Old-new recognition

Old-New Recognition is a measurement method used to assess a simple form of recognition. The process is simple with a participant indicating if an item is new to them by responding “no” and responding with “yes” if they recognize the object as presented earlier in the experiment. Errors can occur in this form of recognition in a similar fashion to how they occur in source monitoring; errors occur more frequently when objects are very similar, when circumstances of the situation make acquisition of useful information difficult (e.g.,distractions or stress), or when the judgment processes are impaired in some way. The heuristic and systematic judgment process in particular could be the same or similar to the those used in source monitoring. Although similar, it seems that higher levels of differentiation are needed for source-monitoring processes than for recognition.

False fame

In the False-Fame Paradigm the names of non-famous individuals are judged to be famous by the participants of a study based solely on previous exposure to those names. In a study of false fame, participants are presented with a list of non-famous names and later those same participants are presented with the old (previously presented) non-famous names, new non-famous names, and the names of actually famous people. The participants are to make “fame judgements” for each name presented and the typical finding is that the old non-famous names are often identified (incorrectly) as famous. Essentially, incorrectly naming a non-famous person as famous is a source-monitoring error because they have attributed the name’s actual origin to a source other than the list where they originally read it.

There have been studies linking individuals who believe in abnormal life events to an increased proneness to source-monitoring errors. Specifically, these individuals demonstrate more errors in the false-fame task than people who do not believe in these abnormal life events. Examples of abnormal life event memories include believing that they had been abducted by aliens, and having memories from a previous life, but which only appeared after hypnosis therapy. In the case of reincarnation memories, the source of certain memories are attributed to the previous life, but the source of certain memories could come from any number of places. Other people, movies, books, dreams, or an imaginary scenario could generate memories that are then incorrectly attributed to having come from a previous life.

Cryptomnesia

Cryptomnesia is unintentional plagiarism occurring when a person produces something believing that it was self-generated, when it was actually generated earlier, either internally or by an external source. Cryptomnesia may occur because of distractions during initial exposure to information. Even if the information is acquired outside of conscious awareness, the area of the brain related to that information will be highly activated at least for a short amount of time. Since the areas are activated this can lead a person to “generate” new ideas that were actually acquired from an outside source or personally generated earlier. Heuristic judgement processes are typically used for source judgements in cryptomnesia. Since there was interference during initial exposure, the heuristic processes will likely judge the source of the information to be internally generated, at that moment.

Eyewitness memory

Eyewitness testimony can be a very convincing method for winning over a jury in a court of law. Unfortunately it has been found through research that source-monitoring error is prevalent in eyewitnesses, and can be cause for the mistaken positive identification of an innocent person from a lineup. The standard suggestibility test is often used to study eyewitness errors. This method provides the subject with visual information, verbal misinformation, and then tests for their memory of the information that was visually presented. During the testing, many subjects claim to have seen things in the visual portion which were actually presented to them verbally, which suggests that there is a misattribution of source. Studies have also been done on the mugshot exposure effect, which occurs when photographs are shown to eyewitnesses prior to viewing a lineup. It has been found that participants are more likely to falsely identify someone as guilty after viewing their mugshot. A source error may occur when the subject believes they recognize someone in the lineup as being the perpetrator, when in reality they are recognizing them because they have previously been exposed to their photograph. Source monitoring errors are also more common when the subject considers misleading information to be a tangent of the event rather than a completely separate event. This could be an issue if the witness has multiple sources of information on the events of the crime such as news reports or other eyewitness accounts, which can be confused with the actual series of events they witnessed. It has also been demonstrated that source monitoring errors are more likely to occur when the subject is stressed during recall or distracted while the misinformation is introduced. This may be because stress inhibits processes that produce source cues.

False memories

People often create memories that they believe to be true, however, in reality they are based on their imagination or something they have drawn from a situation. It has been shown through experiment that participants sometimes claim to have seen pictures that they have only ever been asked to imagine, and those with strong imaginations are more likely to believe they have perceived something they have actually imagined. Self-created information that has a high level of detail may induce source errors because it is similar to information from actual perceived events. A study was done to compare source memory for images that participants imagined to those that they actually saw. Results showed that participants showed greater activity in the precuneus while encoding for images that were imagined, and later identified as seen, when compared to images accurately identified as imagined. Neuroimaging has shown that areas in the posterior region of the brain are responsible for differentiating between true and false visual memories. The level of processing of the perceptual information may determine whether a source error is made. Behavioural evidence has suggested that subjects can be aware that they are generating false information, however when later tested they misattributed the information, believing it was true.

Remember-know

Remember versus know is a judgement process for evaluating memory awareness where an inidivudal must distinguish between two states of awareness about a memory: remembering, or knowing. When a memory is ”remembered” the experience or occurrence can be “relived” mentally, and related perceptual and contextual details are brought to mind without difficulty. When a memory is judged to be ”known” it means that the individual cannot relive the experience mentally but they feel a sense of familiarity, which often leads to confident attribution (or misattribution) to a likely source. Both ”remember” and ”know” judgements are subject to source monitoring errors and it has been demonstrated that under some circumstances (such as in the DRM paradigm) ”remember” judgements are more likely to occur.

DRM paradigm

The Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm often shortened to the DRM paradigm is a false memory phenomenon in which individuals recall having seen or heard a word in a list when only semantically related words had been presented. To study this phenomenon, lists of varying length are presented to individuals and afterwards the experimenter asks them if they had seen a specific word. The word they usually ask tends to be heavily semantically related to the words in the list but was not actually on it. An example of this procedure would be presenting words that are distinctly related to the word sleep (pillow, bed, night, dreams, etc.) and then asking the participant if they had heard the word “sleep”(called the ”critical word”) in the list. With strong certainty, participants will frequently claim that they had seen the critical word at least as often as words that were actually on the list. In a DRM paradigm experiment, the critical word is incorrectly identified as being within the list of presented words when the word occurs as a result of internally generated associatons.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Source-monitoring error, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Childhood and adolescence: 1931–1950

Osho was born Chandra Mohan Jain at his maternal grandparents’ house in Kuchwada, a small village in the Raisen District of Madhya Pradesh state in India, as the eldest of eleven children of a cloth merchant. His parents, who were Taranpanthi Jains, let him live with his maternal grandparents until he was seven years old. By Osho’s own account, this was a major influence on his development, because his grandmother gave him the utmost freedom, leaving him carefree without an imposed education or restrictions.

At seven years old, his grandfather, whom he adored, died, and he went to Gadarwara to live with his parents. He was profoundly affected by his grandfather’s death, and again by the death of his childhood sweetheart and cousin Shashi from typhoid when he was 15, leading to an extraordinary preoccupation with death that lasted throughout much of his childhood and youth. In his school years, he was a rebellious, but gifted student, and acquired a reputation as a formidable debater. As a youth, Osho became an atheist; he took an interest in hypnosis and was briefly associated with socialism and two Indian independence movements: the Indian National Army and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

University years and public speaker: 1951–1970

In 1951, aged nineteen, Osho began his studies at Hitkarini College in Jabalpur. After acute conflicts with an instructor, the principal asked him to leave the college, and he transferred to D. N. Jain College, also in Jabalpur. Having proved himself to be disruptively argumentative in Hitkarini College, he was not required to attend college classes in D. N. Jain College except for examinations, and used his free time to work for a few months as an assistant editor at a newspaper. He also began speaking in public, initially at the annual Sarva Dharma Sammelan held at Jabalpur, organised by the Taranpanthi Jain community into which he was born, participating there from 1951 to 1968. He resisted his parents’ pressure to get married. Osho later said he became spiritually enlightened on 21 March 1953, when he was 21 years old. He said he dropped all effort and hope. After what he describes as an intense seven-day process he says he went out at night to the Bhanvartal garden in Jabalpur, where he sat under a tree:

He completed his B.A. in philosophy at D. N. Jain College in 1955 and joined the University of Sagar, where he earned his M.A. in philosophy in 1957 (with distinction). He immediately secured a teaching post at Raipur Sanskrit college, but soon became controversial enough for the Vice Chancellor to ask him to seek a transfer, as he considered him a danger to his students’ morality, character and religion. From 1958, he taught philosophy as a lecturer at Jabalpur University, being promoted to professor in 1960. A popular lecturer with a “golden tongue” in Hindi, he was acknowledged by his peers as an exceptionally intelligent man who had been able to overcome the deficiencies of his early small-town education.

In parallel to his university job, he travelled throughout India, giving lectures critical of socialism and Gandhi, under the name Acharya Rajneesh (Acharya means teacher or professor; Rajneesh was a nickname he had acquired in childhood). Socialism, he said, was a dead loss that would only socialise poverty. Gandhi was a masochist and reactionary who worshipped poverty. To escape its backwardness, Osho said, India needed capitalism, science, modern technology and birth control. He criticised orthodox Indian religions as dead, filled with empty ritual, oppressing their followers with fears of damnation and the promise of blessings. Such statements made him controversial: they shocked and repelled many, but attracted others. He gained a loyal following that included a number of wealthy merchants and businessmen. These sought individual consultations from him about their spiritual development and daily life, in return for donations – a commonplace arrangement in India, where people seek guidance from learned or holy individuals the way people elsewhere might consult a psychologist or counsellor. The rapid growth of his practice was somewhat out of the ordinary, suggesting that he had an uncommon talent as a spiritual therapist. From 1962, he began to lead 3- to 10-day meditation camps, and the first meditation centres (Jivan Jagruti Kendra) started to emerge around his teaching, then known as the Life Awakening Movement (Jivan Jagruti Andolan). After a speaking tour in 1966, he resigned from his teaching post.

In a 1968 lecture series, later published under the title ”From Sex to Superconsciousness”, he scandalised Hindu leaders by calling for freer acceptance of sex. His advocacy of sexual freedom caused public disapproval in India, and he became known as the “sex guru” in the press. When he was invited in 1969 – despite the misgivings of some Hindu leaders – to speak at the Second World Hindu Conference, he used the occasion to raise controversy again. In his speech, he said that “any religion which considers life meaningless and full of misery, and teaches the hatred of life, is not a true religion. Religion is an art that shows how to enjoy life.” He characterised priests as being motivated by self-interest, incensing the shankaracharya of Puri, who tried in vain to have his lecture stopped.

Mumbai: 1970–1974

At a public meditation event in spring 1970 Osho presented his Dynamic Meditation method for the first time. At the end of June 1970, Osho left Jabalpur for Mumbai. On September 26, 1970 he initiated his first group of disciples or sannyasins at an outdoor meditation camp, one of the large gatherings where he lectured and guided group meditations. His concept of neo-sannyas entailed assuming a new name and wearing the traditional orange dress of ascetic Hindu holy men, including a mala (beaded necklace) carrying a locket with his picture. However, his sannyasins were expected to follow a celebratory, rather than ascetic lifestyle. They would be free, creatively responding to the present situation, as comfortable with being loving as with being alone. He himself was not to be worshipped, but was rather like a catalytic agent, “a sun encouraging the flower to open, but in a very delicate way”.

He had by then acquired a secretary, who as his first disciple had taken the name Ma Yoga Laxmi. Laxmi was the daughter of one of his early followers, a wealthy Jain who had been a key supporter of the National Congress Party during the struggle for Indian independence, with close ties to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai. She raised the money that enabled Osho to stop his travels and settle down. In December 1970, Osho thus moved to Woodlands Apartments in Mumbai, where he gave lectures and received visitors, among them the first Western visitors. He now travelled very rarely, and stopped speaking at open public meetings. In 1971, he adopted the title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Shree means Sir or Mister; the Sanskrit title Bhagwan means “blessed one”, indicating a human being in whom the divine is no longer hidden, but apparent.

Ashram in Pune: 1974–1981

The hot, humid climate of Mumbai appeared to have proved detrimental to Osho’s health; he had developed diabetes, asthma and numerous allergies. So, in 1974, on the 21st anniversary of his enlightenment, he and his group moved from the Mumbai apartment to a property in Koregaon Park, Pune, which was purchased with the help of Catherine Venizelos (Ma Yoga Mukta), a Greek shipping heiress. Osho taught at the Pune ashram from 1974 to 1981. The two adjoining houses and of land became the nucleus of an ashram, and those two buildings are still at the heart of the present-day [http://www.osho.com/Main.cfm?Area=MedResort&Language=English Osho International Meditation Resort]. This space allowed for the regular audio recording of his discourses and, later, video recording and printing for worldwide distribution, which enabled him to reach far larger audiences internationally. The number of Western visitors increased sharply, leading to constant expansion. The ashram soon featured an arts-and-crafts centre that turned out clothing, jewellery, ceramics and organic cosmetics and put on performances of theatre, music and mime. Following the arrival of several therapists from the Human Potential Movement in the early seventies, the ashram began from 1975 to complement its meditation offerings with a growing number of therapy groups. These became a major source of income for the ashram.

The Pune ashram was, by all accounts, an exciting and intense place to be, with an emotionally charged, madhouse-carnival atmosphere. A typical day in the ashram began at 6:00 a.m. with Dynamic Meditation. At 8:00 a.m., Osho gave a 60 to 90-minute spontaneous lecture in the ashram’s “Buddha Hall” auditorium, either commenting on literature from a religious tradition, or answering questions sent in by visitors and disciples. Until 1981, lecture series held in Hindi alternated with series held in English. During the day, various meditations and therapies took place, whose intensity was ascribed to the spiritual energy of Osho’s “buddhafield”. Evenings were for darshans, where Osho engaged in personal conversation with small numbers of individual disciples or visitors and gave sannyas. Sannyasins came for darshan when departing or returning to the ashram, or if they had an issue that they wanted to discuss with Osho.

To decide which therapies to participate in, visitors either consulted Osho or made selections according to their own preferences. Some of the early therapy groups in the ashram, such as the Encounter group, were experimental and very controversial, allowing a degree of physical violence as well as sexual encounters between participants. Conflicting reports of injuries sustained in Encounter group sessions began to appear in the press. Richard Price, at the time a prominent Human Potential Movement therapist and co-founder of the Esalen institute, found that Osho’s version encouraged participants to ”be violent” rather than ”play at being violent” (the norm in Encounter groups conducted in the United States), and he criticised the therapies for featuring “… the worst mistakes of some inexperienced Esalen group leaders”. Price is alleged to have exited the Pune ashram with a broken arm following a period of eight hours locked in a room with participants who were armed with wooden weapons. Bernard Gunther, his Esalen colleague, fared better in Pune and wrote a book, ”Dying for Enlightenment”, featuring photographs and lyrical descriptions celebrating the flavour of the meditations and therapy groups.

Violence in the therapy groups eventually ended in January 1979, when the ashram issued a press release stating that violence “had fulfilled its function within the overall context of the ashram as an evolving spiritual commune.” Besides the controversy around the therapies, allegations of drug use amongst sannyasins began to mar the ashram’s image. Some Western sannyasins were financing their extended stays in India through prostitution and drug running. A few of them later said that, while Osho was not directly involved, they discussed such plans and activities with him in darshan, and he gave his blessing.

By the latter half of the 1970s it had become clear that the property in Pune was too small to contain the rapid growth of the ashram and Osho asked that somewhere larger be found. Sannyasins from around India started looking for property that could be purchased and used for a larger ashram and alternatives were found, including one in Gujarat, in the province of Kutch, and two more in India’s mountainous north. Plans for a large utopian commune in India were never implemented, as mounting tensions between the ashram and the conservative Hindu government led by Morarji Desai resulted in an impasse. Land use approval was denied and, more important, the government stopped issuing visas to foreign visitors who indicated the ashram as their main destination in India. In addition, Desai’s government cancelled the tax-exempt status of the ashram, resulting in a claim of current and back taxes estimated at $5 million. Conflicts with various Indian religious leaders added to the situation – by 1980, the ashram had become so controversial that Indira Gandhi, despite a previous association between Osho and the National Congress Party dating back to his early speeches made in the sixties, was unwilling to intercede for it after her return to power. During one of Osho’s discourses in May 1980, an attempt on his life was made by a young Hindu fundamentalist.

By 1981, Osho’s ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year. In stark contrast to the period up to 1970, when his following was overwhelmingly Indian, daily discourse audiences were at this time composed predominantly of Europeans and Americans. Many observers noted that Osho’s lecture style changed in the late seventies, becoming intellectually less focused and featuring an increasing number of jokes intended to shock or amuse his audience. On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence, and satsangs – silent sitting and music, with readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran’s The Prophet or the Isha Upanishad – took the place of his discourses. Around the same time, Ma Anand Sheela (Sheela Silverman) replaced Ma Yoga Laxmi as Osho’s secretary.

Move to America: 1981

In 1981, mounting tension around the Pune ashram, increasing criticism of its activities and threatened punitive action by the Indian authorities provided an impetus for the ashram to relocate its operations to America. On 1 June, Osho travelled to the United States on a tourist visa, ostensibly for medical purposes, and spent several months at Kip’s Castle in Montclair, New Jersey. He had been diagnosed with a prolapsed disc in spring 1981 and had been treated by several doctors, including James Cyriax, a St. Thomas’ Hospital musculoskeletal physician and expert in epidural injections, who was flown in from London. Sheela stated in public that Osho was in grave danger if he remained in India but would receive appropriate medical treatment in America if he were to require surgery.

According to Susan J. Palmer, the move to the United States “appears to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Sheela.” Gordon (1987) notes that Sheela and Osho had discussed the idea of establishing a new commune in the U.S. in late 1980, although he did not agree to travel there until May 1981. Osho’s previous secretary, Laxmi, reported to Frances FitzGerald that “she had failed to find a property in India adequate to [Osho's] needs, and thus, when the medical emergency came, the initiative had passed to Sheela.” Osho never sought outside medical treatment during his time in America, leading the Immigration and Naturalization Service to believe that he had a preconceived intent to remain there. Osho later pleaded guilty to immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application.

Oregon commune: 1981–1985

On 13 June 1981, Sheela’s husband bought, for US$5.75 million, a ranch located across two Oregon counties (Wasco and Jefferson), previously known as “The Big Muddy Ranch”. The following month, work began on setting up the so-called Rancho Rajneesh commune; Osho moved there on 29 August. The initial reactions of the host community ranged from hostility to tolerance, depending on the observer’s distance from the ranch. Within a year of arriving, Osho’s followers had become embroiled in a series of legal battles with their neighbours, the principal conflict relating to land use. In May 1982, the residents of Rancho Rajneesh voted to incorporate the city of Rajneeshpuram on the ranch. The conflict with local residents escalated, with increasingly bitter hostility on both sides, and over the following years, the commune was subject to constant and coordinated pressures from various coalitions of Oregon residents. For its own part, the commune leadership took an uncompromising and confrontational stance and behaved impatiently with locals. Its behaviour was implicitly threatening, and the repeated changes in the commune’s stated plans looked like conscious deception, whether they were or not.

Osho resided at Rajneeshpuram, living in a purpose-built trailer complex with an indoor swimming pool and other amenities. He did not lecture and only saw the majority of his followers on his daily drive-bys, when he would slowly drive past the long line of sannyasins waiting for him by the side of the road. In this period, he gained notoriety for the large number of Rolls-Royce luxury cars that his followers bought for his use, eventually numbering 93 vehicles.

As part of his withdrawal from public life, Osho had given Ma Anand Sheela limited power of attorney in 1981, and removed the limits in 1982. In 1983, Sheela announced that he would henceforth speak only with her. He would later claim that she kept him in ignorance. Many sannyasins expressed doubts about whether Sheela truly represented Osho. An increasing number of dissidents left Rajneeshpuram, citing disagreements with Sheela’s autocratic leadership style.

Sannyasins who were not U.S. citizens found themselves in visa difficulties, which many tried to overcome by entering into marriages of convenience with American followers. Osho himself had similar problems, which the commune tried to solve by declaring him the head of a religion called “Rajneeshism”. In November 1981, Osho applied for permission to reside in the country as a religious worker. The application was refused on the grounds that he could not be leading a religion if he was unwell, and in a state of silence. But the decision was later withdrawn, due to procedural violations. The application for leave to stay as a religious leader was finally granted three years later, in 1984.

The Oregon years saw an increased emphasis on Osho’s prediction that the conventional world would destroy itself by nuclear war or other disasters sometime in the 1990s. Osho had said as early as 1964 that “the third and last war is now on the way”, and had commented in the intervening years on the need to create a “new humanity” to avoid global suicide. By the early 1980s, this had become the basis for a new exclusivism, with a 1983 article in the Rajneesh Foundation Newsletter announcing that “Rajneeshism is creating a Noah’s Ark of consciousness& … I say to you that except this there is no other way”. These warnings contributed to an increased sense of urgency in getting the Oregon commune established. In March 1984, Sheela announced that Osho had predicted the death of two-thirds of humanity from AIDS. As a precaution, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing. The measures were widely seen as an extreme overreaction; AIDS was not considered a heterosexual disease at the time, and the use of condoms was not yet widely recommended for AIDS prevention.

Osho ended his period of public silence on 30 October 1984, having announced that it was time for him to “speak his own truths.” In July 1985, he resumed his daily public discourses in the commune’s meditation hall. According to statements he made to the press, he did so against Sheela’s wishes. On 16 September 1985, a few days after Sheela and her entire management team had suddenly left the commune for Europe, Osho held a press conference in which he labelled Sheela and her associates a “gang of fascists.” He accused them of having committed a number of serious crimes, most of these dating back to 1984, and invited the authorities to investigate. The alleged crimes, which he stated had been committed without his knowledge or consent, included the attempted murder of his personal physician, poisonings of public officials, wiretapping and bugging within the commune and within his own home, and a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using salmonella. While his allegations were initially greeted with skepticism by outside observers, the subsequent investigation by the U.S. authorities confirmed these accusations and resulted in the conviction of Sheela and several of her lieutenants.

The salmonella attack was noted as the first confirmed instance of chemical or biological terrorism to have occurred in the United States. Osho stated that because he was in silence and isolation, meeting only with Sheela, he was unaware of the crimes committed by the Rajneeshpuram leadership until Sheela and her “gang” left and sannyasins came forward to inform him. A number of commentators have stated that in their view Sheela was being used as a convenient scapegoat. Others have pointed to the fact that although Sheela had bugged Osho’s living quarters and made her tapes available to the U.S. authorities as part of her own plea bargain, no evidence has ever come to light that Osho had any part in her crimes.

Even though there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Osho, Gordon (1987) reports that Charles Turner, David Frohnmayer and other law enforcement officials who had surveyed affidavits that were never released publicly, and who had listened to the hundreds of hours of tape recordings that were retrieved from the ranch, insinuated to him that Osho was guilty of more crimes than those he was eventually prosecuted for. Frohnmayer asserted that Osho’s philosophy was not “disapproving of poisoning”, and that he felt he and Sheela had been “genuinely evil”.

During his residence in Rajneeshpuram, Osho dictated three books while undergoing dental treatment under the influence of nitrous oxide (laughing gas): ”Glimpses of a Golden Childhood”, ”Notes of a Madman”, and ”Books I Have Loved”. Following her departure from Rajneeshpuram, Sheela stated in media interviews that Osho took sixty milligrams of Valium each day and was addicted to nitrous oxide. Osho denied these charges when questioned about them by journalists.

Rajneesh had applied for U.S. permanent residency as a religious teacher but on 30 September 1985 he denied that he was a religious teacher. On the same day, his disciples set fire to 5,000 copies of ””Book of Rajneeshism””, a 78-page compilation of his teachings where Rajneesh had defined Rajneeshism as “a religionless religion”. He said he ordered the book-burning to rid the sect of the last traces of the influence of Ma Anand Sheela, his formal personal secretary. Sheela’s robes were also “added to the bonfire”.

Arrest: 1985

On 23 October 1985, a federal grand jury issued a thirty-five-count indictment charging Osho and several other disciples with conspiracy to evade immigration laws. The indictment was returned in camera, but word was leaked to Osho’s lawyer. Negotiations to allow Osho to surrender to authorities in Portland if a warrant were issued failed. Tension peaked amid rumours of a National Guard takeover, a planned violent arrest of Osho and fears of shooting. Having listened to hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Sheela had made, law enforcement authorities later came to believe there was a plan to create a human wall of sannyasin women and children should authorities attempt to arrest their guru. On 28 October 1985, Osho, his personal physician and a small number of sannyasins accompanying them were arrested without a warrant aboard a rented Learjet at a North Carolina airstrip; the group were en route to Bermuda to avoid prosecution according to federal authorities ($58,000 in cash and 35 watches and bracelets worth $1 million were also found on the aircraft). Osho had by all accounts been neither informed of the impending arrest nor of the reasons for the journey.

Osho’s imprisonment and transfer across the country took the form of a public spectacle – he was displayed in chains, held first in North Carolina, then Oklahoma, and finally in Portland. Officials took the full ten days legally available to them to transfer him from North Carolina to Portland for arraignment. After initially pleading not guilty to all charges and being released on bail, Osho, on the advice of his lawyers, entered an “Alford plea” – a type of guilty plea through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him – to one count of having concealed his intent to remain permanently in the U.S. at the time of his original visa application in 1981, and one count of conspiracy to have followers stay in the country illegally by having them enter into sham marriages. Under the deal his lawyers made with the United States Attorney’s office, he was given a 10-year suspended sentence, placed on five years’ probation and ordered to pay $400,000 in fines and prosecution costs; in addition, he agreed to leave the United States and not to return for at least five years without the permission of the United States Attorney General.

Travels and return to Pune: 1986–1990

After leaving the United States, Osho returned to India, landing in Delhi on November 17. On the day of his arrival, he was given a hero’s welcome by his Indian disciples after returning from a U.S. jail and he denounced the United States saying the world must “put the monster America in its place” and that “Either America must be hushed up or America will be the end of the world.” He then travelled up to Himachal Pradesh where he stayed for six weeks. When his followers’ visas were revoked by the government, he moved on to Kathmandu, Nepal. A few weeks later he moved on to Crete in Greece. After being arrested by the KYP, he flew to Geneva, Switzerland, who refused him entry. Then to Stockholm, Sweden, and to Heathrow, UK, which also refused entry. He flew to Canada next, which refused landing permission so they turned back to Shannon, Ireland in order to refuel. He was allowed to stay for two weeks, at the Limerick Hotel, on condition that he did not go out and did not give any talks. A visa was arranged for Uruguay, and they took off again, stopping at Madrid on the way, where the plane was surrounded by the Guardia Civil. The next stop was Dakar, Senegal where he was allowed to spend the night. The next day the party continued on to Recife, Brazil, and finally on to Montevideo, Uruguay. In Uruguay the group moved to a house at Punta del Este where Osho again began speaking to his followers. He had been granted a Uruguayan identity card, one-year provisional residency and a possibility of permanent residency. On June 19, for no official reason, Osho was ‘invited to leave’. A two-week visa was arranged for Jamaica, but on arrival in Kingston, the police gave the group 12 hours to leave the country. After refuelling in Gander, Canada, (despite being refused permission) and again in Madrid, Spain, Osho returned to Mumbai, India, on July 30, 1986.

In January 1987, Osho returned to his old ashram in Pune. He now held daily evening discourses, although with interruptions due to intermittent ill health. Publishing efforts and therapy courses quickly resumed as well, but in less controversial style than in previous years, and the ashram experienced a renewed period of expansion. It now presented itself as a “Multiversity”, a place where therapy was to function as a bridge to meditation. Osho devised a number of new meditation techniques, among them the “Mystic Rose” method, and, after a gap of more than ten years, began to lead meditations personally again. Among his followers, the previous preference for communal living styles receded, most of them preferring to live ordinary and independent lives in society. The former red or orange dress code for sannyasins and the mala, which had both been optional for some time, were abandoned in 1987.

In November 1987, Osho expressed his belief that his deteriorating health was the result of some form of poison administered to him by the U.S. authorities during the twelve days he was held without bail in various U.S. prisons. His doctors hypothesised that he had been poisoned by radiation and thallium, and that he must have slept on his right side on a deliberately irradiated mattress, since his symptoms were concentrated on the right side of his body, but Osho’s followers presented no hard evidence in support of this theory. Osho’s former attorney, Philip J. Toelkes (Swami Prem Niren), also said that radiation poisoning was the cause of Osho’s nausea, fatigue, pain in his extremities and a lack of resistance to infection, but conceded that no evidence had been found to support the notion that the United States government conspired to murder the guru. Toelkes’ comments led U.S. attorney Charles H. Hunter to describe the allegations as “complete fiction”, while others speculated that Osho’s ill health might have stemmed from exposure to HIV. A less conspiratorial explanation relates to the fact that Osho’s chronic diabetes, in conjunction with the stress he had experienced, may have led to systematic physical deterioration.

From early 1988, Osho’s discourses focused exclusively on Zen. In late December 1988, he said he no longer wished to be referred to as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and in February 1989 took the name Osho Rajneesh, shortened to just Osho in September 1989. His health continued to weaken; he delivered his last public discourse in April 1989, and from then on only sat in silence with his followers. The wearing of red robes – only while on ashram premises – was reintroduced in summer 1989, with white robes worn for meditation, and black robes worn by leaders of therapy groups. Malas were not worn. Shortly before his death, Osho believed that one or more audience members who attended evening meetings at the Pune ashram (now referred to as the ”White Robe Brotherhood”) were subjecting him to some form of ”evil magic”. A search for the perpetrators was undertaken, but none could be found. On January 19, 1990 Osho died, aged 58, with heart failure being the publicly reported cause. His ashes were placed in his newly built bedroom in one of the main buildings (LaoTsu House) at the Pune ashram. The epitaph reads, “OSHO. Never Born, Never Died. Only Visited this Planet Earth between Dec 11 1931 – Jan 19 1990.”

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

In the 6th edition of ”Psychiatrie” of 1899, Kraepelin reordered the psychiatric universe for the next century by grouping most of the insanities into two large categories: dementia praecox and manic-depressive illness. They were distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) dementia praecox was primarily a disorder of intellectual functioning, manic-depressive illness was primarily a disorder of affects or mood; (2) dementia praecox had a uniformly deteriorating course and a poor prognosis, manic-depressive insanity had a course of acute exacerbations followed by complete remissions with no lasting deterioration of intellectual functioning; and (3) there were virtually no recoveries from dementia praecox, whereas in manic-depressive illness there were many complete recoveries. In 1899 dementia praecox took its now-familiar form as a heterogeneous class of psychotic disorders comprising hebephrenic, catatonic, and paranoid forms. These forms have persisted until today through Eugen Bleuler’s schizophrenia of 1908 (to which he added a fourth form, “dementia simplex”, or simple schizophrenia), and the main types of schizophrenia in DSM-IV-TR (the paranoid, catatonic and disorganized types, with the latter retaining its historical designation as the hebephrenic type in ICD-10 [1992]). These Kraepelinian subtypes will most likely disappear in the next edition of this diagnostic manual, ”DSM-5,”which is scheduled to appear in the spring of 2013.

Change in prognosis

In the 7th edition of 1904 there was little change in the description of dementia praecox, but Kraepelin does admit for the first time that in a small number of cases that recovery from dementia praecox might occur.

The 8th edition of Kraepelin’s ”Psychiatrie” was a four-volume opus, each of which appeared in different years between 1909 and 1915. In this edition dememtia praecox became one of the “endogenous dementias”. It is in the 1913 third volume (second part) of this edition that Kraepelin adjusts his concept of prognosis to admit that a partial remission of symptoms occurred in approximately 26% of his patients.

This brought dementia praecox in line with Eugen Bleuler’s claims about schizophrenia, which he had insisted from the start (in 1908) that (a) in many cases there was no fateful progressive deterioration, (b) in some cases the symptoms did indeed remit for periods of time, and (c) that there were cases of relative recovery. However, Bleuler admitted that in such cases of apparent recovery there was still some residual defect. No one was ever completely cured of the effects of dementia praecox.

The 8th edition of 1913 is also notable for the fact that Kraepelin increased the number of forms of dementia to 11. However, the three classical original subtypes would remain as the most influential description of this disorder for the century that followed. The 8th edition of ”Psychiatrie” was that last Kraepelin would produce in his lifetime. He was working on a 9th edition with Johannes Lange (1891-1938) but died in 1926 before it could be completed. Lange finished the bulk of it and published it in 1927.

Addition of etiology

Kraepelin realized that the state of scientific knowledge was such that definitive claims about the cause of dementia praecox could not be made. Heredity clearly played a role, as Kraepelin and his research associates had demonstrated this in their quantitative research. As a result of following the clinical method suggested by Kahlbaum, Kraepelin set aside claims about underlying brain disease or specific neuropathology in diagnostic descriptions of mental disorders. However, from the 5th edition of 1896 to the third volume of the 8th edition of 1913 it was clear that Kraepelin believed that dementia praecox was caused by a poisoning of the brain, and “autointoxication”, probably arising from the sex glands after puberty.

Universality of the disease

Kraepelin believed that dementia praecox was not a culture-bound syndrome and that it represented a disease process that could be found all over the world. Kraepelin himself loved to travel, and in Asia he observed that dementia praecox was similar to the European form of the illness in Chinese, Japanese, Tamil and Malay patients, leading him to suggest in the 8th edition of ”Psychiatrie” that, “we must therefore seek the real cause of dementia praecox in conditions which are spread all over the world, which thus do not lie in race or in climate, in food or in any other general circumstance of life…”

Treatment

Without knowing the cause of dementia praecox or manic-depressive illness, Kraepelin repeatedly stated that there could be no treatments specific to these conditions. Treatment for these insanities was the same for any institutionalized patient with any diagnosis: the occasional use of drugs (opiates, barbiturates, and so on) to alleviate acute episodes of distress, prolonged baths (greatly admired by Kraepelin as a humane method of calming patients), and occupational activities (if possible). Kraepelin himself had experimented with hypnosis early in his career and found it lacking. Psychotherapy as such was not part of the medical cognition of Kraepelin. In fact, Kraepelin detested both Freud and Jung for introducing diagnostic terms and forms of treatment that had no empirical basis. Kraepelin did, however experiment for a while with organotherapy—the injection of glandular extract from the thyroid, gonads and other organs—but without success. This experimental therapy was a rational treatment based on his presumed cause of dementia praecox—an autointoxication arising from the sex glands.

Use of term spreads

By 1899 Kraepelin himself had counted almost 20 German-language publications which made reference to his new diagnostic term, dementia praecox. In the decade after 1899 the number of German-language publications using Kraepelin’s categories of dementia praecox and manic-depressive illness as a basis for clinical speculation and experimental research exploded. German-language psychiatric concepts were always introduced much faster in America (than, say, Britain) where émigré German, Swiss and Austrian physicians essentially created American psychiatry. Swiss-emigree Adolf Meyer (1866-1950), arguably the most influential psychiatrist in America for the first half of the 20th century, published the first critique of dementia praecox in an 1896 book review of the 5th edition of Kraepelin’s textbook. But it was not until 1900 and 1901 that the first three American publications regarding dementia praecox appeared, one of which was a translation of a few sections of Kraepelin’s 6th edition of 1899 on dementia praecox.

Adolf Meyer was the first to apply the new diagnostic term in America. He used it at the Worcester Lunatic Hospital in Massachusetts in the fall of 1896. He was also the first to apply Eugen Bleuler’s term “schizophrenia” (in the form of “schizophrenic reaction”) in 1913 at the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic of the Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Both dementia praecox (in its three classic forms) and “manic-depressive psychosis” gained wider popularity in the larger institutions in the eastern United States after being included in the official nomenclature of diseases and conditions for record-keeping at Bellevue Hospital in New York City in 1903. The term lived on due to its promotion in the publications of the National Committee on Mental Hygiene (founded in 1909) and the Eugenics Records Office (1910). But perhaps the most important reason for the longevity of Kraepelin’s term was its inclusion in 1918 as an official diagnostic category in the uniform system adopted for comparative statistical record-keeping in all American mental institutions, ”The Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane”. Its many revisions served as the official diagnostic classification scheme in America until 1952 when the first edition of the ”Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:Mental Disorders”, or DSM-I, appeared. Dementia praecox disappeared from official psychiatry with the publication of DSM-I, replaced by the Bleuler/Meyer hybridization “schizophrenic reaction”.

Schizophrenia was mentioned as an alternate term for dementia praecox in the 1918 ”Statistical Manual”. In both clinical work as well as research, between 1918 and 1952 four different terms were used interchangeably: dementia praecox, schizophrenia, dementia praecox (schizophrenia) and schizophrenia (dementia praecox). This made the psychiatric literature of the time confusing since, in a strict sense, Kraepelin’s disease was not Bleuler’s disease. They were defined differently, had different population parameters, and different concepts of prognosis.

The reception of dementia praecox as an accepted diagnosis in British psychiatry came much slower, perhaps only taking hold around the time of World War I. There was substantial opposition to the use of the term “dementia” as misleading, partly due to findings of remission and recovery. Some argued that existing diagnoses such as “delusional insanity” or “adolescent insanity” were better or more clearly defined. In France an older psychiatric tradition regarding the psychotic disorders predated Kraepelin, and the French never fully adopted Kraepelin’s classification system. Instead the French maintained an independent classification system throughout the 20th century. After 1980, when DSM-III totally reshaped psychiatric diagnosis, French psychiatry began to finally alter its views of diagnosis to converge with the North American system. Kraepelin thus finally conquered France via America.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Dementia praecox, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Act I

Suburban mother Diana Goodman waits up late for her curfew-challenged son and comforts her anxious and overachieving daughter. Dan, her husband, then rises to help prepare her family for “Just Another Day.” But when her lunch-making takes a turn for the bizarre with sandwiches covering the table, chairs, and floor, the rest realize something is not right. As husband Dan helps the disoriented Diana, Natalie hurries off to school and the refuge of the piano practice room (“Everything Else”), where she’s interrupted by Henry, a classmate who likes to listen to her play& — and clearly likes her.

Over the ensuing weeks, Diana makes a series of visits to her doctor, while Dan waits in the car outside, questioning how to cope with his own depression (“Who’s Crazy/My Psychopharmacologist and I”). It is revealed that Diana has suffered from bipolar disorder coupled with hallucinations for sixteen years; Doctor Fine continually adjusts her medications until she says that she doesn’t feel anything, at which point he declares her stable. Natalie and Henry grow closer until one day he professes his love for her (“Perfect For You”) and they kiss for the first time. Diana witnesses this and realizes that her best years may be behind her, but she misses feeling her high highs and her low lows. (“I Miss the Mountains”). With her son’s encouragement, she flushes away her medication.

A few weeks later, Dan looks forward to dinner with his family (“It’s Gonna Be Good”), but when Diana emerges with a cake singing “Happy Birthday” to her son, Dan and Natalie are devastated. Dan holds Diana and explains that “He’s Not Here.” Their son has been dead for sixteen years after dying from an intestinal obstruction before Natalie was born. Natalie storms off. Dan mentions a return to the doctor, but Diana refuses as Dan tries to coax her into trusting him, their dead son joins them onstage, trying in vain to get Dan’s attention (“You Don’t Know/I Am The One”). Up in her room, Natalie vents her anger to Henry, then refuses Diana’s apology as her brother watches and taunts her (“Superboy and the Invisible Girl”).

A few days later, Diana starts work with Doctor Madden. As her son rises to assert his presence (“I’m Alive”), Dan and Natalie doubt the sessions are helping, but Doctor Madden proposes hypnosis to help Diana discover the roots of her trauma (“Make Up Your Mind/Catch Me I’m Falling”). Finally, Diana agrees it’s time to let her son go. Diana goes home to clean out her son’s things, pausing to listen to a music box (“I Dreamed a Dance”). Her son appears and dances with her, then invites her to come away with him (“There’s a World”). She does.

At the hospital, where Diana lies sedated and restrained, with self-inflicted gashes to her wrists, Doctor Madden explains to Dan that ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) is the standard course of treatment for drug-resistant patients who are imminently suicidal. Dan goes home to clean up after Diana and decide what to do (“I’ve Been”). The next day, Diana lashes out at Doctor Madden, refusing the treatment (“Didn’t I See This Movie?”), but Dan arrives and convinces her it may be their last hope (“A Light In The Dark”).

Act II

Over a period of two weeks, Diana receives a series of ECT treatments, while Natalie further explores clubs and drugs (“Wish I Were Here”). When Diana returns home from the hospital, she and her shocked family realize Diana has lost nineteen years of memory (“Song of Forgetting”). Natalie escapes to school, where Henry confronts her (“Hey #1″), wondering why she’s been avoiding him and inviting her to the spring formal dance.

Dan and Diana visit Doctor Madden, who assures them that some memory loss is normal (“Seconds and Years”) and encourages Dan to use photos, mementoes, and the like to help Diana recover. Dan gathers the family to do so (“Better Than Before”), with minor success, but when Natalie pulls the music box from a pile of keepsakes, he whisks it away, leaving Diana puzzled. Her son appears, unseen (“Aftershocks”), while Diana tells Dan there’s something she’s desperate to remember that’s just beyond her reach. When Henry arrives looking for Natalie, Diana is given great pause, studying his face and asking his age. He reminds her of someone. Unnerved, Henry hurries up to Natalie’s bedroom, to convince her to join him at the dance the next night (“Hey #2″).

Diana returns to Doctor Madden (“You Don’t Know (Reprise)”) who suggests she further explore her history and talk more with her husband. Diana goes home and searches through the boxes of keepsakes, finding the music box, Dan tries to stop her, but the memories of her baby son rush back (“How Could I Ever Forget?”). When Diana confesses remembering her son as a teenager, and demands to know his name, Dan refuses and instead insists they need to return for more treatment (“It’s Gonna Be Good (Reprise)”). Henry arrives to pick up Natalie, who has dressed for the dance, just in time for both of them to witness an agitated Dan grab the music box from Diana’s hands and smash it to pieces on the floor.

Diana confronts Dan, wondering why he perseveres after how much trouble she’s given, while upstairs, Natalie asks Henry much the same question (“Why Stay?”). Dan answers, echoed by Henry, both vowing to stay steadfast (“A Promise”), but just as both couples embrace, their son reappears (“I’m Alive (Reprise)”), sending Diana running to Doctor Madden, asking Natalie to drive her, leaving Dan and Henry behind.

Diana asks Madden what can be done if the medicine has missed the true problem. With her questioning comes the realization that it’s not her brain that’s hurting: it’s her soul (“The Break”). Madden assures her relapse is common, and suggests more ECT (“Make Up Your Mind/Catch Me I’m Falling (Reprise)”). Diana refuses, and though Doctor Madden urges her to continue treatment for her chronic, deadly disease, she thanks him and goes. Natalie, waiting outside, is distressed to learn her mother has left treatment, and Diana explains herself (“Maybe (Next to Normal)”), opening up to her daughter for the first time. She urges Natalie on to the school dance, where Henry awaits to comfort and embrace her (“Hey #3/Perfect for You (Reprise)”).

Diana finds Dan at home and tells him she’s leaving him, explaining that he can’t always be there to catch her; she needs to take a risk and deal with things on her own for once (“So Anyway”). She goes, leaving her son with him. As Dan wonders how she could have left him after he stood by her for so long, her son approaches, telling Dan he’s not going anywhere (“I Am The One (Reprise)”). Dan grows more distraught until at last he faces the boy and calls him by his name for the first time: Gabriel.

Natalie comes home to find her father sitting alone in the dark, in tears. She comforts him and turns the lights on in the room, before assuring him that the two of them will figure things out.

We see Henry arrive to study, and Natalie tells him Diana has gone to stay with her own parents.

We see Diana, alone and still hurting, but hopeful.

We see Dan, visiting Doctor Madden for any word on Diana, but staying to talk about his own struggle.

We see Gabriel, watching over them all.

And life goes on (“Light”).

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Next to Normal, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Films

In the original ”A Nightmare on Elm Street”, Nancy is a teenage girl who has begun experiencing nightmares about a mysterious, disfigured man in a red and green sweater. The man has “knives for fingers”, which he scrapes along objects in the dream. She learns that her friend Tina is having similar nightmares; Tina is murdered in her sleep later that night. Tina’s boyfriend Rod tells Nancy that he saw four “invisible” razors cutting her at the same time, a revelation which convinces her that the man from her dreams is connected to the murder. Nancy begins relying on caffeine to stay awake, and eventually discovers that she can pull things out of her dream after she takes the killer’s hat, labelled “Fred Krueger”. Her mother explains that Krueger was a child killer who was burned to death by vengeful parents after being freed from prison on a technicality. Nancy becomes convinced that he is exacting his revenge on the children of his killers from beyond the grave. With all of her friends dead, Nancy forms a plan to face Krueger alone and pull him into the real world, where he falls victim to a series of booby traps she has set up. Nancy finally defeats Krueger by taking back the energy she has given him and stripping away his power.

Although Nancy does not appear in ”A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge”, she maintains a presence when a new family moves into the house where she battled Freddy Krueger. Teenager Jesse Walsh, who inhabits Nancy’s old room, and his girlfriend Lisa discover Nancy’s old diary—which chronicles the events of the first film. It tells them of the murders of Nancy’s friends, and also reveals Krueger’s strengths and weaknesses. This helps Jesse and Lisa conquer Freddy in their own struggle with him.

In ”A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors”, Nancy is re-introduced as the new intern at Westin Hills Mental Institution, where she meets the last surviving children of the parents who killed Freddy Krueger. When she realizes the children are falling victim to Freddy, Nancy begs that they be prescribed Hypnocil, an experimental drug, which she has been using to suppress her dreams, in an effort to protect the teenagers from Freddy. In a therapy session, Nancy uses hypnosis to put everybody to sleep and teach them how to use their “dream powers” to their advantage. However, she and Dr Neil Gordon are fired when Hypnocil is blamed for the patients’ deaths. Neil and Nancy learn that in order to defeat Freddy they must lay his bones to rest; Nancy contacts her father, Donald Thompson, to find out what the town’s parents did with Freddy’s remains. As Neil and Donald go to bury Freddy’s bones, Nancy returns to Westin Hills and rejoins the patients in the dream world, where they use their dream powers against Freddy. Freddy tricks Nancy when he appears to her as Donald, and stabs her with his clawed glove. After rising a final time to stab Freddy with his own glove, Nancy dies, and Krueger disappears as Neil covers Freddy’s remains in holy water and a crucifix, and buries them. Kristen then states that she intends to place Nancy into a “beautiful dream.” Nancy’s tombstone is seen briefly in ”A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master”.

To some extent Nancy reappears in ”Wes Craven’s New Nightmare”. The story, which is set in the “real world”, focuses on actress Heather Langenkamp being stalked by a malevolent entity. Over the course of the film, Heather learns from Wes Craven that the entity was locked in Freddy Krueger’s character throughout the ”Nightmare on Elm Street” film series. With the character having been killed off in ”Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare” and Heather’s character (who kept the entity at bay) being killed off in ”A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors”, the entity has been set free, and wants to cross over into the real world in the form of Freddy Krueger. It views Heather as an enemy, since she was the person who gave Nancy the strength to defeat it in the original ”Nightmare on Elm Street”. In order to battle the entity, who has kidnapped her son Dylan, Heather takes on the role of Nancy one last time and does battle with Freddy in the dream world, where she traps him in a furnace and destroys him. Though she only appears in flashbacks during Freddy’s introduction in ”Freddy vs. Jason”, she maintains somewhat of a presence: her former home is now occupied by Lori Campbell.

Nancy appeared in the 2010 remake of ”A Nightmare on Elm Street” with her last name changed to Holbrook and her occupation to a diner waitress. She was portrayed by Rooney Mara.

Literature

Nancy’s spirit appears in the story “Asleep at the Wheel” from the 1991 short stories collection ”The Nightmares on Elm Street: Freddy Krueger’s Seven Sweetest Dreams”, appearing in the dreams of the character Ian to warn him that Freddy is real and not just an urban legend or the result of mass hysteria.

While not always considered canonical to the ”A Nightmare on Elm Street” film series, Nancy returned in the ”Nightmares On Elm Street” six issue comic book series published by Innovation Comics in 1991. In the story, Nancy teams up with several other characters from the film series, including Neil Gordon, Jacob Johnson and Alice Johnson, to fight Freddy in his nightmare world. The events of this series were meant to fill in the time period between the ”A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child” and ”Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare” films. The series was written by Andy Mangels. The first two issues of the story explain to the readers about Nancy’s life in between parts one and three. After the events of part one, Nancy had been sent to an institution by her father until she was “rational” again. Around the time she was in college after she was released, her father sold 1428 Elm Street to the Walsh family in ”Freddy’s Revenge”. In college, she studied psychology and sleep disorders, and made two friends in her roommates Cybil Houch and Priscilla Martin. After Nancy was fatally wounded by Freddy at the end of part three, Kristen had dreamed her soul into the Beautiful Dream, the good side of the dream world, where Nancy now acts as its agent as Freddy acts as an agent for the nightmare realm. In the story, Freddy begins targeting Cybil and Priscilla in an attempt to get to Nancy. He actually succeeds in killing Priscilla and Cybil’s husband, James, before Nancy rescues Cybil. She is then reunited with Neil Gordon and the three of them realize that it might be impossible to fully destroy Freddy since he is pure evil, but it is possible to weaken him. Freddy is stopped and weakened by the dream-selves of unborn children, such as Cybil’s unborn daughter, in a realm in the Beautiful Dream. The next four issues, titled ”Loose Ends”, deals with the characters from previous ”Nightmare” movies teaming up to defeat Freddy again. Here, Nancy is reunited with the soul of her father, who Freddy uses to try and kill her but is unsuccessful. Nancy defeats Freddy and manages to stop his plan of using Jacob Johnson to break into the real world with help from Neil Gordon and Devonne, a psychotic former accomplice of Freddy’s.

Nancy makes an appearance in the final issue of the crossover comic series ”Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash: The Nightmare Warriors”. In a battle against Freddy Krueger, Dream Master Jacob Johnson summons the spirits of Freddy’s past victims, including Amanda Krueger and the Dream Warriors. Nancy also appears, reuniting with Neil Gordon to help him read the ”Necronomicon’s” passages needed to banish Freddy. With Freddy defeated, Nancy leaves Neil and returns to the afterlife with the other spirits.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street), under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Brooke English arrived on the doorstep of Phoebe Tyler, her aunt, in 1976 as a wild teenager who was struggling to find her true love. She moved into the Tyler Mansion and started dating Dan Kennicott. She also continued to see her old boyfriend, the dangerous Benny Sago. She pitted the two men against each other, fighting for her affections. She was out of control, so much so that Phoebe nearly shipped her home. Benny had tried to blackmail Phoebe into letting Brooke stay.

Brooke vs. Erica

Brooke soon stopped caring about Dan and Benny and fell for Tom Cudahy. He was also being pursued by Erica Kane, and the two women’s longstanding rivalry was born. Erica managed to win Tom’s heart and he married her. Brooke returned to her relationship with Dan, where she was the mistress, as he was seeing ”Devon Shepard”.

Phoebe, faking paralysis, caught Dan & Brooke in a compromising situation, and threatened to throw out Brooke again. This was offset when Brooke found out about Phoebe’s fake paralysis and blackmailed her into keeping her in the Tyler Mansion. Dan eventually broke up with Devon and wanted to try a relationship with Brooke again.

Brooke, however, soon started sleeping with Erica’s half brother Mark Dalton. Mark made it clear that the relationship was only about sex. Dan discovered the relationship and left town. Brooke, still trying to find the right man, began to have an affair with con artist Eddie Dorrance. He ended up raping her. When he was killed, Brooke learned that was pregnant with his child. She chose to terminate the pregnancy.

Brooke and Tom began to have an affair, as Tom had separated from Erica. When Erica returned from California as an unsuccessful actress, she convinced Tom to give their marriage another try. Her lies finally caused Tom to divorce her and propose to Brooke. The two married.

Motherhood

Brooke had slightly grown out of her teenage rebellious phase, and took a job as a reporter. She made the discovery that her mother, Peg English, was the leader of an international drug cartel known as The Cobra. It was yet to be revealed that Brooke was adopted. her father Phoebe’s brother died and Peg was sent to prison. Before she could reveal who Brooke’s real mother was she was killed. This compounded onto the problem of Tom’s drinking. He and Erica Kane, Brooke’s archrival, had an affair the night before Erica was to marry Adam Chandler. This is while Brooke was pregnant with her and Tom’s child. Brooke was helped through the pregnancy by Mark, and gave birth to a daughter, Laura Cudahy.

Brooke had become a rising TV anchorwoman, but ran into problems with this. She exposed a municipal scandal and refused to reveal her source, and was sent to prison. When she got out of prison, there was an assassination attempt on her and Mark’s lives at a party. Erica’s fiance, Mike Roy, took the bullet instead of Brooke & Mark. After a while, Brooke’s busy schedule led to her break up with Mark.

She briefly dated Giles St. Clair, a stuntman. But his lifestyle was too wild and interfered with her role as Laura’s mother. She also learned that her biological mother was a homeless woman named Jane Dorbin. Brooke tracked her down and the two built a relationship.

Brooke met one of Erica’s exes, the wealthy Adam Chandler. The two fell in love. Brooke married Adam quickly. Their happiness was very short-lived when Brooke’s beloved daughter, Laura, was killed by a drunk driver. It is an event that stayed with Brooke for the rest of her life, as she continued to mourn the loss of her pride and joy.

When Brooke discovered that she could not bear any more children, Adam began to get anxious to have an heir to the Chandler fortune. He hired Dixie Cooney, the niece of Palmer Cortlandt, his bitter business rival, to be a nanny. He began to have an affair with her. She soon gave birth to his son, J.R. Chandler. The affair cost him his marriage to Brooke. They divorced, and Brooke began to work closely with Dixie’s true love, Tad Martin.

Tad and Dixie married after Dixie’s brief marriage with Adam ended. But the marriage between Tad & Dixie also soon ended. When Tad was finally a single man, Brooke slept with him. Tad was soon “killed” on a blown up bridge, fighting with Billy Clyde Tuggle. Soon after, Brooke discovered, much to her surprise, that she was pregnant! She told everyone that her pregnancy was because of artificial insemination to protect Dixie, after Tad had reconciled with her before he “died”.

Brooke in the early 90s

While Brooke was pregnant, she began to rely on Jackson Montgomery, another one of Erica’s old flames. The two grew close in friendship. Brooke nearly lost her baby when she and Jack were hit by Arlene Vaughan, who was driving drunk at the time. However, Brooke gave birth to a healthy baby boy, James Edward Martin, whom she called Jamie. Her miracle child has become Brooke’s pride and joy, following the death of Laura.

Erica began to figure out a way to win Jack back. She prodded Brooke until Brooke saw that Jack still cared deeply for Erica. Brooke also went public with the fact that Jamie was Tad’s son. Brooke continued to raise Jamie. She began to see Edmund Grey, whose hot and cold behaviour left her angry and his obsession with discovering his lineage and birthright strained the ties between them. Brooke experienced a jolt when Tad returned to Pine Valley in 1993. Tad wanted to become a good father to Jamie, and married Brooke.

Once again, Tad’s love with Dixie would not be denied and they started to have another affair. Tad lied to Brooke about his whereabouts. Edmund knew the truth, and wanting to win back Brooke, he told her about Tad’s affair in hopes of breaking up Brooke’s marriage. Brooke vowed to stay with Tad. She became pregnant again, but tragedy would strike when it was discovered the pregnancy was ectopic. The termination of the pregnancy was necessary to save Brooke’s life. Shortly after, Brooke realized that Tad would never love her the same way he loved Dixie, so she ended their marriage. Brooke continued to have a cordial friendship with Tad, as Tad became Jamie’s father. Brooke began to focus on her career and raising her son.

Adopting Laura

Brooke was chosen as Pine Valley’s Woman of the Year, and at the ceremony, Laura Kirk, a homeless teen, came and publicly accused Brooke of not doing enough to help the cause of the homeless. Brooke vowed to do more. She began to work close with Laura, and developed a bond. Adam Chandler started to want Brooke back, but she was still reeling from her previous marriage to him that ended with his affair with Dixie. She stayed away from him and guarded herself. Adam and Liza Colby put together a scheme for Brooke to return to Adam and Tad to return to Liza. Brooke realized that she didn’t love Adam enough to put up with everything he had to offer.

Brooke met and fell for ”Pierce Riley” in 1996. He lived in the woods with Laura and Janet Green, an ex-con. When Pierce and Brooke began to date, Janet attempted to steal Brooke’s identity as she also had feelings for Pierce. Her scheme didn’t last. Brooke also brought Laura to her home and adopted her as her second daughter. However, Brooke felt the need to devote time to Jamie and Laura, so the two broke up. Pierce would leave for New Mexico, returning a few months later. Things began heating up for the couple, and they became engaged.

But Pierce was a troubled man, who was suffering from flashbacks from his past. These flashbacks were disturbing, depicting gunshots and a woman from Pierce’s past. He painfully confessed to Brooke that he may have shot the woman in the flashbacks. She urged him to seek help and gave her support while he underwent psychological therapy. Undergoing hypnosis, Pierce remembered that the woman in his flashbacks, Christina, was a woman he had fallen in love with in Central America. They had a daughter named Amelia. He also remembered being forced to shoot either Christina or Amelia by a soldier. The soldier pulled the trigger of the gun in Pierce’s hands, shooting Christina. Pierce suffered a breakdown due to the memory, and Brooke vowed to look for Amelia.

No one knew that Christina was still alive. She survived the gunshot wounds and spent two decades in a Central American jail. When Brooke began looking for Amelia, the captors released Christina, who headed to Pine Valley under the name “Diana Martinez” to tell her story to the world-renown reporter Brooke English. She didn’t know that Brooke was in love with Pierce and when the truth was exposed. Pierce had to choose between Brooke and his long forgotten feelings for Christina. Pierce soon left Pine Valley with Christina, leaving Brooke devastated yet again.

Standing trial for murder

Brooke devoted her time to her work. She was nominated for an award in New York. On the way home to Pine Valley, her plane crashed. Everyone aboard was killed except for Brooke, Edmund, his daughter ”Maddie Grey” and another man. Brooke tried to save the life of Edmund’s wife Maria Santos Grey but Maria made Brooke save Maddie’s life instead. The plane went over the cliff and into the water. Maria’s body was never found and was presumed dead, much to Edmund’s sadness. While searching for the truth behind the plane crash, she met a man that would help her through the ordeal, as he was the fourth survivor, ”Jim Thomasen”.

Jim had trailed Brooke from New York, because he knew that she was a wealthy woman and had just adopted Laura. Laura and Jim had a past in New York. Jim took pornographic pictures of Laura when she was younger. Laura had posed for the pictures for money to help take care of her sick mother ”Terry Kirk”. Laura discovered that the photos remained on the Internet.

Brooke teamed with Jim to find out about why the plane crashed. Jim was with her every step of the way, and they learned that the plane’s crash was attributed to faulty turbine blades and that Adam Chandler was behind it.

Soon after, Luara was kidnapped by a drug addict named Ricky, who had posed in the pictures with Laura. He, unknown to Brooke, was hired by Jim. Brooke would find the pictures thanks to a tip-off and receive a ransom note demanding that the police were not to be notified about Laura’s disappearance. She obeyed and told Jim she would drop the money herself. Jim “saved” Laura, became a hero in Brooke’s eyes. Though she told Brooke that she knew Ricky, the former didn’t tell her mother that Jim had been the photographer after declaring a truce with him to keep it a secret between themselves.

Wanting Brooke for herself, Jim told Laura that she should move to Boston where no one would know her. Laura would leave Pine Valley after the New Year’s in 1998. Brooke was soon notified that there was new evidence in the plane crash. It was a luggage fragment that contained explosives.

Despite Jim’s warning to leave it alone, Brooke wouldn’t let it rest. While in Jim’s apartment, she went through his closet trying to find something and stumbled across the same style luggage found in the wreckage. She confronted him, and he explained it with lies. Brooke hired Mateo Santos to do undercover work and find out as much as he could about Jim.

The truth about Jim shocked Brooke. She arranged a meeting with him at the Chandler Gallery. She showed him the photos of Laura that he had taken. Jim promised that if she called the police, he would take the same type of photos of Jamie. This drove Brooke over the edge and she took out a gun, shooting Jim several times in the back.

Scared about the murder charges and convinced that she wouldn’t win the trial, Brooke went on the run with Jamie. Finally, Tad convinced her to return to Pine Valley and stand trial. Thanks to Tad’s secret maneuvering, Brooke was able to get an acquittal of murder. However, the event still haunted Brooke.

Brooke in the 2000s

Laura would soon leave Pine Valley to study in China. Brooke began to date Dimitri Marick, again another old love of Erica. Erica succeeded in quickly ending the relationship. After that Brooke began to refocus on her career and raising Jamie.

In early 2000, Brooke began to work at the community centre, working herself to the bone. Reverend ”Eliot Freeman” soon found that this was for the guilt she felt about her real daughter Laura’s death years before. It came to the surface when Arlene Vaughan was drunk and crashed her car into a telephone pole that broke through the community centre’s wall. Eliot comforted and consulted Brooke about the pain that she was still holding for her daughter’s death.

However, Brooke was unaware that Eliot had a secret he was keeping from her, his real identity. Before “finding God”, Eliot went by another name, ”Josh Waleski”. He was the man who had killed her daughter. Eliot was eventually forced into telling Brooke that he was the man who had taken her daughter from him. Brooke erupted in a fury and lashed out at Eliot for having lied to her for months. More importantly, Brooke was left to question herself for allowing herself to fall in love with the man who had killed her daughter. Eliot decided to leave town to help Brooke heal. Before Eliot left for good, Brooke finally found a way to forgive Eliot.

The next year, Brooke’s adopted daughter Laura suffered an Ecstasy overdose. It aggravated a pre-existing heart condition. The only surgeon that could perform the risky operation was Dr. David Hayward, who was in prison. Brooke was helped by of all people, Erica, in order to free David. Laura survived the surgery but still needed a heart transplant.

That spring, Brooke begged Leo du Pres to pretend to be interested in the dying Laura in order to give Laura motivation to fight for her life. At first, Leo refused. But he soon grew closer with Laura. He seemed to really care for Laura and wanted to see her fully recover. Laura’s condition would soon worsen, and Brooke paid a married couple to donate the heart of their dead nephew.

On June 18, 2001, Leo proposed to Laura, and she accepted. They married two days later in her hospital room with Brooke, with friends and hospital staff in attendance. Laura’s health continued to worsen and the only way to save her life was for a heart transplant. Laura eventually received a heart transplant from Gillian Andrassy, who died after she was shot. In early 2002, Brooke convinced an unwinding Laura to seek out professional help.

Soon, Brooke began to suspect that Maria Santos Grey was still alive. She had seen a painting of Wildwind, the estate in Pine Valley that belonged to the Grey family, drawn by a Maureen Gorman. Brooke was convinced that Maureen Gorman was an alive Maria. She and Tad traveled to Nevada to find Maureen. When Brooke saw Maureen and realized it was indeed the long thought dead Maria, she fainted. Later that night, Tad went to find Maria, but saw a different girl and assumed that was who Brooke saw. He tried to convince Brooke that she just “thought” she saw Maria.

Brooke and Edmund finally married. At their wedding, Maddie saw Maria and followed her. She burst into the chapel moments later, announcing that she had been with her mother. This was just after the marriage ceremony was complete and Brooke & Edmund were officially married. Brooke finally admitted that she knew Maria was really alive, causing Edmund to find Maria. Their marriage was annulled, but Brooke continued to help Edmund reunite with Maria.

Following this, Brooke began an affair with Adam Chandler. Brooke told Adam that she would only continue the affair if it remained a secret. But soon Brooke realized that others knew about it, and she quickly ended the relationship.

Brooke began to rebuild her friendship with Edmund, after all of her deception. But she also began to worry about Jamie. Unknown to anyone, Jamie had slept with a newcomer to Pine Valley, Babe Carey, the night before it was announced that Babe had married Jamie’s former stepbrother J.R. Chandler (Adam, Jr.) in San Diego weeks before. Both had been drunk, but Babe still took Jamie’s virginity. Babe soon became pregnant, and Brooke worried that Jamie might be the father.

When it was revealed that the father of Babe’s daughter, Bess, was indeed J.R. and not Jamie, Brooke was relieved. However, it was then figured out that Bess was really Miranda Montgomery, the newborn daughter of Bianca.

Brooke’s world was rocked when Edmund was killed in the Wildwind barn one night. Brooke had to tell Maria that she was the executor of Edmund’s estate, and had more control over Maria’s children and the Wildwind estate than Maria. The two women remained at odds, until they found a way to co-exist for the sake of Maria’s children.

When her Aunt Phoebe died, Brooke was inconsolable. She soon found out that Phoebe had left everything to Jamie provided he dumped Babe. Jamie had a tough time letting go of Babe but eventually did. Jamie would later start a relationship with the recently returned Amanda Dillon, but after Amanda’s unstable mother Janet wreaked havoc on Pine Valley, Brooke welcomed a devastated Amanda into her home as if she were her daughter.

Eventually, Jamie and Amanda stopped seeing each other. Over the last couple of months in Pine Valley, Brooke remained in the background, focusing on raising Jamie and Amanda. She also became a stepping stone in the renewed relationship of Erica and Jack. While the two were separated, Erica invited her first husband Jeff Martin to Thanksgiving dinner, while Jack invited her bitter rival, Brooke. Brooke quickly realized that Jack didn’t love her like Erica. Quietly, Brooke left Pine Valley at the tail end of 2006. However, Brooke reappeared in the ”All My Children” 40th anniversary special four years later and on February 23, 2010, she returned until departing again exactly two months later. In that short period of time, Brooke and her ex-husband Adam Chandler went off into the sunset together in a particularly romantic happy ending.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Brooke English, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

# ”La Dialectique de l’intuition chez A. N. Whitehead: sensation pure, pancréativité et contiguïsme”. Préface de Jean Ladrière. Mémoire couronné par la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Frankfurt / Paris, Ontos Verlag, 2005 (ISBN 3-937202-55-2).

# ”Whitehead’s Pancreativism. The Basics”. Foreword by Nicholas Rescher, Frankfurt / Paris, Ontos Verlag, 2006 (ISBN 3-938793-15-5).

# ”L’Épreuve de la philosophie. Essai sur les fondements de la praxis philosophique”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions Chromatika, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-930517-02-5).

# ”Éduquer (à) l’anarchie. Essai sur les conséquences de la praxis philosophique”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions Chromatika, 2008. (ISBN 978-2-930517-03-2).

#(with Jean-Claude Dumoncel) ”Whitehead ou Le Cosmos torrentiel. Introductions à Procès et réalité”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions Chromatika, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-05-6).

Co-Edited Collections

#James A. Bradley, André Cloots, Helmut Maaßen and Michel Weber (eds.), ”European Studies in Process Thought, Vol. I. In Memoriam Dorothy Emmet”, Leuven, European Society for Process Thought, 2003 (ISBN 3-8330-0512-2).

#Franz Riffert and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Searching for New Contrasts. Whiteheadian Contributions to Contemporary Challenges in Neurophysiology, Psychology, Psychotherapy and the Philosophy of Mind”, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies I, 2003 (ISBN 3-631-39089-0).

#Michel Weber (ed.),”After Whitehead: Rescher on Process Metaphysics”, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2004 (ISBN 3-937202-49-8).

#François Beets, Michel Dupuis and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Alfred North Whitehead. De l’Algèbre universelle à la théologie naturelle”. Actes des Journées d’étude internationales tenues à l’Université de Liège les 11-12-13 octobre 2001, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2004 (ISBN 3-937202-64-1).

#Michel Weber (under the direction of) and Diane d’Eprémesnil (with the collaboration of), ”Chromatikon. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2005 (ISBN 2-87463-000-4).

#Michel Weber and Samuel Rouvillois (eds.), ”L’Expérience de Dieu. Lectures de Religion in the Making”. Actes du troisième Colloque international Chromatiques whiteheadiennes, Paris, Aletheia. Revue de formation philosophique, théologique et spirituelle, Hors série, 2006 (ISSN 1242-0832).

#François Beets, Michel Dupuis and Michel Weber (eds.), ”La Science et le monde moderne d’Alfred North Whitehead — Alfred North Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World”. Actes des Journées d’étude internationales tenues à l’Université catholique de Louvain, les 30-31 mai et 1 juin 2003 — Proceedings of the Second “Chromatiques whiteheadiennes” International Conference. Publiés avec le concours du FNRS, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2006 (ISBN 3-938793-07-4).

#Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (eds.), ”Subjectivity, Process, and Rationality”, Frankfurt/Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2006 (ISBN 978-3-938793-38-1).

#Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon II. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2006 (ISBN 2-87463-027-6).

#Guillaume Durand and Michel Weber (eds), ”Les Principes de la connaissance naturelle d’Alfred North Whitehead — Alfred North Whitehead’s Principles of Natural Knowledge”. Actes des Journées d’étude internationales tenues à l’Université de Nantes, les 3 et 4 octobre 2005 — Proceedings of the Fourth International “Chromatiques whiteheadiennes” Conference. Publiés avec le concours du Département de philosophie de l’Université de Nantes, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes IX, 2007. (ISBN 978-3-938793-64-0)

#Benoît Bourgine, David Ongombe, and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Religions, sciences, politiques. Regards croisés sur Alfred North Whitehead”. Actes du colloque international tenu à l’Université de Louvain les 31 mai, 1 et 2 juin 2006. Publiés avec le concours du FNRS, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes VI, 2007. (ISBN 978-3-938793-52-7)

#Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon III. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2007. (ISBN 978-2-8746-3083-5)

#Michel Weber and Will Desmond (eds.), ”Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008. (ISBN 978-3-938793-92-3)

#Maria Pachalska and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Neuropsychology and Philosophy of Mind in Process. Essays in Honor of Jason W. Brown”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XVIII, 2008. (ISBN 978-3-86838-010-1)

#Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon IV. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2008. (ISBN 978-2-87463-137-5)

#Alan Van Wyk and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Creativity and Its Discontents. The Response to Whitehead’s Process and Reality”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2009. (ISBN 978-3-86838-018-7)

#Peter Hare, Michel Weber, James K. Swindler, Oana-Maria Pastae, Cerasel Cuteanu (eds.), ”International Perspectives on Pragmatism”, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. (ISBN 978-1-4438-0194-2)

#George Derfer, Zhihe Wang, and Michel Weber (eds.), ”The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews” (Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies III), Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2009. (ISBN 978-3-86838-039-2)

#Michel Weber and Anderson Weekes (eds.), ”Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind” (Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies II), Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 2009 (ISBN 978-1-4384-2941-0).

#Michel Weber and Ronny Desmet (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon V. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2009 (ISBN 978-2-87463-191-7).

#Ronny Desmet and Michel Weber (edited by), ”Whitehead. The Algebra of Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions Chromatika, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-08-7).

Translations

#Nicholas Rescher, ”Essais sur les fondements de l’ontologie du procès” (Process Metaphysics). Translation and preface by Michel Weber, translation reviewed for accuracy by the author, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2006 (ISBN 3-938793-16-3).

Co-Edited Monographs

#Philippe Devaux, ”La Cosmologie de Whitehead. Tome I, L’Épistémologie whiteheadienne”, edited by Thibaut Donck and Michel Weber, published with the support of the Centre national de Recherches de Logique (CNRL/NCNL), Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions chromatika, 2007. (ISBN 978-2-930517-01-8)

#John B. Cobb, Jr., ”Lexique whiteheadien. Les catégories de Procès et réalité”, translation by Henri Vaillant, reviewed for accuracy by Emeline Deroo, edited with a preface by Michel Weber, Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions Chromatika, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-06-3).

Volumes in Book Series under Weber’s Editorial Oversight=

Chromatiques whiteheadiennes (10 volumes to date)

#Michel Weber, ”La Dialectique de l’intuition”, 2005.

#François Beets, Michel Dupuis et Michel Weber (eds.), ”De l’Algèbre universelle à la théologie naturelle”, 2004.

#Jean-Marie Breuvart (ed.), ”Les Rythmes éducatifs”, 2005.

#A. N. Whitehead, ”La Science et le monde moderne”, 2006.

#François Beets, Michel Dupuis et Michel Weber (eds.), ”La Science et le monde moderne”, 2006.

#Benoit Bourgine, David Ongombe, Michel Weber (eds.), ”Religions, sciences, politiques”, 2007.

#Guillaume Durand, ”Des Événements aux objets”, 2007.

#Guillaume Durand and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Les Principes de la connaissance naturelle”, 2007.

#Nicholas Rescher, ”Les Fondements de l’ontologie du procès”, 2006.

#has not appeared yet

#Xavier Verley, ”La Philosophie spéculative de Whitehead”, 2007.

Chromatikon Yearbook (5 volumes to date)

# Michel Weber (under the direction of) and Diane d’Eprémesnil (with the collaboration of), ”Chromatikon I”, 2005.

# Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon II”, 2006.

# Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon III”, 2007.

# Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon IV”, 2008.

# Michel Weber and Ronny Desmet (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon V”, 2009.

Process Thought (22 volumes to date)

#Michel Weber (ed.), ”After Whitehead,” 2004.

#Jason Brown, ”Process and the Authentic Life”, 2005.

#Silja Graupe, ”Der Ort ökonomischen Denkens”, 2005.

#Wenyu Xie, Zhihe Wang, George Derfer (eds.), ”Whitehead and China”, 2005.

#Gary L. Herstein, ”Whitehead and the Measurement Problem”, 2006.

#Edward Jacob Khamara, ”Space, Time and Theology in the Leibniz-Newton Controversy”, 2006.

#Michel Weber, ”Whitehead’s Pancreativism. The Basics”, 2006.

#Michel Weber, ”Whitehead’s Pancreativism. Jamesean Applications” [forthcoming].

#Alan Van Wyk and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Creativity and its Discontents”, 2009.

#Michel Weber and Will Desmond, (eds.), ”Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought”, 2008.

#Nicholas Rescher, ”Process Philosophical Deliberations”, 2006.

#Sergio Franzese and Felicitas Krämer (eds.), ”Fringes of Religious Experience”, 2007.

#Pierfrancesco Basile and Leemon McHenry (eds.), ”Consciousness, Reality and Value”, 2007.

#Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (eds.), ”Subjectivity, Process, and Rationality”, 2006.

#Silja Graupe, ”The Basho of Economics”, 2007.

#Mark Dibben and Thomas Kelly (eds.), ”Applied Process Thought I”, 2008.

#Gudmund J. W. Smith and Ingegerd M. Carlsson (eds.), ”Process and Personality”, 2008.

#Maria Pachalska and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Neuropsychology and the Philosophy of Mind”, 2008.

#Sergio Franzese, ”The Ethics of Energy”, 2008.

#George Derfer, Zhihe Wang and Michel Weber (eds.), ”The Roar of Awakening”, 2009.

#Mark Dibben and Rebecca Newton (eds.), ”Applied Process Thought II”, 2009.

#Nicholas Rescher, ”Ideas in Process”, 2009.

Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies (4 volumes to date)

#Franz Riffert & Michel Weber (eds.), ”Searching for New Contrasts”, Lang, 2003.

#Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes (eds.), ”Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind”, SUNY, 2009.

#George Derfer, Zhihe Wang and Michel Weber (eds.), ”The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews”, Ontos Verlag, 2009.

#Joseph Mabika & Michel Weber (eds.), ”Creativity and Ntu”, [forthcoming].

Éditions Chromatika (9 volumes to date)

#A. N. Whitehead, ”Les Principes de la connaissance naturelle”, 2007 (ISBN 978-2-930517-00-1).

#Philippe Devaux, ”La Cosmologie de Whitehead”, 2007 (ISBN 978-2-930517-01-8).

#Michel Weber, ”L’Épreuve de la philosophie”, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-930517-02-5).

#Michel Weber, ”Éduquer (à) l’anarchie”, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-930517-03-2).

#A. N. Whitehead, ”La Religion en gestation”, 2009 (ISBN 978-2-930517-04-9).

#Jean-Claude Dumoncel and Michel Weber, ”Whitehead ou Le Cosmos torrentiel. Introductions à Procès et réalité”, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-05-6).

#John B. Cobb, Jr., ”Lexique whiteheadien. Les catégories de Procès et réalité” [2008], 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-06-3).

#Jason W. Brown, ”Neuropsychological Foundations of Conscious Experience”, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-07-0).

#Ronny Desmet and Michel Weber (edited by), ”Whitehead. The Algebra of Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum”, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-08-7).

#A. N. Whitehead, ”Le Principe de relativité”, [in preparation].

#A. N. Whitehead, ”Les Visées de l’éducation et autres essais”, [in preparation].

Authored Articles=

Contributions to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

#“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947),” in W. J. Mander and A. P. F. Sell (Senior Editors), ”Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Philosophers”, Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 2002, Vol. II, pp.& 1236–1241.

#“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947),” in Stuart Brown (General Editor), ”Dictionary of Twentieth-Century British Philosophers”, Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 2005, Vol. II, pp.& 1116–1120.

#“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947),” in Anthony Grayling and Andrew Pyle (eds.), ”Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy”, Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 2006, Vol. IV, pp.& 3419–3422.

Contributions to Edited Collections

#“Principes de la temporalité douloureuse chez Whitehead et Watzlawick,” in Georges Charbonneau and Bernard Granger (under the direction of), ”Phénoménologie des sentiments corporels. Volume I. Douleur, souffrance, dépression”, Paris, Le Cercle herméneutique, 2003, pp.& 63–67.

#“Foreword” & “The Art of Epochal Change,” in Franz Riffert and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Searching for New Contrasts. Whiteheadian Contributions to Contemporary Challenges in Neurophysiology, Psychology, Psychotherapy and the Philosophy of Mind”, Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies I, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2003, pp.& 7–12 & 252-281.

#“Introduction. Process Metaphysics in Context,” in Michel Weber (ed.), ”After Whitehead: Rescher on Process Metaphysics”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2004, pp.& 41–75.

#“L’aventure cosmo-théologique,” in François Beets, Michel Dupuis, and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Alfred North Whitehead. De l’Algèbre universelle à la théologie naturelle”. Actes des Journées d’étude internationales tenues à l’Université de Liège les 11-12-13 octobre 2001, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2004, pp.& 283–309.

#“James’ Non-rationality and its Religious Extremum in the Light of the Concept of Pure Experience,” in Jeremy Carrette (ed.),” William James and The Varieties of Religious Experience. A Centenary Celebration”, London and New York, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 2004, pp. 203-220.

#“Concepts of Creation and Pragmatics of Creativity,” in Wenyu Xie, Zhihe Wang, George Derfer (eds.), ”Whitehead and China”, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp.& 137–149.

#“Avant-Propos,” “Foreword,” “Créativité et réversion conceptuelle” and “Informations réticulaires — Reticular News,” in Michel Weber (under the direction of) and Diane d’Eprémesnil (with the collaboration of), ”Chromatikon. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2005, pp.& 5–16, 17-21, 159-174 and 233-257.

#“On Religiousness and Religion. Huxley’s Reading of Whitehead’s Religion in the Making in the Light of James’ Varieties of Religious Experience,” in Jerome Meckier and Bernfried Nugel (eds.), ”Aldous Huxley Annual. A Journal of Twentieth-Century Thought and Beyond”, Volume 5, Münster, LIT Verlag, March 2005, pp. 117-132.

#“The hyperdialectics of religiousness and religion” in Michel Weber and Samuel Rouvillois (eds.), ”L’Expérience de Dieu. Lectures de” Religion in the Making, Actes du troisième Colloque international Chromatiques whiteheadiennes, Paris, Aletheia. Revue de formation philosophique, théologique et spirituelle, 2006, pp.& 115–136.

#“Avant-propos,” “Foreword” & “The organic turn: From simple location to complex (dis)location,” in François Beets, Michel Dupuis, Michel Weber (eds.), ”La Science et le monde moderne d’Alfred North Whitehead — Alfred North Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes III, 2006, pp.& 11–16 & 97-118.

#“Les enjeux d’une théologie africaine caractérisée et consistante,” in Léonard Santedi Kinkupu and Modeste Malu Nyimi (under the direction of), ”Épistémologie et théologie. Les enjeux du dialogue foi-science-éthique pour l’avenir de l’humanité”. Mélanges en l’honneur de S. Exc. Mgr Tharcisse Tshibangu Tshishiku pour ses 70 ans d’âge et ses 35 ans d’épiscopat. Ouvrage publié avec le concours de la Fondation Evangelii nuntiandi in Africa et la Faculté de Théologie de la Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kinshasa, Éditions des Facutlés catholiques, Recherches africaines de théologie. Travaux de la Faculté de Théologie, 2006, pp.& 615–623.

#“Creativity, Efficacy and Vision: Ethics and Psychology in an Open Universe” in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (eds.), ”Subjectivity, Process, and Rationality”, Frankfurt/Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XIV, 2006, pp.& 263–281.

#“Avant-propos” & “Informations réticulaires,” in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon II”. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2006, pp.& 5–14 & 281-290.

#“PNK’s Creative Advance from Formal to Existential Ontology,” in Guillaume Durand and Michel Weber (eds.), ”Les Principes de la connaissance naturelle d’Alfred North Whitehead — Alfred North Whitehead’s Principles of Natural Knowledge”, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes IX, 2007, pp.& 259–273.

#“James’s Mystical Body in the Light of the Transmarginal Field of Consciousness,” in Sergio Franzese & Felicitas Krämer (eds.), ”Fringes of Religious Experience. Cross-perspectives on William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XII, 2007, pp.& 7–37.

#“Éléments d’herméneutique whiteheadienne” & “Conclusions — Les exigences de la philosophie de l’événement” in Benoît Bourgine, David Ongombe, Michel Weber (eds.), ”Religions, sciences, politiques. Regards croisés sur Alfred North Whitehead”. Actes du colloque international tenu à l’Université de Louvain les 31 mai, 1 et 2 juin 2006. Publiés avec le concours du FNRS, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes VI, 2007, pp.& 13–32 and 209-220.

#“From the Grown Organism to Organic Growth,” in Mark Dibben and Thomas Kelly (eds.), ”Applied Process Thought I: Initial Explorations in Theory & Research”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XVI, 2008, pp.& 149–168.

#“Avant-propos,” “Foreword” & “Contact Made Vision: The Apocryphal Whitehead” in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon III. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2007, pp.& 5–24 & pp.& 229–260.

#“Perennial Truth and Perpetual Perishing. A. Huxley’s Worldview in the Light of A. N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy of Time,” in Bernfried Nugel, Uwe Rasch and Gerhard Wagner (eds.), ”Aldous Huxley, Man of Letters: Thinker, Critic and Artist”, Proceedings of the Third International Aldous Huxley Symposium Riga 2004, Münster, LIT, “Human Potentialities”, Band 9, 2007, pp.& 31–45.

#“Introduction,” “Hypnosis: Panpsychism in Action,” “Contact Made Vision: The Apocryphal Whitehead,” “Christiana Morgan (1897–1967),” “Jean Wahl (1888–1974),” in Michel Weber and William Desmond, Jr. (eds.), ”Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008, I, pp.& 15–38, 395-414, 573-599; II, pp.& 465–468, 640-642.

#“Rescher on Process,” in Robert Almeder (ed.), ”Rescher Studies. A Collection of Essays on the Philosophical Work of Nicholas Rescher”. Presented to Him on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2008, 429-444.

#“Pragmatic Anarchy in A. N. Whitehead,” in Peter Hare, Michel Weber, James Swindler, Oana-Maria Pastae, Cerasel Cuteanu (eds.), ”Democracy, Liberalism and the Relevance of (Neo-)Pragmatism for the Constituting of Political Ideologies — Interdisciplinary Approaches”. Proceedings of the International Conference the College of Letters and Social Sciences of the Constantin Brancusi University, Sept. 28/Oct. 3, 2007, Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008,

#“The Urizen of Whiteheadian Process Thought,” in Mark Dibben and Rebecca Newton (eds.), ”Applied Process Thought II: Following a Trail Ablaze”, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XXI, 2009, pp.& 61–73.

Articles in Philosophical Journals

#“An Argumentation for Contiguism,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 1, Issue 1, Spring 1999, pp.& 14–16.

#“The Polysemiality of the Concept of “Pure Experience”,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 1, Issue 2, Fall 1999, pp. 4-6.

#“James’ Contiguism of “Pure Experience”,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 1, Issue 3, Winter 1999, pp. 19-22.

#“Polysemiality, Style and Arationality,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2000, pp.& 1–4.

#“Whitehead’s Axiomatization of the Contiguism of “Pure Feeling”,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 2, Issue 3, Fall 2000, pp. 9-13.

#“The Assassination of the Diadoches,” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 2001, pp.& 13–18.

#“Huaidehai de shijiansheng zhi sanceng genyuan” [“The Threefold Root of Whiteheadian Temporality,” translated into Mandarin by Liu Shu-Min], in ”Chang yu you: zhongwai zhexue de bijiao yu rongtong”, Volume VI, February 2002, pp.& 163–181.

#“Whitehead’s Reading of James and Its Context (Part I),” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2002, pp.& 18–22

#“Jason W. Brown’s Microgenetic Theory: Reflections and Prospects,” ”Neuro-psychoanalysis”, Volume 4, No 1, 2002, pp.& 117–118.

#“Whitehead’s Reading of James and Its Context (Part II),” ”Streams of William James”, Volume 5, Issue 3, Fall 2003, pp.& 26–31.

#“Sense-Perception in Current Process Thought. A Workshop Report” [with Anderson Weekes], in Harald Atmanspacher (ed.), ”Mind and Matter”, Volume I, Issue 1, Freiburg, Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene e.V., December 2003, pp.& 121–127.

#“The Whitehead Psychology Nexus: Towards New Synergies of Philosophy and Psychology” [with Anderson Weekes], ”Acta Neuropsychologica”, Volume 1, Number 4, 2003, pp.& 449–462.

#“La virtualité en procès. Relativisation de l’acte et de la puissance chez A. N. Whitehead,” ”Revue internationale de Philosophie”, vol. 61 n° 236, juin 2006, pp.& 223–241.

#“La vie de la Nature selon le dernier Whitehead,” ”Les Études philosophiques”, sept. 2006, T. 60, Vol. 3, pp.& 395–408.

#“Alfred North Whitehead’s onto-epistemology of perception,” ”New Ideas in Psychology”, 24, 2006, pp.& 117–132.

#“L’épreuve de la philosophie,” ”[http://www.crdp-montpellier.fr/ressources/agora Diotime. Revue internationale de didactique de la philosophie]”, 33, June 2007

#“КОНТИНУИЗЪМ И КОНТИГУИЗЪМ” (“Continuité et contiguité,” translated into Bulgurarian by Vesselin Petrov], ”Философски алтернативи”, 4/2007, pp.& 125–139.

#“Les enjeux de la pratique philosophique,” ”[http://www.crdp-montpellier.fr/ressources/agora Diotime. Revue internationale de didactique de la philosophie]”, 34, décembre 2007

#“Ancorare istorică a practicii filosofice whiteheadiene,” ”Analele Universităţii “Constantin Brâncuşi” din Târgu Jiu”, Seria Litere şi Ştiinţe Sociale, Nr. 1/2008, pp.& 276–288.

#“Uriyen în procesul de gândire al lui Whitehead,” ”Analele Universităţii “Constantin Brâncuşi” din Târgu Jiu”, Seria Litere şi Ştiinţe Sociale, Nr. 2/2008, pp.& 37–52.

#“Individu et société selon Whitehead,” ”Art du comprendre”, N°18, Paris, 2009, pp.& 167–182.

#“Whitehead et James: conditions de possibilité et sources historiques d’un dialogue systématique,” in A. Benmakhlouf and S. Poinat (ed.), ”Quine, Whitehead, et leurs contemporains, Noesis”, 13, 2009, pp.& 251–268.

#“O pragmatismo de Whitehead,” translated by Susana de Castro, in ”Redescrições”, São Paulo, Centro de Estudos em Filosofia Americana, Ano 1 Número 1, 2009.

Authored Critical Reviews

#“Isabelle Stengers, L’Effet Whitehead [Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, Annales de l'Institut de Philosophie de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1994]. Critical Review,” ”Process Studies”, 23/4, 1994, pp.& 282–284.

#“Alfred North Whitehead, Procès et réalité. Essai de cosmologie. Traduit de l’anglais par Daniel Charles, Maurice Elie, Michel Fuchs, Jean-Luc Gautero, Dominique Janicaud, Robert Sasso and Arnaud Villani [Paris, NRF Éditions Gallimard, Bibliothèque de philosophie, 1995]. Critical Review,” ”Process Studies”, 27/1-2, 1998, pp.& 149–151.

#“Recent publications in French” & “Recent publications in English,” in James A. Bradley, André Cloots, Helmut Maaßen and Michel Weber (eds.), ”European Studies in Process Thought”, Vol. I. In Memoriam Dorothy Emmet, Leuven, European Society for Process Thought, 2003, pp.& 53–57.

#“Luca Gaeta, Segni del cosmo. Logica e geometria in Whitehead, Milano, Edizioni Universitare di Lettere Economica Diritto, Il Filarete CCX, 2002,” ”Zentralblatt MATH”, European Mathematical Society, Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe & Springer-Verlag, 1024.01009.

#“Ivor Grattan-Guinness, “Algebras, Projective Geometry, Mathematical Logic, and Constructing the World. Intersections in the Philosophy of Mathematics of A.N. Whitehead”, Historia Mathematica 29, N° 4, 2002, pp.& 427–462,” ”Zentralblatt MATH”, European Mathematical Society, Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe & Springer-Verlag, 01891821.

#“Jean Wahl, Vers le concret. Études d’histoire de la philosophie contemporaine. William James, Whitehead, Gabriel Marcel. Avant-propos de Mathias Girel. Deuxième édition augmentée [Vrin, 1932], Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 2004. Critical Review,” ”Process Studies”, 34/1, 2005, pp.& 155–156.

#“Hans W. Cohn, Heidegger and the Roots of Existential Therapy, London, Continuum, 2002, SPC Series. Critical Review,” ”The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology”, volume 36/3, October 2005, pp.& 336–337.

#“Roger Frie (ed.), Understanding Experience. Psychotherapy and Postmodernism, London, Routledge, 2003. Critical Review,” ”The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology”, Volume 37/1, January 2006, pp.& 109–111.

#“Jean Wahl, Vers le concret. Études d’histoire de la philosophie contemporaine. William James, Whitehead, Gabriel Marcel. Avant-propos de Mathias Girel. Deuxième édition augmentée [Vrin, 1932], Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 2004. Compte rendu critique,” ”Revue internationale de Philosophie”, vol. 61 n° 236, Juin 2006, pp.& 246–248.

#“Discussion: The Genocidal Logic of Neoliberalism [à propos de Naomi Klein, ''The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism'', New York, ICM Books, 2007],” in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile (under the direction of), ”Chromatikon IV. Annuaire de la philosophie en procès — Yearbook of Philosophy in Process, Louvain-la-Neuve”, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2008, pp.& 199–207.

#“Nicholas Rescher, Autobiography, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, Nicholas Rescher Collected Papers. Supplementary Volume, 2007. Critical Review,” ”Process Studies” 37.2, 2008, pp.& 211–213.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Michel Weber (philosopher), under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

As with many of the Church of Scientology’s programs, the Volunteer Ministers have generated controversy and criticism. Critics of Scientology accuse the organization of offering medically dubious therapy (Hubbard’s “assists” have gained negligible credibility among the medical or psychological professions) and of attempting to take advantage of disasters in order to promote Scientology to a grief-stricken populace.

The Volunteer Minister program most heavily promoted by Scientology took place in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Critics of Scientology accused the organization of attempting to take advantage of the disaster in order to promote Scientology to the grief-stricken populace in the area. An intercepted email from a Sea Org “Lieutenant” brags of a deliberate plan to prevent the grief-stricken from receiving counseling from psychiatrists.

:””Due to some brilliant maneuvering by some simply genius Sea Org Members we tied up the majority of the psychs who were attempting to get to families yesterday in Q&A, bullbait and wrangling. [... The survivors] don’t know it but they need the Scientologists with LRH’s tech to be here right now.””

The National Mental Health Association issued a public warning in response to the conduct of Scientologists in the immediate aftermath of September 11, claiming that scientologists were “Intentionally confusing [the] public” by presenting themselves as mental health service providers. According to NMHA President Michael M. Faenza, “The public needs to understand that the Scientologists are using this tragedy to recruit new members. They are not providing mental health assistance.”

In Russia, after the Beslan school hostage crisis tragedy in 2004, the Health Ministry ordered Scientologists out of the area, saying “that various psychological tactics the groups use, including what it called hypnosis, may be harmful not only for adults, but for children that have already suffered severe mental shock.”

In the United Kingdom, Volunteer Ministers played a similar role in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, targeting the families of victims and emergency workers. As in the United States in 2001, this resulted in controversy, and it was reported that Volunteer Ministers had been removed from the vicinity of survivors of the bus bombing in Tavistock Square. It later emerged that the Metropolitan Police had agreed to give the Church of Scientology privileged access to the Police Message Broadcasting System, enabling the Church to dispatch Volunteer Minister rapid-response teams in the event of future emergencies in the capital.

Paul Fletcher, director of the London branch of CCHR and Stefania Cisco, a Director of Special Affairs for Scientology, admitted to an undercover BBC reporter that the purpose of the volunteer ministeres was to keep the psychiatists away, and called this “spiritual security”.

After the Virginia Tech massacre, April 16, 2007, 20 Volunteer Minister were on the campus. Bulletins to Scientology members said that help had been requested by the university provost, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, but these organizations denied that any requests had been made. The activities of the Volunteer Ministers at Virginia Tech was reported to have received strong criticism from local pastors.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Volunteer Ministers, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Some examples of specific degrees follow each general term. For more information, see the article about the general term.

* Associate’s degrees: AA (Associate in Arts), AS (Associate in Science), AAS (Associate in Applied Science), AGS (Associate in General Studies), AST (Associate in Specialized Technology)

* Bachelor’s degrees: B.Des, AB or BA, BFA, LL.B, BHSc, MBBS BSc or BScIT or ScB or BS or SB, BASc, BPhil, BBus, BSBA, BPE, B.Math, BSW, BVSc, BPharm, B.Eng, BBA, B.Tech, B.Com, BAA, B, BM, BD

* Master’s degrees: M.P.P., MA, MFA, LL.M, MS or MSc, MScIT, MSEd or M.S.Ed., MSW, MCM, M.Div., MPIA, MPS, MPSA, MAS, MMus, MSSc, MBA, MEcon, MFin, MPA, MSPH, MHA, M.Ed or EdM, M.Eng, M.H, M.J, M.Des, M.Pharm, MEnt, M.Phil., M.St., drs., PSM, M, MPS

* Extended Research Master’s degrees: mag.art.

* Licentiate degrees: LDS, Ph.L. (Licentiate of Philosophy), J.C.L., LP, S.T.L.

* Specialist degrees: Ed.S., SSP, SClP

* Logistician’s degree: CPL

* Engineer’s& degrees: Ch.E., C.E., E.E., Env.E., I.E., Mech.E., Nucl.E., Sys.E.

*Professional Doctoral degrees:DMD or DDM, DDS, BM BS, DPT, ND, D.C., OD, DVM, V.M.D, DMin, M.D., D.O., Au.D., PharmD, J.D., D.C., P.Th.D., D.Th.P., D.P.M., DProf (UK), Psy.D., DNP

* Research Doctoral degrees: D.H.Sc, J.C.D., Ph.D. or D.Phil. (Oxford), DIT, EdD, EngD, DTech, DBA, DPA, DHA, Dr.-Ing(Germany), DPS, D.D., D.Th. or Th.D., S.T.D, J.S.D. or S.J.D. or LL.D., DPM, DSc or ScD, DSocSci, M.D. (UK and Sweden), DSW, Doctor of Agriculture

Abbreviations for degrees can place the level either before or after the faculty or discipline, depending on the institution. For example, DSc and ScD both stand for the (higher) doctorate in science. Various other abbreviations also vary between institutions, for instance BS and BSc both stand for ‘Bachelor of Science’.

There are various conventions for indicating degrees and diplomas after one’s name. In some cultures it is usual to give only the highest degree. In others, it is usual to give the full sequence, in some cases giving abbreviations also for the discipline, the institution, and (where it applies) the level of honours. In another variation, a ‘rule of subsumption’ often shortens the list and may obscure the chronology evident from a full listing. Thus ‘MSc BA’ means that the degrees conferred were – in chronological order – BSc, BA, MSc. The subsumption rule reflects the principle that a person of a given high status does not separately belong to the lower status.

For member institutions of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, there is a standard list of abbreviations, but in practice many variations are used. Most notable is the use of the Latin abbreviations ‘Oxon.’ and ‘Cantab.’ for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in spite of these having been superseded by (little used) English ‘Oxf.’ and ‘Camb.’ Other Latin abbreviations include St And. for the University of St Andrews, Exon. for the University of Exeter, Dunelm. for Durham University, Ebor. for the University of York and Cantuar. for the University of Kent (formerly the “University of Kent at Canterbury”). Confusion results from the widespread use of ‘SA’ for the University of South Australia (instead of S.Aust.) because ‘SA’ was officially assigned to the University of South Africa. For universities of different commonwealth countries sharing the same name, such as York University in Canada and the University of York in the UK, a convention has been adopted where a country abbreviation is included with the letters and university name. In this example, ‘York (Can.)’ and ‘York (UK)’ is commonly used to denote degrees conferred by their respective universities.

The doubling of letters in LL.B., LL.M., LL.D. is because these degrees are in laws, not law. The doubled letter indicates the Latin plural (genitive case) ”legum” as opposed to the singular (genitive case) ”legis”. Abbreviations for the degrees in surgery Ch. B. and Ch. M. are from Latin ”chiruguriae” and often indicate a university system patterned after Scottish models. The combination of M.B. with Ch. B. arose from a need to graduate the students at the time of year allocated to graduation rituals, but the legal inability to confer the M.B. before they had been properly approved by professional regulatory bodies. Thus the Ch. B. was conferred first, and the M.B. was conferred later, after registration, and without ceremony. In recent times the two have come to be conferred together and are widely (mis)understood to constitute a single degree.

Some degrees are awarded ”jure dignitatis”. That is, a person who has demonstrated the appropriate qualities to be given a particular office may be awarded the degree by virtue of the office held. It is another kind of earned—but not strictly academic—degree.

Recently gaining popularity, Universities have been offering ‘Certificates’ which are awarded after taking required continuing education courses.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Academic degree, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

”Infernal Affairs III” uses parallel storytelling, flashing between the past and the present.

*Six months before Yan’s death

Yan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) seeks to uncover the link between Triad boss Sam (Eric Tsang) and the mysterious Mainland Triad boss Shen (Chen Daoming). Since Sam’s ascension to the seat of Triad lord was due to Ngai’s (Francis Ng) death (see second film), Sam is suspicious of all who followed him. He tests Yan’s loyalty by asking him to smash an ashtray on Shen’s follower during a negotiation, resulting in Yan being arrested by Inspector Yeung (Leon Lai Ming). After being released, Shen smashes a bottle of liquor on Yan’s head and calls truce between his and Sam’s gang.

At the same time, Yan is prosecuted by the police for violent behavior. His superior Wong (Anthony Wong Chau Sung) persuades the court to allow Yan to go and see a psychologist instead of being sentenced to prison. Thus we are shown how he met Dr. Lee (Kelly Chen) regularly for psychological therapy.

Sam asks Yan to deliver arms to Shen but he and other members of the gang do not turn up. Yan delivers the cargo but Shen’s gang discovers it is just empty boxes. The gang begin firing gunshots at Yan. Shen and Yan shoot each other in the crossfire in the limbs. Shen discovers that Yan is a cop when Yeung unexpectedly arrives at the scene. Yeung tells Yan that Shen is not Shen (but actually an undercover cop from the mainland). Yeung also tells Yan that it was due to Yan leaving the cadets that he gained top honours, thus revealing Yeung knew Yan is a cop. The three shake hands and wait for the mayhem to die down before returning to their bases.

*Ten months after Yan’s death

Former Triad mole-turned-inspector Lau Kin Ming (Andy Lau) has been demoted to administrative duty pending an investigation regarding the deaths of Yan and Billy (Gordon Lam). We see the version Ming tells the authorities: Billy, the mole, was holding Yan hostage and had Yan shot in the head. Lau shot and killed Billy in retaliation.

After months of investigation, Ming is transferred back to Internal Affairs. He struggles to whitewash his past and cover his true identity. He discovers Sam had in fact planted five moles in the police department – one of whom might be a fellow Security Division Inspector, Yeung. A battle of wits develops between Ming and Yeung, as each tries to discover the other’s secret.

Meanwhile, Ming’s suffers an identity collapse as he loses track of reality, wrestling with guilt over Yan’s murder, and an impending divorce with his wife Mary (Sammi Cheng).

Ming has surveillance cameras hidden in the Security Division and Yeung’s office. His psychological trauma deteriorates to the point where he begins to confuse himself with Yan. He makes it his own personal mission to apprehend “Lau Kin Ming” (Yeung). After seeing an incident where Ming suffers a hallucination, Lee brings Ming to her office and conducts a hypnosis on him. Under hypnosis, Ming reveals to a shocked Lee that he was Sam Hon’s mole. Ming realizing what he has done, then knocks Lee unconscious and escapes.

Ming steals tapes from Yeung’s office safe, using his spy cameras to determine the code. He thinks he hears tapes of Yeung relating information to Sam and so leads his team to the Security Division. There he tells everyone that he is arresting Yeung; just then, Shen arrives. Ming plays a tape from the safe, which is actually a conversation between himself and Sam in the movie theatre (as seen in ”Infernal Affairs”). Ming’s second-in-command tries to arrest him instead. Ming panicks and draws his gun, asking for a chance to be a good guy, but Yeung declares that “I’m a cop” (the way Yan did before his death). Yelling that “I’m a cop too!”, Ming breaks down and shoots Yeung’s forehead, killing him instantly. Ming is wounded by Shen. Ming attempts suicide by shooting himself in the neck.

*Eleven months after Yan’s death

A series of flashbacks play: immediately after Yan’s death, Shen and Yeung meet. Shen suspects Ming. Yeung breaks into Ming’s office to discover his tape conversations with Sam, proving Shen is right.

Yeung is buried next to Yan in the police cemetery. Shen and Dr Lee pay their visits. Shen says to Lee: “Events change men, but men do not change events. But these two men are extraordinary because they changed events.”

Ming ends up crippled and catatonic, lost inside his own mind, haunted by the spirit of Mary Hon (Carina Lau) and locked in his own personal “Continuous Hell”. His divorced wife Mary visits and tells him, “Our baby can say “papa” now.” Before the picture fades into the next scene, the camera pans down onto Ming’s fingers, which is tapping out in Morse Code, “H-E-L…” (and then the start of another ‘L’ as the picture dims).

Before the movie ends, there is one final flashback to the scene where Ming (Andy Lau) comes in to buy an audio system from Yan.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Infernal Affairs III, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.