is western science the last to know?

[Guest guest]

The problem here is that we tend to see this as an unresolvable conflict of

ideology, as do the scientists. I don't really think that it is, but I do

think that there are things that both sides need to do to help the other to

truely understand. In other words, we have much to teach each other.

 

Science is starting to try to understand, on their terms, the things that

many of us understand intuitively. I see that as a challenge for us to help

them find ways to see what we see. For instance, I recently heard about a

massage therapy study that was performed by a group of scientists to asses

the effectiveness of massage on neck pain. Following scientific method, they

first designed a " standard massage " to be used: e.g.

1. five effleurage strokes to the effected area

2. five petrissage strokes to the effected area

 

You get the idea....

 

Now, anyone who has completed their first course in massage knows that this

isn't going to provide valid results, much less do the client much good. So

it falls on us to help them to design effective studies.

 

On the other hand, there are some things that science is very good at doing.

When my wife was diagnosed with malignant melanoma, we went the allopathic

route and got that bad boy removed and the area skin-grafted. Four years

later, she's free of recurrance. Most of the follow-up care was more along

the alternative (I really prefer complimentary) medicine course.

 

If I may offer an anology, it's kind of like pulling your car into a garage

to prepare to fix the brakes. The garage may contain a plethora of tools,

but you, as the mechanic only need those tools appliciple to brake repair.

The wood drill over in the corner isn't going to do you much good in

accomplishing your brake job, but that doesn't mean that it's not a lovely

tool. It's just not going to be much use until you have some wood to drill.

Of course at that point, the socket wrench, so vital to your brake job,

isn't going to help much.

 

Science and intuition, IMHO, are not imcompatible. We just need to learn how

to help each other to see what the other sees. There is much that the

scientists can teach the intuitives about testing assumptions and organizing

their thoughts. There is much that the more intuitive folks can teach the

scientists about things like synergy and developing valid experiments to

assess things that can be sensed, but not yet mechanically measured.

 

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

 

 

Ray

 

 

 

>Carl Weisbrod <askcarl

>

> ,

>Re: is western science the last to know?

>Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:19:40 -1000

>

>At 06:45 AM 3/20/00 -0500, Caroline Abreu wrote:

> >Caroline Abreu <crow

> >

> >Jen:

> >

> >This is a given with Western science and medicine. Rather than harboring

> >our anger, however, it is probably best to be tolerant of their vanity

> >and smile in silence (this has been a female technique for keeping our

> >cool for centuries LOL).

> >

> >When science rejected spirituality during the Renaissance, especially

> >earth-based spirituality, a lot of valuable information was " lost " for

> >many years. Information about midwifery, herbalism, bioenergetics,

> >massage, spiritual healing, traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine,

> >acupuncture... even hypnosis and chiropractic have only been grudgingly

> >accepted by the mainstream for a few decades.

> >

> >In the state of indignation that I perceive from a lot of holistic

> >practitioners I am not seeing an honoring and acknowledgment of the

> >whole tapestry. Yes, it is old ways that are being rediscovered; " there

> >is nothing new under the sun " . But, they are being applied in new ways,

> >with a more empirical bent. While many of these techniques and much of

> >this information was accepted on faith, science is finally willing to

> >provide the physical validation for belief. There are things that might

> >always have to be accepted rather than proven, however.

> >

> >I am an energy healer, and practice shamanism. It is my job to walk in

> >two worlds, to attempt to find the medicine needed to bring balance to

> >both sides. We have two legs; we can't reject one and walk easily. In

> >order to do the best thing for the client rather than myself, I need to

> >get out of my vanity and find the wisest solution. This is the modern

> >dilemma of Western medicine, and they are finally beginning to creep

> >towards awareness that they may not have been paying attention to all

> >their options.

> >

> >Thanks for your input.

> >Caroline

>

>Just read your comments, Caroline, AFTER replying to Jen. You're really

>gonna go ballistic at that post. LOL But may I suggest that you never

>do as you suggested: [quoting you]

>

> " Rather than harboring our anger, however, it is probably best to be

>tolerant of their vanity and smile in silence. "

>

>Whose going to learn anything if you do that? I kind of agree about the

>vanity (or ego) thing. Lots of that out there, that's for sure. Also a lot

>of turf battles in a crowded planet.

>

>I'll bet the Internet will level the playing field somewhat (a Western

>Invention, by the way). The e-book especially will provide a way to

>get stuff out there without having some stuffy, profit-motivated

>publisher deciding what we should be reading.

>

>You mentioned hypnosis and chiropractics--those are both Western in

>origin. I specialized in hypnosis for 30 years--wrote a couple of books

>about it even...but the reason those professions got pushed aside--

>they simply didn't live up to their claims. I blame the practitioners in

>those two cases.

>

>Western medicine is just starting to be rejected for the same

>reason...a lot because of its inability to deal with Chronic Degenerative

>Disorders. There's a few groups trying to get recognized for CDD

>treatment...but so far nothing has caught the public's attention.

>In the meantime, CDD is responsible for 75% of all US deaths.

>

>Carl

>http://askcarl.net

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, March 19, 2000 3:44 PM, Carl Weisbrod [sMTP:askcarl]

wrote:

 

> I haven't read Talbot's book--I recall part of the inspiration

> for it was Karl Pribram's work in holograms. Is that what

> you are objecting to? My comments derived more from Watson

> and Cricks DNA discovery, and now the Human Genome

> Project. I do agree that science is not always on the forefront

> with ideas, but when that group comes up with a consensus

> it's (to me at least) pretty convincing.

__________________________

 

Dear Carl,

 

I'm not casting any aspersions at the studies which you mention. Merely

pointing out that the idea of a holotropic universe (or for that matter the

idea that the body contains fields of constantly moving energy particles and is

indeed surrounded by an aura, a field of energy) is not new knowledge. Ask any

practitioner of oriental medicine, or auryveda, or shamanism (to name only a

few).

 

The " new physics " is new only in the west. It is just now beginning to validate

" scientifically " the wisdom of much cultural knowledge which is as old as the

planet. This validation is a useful thing but I don't think we can take credit

for it being " the most mind-blowing insight of....the last half of the 20th

century. " That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? When we are the last

to cross the finish line in this arena?

 

In the west we have placed a high value on science (to provide answers to the

Mysteries) and devalued the extrasensory/intuitive abilities that are honored

in other cultures. In my opinion, that has been our own great loss.

 

Jen (who thinks science is still in it's adolescence)

[Guest guest]

Jen:

 

This is a given with Western science and medicine. Rather than harboring

our anger, however, it is probably best to be tolerant of their vanity

and smile in silence (this has been a female technique for keeping our

cool for centuries LOL).

 

When science rejected spirituality during the Renaissance, especially

earth-based spirituality, a lot of valuable information was " lost " for

many years. Information about midwifery, herbalism, bioenergetics,

massage, spiritual healing, traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine,

acupuncture... even hypnosis and chiropractic have only been grudgingly

accepted by the mainstream for a few decades.

 

In the state of indignation that I perceive from a lot of holistic

practitioners I am not seeing an honoring and acknowledgment of the

whole tapestry. Yes, it is old ways that are being rediscovered; " there

is nothing new under the sun " . But, they are being applied in new ways,

with a more empirical bent. While many of these techniques and much of

this information was accepted on faith, science is finally willing to

provide the physical validation for belief. There are things that might

always have to be accepted rather than proven, however.

 

I am an energy healer, and practice shamanism. It is my job to walk in

two worlds, to attempt to find the medicine needed to bring balance to

both sides. We have two legs; we can't reject one and walk easily. In

order to do the best thing for the client rather than myself, I need to

get out of my vanity and find the wisest solution. This is the modern

dilemma of Western medicine, and they are finally beginning to creep

towards awareness that they may not have been paying attention to all

their options.

 

Thanks for your input.

Caroline

 

Jen Hutton wrote:

>

Merely

> pointing out that the idea of a holotropic universe (or for that matter the

> idea that the body contains fields of constantly moving energy particles and

> is

> indeed surrounded by an aura, a field of energy) is not new knowledge. Ask

> any

> practitioner of oriental medicine, or auryveda, or shamanism (to name only a

> few).

>

> The " new physics " is new only in the west. It is just now beginning to

> validate

> " scientifically " the wisdom of much cultural knowledge which is as old as the

>

> planet. This validation is a useful thing but I don't think we can take

> credit

> for it being " the most mind-blowing insight of....the last half of the 20th

> century. " That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? When we are the last

>

> to cross the finish line in this arena?

>

> In the west we have placed a high value on science (to provide answers to the

>

> Mysteries) and devalued the extrasensory/intuitive abilities that are honored

>

> in other cultures. In my opinion, that has been our own great loss.

>

> Jen (who thinks science is still in it's adolescence)

>

> --

---

Blessings,

Crow

" Look for Rainbows in the Darkness "

---

Rev. Caroline Gutierrez Abreu, BS, RN, CHTP/I, CRMT, CH

[Guest guest]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, " Technology is as technology does. " The same

knowledge that led to the atomic bomb also gave us the X-ray machine. The

Chinese were making fireworks for a couple of centuries before western

science had access to it. Within a hundred years or so of it's introduction

to the west, gunpowder was well along the way toward unseating the mounted

knight from his position as enforcer for Feudal Europe. Therefore, can we

say that gunpowder help to set the scene for the Reanissance? Perhaps. Was

this a good thing or a bad thing? The knights certainly didn't think so.

 

Even benign knowledge can be less than benignly. I recall a massage therapy

class where we were discussing endangerment points and the instructor

mentioned that, if need be, they could be used non-therapeutically. It's all

in what you do with it. When my teeth ache, I'm really happy about the

technology involved in dentistry, but I still need someone to rub the kinks

out of my neck after the dentist gets done.

 

Ray

 

 

>Carl Weisbrod <askcarl

>

>

>Re: is western science the last to know?

>Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:22:35 -1000

>

>At 10:39 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Ray Hunter wrote:

> > " Ray Hunter " <rayhuntermt

> >

> >The problem here is that we tend to see this as an unresolvable conflict

>of

> >ideology, as do the scientists. I don't really think that it is, but I do

> >think that there are things that both sides need to do to help the other

>to

> >truely understand. In other words, we have much to teach each other.

> >

> >Science is starting to try to understand, on their terms, the things that

> >many of us understand intuitively. I see that as a challenge for us to

>help

> >them find ways to see what we see. For instance, I recently heard about a

> >massage therapy study that was performed by a group of scientists to

>asses

> >the effectiveness of massage on neck pain. Following scientific method,

>they

> >first designed a " standard massage " to be used: e.g.

> >1. five effleurage strokes to the effected area

> >2. five petrissage strokes to the effected area

> >

> >You get the idea....

> >

> >Now, anyone who has completed their first course in massage knows that

>this

> >isn't going to provide valid results, much less do the client much good.

>So

> >it falls on us to help them to design effective studies.

> >

> >On the other hand, there are some things that science is very good at

>doing.

> >When my wife was diagnosed with malignant melanoma, we went the

>allopathic

> >route and got that bad boy removed and the area skin-grafted. Four years

> >later, she's free of recurrance. Most of the follow-up care was more

>along

> >the alternative (I really prefer complimentary) medicine course.

> >

> >If I may offer an anology, it's kind of like pulling your car into a

>garage

> >to prepare to fix the brakes. The garage may contain a plethora of tools,

> >but you, as the mechanic only need those tools appliciple to brake

>repair.

> >The wood drill over in the corner isn't going to do you much good in

> >accomplishing your brake job, but that doesn't mean that it's not a

>lovely

> >tool. It's just not going to be much use until you have some wood to

>drill.

> >Of course at that point, the socket wrench, so vital to your brake job,

> >isn't going to help much.

> >

> >Science and intuition, IMHO, are not imcompatible. We just need to learn

>how

> >to help each other to see what the other sees. There is much that the

> >scientists can teach the intuitives about testing assumptions and

>organizing

> >their thoughts. There is much that the more intuitive folks can teach the

> >scientists about things like synergy and developing valid experiments to

> >assess things that can be sensed, but not yet mechanically measured.

> >

> >But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

> >

> >

> >Ray

>```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

>Sounds right to me, Ray. Great story on the massage

>therapy! I had a similar experience with researchers

>attempting to study hypnosis...One group had a grant,

>their own lab, and everything--and spent all the money

>trying to find something to study. :-/

>

>I tend to think of science as simply raw information,

>neither good nor bad... It's hard to get emotional

>about a virus--not lovable things except to the

>virologist trying to figure out what makes it tick--and

>even in that case they're mostly wanting to know

>how to kill it.

>

>Usable science becomes technology--and even that

>sometimes has questionable value--look at the

>mean-spirited stuff they did with the science of

>atomic energy--I'd be happy to give the Eastern

>guys credit for that one.

>

>Carl

>http://askcarl.net

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Monday, March 20, 2000 6:45 AM, Caroline Abreu [sMTP:crow]

wrote:

>> I am an energy healer, and practice shamanism. It is my job to walk in

> two worlds, to attempt to find the medicine needed to bring balance to

> both sides. We have two legs; we can't reject one and walk easily. In

> order to do the best thing for the client rather than myself, I need to

> get out of my vanity and find the wisest solution. This is the modern

> dilemma of Western medicine, and they are finally beginning to creep

> towards awareness that they may not have been paying attention to all

> their options.

_____________________-

 

Dear Crow,

 

How beautifully said! Thank you. I didn't think I was still feeling impatient

with the arrogance of western scientists anymore....it must've crept in somehow

when I wasn't looking :-).

 

I agree that there are many paths, and we in the west have a unique ability to

benefit from both the visionary and the analytical models.

 

walk in beauty,

Jen

[Guest guest]

I agree wholeheartedly; while it's frustrating to

watch the snail's pace of western science, it is

fascinating when they finally start figuring it out!!

It's just another discipline, albeit based on very

different principles than other more intuitive

disciplines. While intuitive disciplines yield the

'whats' and the 'whys', western science yields the

'hows', in no uncertain terms. This information can be

a powerful catalyst for those who are scientifically

minded in demonstrating just what is possible...and

some need that kind of 'proof' and won't take anything

on faith. I, for one, appreciate the pricision of

science...but I'm not waiting around on science to

dictate my reality!

 

Love, Jen

 

 

--- Caroline Abreu <crow wrote:

> Jen:

>

> This is a given with Western science and medicine.

> Rather than harboring

> our anger, however, it is probably best to be

> tolerant of their vanity

> and smile in silence (this has been a female

> technique for keeping our

> cool for centuries LOL).

>

> When science rejected spirituality during the

> Renaissance, especially

> earth-based spirituality, a lot of valuable

> information was " lost " for

> many years. Information about midwifery, herbalism,

> bioenergetics,

> massage, spiritual healing, traditional Chinese and

> Ayurvedic medicine,

> acupuncture... even hypnosis and chiropractic have

> only been grudgingly

> accepted by the mainstream for a few decades.

>

> In the state of indignation that I perceive from a

> lot of holistic

> practitioners I am not seeing an honoring and

> acknowledgment of the

> whole tapestry. Yes, it is old ways that are being

> rediscovered; " there

> is nothing new under the sun " . But, they are being

> applied in new ways,

> with a more empirical bent. While many of these

> techniques and much of

> this information was accepted on faith, science is

> finally willing to

> provide the physical validation for belief. There

> are things that might

> always have to be accepted rather than proven,

> however.

>

> I am an energy healer, and practice shamanism. It is

> my job to walk in

> two worlds, to attempt to find the medicine needed

> to bring balance to

> both sides. We have two legs; we can't reject one

> and walk easily. In

> order to do the best thing for the client rather

> than myself, I need to

> get out of my vanity and find the wisest solution.

> This is the modern

> dilemma of Western medicine, and they are finally

> beginning to creep

> towards awareness that they may not have been paying

> attention to all

> their options.

>

> Thanks for your input.

> Caroline

>

> Jen Hutton wrote:

> >

> Merely

> > pointing out that the idea of a holotropic

> universe (or for that matter the

> > idea that the body contains fields of constantly

> moving energy particles and

> > is

> > indeed surrounded by an aura, a field of energy)

> is not new knowledge. Ask

> > any

> > practitioner of oriental medicine, or auryveda, or

> shamanism (to name only a

> > few).

> >

> > The " new physics " is new only in the west. It is

> just now beginning to

> > validate

> > " scientifically " the wisdom of much cultural

> knowledge which is as old as the

> >

> > planet. This validation is a useful thing but I

> don't think we can take

> > credit

> > for it being " the most mind-blowing insight

> of....the last half of the 20th

> > century. " That's a little presumptuous, don't you

> think? When we are the last

> >

> > to cross the finish line in this arena?

> >

> > In the west we have placed a high value on science

> (to provide answers to the

> >

> > Mysteries) and devalued the extrasensory/intuitive

> abilities that are honored

> >

> > in other cultures. In my opinion, that has been

> our own great loss.

> >

> > Jen (who thinks science is still in it's

> adolescence)

> >

> > --

> ---

> Blessings,

> Crow

> " Look for Rainbows in the Darkness "

> ---

> Rev. Caroline Gutierrez Abreu, BS, RN, CHTP/I, CRMT,

> CH

>

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

>Dear Carl,

>

>I'm not casting any aspersions at the studies which you mention. Merely

>pointing out that the idea of a holotropic universe (or for that matter the

>idea that the body contains fields of constantly moving energy particles

>and is

>indeed surrounded by an aura, a field of energy) is not new knowledge. Ask

>any

>practitioner of oriental medicine, or auryveda, or shamanism (to name only a

>few).

>

>The " new physics " is new only in the west. It is just now beginning to

>validate

> " scientifically " the wisdom of much cultural knowledge which is as old as the

>planet. This validation is a useful thing but I don't think we can take

>credit

>for it being " the most mind-blowing insight of....the last half of the 20th

>century. " That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? When we are the last

>to cross the finish line in this arena?

>

>In the west we have placed a high value on science (to provide answers to the

>Mysteries) and devalued the extrasensory/intuitive abilities that are honored

>in other cultures. In my opinion, that has been our own great loss.

>

>Jen (who thinks science is still in it's adolescence)

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Wow, Jen... Great comments! I've found someone I can talk

to. I'm not real familiar with Eastern Science...I've spoken to

Dr. Chopra and read one of his books. On meeting him, he

seemed to rely more on his Western medical degree than

Auryveda--I read one of his books, and listened to a couple

of tapes--very impressive...but I certainly didn't reach a level

of understanding to venture a useful opinion.

 

The science that led up to the work by Watson & Crick was

not all new--without, for example, the atomic and molecular

discoveries of previous centuries none of that would have been

possible. The same is true for the Human Genome Project.

 

When I was in grad school, I spent some time in the labs whose

life-blood came from grants given only at a promise of discovery.

I was hugely impressed with folks who do that kind of work.

 

Being a guy, I'm also impressed by hardware and I don't think Eastern

science (I'll admit, I've always thought of it more as philosophy) has

culminated into machines like the electron microscope, the computerized

medical machines such as the CT & PET scans, or even the x-ray, etc.

 

Among my favorite Western scientists are people such as Pasteur,

Koch, and Lister. I think Western medicine had the most to do with

the reduction of infectious diseases that plagued the planet for at

least 1500 years.

 

Also, and I might be wrong about this, but my impression has always

been that the very sick (and rich) seem to rely more on American

medical technology, than the other way around.

 

One of the examples of the best of U.S. science is chronicled in a

just-published book by Gina Kolata: " Flu--The Story of the Great

Influenza Pandemic of 1918. " Most people don't realize that watch-dog

organizations such as the CDC and NIH are still worried about a

reoccurrence of that virus...and some very dedicated scientists are

working on it at this very moment--the actual virus was only seen

(physically) a couple of years ago. The book itself, BTW, is a

wonderful adventure story--a real page turner.

 

So, I guess I plead guilty to being " blown-away " by Western science--

even though I almost never go to doctors, hate the bureaucratic system

that surrounds it all, and believe in many forms of alternative medicine.

 

So, Jen, here's your challenge: I absolutely feel that Western science

is far superior to the Eastern variety--but I wouldn't mind having my

bias shot fulla holes.

 

Thanks for this opportunity, Jen

 

Carl

http://askcarl.net

[Guest guest]

At 06:45 AM 3/20/00 -0500, Caroline Abreu wrote:

>Caroline Abreu <crow

>

>Jen:

>

>This is a given with Western science and medicine. Rather than harboring

>our anger, however, it is probably best to be tolerant of their vanity

>and smile in silence (this has been a female technique for keeping our

>cool for centuries LOL).

>

>When science rejected spirituality during the Renaissance, especially

>earth-based spirituality, a lot of valuable information was " lost " for

>many years. Information about midwifery, herbalism, bioenergetics,

>massage, spiritual healing, traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine,

>acupuncture... even hypnosis and chiropractic have only been grudgingly

>accepted by the mainstream for a few decades.

>

>In the state of indignation that I perceive from a lot of holistic

>practitioners I am not seeing an honoring and acknowledgment of the

>whole tapestry. Yes, it is old ways that are being rediscovered; " there

>is nothing new under the sun " . But, they are being applied in new ways,

>with a more empirical bent. While many of these techniques and much of

>this information was accepted on faith, science is finally willing to

>provide the physical validation for belief. There are things that might

>always have to be accepted rather than proven, however.

>

>I am an energy healer, and practice shamanism. It is my job to walk in

>two worlds, to attempt to find the medicine needed to bring balance to

>both sides. We have two legs; we can't reject one and walk easily. In

>order to do the best thing for the client rather than myself, I need to

>get out of my vanity and find the wisest solution. This is the modern

>dilemma of Western medicine, and they are finally beginning to creep

>towards awareness that they may not have been paying attention to all

>their options.

>

>Thanks for your input.

>Caroline

 

Just read your comments, Caroline, AFTER replying to Jen. You're really

gonna go ballistic at that post. LOL But may I suggest that you never

do as you suggested: [quoting you]

 

" Rather than harboring our anger, however, it is probably best to be

tolerant of their vanity and smile in silence. "

 

Whose going to learn anything if you do that? I kind of agree about the

vanity (or ego) thing. Lots of that out there, that's for sure. Also a lot

of turf battles in a crowded planet.

 

I'll bet the Internet will level the playing field somewhat (a Western

Invention, by the way). The e-book especially will provide a way to

get stuff out there without having some stuffy, profit-motivated

publisher deciding what we should be reading.

 

You mentioned hypnosis and chiropractics--those are both Western in

origin. I specialized in hypnosis for 30 years--wrote a couple of books

about it even...but the reason those professions got pushed aside--

they simply didn't live up to their claims. I blame the practitioners in

those two cases.

 

Western medicine is just starting to be rejected for the same

reason...a lot because of its inability to deal with Chronic Degenerative

Disorders. There's a few groups trying to get recognized for CDD

treatment...but so far nothing has caught the public's attention.

In the meantime, CDD is responsible for 75% of all US deaths.

 

Carl

http://askcarl.net

[Guest guest]

At 10:39 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Ray Hunter wrote:

> " Ray Hunter " <rayhuntermt

>

>The problem here is that we tend to see this as an unresolvable conflict of

>ideology, as do the scientists. I don't really think that it is, but I do

>think that there are things that both sides need to do to help the other to

>truely understand. In other words, we have much to teach each other.

>

>Science is starting to try to understand, on their terms, the things that

>many of us understand intuitively. I see that as a challenge for us to help

>them find ways to see what we see. For instance, I recently heard about a

>massage therapy study that was performed by a group of scientists to asses

>the effectiveness of massage on neck pain. Following scientific method, they

>first designed a " standard massage " to be used: e.g.

>1. five effleurage strokes to the effected area

>2. five petrissage strokes to the effected area

>

>You get the idea....

>

>Now, anyone who has completed their first course in massage knows that this

>isn't going to provide valid results, much less do the client much good. So

>it falls on us to help them to design effective studies.

>

>On the other hand, there are some things that science is very good at doing.

>When my wife was diagnosed with malignant melanoma, we went the allopathic

>route and got that bad boy removed and the area skin-grafted. Four years

>later, she's free of recurrance. Most of the follow-up care was more along

>the alternative (I really prefer complimentary) medicine course.

>

>If I may offer an anology, it's kind of like pulling your car into a garage

>to prepare to fix the brakes. The garage may contain a plethora of tools,

>but you, as the mechanic only need those tools appliciple to brake repair.

>The wood drill over in the corner isn't going to do you much good in

>accomplishing your brake job, but that doesn't mean that it's not a lovely

>tool. It's just not going to be much use until you have some wood to drill.

>Of course at that point, the socket wrench, so vital to your brake job,

>isn't going to help much.

>

>Science and intuition, IMHO, are not imcompatible. We just need to learn how

>to help each other to see what the other sees. There is much that the

>scientists can teach the intuitives about testing assumptions and organizing

>their thoughts. There is much that the more intuitive folks can teach the

>scientists about things like synergy and developing valid experiments to

>assess things that can be sensed, but not yet mechanically measured.

>

>But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

>

>

>Ray

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Sounds right to me, Ray. Great story on the massage

therapy! I had a similar experience with researchers

attempting to study hypnosis...One group had a grant,

their own lab, and everything--and spent all the money

trying to find something to study. :-/

 

I tend to think of science as simply raw information,

neither good nor bad... It's hard to get emotional

about a virus--not lovable things except to the

virologist trying to figure out what makes it tick--and

even in that case they're mostly wanting to know

how to kill it.

 

Usable science becomes technology--and even that

sometimes has questionable value--look at the

mean-spirited stuff they did with the science of

atomic energy--I'd be happy to give the Eastern

guys credit for that one.

 

Carl

http://askcarl.net

[Guest guest]

At 02:14 PM 3/20/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Caroline Abreu <crow

>

>Carl Weisbrod wrote:

> >

> >

> > Just read your comments, Caroline, AFTER replying to Jen. You're really

> > gonna go ballistic at that post. LOL But may I suggest that you never

> > do as you suggested: [quoting you]

> >

> > " Rather than harboring our anger, however, it is probably best to be

> > tolerant of their vanity and smile in silence. "

> >

> > Whose going to learn anything if you do that? I kind of agree about the

> > vanity (or ego) thing. Lots of that out there, that's for sure. Also a lot

> > of turf battles in a crowded planet.

> >

>

>No, I'm not going to go ballistic. You forget, I spent many years

>working in the belly of the beast, the allopathic medical system, as a

>nurse. I am also a hypnotherapist and an energy worker, however, so I

>can try to see both sides of the issue.

>

>It is better to try to do that than to waste energy " battling " .

>

> > I'll bet the Internet will level the playing field somewhat (a Western

> > Invention, by the way). The e-book especially will provide a way to

> > get stuff out there without having some stuffy, profit-motivated

> > publisher deciding what we should be reading.

> >

>

>I think, Carl, that you have a hangup about what is " Western " and

> " Eastern " in this discussion. There were many " Western " holistic

>techniques that were squashed by " Western " science at the same time that

>it was embracing rather strange techniques and behaviors. At the same

>time that midwifery and chiropractic was illegal, full frontal

>lobotomies and " therapeutic hysterectomies " were being performed.

>Another misnomer is that if a technique works for one person or a

>selected group of people in the case of a scientific study, it can be

>extrapolated that the technique will work for everyone. Treatment should

>be tailored on an individual basis and not always scattershot at a

>syndrome of signs and symptoms.

>

>I will not argue with you about the validity of treatments, or where

>they come from. I think that it is quite obvious that there needs to be

>more compromise and less sniping.

>

> " Living up to claims " is a big problem on both sides, as you said. Why

>does anyone feel they must boast and brag about their therapies,

>offering " cures " when most can only offer " healing " ? And I mean healing

>in the strictest sense, which is a return to wholeness. This may not

>result in remission of disease or even lengthening of lifespan. In some

>cases a cure can be achieved, but only in time; after all, most

>disorders did not occur overnight, and will not go away that way.

>

>I was in a chat the other night with some young people interested in

>psychic phenomena. They were all looking for something profound and

>miraculous... small every day indicators of intuition or sensitivity

>were not nearly as impressive as the idea of resurrection or spontaneous

>cures! I think that is the problem with most of the public, miseducation

>leading to unrealistic, overblown expectations of any and all systems.

>The sensationalism of overtly false claims doesn't help that any, but

>surely, the public should take a deep breath and a reality shot. If

>there were such a thing as a miracle cure for anything, it couldn't stay

>secret for long ;-)

>

>Patience, tolerance, open eyes and open mind. And it wouldn't hurt to

>take a lesson from Galileo... we really are revolving around the sun,

>not the other way around <LOL>

>

>Crow

````````````````````````````````````````

Should I call you Crow or Caroline? I can tell such stories

about allopathic medicine, and I know you can too.

Traditional medicine is scared to death, and always

has been, of competition. They handled the ND threat

in the 30s by absorbing them...did the same thing with

osteopaths in the 50s. They attempted earlier to do it

with chiropractors, but ol' BJ Palmer couldn't be

bought off. My grandparents were the first chiropractors

to spend a night in jail for practicing medicine w/o a

license--and opened up Calif to the profession, so I

heard lotsa stories in my youth. I can recall my

ol' grandpop complaining bitterly that the " new crop "

were shooting themselves in the foot--and I think they did.

 

My main rant & rave is against unnecessary surgery when

there is a non-evasive approach--Ornish vs Coronary bypass,

etc. I once had several journal articles (from the 80s) that

rated unnecessary surgeries (you know what they are,

Caroline) and when I recently went to the archives to find

those articles, they were nowhere to be found.

 

I think another confusion is the idea that medicine

is 100% science. I think if that were true it would be

practiced much differently. Few in medicine, for example,

pay much attention to the epidemiological studies. I

think the cause (and cure) for cardiovascular disease

and cancer (at least the carcinomas) is clearly evident in

several major studies (eg, Framingham & China/Cornell)

 

I'm afraid " boasting and braging " is important--in the form

of publishing. I've always worked quietly, concentrating

on my work...but if I had it to do over again, I'd make more

noise. It's hard to help those who don't know you exist.

 

Nice email, Caroline, thanks--did you get the thing I sent

to your personal email address? I didn't know if you wanted

something like that posted here.

 

Carl

 

 

http://askcarl.net

[Guest guest]

At 12:11 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Ray Hunter wrote:

> " Ray Hunter " <rayhuntermt

>

>To paraphrase Forrest Gump, " Technology is as technology does. " The same

>knowledge that led to the atomic bomb also gave us the X-ray machine. The

>Chinese were making fireworks for a couple of centuries before western

>science had access to it. Within a hundred years or so of it's introduction

>to the west, gunpowder was well along the way toward unseating the mounted

>knight from his position as enforcer for Feudal Europe. Therefore, can we

>say that gunpowder help to set the scene for the Reanissance? Perhaps. Was

>this a good thing or a bad thing? The knights certainly didn't think so.

>

>Even benign knowledge can be less than benignly. I recall a massage therapy

>class where we were discussing endangerment points and the instructor

>mentioned that, if need be, they could be used non-therapeutically. It's all

>in what you do with it. When my teeth ache, I'm really happy about the

>technology involved in dentistry, but I still need someone to rub the kinks

>out of my neck after the dentist gets done.

>

>Ray

 

Well said, Ray.

 

My core belief comes from the palioathropologist rascals

like Johanson and Leakey--who taught me that the

Australopithecine hominids lasted one, maybe two million

years, and their successors made it hundreds of thousands

of years. It seems logical to me that three evens got us

into trouble. (1) the division of brain-functions (2) agriculture

(3) the knowledge to domesticate animals. That's some of

the stuff I talk about in my FreeTape--gets me some

hate-mail from creationists. :-(

 

So, in some ways I hate all technology with the exception

of food-foraging technology.

 

Carl

http://askcarl.net

[Guest guest]

Carl Weisbrod wrote:

>

>

> Just read your comments, Caroline, AFTER replying to Jen. You're really

> gonna go ballistic at that post. LOL But may I suggest that you never

> do as you suggested: [quoting you]

>

> " Rather than harboring our anger, however, it is probably best to be

> tolerant of their vanity and smile in silence. "

>

> Whose going to learn anything if you do that? I kind of agree about the

> vanity (or ego) thing. Lots of that out there, that's for sure. Also a lot

> of turf battles in a crowded planet.

>

 

No, I'm not going to go ballistic. You forget, I spent many years

working in the belly of the beast, the allopathic medical system, as a

nurse. I am also a hypnotherapist and an energy worker, however, so I

can try to see both sides of the issue.

 

It is better to try to do that than to waste energy " battling " .

 

> I'll bet the Internet will level the playing field somewhat (a Western

> Invention, by the way). The e-book especially will provide a way to

> get stuff out there without having some stuffy, profit-motivated

> publisher deciding what we should be reading.

>

 

I think, Carl, that you have a hangup about what is " Western " and

" Eastern " in this discussion. There were many " Western " holistic

techniques that were squashed by " Western " science at the same time that

it was embracing rather strange techniques and behaviors. At the same

time that midwifery and chiropractic was illegal, full frontal

lobotomies and " therapeutic hysterectomies " were being performed.

Another misnomer is that if a technique works for one person or a

selected group of people in the case of a scientific study, it can be

extrapolated that the technique will work for everyone. Treatment should

be tailored on an individual basis and not always scattershot at a

syndrome of signs and symptoms.

 

I will not argue with you about the validity of treatments, or where

they come from. I think that it is quite obvious that there needs to be

more compromise and less sniping.

 

" Living up to claims " is a big problem on both sides, as you said. Why

does anyone feel they must boast and brag about their therapies,

offering " cures " when most can only offer " healing " ? And I mean healing

in the strictest sense, which is a return to wholeness. This may not

result in remission of disease or even lengthening of lifespan. In some

cases a cure can be achieved, but only in time; after all, most

disorders did not occur overnight, and will not go away that way.

 

I was in a chat the other night with some young people interested in

psychic phenomena. They were all looking for something profound and

miraculous... small every day indicators of intuition or sensitivity

were not nearly as impressive as the idea of resurrection or spontaneous

cures! I think that is the problem with most of the public, miseducation

leading to unrealistic, overblown expectations of any and all systems.

The sensationalism of overtly false claims doesn't help that any, but

surely, the public should take a deep breath and a reality shot. If

there were such a thing as a miracle cure for anything, it couldn't stay

secret for long ;-)

 

Patience, tolerance, open eyes and open mind. And it wouldn't hurt to

take a lesson from Galileo... we really are revolving around the sun,

not the other way around <LOL>

 

Crow

[Guest guest]

The east may have had the theory but the west is applying that theory

ie: technology and biophysics

 

 

http://community.webtv.net/Talks-withtrees/PrayerChain