Readers of my blog will know that, for the last three months, I have been very engaged in CNBC's "Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge," a stock picking contest (with a million dollar grand prize). For the last two weeks now, I have had outstanding portfolios -- and have come very close to winning the weekly $10,000 prize and entering the finals. My previous blog post was about Week 8. I finished in second place that week, competing against about 1.2 million other portfolios.

So, it is very gratifying for me to see that -- in this final week of regular competition -- I have five portfolios listed in the top ten for the week (in fact, five out of the top six). And, I believe that there are now about 2 million portfolios entered into the contest -- representing hundreds of thousands of contestants.

These consistently good performances in the contest are largely attributable to the "short squeeze" strategy about which I have blogged extensively, as an invited guest blogger, on CNBC's "Million Dollar Buzz" blog site. Also, if you are reading this and would like to understand better how to pick stocks, I would recommend my Handbook for Contestants in CNBC's 2007 Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge.

Of course, today is only Tuesday. Although I am currently the weekly front-runner, the final result for the week will only be known after the close of trading on Friday. In fact, it has been quite common for the early week front-runners to be overtaken by others before the week is over. So, it is good to have a detached attitude toward the contest.

I'll do my best, and if I'm lucky I might win. But, I have to say that the skills involved in stock market analysis are valuable life-skills. And, in fact, they can be worth much more outside of the contest than even the $1 million prize.

Soon this contest will be over. In fact, if I do not make it into the finals, it will be over at the end of this week. And, if I am lucky enough to proceed, it will still be over by the end of the month. In any case, life goes on.

I will return to my work as a teacher and writer, philosopher, investor, owner and co-owner of several businesses, husband, father, son, brother and friend.

The burst of inspiration that got me involved with this stock-picking contest has been a real adventure. Win or lose, I'm grateful that I listened to my inner voice on this one. (Actually, it's not as if I had much choice, my inner voice was quite strong and compelling.)

Jeffrey Mishlove's Blog Index

One of the main problems with psychology, during the past 100 years, is its general failure to deal with the deepest and most important problems concerning the very nature of mind itself. Academia, instead, has almost universally operated on the assumption that the mind is a product of the activity of the brain and nervous system.

However, there are serious problems with this epiphenomenalist view. These issues were clearly understood -- in the late nineteenth century -- by such great thinkers as William James and F. W. H. Myers (author of the 1903 classic, Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death). But, for a century, in order to establish itself as a scientific discipline, psychology turned away from these profound issues -- in favor of behavioralist, positivist paradigm of thought.

In recent decades, however, a new wave of interest within consciousness is swelling up -- both within and without of academic. Certainly, for example, over a hundred books have now been published on the topic of physics and consciousness. In fact, it's fair to say that physics has been in the forefront of asking the deep questions concerning mind and body. Psychology and biology have been lagging behind.

Irriducible Mind addresses this lag. The authors bring to bear a wealth of empirical evidence from many disciplines: psychoneuroimmunology, psychopathology, studies of hypnosis and creativity, memory, near death experience, mystical experience, studies of genius, evidence for survival after death. They point out that the reductionist vision of the human mind is generally incapable of accounting for these observed and reported experiences.

They also point out that there is an interesting alternative in which one views the brain, not as the originator of consciousness, but (like a radio receiver) a receiving, filtering and transmissing consciousness. In this model, consciousness arises from another source. One might say that consciousness is as basic to the universe itself as is time, space, energy and matter. It is simply a given.

The authors suggest that psychology in the 21st century will be the further refinement of this second vision of consciousness. Their logic is compelling. Their scholarship is broad and inclusive. And, of great importance, this work is historically grounded. I consider it "must reading" for all serious students of consciousness.

This work, incidentally, originated from discussions sponsored by the Center for Theory and Research of the Esalen Institute. The primary authors, Edward and Emily Kelly, are affiliated with the Department of Psychiatric Medicine and the University of Virginia.

Jeffrey Mishlove's Blog Index