catches blood clots within the vein before the blood clots are permitted to reach the lungs. However, there are several danger related with vena cava filters which comprise failure of the filter in terms of time and blood clots created by means of it. Many researchers really work on in improving the vena cava filters which can be withdrawn right after the medication of pulmonary embolism. There are researches that substantiated and confirmed that treatment in a longer period of time along with a low-does anticoagulant drugs aids in stopping the presence of blood clots amongst those patients who have background of vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (see â€Å"Treatment options for blood. † Blood Clot, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006). C. 2 Diagnosis methods There are several ways on how to diagnose blood clots. It starts with a medical background and physical test. When there is suspension of clot, several of examinations are utilized to substantiate the diagnosis and these include Doppler ultrasound, CAT scan and MRI: *Doppler ultrasound pertains to an imaging technology which utilizes sound or motion waves to give visual images of the structure and of several blood vessels and organs in our body (see â€Å"Diagnosis methods for blood clots†. Blood clots, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006).   CAT scan refers to computer axial tomography. It is an examination which utilizes a number of x-rays which got from different sides in order to give a computerized three-dimensional image of a body shape (see â€Å"Diagnosis methods for blood clots†. Blood clots, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006). MRI means magnetic resonance imaging which is a noninvasive examination that utilizes magnetic fields to give high-resolution cross- sectional or three-dimensional visual images of the aimed surface (see â€Å"Diagnosis methods for blood clots†.Blood clots, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006). References 1. â€Å"Thrombus†. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. October 11, 2006. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Blood_clot 2. â€Å"Blood Clotting†. June 4, 2005. http://users. rcn. com/jkimball. ma. ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Clotting. html 3. â€Å"Blood Clots†. HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006. http://heart. healthcentersonline. com/bloodclot/bloodclots. cfm 4. â€Å"The Biology of Blood Clots†. Mayo Clinic’s Online Research Magazine. 2006.http://discoverysedge. mayo. edu/vascular_biology/ 5. â€Å"How do blood clots form? March 11, 2004. http://www. innohepusa. com/corporateweb/innohepus/home. nsf/Content/Howdoclotsform. 6. â€Å"Treatment options for blood. † Blood Clot, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006. http://heart. healthcentersonline. com/bloodclot/bloodclots7. cfm 7. â€Å"Diagnosis methods for blood clots†. Blood clots, HeartCenterOnline. May 9, 2006. http://heart. healthcentersonline. com/bloodclot/bloodclots6. cfm.

John Rawls Theory of Justice Summary

John Rawls Theory of Justice Summary A Theory of Justice (1971), by John Rawls, is one of the most influential works in moral and political philosophy written in the twentieth century, according to Samuel Freeman in the Collected Papers of John Rawls (1999). A Theory of Justice is Rawlss attempt to formulate a philosophy of justice and a theoretical program for establishing political structures designed to preserve social justice and individual liberty. Rawls writes in reaction to the then predominant theory of utilitarianism, which posits that justice is defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rawls proposes a theoretical person who, shrouded in a veil of ignorance, must design a just society without foreknowledge of his or her own status in that society. Rawls asserts that from this objective vantage point, which he calls the original position, the individual will choose a system of justice that adequately provides for those positioned on the lowest rungs of society. The ind ividual will do so because he or she may end up in such a disadvantaged position and will want to be adequately provided for. Rawls draws from earlier theories of political philosophy that posit a social contract by which individuals implicitly agree to the terms on which they are governed in any society. Rawls concludes that such a social contract, formulated from the perspective of the original position, will guarantee a just society without sacrificing the happiness or liberty of any one individual. Rawls addresses issues of liberty, social equality, democracy, and the conflict of interests between the individual and society. A Theory of Justice Summary: Justice as Fairness In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. Rawls sets forth to determine the essential principles of justice on which a good society may be based. He explains the importance of principles of justice for two key purposes: first, to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society; and secondly, to define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of society. He observes that, by his definition, well-ordered societies are rare due to the fact that what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. He further notes that a well-ordered and perfectly just society must be formulated in a way that addresses the problems of efficiency, coordination, and stability. Critique of Utilitarianism A brief synopsis from Wikipedia: In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Immanuel Kant) for parties facing such circumstances. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends which they seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favored principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts. In 1974, Rawls colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.[3] Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together. Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy, Spheres of Justice,[4] as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick. In a related line of criticism, Michael Sandel (also a Harvard colleague) wrote Liberalism and the Limits of Justice,[5] which took Rawls to task for asking us to think about justice while divorcing ourselves from the very values and aspirations that define us. Sandels line of argument in part draws on critiques of Rawls advanced by both Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre who argue for the importance that moral ontologies have on ethical arguments.[6] Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice[7] immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls theory is an apology for the status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market economy. Feminist critics of Rawls, such as Susan Moller Okin,[8] largely focused on the extent to which Rawls theory could account for (if at all) injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the basic structure of society. Feminists, rallying around the theme of the personal is political, took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household. The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized (most notably by Kenneth Arrow[9] and John Harsanyi),[10] with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles. In reply Rawls has emphasized the role of the original position as a device of representation for making sense of the idea of a fair choice situation for free and equal citizens.[11] Rawls has also emphasized the relatively modest role that maximin plays in his argument: it is a useful heuristic rule of thumb given the curious features of choice behind the veil of ignorance.[12] Some egalitarian critics have raised concerns over Rawls emphasis on primary social goods. For instance, Amartya Sen has argued that we should attend not only to the distribution of primary goods, but also how effectively people are able to use those goods to pursue their ends.[13] In a related vein, Norman Daniels has wondered why healthcare shouldnt be treated as a primary good,[14] and some of his subsequent work has addressed this question, arguing for a right to health care within a broadly Rawlsian framework.[15] Philosopher Allan Bloom, a student of Leo Strauss, criticized Rawls for failing to account for the existence of natural right in his theory of justice, and wrote that Rawls absolutizes social union as the ultimate goal which would conventionalize everything into artifice.[16] Recent criticisms of Rawls theory have come from the philosopher G.A. Cohen. Cohens series of influential papers culminated first in his book, If Youre An Egalitarian, How Come Youre So Rich?[17] and then in his later work, Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cohens criticisms are leveled against Rawls avowal of inequality under the difference principle, against his application of the principle only to social institutions, and against Rawlsian fetishism with primary goods (again, the metric which Rawls chooses as his currency of equality). Philosopher and Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, a former student of Rawls, critiques and attempts to revitalize A Theory of Justice in his 2009 book The Idea of Justice. He defends the basic notion of justice as fairness but attacks the notion that the two principles of justice emerging from the Original position are necessary. Sen claims that there are multiple possible outcomes of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance. A Theory of Justice (1971), by John Rawls, is one of the most influential works in moral and political philosophy written in the twentieth century, according to Samuel Freeman in the Collected Papers of John Rawls (1999). A Theory of Justice is Rawlss attempt to formulate a philosophy of justice and a theoretical program for establishing political structures designed to preserve social justice and individual liberty. Rawls writes in reaction to the then predominant theory of utilitarianism, which posits that justice is defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rawls proposes a theoretical person who, shrouded in a veil of ignorance, must design a just society without foreknowledge of his or her own status in that society. Rawls asserts that from this objective vantage point, which he calls the original position, the individual will choose a system of justice that adequately provides for those positioned on the lowest rungs of society. The individual will do so because he or she may end up in such a disadvantaged position and will want to be adequately provided for. Rawls draws from earlier theories of political philosophy that posit a social contract by which individuals implicitly agree to the terms on which they are governed in any society. Rawls concludes that such a social contract, formulated from the perspective of the original position, will guarantee a just society without sacrificing the happiness or liberty of any one individual. Rawls addresses issues of liberty, social equality, democracy, and the conflict of interests between the individual and society. A Theory of Justice Summary Justice as Fairness In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. Rawls sets forth to determine the essential principles of justice on which a good society may be based. He explains the importance of principles of justice for two key purposes: first, to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society; and secondly, to define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of society. He observes that, by his definition, well-ordered societies are rare due to the fact that what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. He further notes that a well-ordered and perfectly just society must be formulated in a way that addresses the problems of efficiency, coordination, and stability. Critique of Utilitarianism Throughout the twentieth century, the dominant philosophical theory of justice in Western philosophy was utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was first developed in the nineteenth century by the great utilitarians, whom Rawls lists as David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism essentially posits that a just society is one based on achieving the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number of people. However, many theorists have found this principle ultimately unsatisfactory because it implies that the  » Complete A Theory of Justice Summary I fondly recall arguing about Rawls theories in John Singers Values and Institutions class at Colgate, so it was interesting to finally try reading it.   It turns out, the revolution that Rawls created was based on a simple but totally specious change in the assumptions about human nature, and upon this rotten foundation he built up a shaky edifice to justify Liberal yearnings.   The book is reminiscent of a treatise by a Medieval scientist, working out the elaborate orbital patterns that planets would require if the Universe actually were geocentric. In order to accomplish his revolution, Rawls posited a counterintuitive and antihistorical starting point for the discussion of political theory. The great political philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, etc., had used the state of nature as the starting point for their theories.   In this state of nature, men were assumed to be completely self-centered and dedicated only to their own interests, with the result that life was nasty, brutish and short and only the strongest survived.   But gradually men tired of this blood sport and entered into a social contract wherein they surrendered some personal sovereignty to a central governing entity, which, in whatever form, would enforce a set of impartial laws in order to protect men from one another.   This is a pretty minimalist position, the social contract and the government that it creates serve only to provide a certain level of physical security, leaving men free to pursue their own fortunes and taking no interest in the degree to which they succeed.   But it conforms with our intuitive understanding of human nature, our observations of our fellow man and, most importantly, it has proven a workable basis for understanding politics for some 300 years. The essential change that Rawls made was to replace the State of Nature with his Original Position, wherein, when it came time for primordial man to enter into a social contract, because he would be ignorant of his own capacities (the veil of ignorance), he would pursue a low risk strategy and choose a social contract based on egalitarianism; he would seek the most equal distribution of wealth and power possible, just in case it turned out that he was the least fit of the species. If Rawls is right, if men acted on the assumption that they would be one of the ones left behind once the race of life begins, then the rest of his theory might be worth examining.   But, of course, this assumption runs counter to everything we understand about ourselves and our fellow human beings.   It is a fuzzy headed liberals view of the appropriate strategy for lifes losersmake political decisions on the basis of the likelihood that you are a loser and need help.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   But look around a casino or a Lottery Ticket line and you will see that the losers think that they too are winners.   Look at polls about taxation levels and you find that the lower class does not want the upper class taxed too heavily, because they assume that they, or their children, are headed for that bracket eventually.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   It turns out that people act very much as the great philosophers expected them to; they act out of naked self interest and the belief that t hey are capable and deserve whatever they can achieve.   The justice that men seek is in fact little more than an impartial application of a set of laws that are fair to all, not an equal distribution of goods and power, which would necessarily impinge on the freedom of all. Rawls great error is to try to base his theory on a generalized yearning for happiness.   Rawls was seeking a positive definition of Mans aspiration in the original position, but the inevitable result, because we will all define happiness differently, is to create a foundational quagmire for his theories.   After all, you may define happiness as having a lot of stuff, but I may define it as spiritual enlightenment.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   The classic understanding, basing the social contract on the avoidance of death, is obviously universal, we are all agreed that our own deaths are to be avoided, and, therefore, more sound.   . Finding the basic supposition that props up Rawls whole theory to be fundamentally incorrect, it behooves us little to examine the superstructure he seeks to construct upon this error.   Suffice it to say, no system of government has ever achieved a more equal distribution of wealth and power than has the American Constitutional Republic and it is based on the classic understanding of human nature found in Hobbes and Locke.   Nuff said. (Reviewed:) John Rawls is perhaps the most significant intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. It is nearly impossible to address ethics in contemporary philosophy without saying something about John Rawls. Central to his theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he terms a veil of ignorance. Rawlss veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an original position in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices. In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a Veil of Ignorance and do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors. Rawls is a Kantian liberal in that he believes that principles of justice should be universalizable, and so the only way to ensure that people will select fair principles of justice is to be certain that they do not know how the principles they select might affect them as individuals. A person behind the veil of ignorance does not know which side of a social contract he or she will be on, does not know his or her race, class, sex, or status in society. A person who does not know what privileges he or she will be born with (or without ) is, in Rawls view, more likely to construct a society that does not arbitrarily assign privilege based on characteristics that should have no bearing on what people get. Rawls believes that a society cannot be just without fairness and equalit y and believes this veil of ignorance both reveals the biases of In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to make a rational study of social ethics by using reason to determine what a just society should look like and how a rational group of people would organize themselves. One major  topic of interest that Rawls presents is the veil of ignorance concept and its role in the creation of original position. Two further concepts of importance to the theory of a just society are the difference principle and the concept of individual liberty in society. Together, these three concepts provide a basis for the discussion and critique of Rawls theory and its implications for the pursuance of justice. Current society and can help to prevent biases in establishing future social arrangements. Rawls method to justice as a theory proposes that principles of justice can be determined through the rational thinking of individuals shrouded by a veil of ignorance. In a purely hypothetical situation, the veil of ignorance creates an original position of equality in which persons under the veil have no knowledge of status, position in society, personal wealth or natural abilities. From behind the veil of ignorance, a rational, objective and disinterested group of people would choose a system of justice that ensures an equal distribution of rights and duties. The term reflective equilibrium was coined by John Rawls and popularized in his celebrated A Theory of Justice as a method for arriving at the content of the principles of justice. Abstract John Rawls Theory of Justice (1971) is the single most important philosophical work of the Left since Marx. Rawls A Theory of Justice can be understood as two theories addressing two different subjects. The split can also be seen textually. The first half of the book deals almost exclusively with the hypothetical theory of justice founded in the original position. The second half of the book addresses how actual institutions should operate given the findings of the initial theory. There are many instances, such as Rawls distinction between fair and formal equal opportunity, where Rawls claims that the purely speculative arguments of his theory can justify his claims concerning actual situations. However, as Sher argues, it is not necessarily the case that Rawls can make the connection. Rawls hypothetical theory can operate on its own. Rawls theory of just institutions is a stronger argument if he does not try and connect the two theories. The problem of desert is one example of how R awls theory of justice as fairness should be read as two theories. Rawls offers a theory of a just and well-ordered society which would distribute wealth, income, liberties, opportunities and positions of authority. He considers justice as fairness as a political -moral conception of justice. The principles of justice are two according to Ralws and these would justify a given body of social, moral and political ideas since they are congruent to our ferments convictions. Utilitarianism was first developed in the nineteenth century by the great utilitarians. Utilitarianism essentially posits that a just society is one based on achieving the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number of people. However, Rawls rejects Utilitarianism, for it fails to take into consideration, the distinction that exists between individuals. Since it aims at the greatest happiness and tries to maximize greatest welfare, it fails to secure individual rights. Rawls relies on the social contract tradition in its Kantian form to account for principles that would guide individuals noumenal selves, secure equal basic liberties to all and account for social values and community. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. . Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. He claims that justice as fairness provides a practical political procedure, which satisfies the demand of modern democracies societies. Pluralism entailed by industrial societies is presumed to be the permanent features of modern democracies, which challenges the priority of philosophy over democracy. However, Rawls theory has received large scale attention by some well-known Academicians. Some of them have disagreed and challenged its basic assumptions. These critical appraisals, but, indicate the importance of his work if one wants to deliberate on problems of contemporary social and political theory. In this thesis will try to excavate the philosophical understanding of the Rawlsian theory of justice and also try to identify the philosophical shift in his position under the light of some of major critiques.

Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther K

Comparing Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Any one can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of peaceful protest. If one is going to openly express his ideas of disagreeing with an unjust law, he must be willing to accept the consequences. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau demonstrated this acceptance of consequences by going to jail without repercussion. This shows that they truly believed in the eradication of such a law that forces them to do something that they do not want to do. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted was arrested for gathering with others to protest peacefully, which the police claimed was unlawful, because they we...

Decision-Making Model Analysis Essay -- Decisions Psychology Decide Es

Decision-Making Model Analysis Decisions! Decisions! Decisions! How do you make decisions? Have you ever asked yourself, â€Å"How did I make that decision?† Whether big or small, important or not so important, decision making is a process. Some people way the pros and cons while others may just flip a coin. Are decisions based on feelings, outcomes or information? Often times if we just go with our gut feeling will be miss out on important information that should be included in our decision. Decision-making can be a cognitive process of selecting a course of action form various options. Some of us are logical. Some of us are risk taking. Either way such characteristics play a role in our decisions. In my experience decision-making can also be based on biases, past experiences, peer pressure, needs and even wants. Recently, I had to make a decision about a new job opportunity. My employer offered me the opportunity to move into a new job with new tasks and responsibilities. I had to consider the position, the responsibilities, the salary and all the alternatives. The opportunity offered a pay increase. It was a tough decision. Now, while I didn’t realize it I actually used a decision-making model to decide upon my best option. Rick Roberts, Director of Career Services at University of North Florida designed a 7-Step Career Decision-Making Model. Roberts believes information is power in decision-making. He states, the more information you have the easier the decision....

Dreams :: essays research papers

Dear Dr. Universe, Why do we dream? Pat Caraher - Pullman, Washington When I asked Barbara Hammond this question, the first thing she said was, "Who knows?" Barbara Hammond is a psychologist at Washington State University. What she means is that a lot of people have some interesting ideas about dreams. But that's about it. By the time you finish reading this, you'll know much of what we know for certain about dreams. You're about to become a dream expert. One thing we do know is WHEN we dream. That's during a period of sleep called "REM sleep." REM means rapid eye movement. During REM, your eyes are moving around a lot even though they're closed. Your brain is also very busy--and you're dreaming. Hey, I'm no Sigmund Freud, but who's a psychologist to turn to when they have a weird dream they want to talk about? Another thing that happens during REM is that your muscles are basically paralyzed. You know those dreams where you're trying to run away from something, but your legs are really, really heavy? Now back to WHY. According to Ms. Hammond, there are two sets of explanations. First there's the "physiological" set. "Physiological" has to do with how the body works. Some scientists think maybe we dream in order to exercise our brains. When you're awake, messages are constantly speeding among all your billions of brain cells to keep you moving and thinking and digesting and so on. So the idea is that when you're asleep, dreams exercise the "pathways" between the brain cells. Personally, I like this idea of exercising while I sleep. There are a couple of things that help this idea make sense. The first couple years of your life are the most intense for learning. That's also when you have the greatest amount of REM sleep -- which means you probably dream an awful lot. Another thing--your brain waves during REM sleep look about the same as your brain waves while you're awake. (Brain waves are electrical patterns that show up on a machine that measures the brain's activity.) During other parts of sleep, the brain waves look very different. Then there's the "psychological" set of ideas about why we dream. Psychology has to do with your thoughts and emotions. Ms. Hammond says that most dreams are actually about immediate concerns in our lives. Some dreams may help us know more about ourselves. Others might be practice for dealing with daytime problems.

Catcher in the Rye †Study notes as a related text for Belonging Essay

The Catcher in the Rye is set around the 1950s and is narrated by a young man named Holden Caulfield. Holden is not specific about his location while he’s telling the story, but he makes it clear that he is undergoing treatment in a mental hospital or sanatorium. The events he narrates take place in the few days between the end of the fall school term and Christmas, when Holden is sixteen years old. Alienation as a Form of Self-Protection: Throughout the novel, Holden seems to be excluded from and victimized by the world around him. He continually attempts to find his way in a world in which he feels he doesn’t belong. As the novel progresses, we begin to perceive that Holden’s alienation is his way of protecting himself. He uses his isolation as proof that he is better than everyone else around him and therefore above interacting with them. The truth is that interactions with other people usually confuse and overwhelm him, and his cynical sense of superiority serves as a type of self-protection. Holden’s alienation is the cause of most of his pain. He never addresses his own emotions directly, nor does he attempt to discover the source of his troubles. He desperately needs human contact and love, but his protective wall of bitterness prevents him from looking for such interaction. Alienation is both the source of Holden’s strength and the source of his problems. Belonging to the School Community/ a group The school community’s collective allegiance to the football team enables them to belong to each other: â€Å"Anyway it was the Saturday of the football game with Saxon Hall†¦It was the last game of the year and you were supposed to commit suicide or something if old Pencey didn’t win†. Pg. 2 (Pencey Prep is a school the main character, Holden went to) The use of the verb, ‘supposed’, demonstrates the expectations of the community. The high modality of the verb, ‘suicide’ highlights the strength of their connection Holden’s sarcastic tone mocks their sense of belonging, thus segregating him. â€Å"There was about three inches of snow on the ground (at Pencey Prep after dinner one night) and coming down like a madman. It looked pretty as hell, and we all started throwing snowballs and horsing around all over the place. It was very childish, but everybody was really enjoying themselves.† Pg. 31 This anecdote demonstrates a sense of belonging to peers in the school community. Plural pronoun, ‘we’ and the adjective, ‘all’ demonstrates the all-encompassing sense of belonging across the group. â€Å"It wasn’t allowed for students to borrow faculty guy’s cars but all the athletic bastards stuck together. In every school I’ve gone to, all the athletic bastards stick together†. Pg. 37 The conjunction, ‘but’ Repitition of ‘athletic bastards’ The adjective and negative ‘bastards’ The repetition of the adverb, together’ Demonstrates the way in which individuals are connected through a common interest. Whilst, the negative connotations of, ‘bastard’, elucidate Holden’s negative view on this group of people and suggests that he does not belong to this group. Holden’s Absence of Belonging â€Å"Practically the whole school except me was there.† Pg. 2 Adjective, ‘whole’, in relation to the noun, ‘school’, juxtaposes against the personal pronoun through the use of the conjunction, ‘except’. This highlights Holden’s isolation from the community. â€Å"I’d just got back from New York with the fencing team†¦I left all the foils and equipment and stuff on the goddam subway†¦The whole team ostracized me the whole way back on the train.† Pg. 3 Verb, ‘ostracized’, demonstrates Holden’s exclusion and the use of the adjective, ‘whole’, exemplifies the full extent of his exclusion. â€Å"I felt so lonesome, all of a sudden. I almost wished I was dead†¦.Boy, did I feel rotten. I felt so damn lonesome.† Pg. 42 Repetition of the abstract noun, ‘lonesome’ highlights Holden’s sense of isolation. The verb, ‘wished’ and adjective, ‘dead’ suggest the negative implications of a bereft sense of belonging. â€Å"It was even depressing out in the street. You couldn’t even hear any cars any more. I got feeling so lonesome and rotten, I even felt like waking Ackley up.† Pg. 44 The adjectives, ‘depressing’, ‘lonesome’ and ‘rotten’ convey his disconnection from his environment and his defiled sense of belonging. Everybody was asleep or out or home for the week end, and it was very, very quiet and depressing in the corridor.† Pg. 45 The pronoun, ‘everybody’ is all-inclusive and the repetition of the adverb, ‘very’ emphasizes the loneliness and sense of solitude Holden is feeling, implied by the adjective, ‘depressing’. â€Å"In fact, nobody was around my age. They were mostly old, show-offy-looking guys with their dates.† Pg. 62 The combination of the pronoun, ‘nobody’, the personal pronoun, ‘my’ and the abstract noun, ‘age’ convey Holden’s absence of belonging in that he is unable to find commonalities or connect with the people around him. Lack of Belonging- the distaste for his environment (Mostly Place) â€Å"It was a horrible school (Pencey Prep), no matter how you looked at it†. Pg. 2 Adjective, ‘horrible’, illustrates Holden’s aversion to his surroundings. â€Å"They kicked me out (of school)†¦I was flunking four subjects and not applying myself and all. They gave me frequent warnings to start applying myself†¦.but I didn’t do it. So I got the axe† Pg. 3 Adjective, ‘frequent’ and noun, ‘warnings’, demonstrate Holden’s awareness of the situation. The conjunction, ‘but’ and the negative, ‘didn’t’ demonstrate his lack of action. Thus, illustrating Holden’s role in the lack of belonging that he is experiencing. â€Å"Pencey was full of crooks†. Pg. 3 The negative connotations of the noun, ‘crooks’, to represent the students at Pencey highlight Holden’s distaste for those around him and the adjective, ‘full’, highlights the abundance of these people, he is unable to connect with. â€Å"One of the biggest reasons I left Elkon Hills was because I was surrounded by phonies†. Pg. 12 The use of the noun, ‘phonies’, to describe the students at his previous school and the use of the adjective, ‘surrounded’, implies that he feels trapped in a world in which he does not belong and with people whom he does not connect with. â€Å"I hated that goddam Elkon Hills†, Pg. 12 The verb, ‘hated’ and negative connotations of the adjective, ‘goddam’, illustrate Holden’s repugnance towards his environment. â€Å"For one thing the room was too damn hot. It made you sleepy. At Pencey, you either froze to death or died of the heat†. Pg. 19 The juxtaposition of ‘froze to death’ and ‘died of the heat’, demonstrates Holden’s discomfort and lack of connection and contentness in the world around him. The incorporation of the noun, ‘death’ and verb, ‘died’, conveys the severity of his distaste for his environment. Holden’s Search for a Sense of Belonging â€Å"What really knocks me out is a book that, when you’re all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it†. Pg. 16 The verb, ‘wish’, used with the noun, ‘friend’, suggests Holden’s yearning to establish a connection with someone. â€Å"But finally after I was riding for a while the cab driver and I sort of struck up a conversation. â€Å" Pg. 74â€Å" Would you care to stop off and have a drink with me somewhere?† I said. Pg. 75 The noun, ‘conversation’ and the question within the direct speech imply Holden’s search to belong through aiming to establish connections with people. â€Å"I damn near got my coat back and went back to the hotel, but it was too early and I didn’t feel much like being alone.† Pg. 77 The noun, ‘being’ and adjective, ‘alone’ demonstrate Holden’s wish to fulfill his sense of belonging. â€Å"What I did do though, was ask the waiter to ask old Ernie if he’d care to join me for a drink.† Pg. 78 Throughout the novel, Holden’s loneliness and absence of a sense of belonging is conveyed however so are his attempts to establish connections with people. He asks cab drivers and waiters etc. if they would care to have a drink with him. This is illustrated through the noun, ‘waiter’, the verb, ‘join’ and the personal pronoun, ‘me’ â€Å"Boy, I felt miserable. I felt so depressed, you can’t imagine. What I did, I started talking, sort of out loud, to Allie. I do that sometimes when I get very depressed.† Pg. 89 (search for belonging through family) The repetition of the adjective, ‘depressed’ highlight the issues within Holden’s emotional and mental well-being. The verb, ‘talking’ and noun, ‘Allie’ conveys Holden’s search for belonging as he is aiming to communicate with his deceased brother Allie, whom he shared a connection with. Belonging To Oneself â€Å"They gave me this crumby room, with nothing to look out of the window at except the other side of the hotel. I didn’t care much. I was too depressed to care whether I had a good view or not.† Pg. 54 The adjective, ‘crumby’ conveys Holden’s affliction to his environment and absence of belonging to place. Holden’s inability to belong to himself is also highlighted through the adjective, ‘too’ and abstract noun, ‘depressed’. â€Å"’I can’t sit in a corny place like this cold sober. Cantcha stick a little rum in it or something? (Holden asks the waiter).’†. Pg. 62 Holden’s reliance on alcohol is evident here as he is unable to connect with people or his environment and does not have a well-established and stable sense of belonging to himself. This is achieved through the pronoun, â€Å"I†, adjective, ‘corny’ and abstract noun, ‘sober’. â€Å"In the first place it was one of those places that are very terrible to be in unless you have somebody good to dance with or unless the waiter lets you buy real drinks instead of just Cokes. There isn’t any night club in the world you can sit for a long time unless you can buy some liquor and get drunk.† Pg. 68 Holden’s absence of sense of self is exhibited here, which has an impact on his ability to find belonging through place, through his reliance on alcohol. This is demonstrated through the adjective, ‘terrible’, the verb, ‘dance’ and noun, ‘drinks’. The adjective, ‘drunk’. Belonging to Family â€Å"I certainly wouldn’t have minded shooting the crap with old Phoebe (Holden’s younger sister) for a while. You should see her. You never saw a little kid so pretty and so smart in your whole life. She’s really smart†¦As a matter of fact, I’m the only dumb one in the family.† Pg. 60 The use of the colloquial phrase, ‘shooting the crap’, demonstrates Holden’s attempt to connect with his sister. The repetition of, ‘so’ used in conjunction with the adjectives, ‘pretty’ and ‘smart’, demonstrate Holden’s adoration of his sister. The adjective, ‘dumb’ used by Holden to describe himself juxtaposes against those used to describe his sister, while the adverb, ‘only’ creates a divide between Holden and his family, thus implying his absence of belonging. â€Å"When she (Phoebe) was a very tiny little kid, I and Allie used to take her to the park with us, especially on Sundays. Allie had this sailboat he used to like fool around with on Sundays and we used to take old Phoebe with us. She’d wear white gloves and walk right between us, like a lady and all†. Pg. 61 The anecdote evokes Holden’s sense of connection with members of his family, his brother Allie and sister Phoebe. Belonging through Friendship â€Å"I know old Jane like a book-I still couldn’t get her off my brain. I knew her like a book. I really did. I mean, besides checkers, she was quite fond of all athletic sports, and after I got to know her, the whole summer long we played tennis together almost every morning and golf almost every afternoon.† Pg. 69 The repetition of the simile, ‘like a book’, conveys the connection through friendship that Holden has with Jane. The adverb, ‘together’ and repetition of the adjective, ‘every’, further emphasize this connection and achievement of a sense of belonging through friendship.

Role of Angels

New Testament November 5, 2012 Role of Angels Unlike most books in the Bible, where they are mostly historical, Revelation is a book on prophecy. It is believed that John the Apostle. The word ‘revelation’ means ‘unveiling’, it is the unveiling of an apocalypse. It is the only apocalyptic book in the Bible. In Revelation, Jesus will come again to show his servants what is going to happen. This is similar to the Gospel of John, where Jesus comes to show what his Father has shown him.Angles come from the Greek word from a , meaning angel, or â€Å"knowledge† (â€Å"Angels today: all about angels†) also the term angel† in Aramaic, MALAKHA, means â€Å"messenger†. Angels have the knowledge of God’s word and are messengers to spread his word. Angels are also found in many religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They are either guardians or messengers from God, â€Å"In some cultures, they are believed to be the mo st powerful type of fairy† (â€Å"Angels today: all about angels†).Is there a hierarchy in Angles? There are some that believe there is. â€Å"Scholars of the Middle Ages believed that angels and archangels were lowest in the order because they were the most involved in the world of men and thus more susceptible to sin. † (â€Å"Angels today: all about angels†). The hierarchy according to Angels today are; first hierarchy seraphim and cherubim. Seraph is mentioned in Isaiah 6:1-7 with six wings, two covered their faces, two covered with feet and two were for flying.Cherubim’s are mentioned in Ezekiel 1:5 as, appearance form that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings, their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf, under their wings they had hands of a man. Second hierarchy includes dominions and powers or authorities, mentioned in Ephesians 6:12 â€Å"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against th e rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms†. The third and final tier of the hierarchy is the angels’ archangels.Angels are known as the messages of God. Archangels come from Greek meaning chief angel. The word Archangel only comes up twice in the New Testament and only once with an angels name, Archangel Michael in Jude 1:9. It’s noted that the word archangel is never plural in the New Testament, but in other books there is other mentions of other archangels; Raphael in the Book of Tobit, Uriel in the second Book of Esdras and Gabriel is believed to be an archangel but has no direct mentions of it. It is the making of four archangels.Angels play an important role in the book of Revelation, being involved with many of God's judgments upon the earth. Revelation starts with the breaking of the seven seals. The first four summon the Four Horsemen, White Horseman to conquer and spread the gospel, Red Horseman represents war to make man slaughter each other, Black Horseman represents famine, and the Pale Horseman represents death (Rev 6:1-8). The fifth seal brought the souls of those who had been slain because of the words of God to the altar (Rev 6:9). The sixth seal caused a great earthquake (Rev 6:12).When the seventh seal was broken, seven angels came down from heaven with seven trumpets representing the seven plagues (Rev 8:2). First trumpet sounded and hail and fire mixed with blood is hurled to the earth. One third of earth is burned up; one third of trees and all green grass is burned up. Second trumpet sounded and a huge, blazing mountain thrown into sea; one third of the sea turned to blood; one third of sea creatures died; one third of ships destroyed. Third trumpet sounded and a blazing star fell on one third of rivers and springs of water, one third of waters turned bitter killing many people.Forth trumpet sounded and one third of sun, moon , and stars are struck, one third of the day was dark and one third of night. Fifth trumpet sounded and a star fallen from the sky is given the key to unlock the abyss. The sun, moon, and stars were darkened by smoke from the abyss as locusts came down upon the earth; these creatures had power to torment those who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads for five months. Sixth a release the four angels bound at the river Euphrates; one third of mankind is killed; a two hundred million man army is organized and activated. Rev 8-9). Seventh angel blew his horn starting the battle of Armageddon, then came flashes of lightning, rumbling, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake (Rev 16:16-17). Some of these plagues are very similar to the plagues of Moses. The first trumpet is similar to the eighth plague in Moses, the Lord said ‘Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt and Festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land. (Exodus 9:8-9). The second trumpet is like the first plague in Moses, where every stream, canal, reservoir, and even the water in wooden buckets and stone jars were turned to blood (Exodus 7:19). The fourth trumpet is like the ninth plague, and the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out tine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days (Exodus 10:21-22).Finally the locusts coming from abyss and tormenting those without the seal of God, is both like the locusts of the eighth plague, bringing locusts to Egypt in Exodus 10:4 and that without the sign on them from Exodus 9:8. The start of Armageddon could have well before Revelation, but in Revelation 12:7-9, â€Å"And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.He was hurled to the earth and his angels with him†. This all-out war in heaven forced Satan down to earth and to be enslaved till the day of Armageddon. â€Å"Satan, being a very intelligent foe, well remembers how he was outgunned in that battle. His angels are no match for Christ (Michael) and heavens angel army, so if they ever meet again he will need serious reinforcements. † (Cross). After Satan was defeated and sent to hell, one could imagine how Satan must have felt and waiting, planning for the day he could come back for one last final battle.After being defeated in heaven he will be looking for a fairer playing field, here on earth. Satan is preparing his army during the blowing of trumpets and the seven plagues. â€Å"The n they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon† (Rev 16:16). The start of the battle of Armageddon starts in Revelation 19, â€Å"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice He judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one but he himself knows.He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: King of kings and Lord of lords†. Who is this guy on the white horse? The White Horseman? He’s not the Ki ngs of kings or the Lord of lords.Is this Jesus himself setting off into a glorious battle, or just another angel or heavenly being. To sum up what the battle of Armageddon is, â€Å"It is simply the final battle between Satan and his armies fighting against Christ and his armies for mastery and ownership of the world, and the final defeat of Satan’s rebellion †¦ and human against human, the 200,000,000 man army created by the kings of the earth and Christ. The outcome is such that sinners are destroyed and all sin is contained, for 1000 years† (Cross). Revelation 21 â€Å"The New Jerusalem† is the only time a New Jerusalem is mentioned. Because the book was written after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A. D. 70† (Price). During Jesus times, his disciples wanted him to bring them a New Jerusalem and bring power back from the Romans. There is a slight reference to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in Revelations. â€Å"I did no t see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb is its temple† (Rev 22:22). The best description of this New Jerusalem is, â€Å"made ready as a bride adorned for her husband†¦ the bride, the wife of the Lamb† (Rev 21:2-9).Randall Price pointed out the Jewish tradition that John would have knew well and the metaphor that is used in Revelation 21. â€Å"In John 14:2. The background of the marriage metaphor is the Jewish custom of the bridegroom husband leaving the bride at the betrothal to prepare a new house where they would dwell together once he returned to take away his bride. † (Price). This city is heaven on earth, â€Å"Nothing impure will ever enter, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life† (Rev 21:27).In Revelation 22, there is another angel that shows John the river of the water of life and the tree of life. The river flowed from th e throne of God down the middle of the great city â€Å"New Jerusalem† and the tree of life â€Å"bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of nations. No longer will there be any curse. † (Rev 22: 2-3). This is the city of God and is protected from all things evil. After John had witnessed this vision he fell down before the angel who showed him, and the angel told him, â€Å"Do not do it!I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and all who keep words of this book. Worship God! † Today we see many influences of angels in the modern world. There are shows like Touched by an Angel and Supernatural and show angels in them. These shows show the interaction of angels with people and the hierarchy of angels. The angels in Revelation are the beginning of Armageddon, come to fight the army of Satan and show the promised land of New Jerusalem. Work Cited â€Å"Angels today: al l about angels†.Web. November 4, 2012. Cross, Jack. The Apocalypse of Jesus; the Angels and the Earth, â€Å"Revelation† 2012. Web. November 4, 2012. Cross, Jack. The Apocalypse of Jesus; the Angels and the Earth, â€Å"Ehe End of the Conflict† 2012. Web. November 4, 2012. Price, Randall. â€Å"The New Jerusalem†. Jerusalem in Prophecy, Harvest House Publishers. 1998. Digital File. November 4, 2012. Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Fully rev. ed. Kenneth L. Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Print. November 4, 2012.