A man develops in mind, soul, and body by making use of things, and society is so organized that man must have money in order to become the possessor of things; therefore, the basis of all advancement for man must be the science of getting rich.
The object of all life is development; and everything that lives has an inalienable right to all the development it is capable of attaining.
Man’s right to life means his right to have the free and unrestricted use of all the things which may be necessary to his fullest mental, spiritual, and physical unfoldment; or, in other words, his right to be rich.
In this book, I shall not speak of riches in a figurative way; to be really rich does not mean to be satisfied or contented with a little. No man ought to be satisfied with a little if he is capable of using and enjoying more. The purpose of Nature is the advancement and unfoldment of life; and every man should have all that can contribute to the power; elegance, beauty, and richness of life; to be content with less is sinful.
The man who owns all he wants for the living of all the life he is capable of living is rich; and no man who has not plenty of money can have all he wants. Life has advanced so far, and become so complex, that even the most ordinary man or woman requires a great amount of wealth in order to live in a manner that even approaches completeness.
Every person naturally wants to become all that they are capable of becoming; this desire to realize innate possibilities is inherent in human nature; we cannot help wanting to be all that we can be. Success in life is becoming what you want to be; you can become what you want to be only by making use of things, and you can have the free use of things only as you become rich enough to buy them. To understand the science of getting rich is therefore the most essential of all knowledge.
There is nothing wrong in wanting to get rich. The desire for riches is really the desire for a richer, fuller, and more abundant life; and that desire is praise worthy. The man who does not desire to live more abundantly is abnormal, and so the man who does not desire to have money enough to buy all he wants is abnormal.
- “Thoughts are omnipresent.
- We transmit thoughts.
- We think with our brains but we are not our brains.
- We don’t have souls, we are souls.
- Whatever we activate from desire through thought, we transmit.
- We can switch on ourselves live we switch on a light in a room.
- You are not your name, you have a name.
- You are not your body, you have a body.”
- What are you?
- Desire is the trigger that produces enough energy to do it. We don’t get energy, we release energy.
by Dr. Manuel B. Montes De Oca, MD
Dr. Montes is a licensed board certified psychiatrist from Florida U.S.A.
In this series of videos below, he speaks about the neurobiology of addiction and treatment. As a family member or friend of someone who may have become addicted to substance or behaviour, it is crucial to educate yourself about addiction if you are going to be able to deal with the challenge you are facing.
Drug addiction includes complex neurobiological and behavioural processes. Acute reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse are responsible for the initiation of drug addiction, whereas the negative consequences of drug abstinence have a crucial motivational significance for relapse and maintenance of the addictive process. The mesocorticolimbic system represents a common neuronal substrate for the reinforcing properties of drugs of abuse. Both dopamine and opioid transmission play a crucial role in this reward pathway. Common neuronal changes have also been reported during the abstinence to different drugs of abuse that could underlie the negative motivational effects of withdrawal.
These changes include decreased dopaminergic activity in the mesolimbic system and a recruitment of the brain stress pathways. All drugs of abuse interact with these brain circuits by acting on different molecular and neurochemical mechanisms. The existence of bidirectional interactions between different drugs of abuse, such as opioids and cannabinoids, provides further findings to support this common neurobiological substrate for drug addictive processes. For free advice on treatment options in South Africa, visit www.ineedrehab.co.za or call their helpline on (011) 476-4351 between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. Or email us here and we’ll get back to you
Dr. Montes : The Neurobiology of Addiction – Part 1
Part 2 – Dr. Montes : The Neurobiology of Addiction
Part 3 – Dr. Montes : The Neurobiology of Addiction
Part 4 – Dr. Montes : The Neurobiology of Addiction
Part 5 – Dr. Montes : The Neurobiology of Addiction
“The Hangover III” is out this weekend, and if you’re hoping for a raucous return to the series, the third installment isn’t receiving rave reviews.
Currently, the sequel is getting poor reception as a heavily darker, less funny end to the series.
After getting a lot of flak for “The Hangover II,” director Todd Phillips made a complete departure in the latest followup.
Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha, and Zach Galifianakis team up for one more adventure as the Wolfpack.
While there’s no wedding this time around — and no hangover — the third film will follow Alan (Galifianakis) and his quirky, odd character that brought the gang together.
Watch the trailer here and read what AP, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, IGN, Timeout, Empire & Warner Brothers have to say about it, then see it and make up your own mind anyway:
Here’s what to know before deciding to see the film:
It’s very different from the past two films in the series. There isn’t even a “hangover” — the entire basis for the film. This is both a good and bad thing.
“It dares to alienate the very audience that made ‘‘The Hangover’’ the highest-grossing R-rated comedy of all time because, well, it isn’t exactly a comedy.”
“That the plot is convoluted and ridiculous isn’t really a problem, but by playing things completely chronologically — and worse, soberly — this film’s shenanigans feel witlessly arbitrary in a way that the previous installments avoided.”
“Sequels are rarely rewarding, but this sorry retread of a once inspired comedy only confirms the bankruptcy of sequel mania.”
“Phillips veers off into some action-movie and thriller tropes that help to keep this Hangover from redundancy … The film isn’t always successful in balancing the various tones it’s going for, but it at least feels like it’s trying something new.”
Men in pig masks chase the Wolfpack.
That said, It’s not that funny.
“At times it’s debatable whether “The Hangover Part III” should even be considered a comedy at all, as it more often plays like a loopily plotted, exposition-heavy actioner.”
“‘Part III’ has curiously little interest in being even remotely funny. Instead, director Todd Phillips inexplicably aims at making a standard action movie, complete with car chases and break-ins that compound the sense of creative bankruptcy.”
“Tonally a complete departure from the rest of the series, which is at once laudably brave and disappointingly unfunny.”
After Bradley Cooper’s performance in last year’s “Silver Linings Playbook,” a return to “The Hangover” franchise feels ill-suited.
“Cooper seems the most disengaged among the cast, and several of his disdainfully delivered lines can’t help but feel like meta-commentary on the whole affair — “who gives a f—?” and “what the f— are we watching?” in particular.”
“After his Oscar-nominated turn in Silver Linings Playbook and his even deeper performance in The Place Beyond the Pines, Cooper doesn’t have to do much heavy lifting here.”
Actually, much of the talent just seems to be phoning it in.
“Helms is surprisingly lackluster on this outing, and Jeong was more startlingly funny in the earlier installments.”
“Helms and Cooper don’t have all that much to do this time around. The latter, in particular, seems to be going through the motions, just whipping out his patented eye-rolling and flabbergasted sighs.”
Instead, it’s funny woman Melissa McCarthy to the rescue in a small role who is the best part of the sequel:
“Newcomer Melissa McCarthy, playing a deliciously vile Vegas pawn-shop owner, steals the one scene here that could be spliced into the original film without a loss in quality.”
Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) escapes from prison in the third flick.
If you’re not a fan of Ken Jeong’s Mr. Chow character, you probably won’t enjoy the film.
“Jeong gets a bit more room to explore the role and finds a bit more shading, but if you hate this character, you might just hate this entire movie, as well.”
The best part of the film isn’t even in the movie.
“It’s only in an end-credits coda that the envelope-pushing of the series is displayed.”
Overall consensus: Pass.
If you’re looking for the drunken debauchery exhibited in the first two films, you won’t find much of it here. While you want “The Hangover III” to be good because it departs from the setup of the first two films, the third installment appears darker with less comedic chops. Also, there technically isn’t much of a “hangover.” At this point, it looks like “Fast & Furious 6” may be the weekend film to see.