Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health

Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health
— Read on www.newvisionformentalhealth.com/2022/09/26/can-brain-anatomy-and-function-account-for-psychiatric-conditions/

—-Here she is going a little deeper…

So good !

👽

x

RIDE THE TIGER | The Genetics of Mental Illness | PBS

http://www.pbs.org/ride-the-tiger/home/ RIDE THE TIGER Genetics plays a pivotal role in diagnosing mental illnesses. Scientists now believe many …

RIDE THE TIGER | The Genetics of Mental Illness | PBS

Nice.

and my Comment.

When it comes to mental illnesses, we are scared. I don’t think there’s anything more generally frightening than having a mental disorder. At least if you get cancer, or some sort of terminal illness, you know what the fear is: It’s that you’re going to die, actually cease body functioning dead.

When it comes to mental issues, the fear really is that we don’t know what the hell is going on. Not only the person who might have mental issues, but the empirical scientists who are studying it and trying to treat it, really have no clue what’s going on. Despite any of the arguments, this is a fact that can’t be denied — or, it can only be denied through repetitive assertion of progress pressed against hope.

I gotta say, whenever I hear things about how medicine or science might be progressing in the understanding of mental issues, I get kind of excited.

Even treatment options, some of them seem really exciting and helpful. when a treatment makes sense to me I get excited about learning it and helping someone with it, for sure.

Yet, there’s always the sour with the sweet in mental health. This is to say that however excited I might be about whatever new thing that someone is telling us about having to do with mental illness, knowledge of it, treatment of it, once I begin to explore what these people have to say, I inevitably realize that they’re 80% bewildered.

This kind of snake oil approach to mental health, where the placebo effect is functioning on such a grand scale, using statistics and headlines and basically driving good news off of the fear that just exists everywhere around mental health, really drives my philosophical work, but as well really, drives me to want to be there for people that are reaching out for help.

The Nay-Sayers.

Part of what I feel makes me genuine and effective as a mental health practitioner, if I say so myself —

— as I am saying so myself, but colleagues and instructors and mentors have said things very similar so I’m not basing this off of my own ego — that is, not entirely!!! —

– is that I understand the need to believe, but I also try to filter out the bullshit. But not only this; I feel one of the significant things to helping people with mental issues is involved with the attempt to realize that there is no clear reconciliation between mere belief and bullshit, which is to say, there is no sorting it out except in the way that someone actually sorts it out. There is no “pure belief”, and then the truth that lay behind the “pure bullshit”, when we’re approaching it in a certain light.

And I’m speaking to those who would be offended by me talking about the truth of the situation being that the scientists in this video, indeed the video makers, are trying to give us a certain amount of hope. The short video is really kind of saying like, hey, this terrible mental disorder has some sort of foundation in genes, and we’re working out to sort out just how that might be the case so people in the future, future generations may not have to deal with it.

Ok.

However, what they’re really saying is that they don’t know what the hell is going on.

I know that mental health relies heavily on a person’s belief, not only about themselves, but about the world, and about whether or not someone might be able to help them.

The reason why these scientists will not be able to find a gene that has to do with bipolar, or really any sort of mental disorder, is because of the history of mental disorders, which is to say, the way that “scientist/psychiatrist” came up with the idea that there must be something similar to mental disease as there is physical disease.

If I break a bone in my body we can point to the bone and we can say, there it is, and this is how we fix it.

Mental health, and mental disorder, is more like a person sitting in a room coughing. What is the cause of their coughing?  is it the smoke in the room? Is it the vapors coming off of the oil freshly painted walls with no windows? Is it the cilia in the lining of the lungs? Is it that they just took a bong hit and they’ve never smoked weed in their life? Is it because they smoke too much weed throughout their life? Did a fly just fly down their throat?

Now, this is a loose analogy, but it goes to the point of the difference between a physical disease and a mental health disease: 

There is nothing that is bipolar that we can truly find. It’s just a name that we give to a bunch of people that say certain things about their experience.

If you had 100 people called bipolar from whatever objective kind of disorder name that we wanna give them, and you go to talk to each of these hundred people about what is happening with them, you’ll find that there’s 100 different types of bipolar, and at one end, the person’s description will look nothing like the person at the other end. 

In mental issues, the thing that drives them together to cause scientists to look for a gene behind the mental illness is utterly one of faith. And not in the bad way you are thinking, by the way.

As we go down this route, because for sure science will continue going down this route, what will happen is you’ll have a whole group, perhaps a whole generation of people, that are calling themselves bipolar, that is are understood as bipolar, or any other mental issue, all going towards this science of curing the problem, and what will happen is a lifetime of just as much problem as they had before. It might be a different set of problem, it might appear a little bit differently than 20 years ago or whatever, but it’ll just be another set of problems.

The perfect example is what happens to people with the more acute mental disorders who take the antipsychotic medicines for their schizophrenia or their bipolar or whatever. After a time their body starts to react in certain ways. In general, they call this problem tardive dyskinesia. In fact, it is so prevailing now that we have advertisements on the TV on cable on the Internet marketing more medication to help people with their tardive dyskinesia that they’ve gotten from taking medicines for their “bipolar”.

In an ironic twist, it is actually the scientists who are the naysayers. They are saying “no” there is a thing an actual disease of the human body called xyz mental illness.  Their faith, leads them to solve one problem, and then another problem opens up. But of course, it may be easier to deal with the second problem, but one has to wonder just what does bipolar, or any name of mental disease, is, if it just leads one down a long chain of more problems. 

Solutions.

I think some of the problem that maybe some of my readers might have is that I sound like I’m naysaying all the science and all the stuff that goes into helping people with these mental issues. I am not.

What I’m saying is that I’m a realist. The fact of the matter is that no matter what initial mental illness may present itself, it is just something that the person is gonna have to deal with in whatever way that they’re dealing with it, or whatever way they don’t deal with it. There is not gonna be any magic pill for the people who suffer. There may be a magic pill that gets them 70% of the way, but anyone who suffers from mental issues will tell you that medicines never cure the disease. They only help with getting the person to a place where they’re able to decide that they need to deal with it themselves. And that is good ! Like I said: I am not a hater.

But what does that say about the genetic basis of mental disorder? 

Drugs and Reality

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with doing drugs. I think the question is personal. And I think the question is just, for our modern day, what drugs do I take.

I’m not being sarcastic or ironic, I’m not being pessimistic or cynical. In my blog I try to deal with things as they actually are.

Just as in my practice I try to deal with people as they actually are.

And often, the way things actually are do not match up with the way people actually are.

Maybe that’s the true problem.

🧠🌝❤️

Rp The Functioning Dictatorship

harmoniaphilosophica.com/2011/01/11/the-dictatorship-of-the-science-of-2jszrulazj6wq-15/

“When you are desperate, you will take any advice from someone who says they can help. When you begin to think, though, desperation often stays away, and help arrives in a different form.

However, most people do not want to think, and what they understand as thinking is more like living unconsciously. Thier ideas formed and opinions swayed as the tide of fashion and populism, and what is dictated to them as help often has some effect or appearance of helping. They are kept in a state of existential desperation for the purpose of simple solutions and momentary fixes that lean on dependency. This we call ‘reality’.

Hence, one of the main issues of our time is this contradiction of lived experience.

For, there is no getting people to think simply by telling them that they are ignorant; they routinely will simply tell you that you are wrong, and even resort to violence – whether personal or state-sanctioned – to have the right to their “ignorance”.

We have to approach it a different way then… ”

Cyd Nate.

Love and Neurosis 💙

On this wonderfully fabricated day of promoting national fecundity, I am pondering all the problems that arise to individuals in relationship.

Neurosis.

Neurosis is a latinized word for nervousness. Originally, nervousness just meant excessive worry or sadness.

Though for pretty much all of history various organs of the body were held to be responsible for various ‘strangenesses’ that people would exhibit, It was the great proto-modern scientists of the 18-19th century that capitalized on the nerves as the reason for such oddities.

The actual oddity, though, is it is reasonably possible that there is no more or less reason to see a connection between ‘disordered’ behavior and the nerves than it is to see a link between odd behavior and any other organ. It is only the lens we are having now that we see through the trope of “nerves-brain”.

As well, when we look with a discerning mind, no more or less people are being ‘fixed’ due to an emphasis on the brain than they were when it was other organs, humors, or even “sin” that was the problem of behavioral oddity.

Capitalism and Empiricism

Capitalization – the emphasis of developing useful something from an apparent excess of nothing – thus moved our modern psychology to focus on the mass of nerves called the brain as the cause of human behavior oddity.

Yet, due to the lack or general inability for psychology and it’s ilk to really make a dent in the problems it defines, neurosis, as a name for a disease, has been broken up into multitudinous parts, yielding the “disorders” we find in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -5 that we use now. As though coming up with more diseases will solve the problem instead of just one problem ‘neurosis’.

So, when someone tells you that you have General Anxiety Disorder or Major Depressive Disorder due to bad relationships, you can tell them that actually you simply are a little more worried and sad about things than most people. And maybe if they would stop being so neurotic you might actually be ok! 😁

As well, you can tell them it probably has very little to do with your brain or nerves — any more than it has to do with your lungs or your liver — or any other chemical mass.

And, as to the topic of chemistry:

if all we are looking for is to feel better, we may have to take another look at addiction, what that really means, and whether institutional addiction under the name of ‘medication’ is really an ethical standard we want to support.

No judgement; just open consideration of the facts.

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!

Perhaps if we understand mental issues as an issue of the heart, we might actually get somewhere!

🫀🧠🫁❤️

Go insane. 👽 it’s mentally healthy.

In a crazy world, it’s the ones that are actually responding rationally who are deemed problematic.

Team, Agency, Idealism and Philosophy

“When one speaks about a thing, she does so vicariously.”

—- Cedric Nathaniel.

Team Work

I think I’m just naturally rebellious. I’m not at heart a joiner.

I can, though, be a team player. In fact, I love where I work primarily because we have such a great team. However, I feel that a team is a group of people who all have a common goal, even while they may not have a common general philosophy behind what we do as a team toward that goal. We definitely do not share a similar ideology or belief about what it is we are involved with or what it means. Quite remarkably, we share a common purpose as a motion of what we are doing. We work well as a team because we share the common bond of what we do together.

I’d have to say that a team is the name for a motion of a group of people who feel a sense of camaraderie around a purpose. Even if that purpose is philosophically indistinct.

My Issue with Society, or the Ideal of the Social

I am, somehow, involved with society and social things, even as I would say I’m not a very social person. My therapeutic work as a counselor has something to do with society, as a sort of underpinning, only spoken in certain context specific to the client, primarily concerned with the person or people in front of me and not theories or ideologies.

Yet, my philosophical work is not social, neither is it about a person, the person, or people. I have to use these words and indeed I talk about them and they are involved with my work; however, I feel if I use these words or invest myself too much into the objects that these words are supposed to be indicating as a substrate (subjects), I cannot help but to feel naturally resistant.

That is the critical posture despite belief.

I feel that being human, being part of society, dealing with people and the world, it’s just some thing that happens. It is a kind of given that has nothing to do with whether or not I’m using words about them or making theories, asserting my agency about how they might fit together, what they are, or what we’re supposed to do about them.

Does God Exist?

Reference my approach on the issue of God‘s existence.

Recently, I was come upon by a person and a discussion with them that comes every once in a while, but routinely.

The question that will come out is, “Do you believe in God?” Or similarly, “Do you believe that God exists?”

My answer was met with a blank stare and look of confusion from the other person.

My answer: “ The existence of God has nothing to do with any effort I make. God‘s existence has nothing to do with my belief. Belief, I feel, is overdetermined. I use the word ‘belief’ very intentionally, in the sense that “I believe I might play guitar today”, or, “I believe that this coffee is too cold”. I do not use the word ‘belief’ as indicating anything that has to do with the truth of some thing, some supposed or proposed object of the question. For example, I do not believe that the chair exists. But likewise, any discussion about the theory of existence does not require my belief. Rather, I would believe something within the discussion with reference to the discussion that already exists or is existing by virtue of the fact that we’re having the discussion.

So it is: I do not believe that God exists.

But if I say that to a person that’s asking me whether I believe that God exists or whether or not I believe in God —which I see is basically the same question despite philosophical dissections — what will happen is that the person will routinely misunderstand what I’m saying. I

So, in my effort to try to be clear to this person about what I’m saying, I simply tell them that I have no belief about god whatsoever, simply by virtue of the fact that God‘s existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in it (him,her). And I might add, in the same way as your existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that you exist.

Prior Categories

If we understand anything about what people have said philosophically over the years, it is a plain fact that I have to somehow deal with the categories that are already there. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe they exist; it has more to do with whether or not I feel that those categories are accurately representing the situation in which I find myself.

Note: The categories have to do with the situation in which I find myself.

This is different than what I see is most philosophers discussing. Most philosophers, most essays books treaties arguments speak of categories as if they exist independent of other things. And so the discussion or the argument revolves around a very subjective, phenomenal existence: the phenomenal agent is able and is justified in distinguishing things in themselves apart from other things. This despite what argument they might be making or what category to which they apply themselves.

So it is that in dealing with this situation, I find difficulty at every turn calling myself a philosopher. My assertion mostly fails at every juncture. I understand intuitively what I mean, but as I go to engage philosophically with what society or the larger group of people who are supposedly involved with Philosophy understand as Philosophy, I find myself at an impasse. I find myself unable to move. I feel it in a very regular way, as I put it, probably because I’m not a joiner. Idealism is not really my thing.

The Epistemist

I have to find someway to identify what it is that I’m involved with. I find most of the given philosophical categories are so well assumed, that I am excluded, in the Kantian scheme, a priori and synthetically.

I am involved with knowledge. No matter what else is going on, everything has to pass through knowledge. It doesn’t matter so much whether that is a phenomenon; indeed I would have to say it is indeed a phenomenon, but then also we’ve already found out everything there is about the logic of phenomenal existence as a category. If you would say we haven’t then I would say you are either just beginning or missed something. Then perhaps we should have an discussion. I’m not sure…

Nonetheless, epistemology would be the usual way that I might identify myself. But I also find that if I start saying ‘epistemology’ there is a whole set of presumed and assumed history about what I’m talking about and what I’m doing.

I am going to try and use a new term:

The Epistemist

This has to do with everything that can possibly exist, be talked about, be known, and must arise in knowledge and discourse truly. 

As well, because I think when we start to talk about “philosophy of…” some thing interesting, we have necessarily fallen into a discourse and understanding that already exists, and thereby excludes what we’re really talking about as a subject of knowledge. So, what an Epistemist deals with is truth Philosophy.

It does not propose a philosophy of truth, because it is already dealing with everything that can be exist by virtue of the fact of addressing knowledge truly.

What Do We Have?

A philosophical method.

I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.

However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.

And here is an example:

The Problem of the Criterion: A Christian’s Thoughts – The Council — Read on spirited-tech.com/2021/06/02/the-problem-of-the-criterion-a-christians-thoughts/

The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.

This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.

And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.

So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.

And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.

Paper: Possibility of Change in Homosexual Orientation A study of research supportive of Change Allowing Therapies | Dr. Ann E Gillies

Possibility of Change in Homosexual Orientation A study of research supportive of Change Allowing Therapies
— Read on www.academia.edu/50333715/Possibility_of_Change_in_Homosexual_Orientation_A_study_of_research_supportive_of_Change_Allowing_Therapies

Of course, I do not believe nor advocate that any sex or gender practice or identity should be considered pathological. I believe exactly the opposite in principle.

However, we should be open minded enough to consider that some people may have personal challenges in their developed practices of identity. Someone could be homosexual and be uncomfortable because they feel they have to do heterosexual practices, just as much as someone may be heterosexual and feel that they’re attracted to their same sex. Similarly trans and gender fluid.

No one in general, as human beings, should impose standards of mental health or pathology upon people to “correct” how they are.

As I develop in an upcoming paper, the standard for intervention is needed help.

As counselors, we should accept that people may come to us with problems of identity, whatever they are, and be willing to look at it with an open mind and consider the possibilities involved for helping them.

 *

Btw:

In case anyone has not noticed.

I feel that psychology in general is often not very helpful for looking at things as they are, nor excepting what is actually occurring. So, I have a sort of natural antagonism to these decidedly modern, empirical, and scientific approaches to what it is to be human and it’s accorded health to its mentality.

This is not to say that I don’t approach those empirical sciences with a similar open mind to possibility, nor that I don’t find their efforts informative or useful. Just that one should know in reading my blog about counseling and helping people that I feel that psychology tends to reflexively impose a drastic violence of bias upon people it supposes to work to help, and I feel responsible to challenge its move of explanatory power and direction.

One can Read my upcoming paper about orientations upon mental health. 

Rp and comment: Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

Originally posted on PA Pundits – International: By Alexander Hall ~ Twitter is unleashing a new program to proactively protect the left’s climate …

Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

—-…and my comment:

Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.

The fact of the climate changing is true.

Climate Change is real.

The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.

To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.

However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.

This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.

The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.

rp “Some folks look for answers, others look for fights”*…

Grateful Dead plays Red Rocks for the final time, August 13, 1987 Max Abelson takes a break from his (essential) coverage of money and power at …

“Some folks look for answers, others look for fights”*…

—- some folks up in tree tops looking for their kites.

I can tell your future, look what’s in your hand.

But I can’t stop for nothing, I’m just playing in the band.

———-

Keep going on…

A Theory of (counseling) Truth

Philosophically speaking, there is a line of sense which understands that there is no common arena to which a philosophy is entirely addressable.

Following along this line, we can begin to understand that philosophy itself, as a name of some thing that arises in the world to knowledge, it’s not always what it proposes itself to be addressing.

Counseling and Mental Health

There are two, and only two ways that knowledge can be understood in the context of counseling.

— There is “mental health” which is the effort to get you back in line (conventional-ideological)…

— there is “mental health” which is coming to terms with who and what you are in the world (existential-philosophical).

Every theory about psychology, mentality, the psyche, thinking, etc. necessarily falls into one of those two categories.

Now, this is not a thought exercise to help anyone towards mental health. It is a statement about the epistemological foundations of what we understand to be mental health.

Usually, especially on blogs, when we tag with “ mental health” we are not talking about counseling, we are giving the regular person, whoever that may be, a “tip“ about how to be “mentally healthy”.

As people may find in my blog, the very idea of mental health is a questionable proposition. For sure, there are better and worse ways to go about anything, whether it is digging a hole, climbing a mountain, or showing up in the world. I think this is what we generally mean when we propose mental health tips, or strategies to have better mental health, positive thinking, things like that. And it’s good, and we have to start somewhere.

Counseling is not necessarily about mental health. Psychotherapy again is usually understood to be a method towards gaining better mental health, but we have to think about what we’re actually doing, both as a counselor and perhaps as a client if they wish to go there. For, what we are really running circles around is validating experience.

The Institution of Trauma

Being a counselor that comes from the standpoint that all mental health issues arise as a response of some sort of basic trauma, The way trauma is relieved and worked with is not to tell the client who is going through trauma that they just “need to get it together”.

I think this is the issue that I Address around mental health and counseling and psychology in general on this blog.

In particular, it is the issue that arises when a person comes into a therapist to get help with their mental health issue, and then the therapist approaches the problem as if something is wrong with the client. This happens by method, which is to say, from the standpoint of psychiatry or psychology. The method states implicitly that anyone coming in with a mental health issue that they want to solve, is necessarily problematic themselves as it is assumed that something is wrong with the client.

Then there is the middle ground, sort of, an irony, of those therapists that work from a theoretical foundation that we need to understand, empathize, and not judge the client.

I am reminded of a client I was talking to, not my own client, but someone who had been to psychotherapy for many years— she brought it up:

There is the fucked up implication that something is wrong with you at the same time the therapist is telling you out of their mouth that you are OK and there’s nothing really wrong with you. It’s like a deception, this person said. And I might add that where this is the case it is an institutionalized or an ideological mechanism that arises as a residuum even often with even most best therapeutic intention. Therapy is supposed to be about being honest, but the method is often based in a foundation of dishonesty.

I suppose the work of this blog is an attempt to recognize this residue and try to work with it. Attempt to try and get rid of it somehow or at least acknowledge that it is there.

More later.

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain known as learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Lifesfinewhine

The Life & Ramblings Of A Zillennial

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia