Re: disease, disorder or difference?

[Guest guest]

Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

functioning.

DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

functioning.

SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

together that make up a disease or health problem.

DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

variation deviates from the standard or norm.

Raven

> I'm curious. A different post triggered this question.

[Guest guest]

Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

functioning.

DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

functioning.

SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

together that make up a disease or health problem.

DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

variation deviates from the standard or norm.

Raven

> I'm curious. A different post triggered this question.

[Guest guest]

Excellent definition. Thanks, Raven.

Inger

> Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

> DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

functioning.

> DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

functioning.

> SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

together that make up a disease or health problem.

> DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

variation deviates from the standard or norm.

> Raven

> I'm curious. A different post triggered this question.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

[Guest guest]

Excellent definition. Thanks, Raven.

Inger

> Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

> DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

functioning.

> DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

functioning.

> SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

together that make up a disease or health problem.

> DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

variation deviates from the standard or norm.

> Raven

> I'm curious. A different post triggered this question.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

[Guest guest]

I like your defs.

coolchinchilla

ravenmagic2003 wrote:

>Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

>

>DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

>functioning.

>

>DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

>functioning.

>

>SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

>condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

>together that make up a disease or health problem.

>

>DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

>variation deviates from the standard or norm.

>

>Raven

>

[Guest guest]

I like your defs.

coolchinchilla

ravenmagic2003 wrote:

>Here's my POV on disorder, disease, syndrome and difference.

>

>DISORDER: A condition in which there is a disturbance of normal

>functioning.

>

>DISEASE: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal

>functioning.

>

>SYNDROME: A group of symptoms that characterize a specific

>condition or, a set of signs or a series of events occurring

>together that make up a disease or health problem.

>

>DIFFERENCE: the quality of being unlike or dissimilar where the

>variation deviates from the standard or norm.

>

>Raven

>

[Guest guest]

>I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like

>to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.

>Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've

>stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this

>discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it

a rest. ;-) >>

These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

>Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

>Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

definitions

Localised and defined organ.

>So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so

if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to

see! :-)

>

>If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

cold)

>If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

>undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

>If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

>intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

>If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

>which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a

cause for autism.

>If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

>disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

>If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly

>disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

AS)

>

> and the zoo.

" Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

brain/body part labelled as impaired.

[Guest guest]

>I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like

>to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.

>Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've

>stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this

>discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it

a rest. ;-) >>

These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

>Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

>Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

definitions

Localised and defined organ.

>So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so

if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to

see! :-)

>

>If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

cold)

>If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

>undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

>If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

>intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

>If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

>which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a

cause for autism.

>If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

>disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

>If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly

>disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

AS)

>

> and the zoo.

" Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

brain/body part labelled as impaired.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I have a doctorate in chemistry and post-doctoral training in the

biomedical sciences, yet my metaphysical training and experiences have

led me to question an underlying assumption of medicine and most of

science, which is that physical materiality rules, that we are the

body and our minds are some kind of emergent property of the brain,

and that all illness results from some kind of lesion in the body.

I'm pretty well convinced that the mind does not emerge from the body,

rather the body is a contraction (shadow if you will) of the mind,

which in turn is a contraction of yet more subtle levels. I also

believe firmly in reincarnation, in which an essence composed of our

subtle (energy) body and more diffuse levels exits the body at death

and later re-enters another body. Christianity accepted reincarnation

until around 400 AD, when Constantine decided that the concept got in

the way of his ambitions and outlawed it.

Given this perspective plus the concept of karma, one might assume

that alterations to the mind might go back one or more lifetimes, and

any effects to the brain might result from developmental factors

resulting from a congenitally atypical mind.

I think medicine's assumption that some genetic glitch causes brain

problems that translate into behavioral problems is vastly

oversimplified. It's a complex universe, and we can't just take a

cookie cutter and make all phenomena fit.

Western science has rejected much wisdom of old in the name of

rationality and material realism. While much has been gained by this,

we have also unfortunately thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Ken

>

> >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like

> >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.

> >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've

> >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this

> >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

> and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

> schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it

> a rest. ;-) >>

>

> These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

> Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

>

> >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

> >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

> definitions

>

> Localised and defined organ.

>

> >So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> > " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so

> if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to

> see! :-)

> >

> >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

> cold)

> >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

> >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

> >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

> >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

> >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

> >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

> cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

>

> WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

> hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a

> cause for autism.

>

> >If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

> >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

> >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly

> >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

> AS)

> >

> > and the zoo.

>

> " Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

> Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

> NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

> living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

> human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> brain/body part labelled as impaired.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I have a doctorate in chemistry and post-doctoral training in the

biomedical sciences, yet my metaphysical training and experiences have

led me to question an underlying assumption of medicine and most of

science, which is that physical materiality rules, that we are the

body and our minds are some kind of emergent property of the brain,

and that all illness results from some kind of lesion in the body.

I'm pretty well convinced that the mind does not emerge from the body,

rather the body is a contraction (shadow if you will) of the mind,

which in turn is a contraction of yet more subtle levels. I also

believe firmly in reincarnation, in which an essence composed of our

subtle (energy) body and more diffuse levels exits the body at death

and later re-enters another body. Christianity accepted reincarnation

until around 400 AD, when Constantine decided that the concept got in

the way of his ambitions and outlawed it.

Given this perspective plus the concept of karma, one might assume

that alterations to the mind might go back one or more lifetimes, and

any effects to the brain might result from developmental factors

resulting from a congenitally atypical mind.

I think medicine's assumption that some genetic glitch causes brain

problems that translate into behavioral problems is vastly

oversimplified. It's a complex universe, and we can't just take a

cookie cutter and make all phenomena fit.

Western science has rejected much wisdom of old in the name of

rationality and material realism. While much has been gained by this,

we have also unfortunately thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Ken

>

> >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like

> >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.

> >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've

> >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this

> >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

> and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

> schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it

> a rest. ;-) >>

>

> These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

> Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

>

> >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

> >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

> definitions

>

> Localised and defined organ.

>

> >So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> > " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so

> if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to

> see! :-)

> >

> >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

> cold)

> >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

> >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

> >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

> >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

> >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

> >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

> cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

>

> WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

> hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a

> cause for autism.

>

> >If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

> >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

> >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly

> >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

> AS)

> >

> > and the zoo.

>

> " Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

> Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

> NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

> living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

> human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> brain/body part labelled as impaired.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

Interesting way of looking at things. Especially the reincarnation. I would like to hear more about how you think about that.

I don't have any study like yours, but I like to think as well that the mind doesn't emerge from the body.

Lida

Re: disease, disorder or difference?

Hi :I have a doctorate in chemistry and post-doctoral training in thebiomedical sciences, yet my metaphysical training and experiences haveled me to question an underlying assumption of medicine and most ofscience, which is that physical materiality rules, that we are thebody and our minds are some kind of emergent property of the brain,and that all illness results from some kind of lesion in the body.I'm pretty well convinced that the mind does not emerge from the body,rather the body is a contraction (shadow if you will) of the mind,which in turn is a contraction of yet more subtle levels. I alsobelieve firmly in reincarnation, in which an essence composed of oursubtle (energy) body and more diffuse levels exits the body at deathand later re-enters another body. Christianity accepted reincarnationuntil around 400 AD, when Constantine decided that the concept got inthe way of his ambitions and outlawed it.Given this perspective plus the concept of karma, one might assumethat alterations to the mind might go back one or more lifetimes, andany effects to the brain might result from developmental factorsresulting from a congenitally atypical mind.I think medicine's assumption that some genetic glitch causes brainproblems that translate into behavioral problems is vastlyoversimplified. It's a complex universe, and we can't just take acookie cutter and make all phenomena fit. Western science has rejected much wisdom of old in the name ofrationality and material realism. While much has been gained by this,we have also unfortunately thrown out the baby with the bathwater.Ken> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.> >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've> >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this> >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it > a rest. ;-) >>> > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion. > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?> > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,> >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these > definitions> > Localised and defined organ.> > >So what is the difference among the terms "disease", "disorder" and> >"neurological difference"? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to > see! :-) > > > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a > cold)> >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an> >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)> >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external> >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)> >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly> >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g., > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).> > WRT, "an internal process", many researchers point to the amygdala, > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a > cause for autism.> > >If a body part "breaks" through no outside accident, then it is a> >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).> >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly> >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g., > AS)> >> > and the zoo.> > "Breaking" to me is no different than an internal process, as above.> Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world) > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific > brain/body part labelled as impaired.> > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

Interesting way of looking at things. Especially the reincarnation. I would like to hear more about how you think about that.

I don't have any study like yours, but I like to think as well that the mind doesn't emerge from the body.

Lida

Re: disease, disorder or difference?

Hi :I have a doctorate in chemistry and post-doctoral training in thebiomedical sciences, yet my metaphysical training and experiences haveled me to question an underlying assumption of medicine and most ofscience, which is that physical materiality rules, that we are thebody and our minds are some kind of emergent property of the brain,and that all illness results from some kind of lesion in the body.I'm pretty well convinced that the mind does not emerge from the body,rather the body is a contraction (shadow if you will) of the mind,which in turn is a contraction of yet more subtle levels. I alsobelieve firmly in reincarnation, in which an essence composed of oursubtle (energy) body and more diffuse levels exits the body at deathand later re-enters another body. Christianity accepted reincarnationuntil around 400 AD, when Constantine decided that the concept got inthe way of his ambitions and outlawed it.Given this perspective plus the concept of karma, one might assumethat alterations to the mind might go back one or more lifetimes, andany effects to the brain might result from developmental factorsresulting from a congenitally atypical mind.I think medicine's assumption that some genetic glitch causes brainproblems that translate into behavioral problems is vastlyoversimplified. It's a complex universe, and we can't just take acookie cutter and make all phenomena fit. Western science has rejected much wisdom of old in the name ofrationality and material realism. While much has been gained by this,we have also unfortunately thrown out the baby with the bathwater.Ken> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would like > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference mean.> >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder. I've> >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For this> >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to give it > a rest. ;-) >>> > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion. > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?> > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,> >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these > definitions> > Localised and defined organ.> > >So what is the difference among the terms "disease", "disorder" and> >"neurological difference"? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing medical so > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for you to > see! :-) > > > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a > cold)> >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an> >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)> >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external> >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)> >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly> >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g., > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).> > WRT, "an internal process", many researchers point to the amygdala, > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region, as a > cause for autism.> > >If a body part "breaks" through no outside accident, then it is a> >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).> >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't particularly> >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g., > AS)> >> > and the zoo.> > "Breaking" to me is no different than an internal process, as above.> Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world) > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific > brain/body part labelled as impaired.> > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

[Guest guest]

Hi Lida:

Here's a website that discusses reincarnation and Christianity.

file:///c:/documents%20and%20settings/ken%20rubenstein/my%20documents/spiritual/\

reincarnation%20and%20christianity.html

If you have any other specific questions, I'll try to answer them.

By the way, does ururu mean something in some language?

Best,

KEn

> >

> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

like

> > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

mean.

> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

I've

> > >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For

this

> > >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

> > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

> > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to

give it

> > a rest. ;-) >>

> >

> > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

> > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

> >

> > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

> > >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

> > definitions

> >

> > Localised and defined organ.

> >

> > >So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> > > " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing

medical so

> > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for

you to

> > see! :-)

> > >

> > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

> > cold)

> > >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

> > >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

> > >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

> > >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

> > >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

> > >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

> > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

> >

> > WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

> > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region,

as a

> > cause for autism.

> >

> > >If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

> > >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

> > >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't

particularly

> > >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

> > AS)

> > >

> > > and the zoo.

> >

> > " Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

> > Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

> > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

> > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

> > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lida:

Here's a website that discusses reincarnation and Christianity.

file:///c:/documents%20and%20settings/ken%20rubenstein/my%20documents/spiritual/\

reincarnation%20and%20christianity.html

If you have any other specific questions, I'll try to answer them.

By the way, does ururu mean something in some language?

Best,

KEn

> >

> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

like

> > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

mean.

> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

I've

> > >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. For

this

> > >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum

> > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and

> > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need to

give it

> > a rest. ;-) >>

> >

> > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion.

> > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?

> >

> > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,

> > >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these

> > definitions

> >

> > Localised and defined organ.

> >

> > >So what is the difference among the terms " disease " , " disorder " and

> > > " neurological difference " ? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothing

medical so

> > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there for

you to

> > see! :-)

> > >

> > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a

> > cold)

> > >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an

> > >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)

> > >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external

> > >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)

> > >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly

> > >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g.,

> > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).

> >

> > WRT, " an internal process " , many researchers point to the amygdala,

> > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region,

as a

> > cause for autism.

> >

> > >If a body part " breaks " through no outside accident, then it is a

> > >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).

> > >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn't

particularly

> > >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g.,

> > AS)

> > >

> > > and the zoo.

> >

> > " Breaking " to me is no different than an internal process, as above.

> > Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in

> > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world)

> > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete

> > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ken!

'ururu' comes from the aymara-language and means 'morningstar' or 'eveningstar' and it is an indication of time as well (something like: befor these stars or after these stars, so something like befor now and after now). Morning/eveningstar is also an other name for the planet venus, if I remember well.

Be well,

Lida

Re: disease, disorder or difference?

Hi Lida:Here's a website that discusses reincarnation and Christianity.file:///c:/documents%20and%20settings/ken%20rubenstein/my%20documents/spiritual/reincarnation%20and%20christianity.htmlIf you have any other specific questions, I'll try to answer them.By the way, does ururu mean something in some language?Best,KEn> > > > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I wouldlike > > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and differencemean.> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.I've> > >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. Forthis> > >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum > > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and > > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need togive it > > a rest. ;-) >>> > > > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion. > > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?> > > > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,> > >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these > > definitions> > > > Localised and defined organ.> > > > >So what is the difference among the terms "disease", "disorder" and> > >"neurological difference"? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothingmedical so > > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there foryou to > > see! :-) > > > > > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a > > cold)> > >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an> > >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)> > >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external> > >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)> > >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly> > >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g., > > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).> > > > WRT, "an internal process", many researchers point to the amygdala, > > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region,as a > > cause for autism.> > > > >If a body part "breaks" through no outside accident, then it is a> > >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).> > >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn'tparticularly> > >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g., > > AS)> > >> > > and the zoo.> > > > "Breaking" to me is no different than an internal process, as above.> > Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in > > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world) > > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete > > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific > > brain/body part labelled as impaired.> > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ken!

'ururu' comes from the aymara-language and means 'morningstar' or 'eveningstar' and it is an indication of time as well (something like: befor these stars or after these stars, so something like befor now and after now). Morning/eveningstar is also an other name for the planet venus, if I remember well.

Be well,

Lida

Re: disease, disorder or difference?

Hi Lida:Here's a website that discusses reincarnation and Christianity.file:///c:/documents%20and%20settings/ken%20rubenstein/my%20documents/spiritual/reincarnation%20and%20christianity.htmlIf you have any other specific questions, I'll try to answer them.By the way, does ururu mean something in some language?Best,KEn> > > > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I wouldlike > > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and differencemean.> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.I've> > >stated that mental illnesses are diseases, not differences. Forthis> > >discussion, I want to take the emphasis off of the autism spectrum > > and off of mental illnesses like bipolar, depression and > > schizophrenia. We've beaten that horse for a while so need togive it > > a rest. ;-) >>> > > > These are interesting questions worthy of discussion. > > Could someone tell me what threads that was in?> > > > >Consider where things like stroke, heart disease, liver disease,> > >Alzheimers, brain tumors, retardation and more fit in these > > definitions> > > > Localised and defined organ.> > > > >So what is the difference among the terms "disease", "disorder" and> > >"neurological difference"? I'll take a jab -- I'm nothingmedical so > > if you can see >huge gaps in my logic, well I put it there foryou to > > see! :-) > > > > > >If there is an outside invading organism it is a disease (e.g., a > > cold)> > >If there is an internal process that alters the body tissues in an> > >undesirable fashion, it is a disease (e.g., cancer & heart disease)> > >If something can be fixed or greatly helped by some external> > >intervention, then it is a disease (e.g., depression)> > >If something external caused in the body doesn't function correctly> > >which is needed for daily living, then it is a disorder (e.g., > > cerberal palsy & spina >bifida).> > > > WRT, "an internal process", many researchers point to the amygdala, > > hippocampus, cerebellum, and virtually every other brain region,as a > > cause for autism.> > > > >If a body part "breaks" through no outside accident, then it is a> > >disorder. (e.g., underactive thyroid).> > >If a body part functions perfectly normally and doesn'tparticularly> > >disadvantage the client in itself, then it is a difference (e.g., > > AS)> > >> > > and the zoo.> > > > "Breaking" to me is no different than an internal process, as above.> > Well, many of my body and mental parts don't function as they do in > > NTs and this disadvantages me and makes human (not just NT world) > > living difficult. Difference can be used to describe the complete > > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific > > brain/body part labelled as impaired.> > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

[Guest guest]

I cannot open the file... : (

[Guest guest]

I cannot open the file... : (

[Guest guest]

OK, here's the material:

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Borrow loved the Gypsies so much that he roved with them

through many parts of Britain and Europe. Several of his popular books

recount his experiences with them and tell a great deal about this

mysterious people whose origins are still being debated. Some scholars

claim they were the original Bohemians dispersed when their small

empire collapsed a few centuries ago; others point to ancient Egypt --

hence the name: " Gypsies " ; or to the Phoenicians; or again to India.

In The Zincali; or, An Account of the Gypsies of Spain, Borrow

speculates upon the reason for his lifelong fascination with them:

" Some of the Gypsies, to whom I have stated this circumstance, have

accounted for it on the supposition that the soul which at present

animates my body has at some former period tenanted that of one of

their people; for many among them are believers in metempsychosis,

and, like the followers of Bouddha, imagine that their souls, by

passing through an infinite number of bodies, attain at length

sufficient purity to be admitted to a state of perfect rest and

quietude, which is the only idea of heaven they can form. "

Metempsychosis literally means " transference of souls, " and is related

to the process of reincarnation. It is often asked, why was

reincarnation unknown in Europe until recently? Why does not

Christianity teach it?

Actually, the idea is found in the oldest traditions of Western

civilization, as well as being taught throughout the ancient Near East

and Orient. And there is solid evidence that during its first

centuries, Christianity did indeed impart what it had learned about

the pre-existence of souls and their reimbodiment.

phus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first

century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities

of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his

day, while his contemporary in andria, Philo Judaeus, in various

of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form.

Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be

understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of

souls as a generally held belief. For instance, (16:13-14)

records that when Jesus asked his disciples " Whom do men say that I

am? " they replied that some people said he was the Baptist (who

had been executed only a few years before the question was asked).

Others thought he was Elijah, or , or another of the prophets.

Later in (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth

Jesus tells his disciples that the Baptist was Elijah.

(9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman

had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied

that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the

blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be

fulfilled. Or, as St. phrased the thought: we reap what we sow.

The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his

present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

The earliest Christians, especially those who were members of one or

other of the Gnostic sects, such as the Valentinians, Ophites and

Ebionites, included reimbodiment among their important teachings. For

them it enabled fulfillment of the law -- karma -- as well as

providing the means for the soul to purify itself from the muddy

qualities resulting from its immersion in matter and the egoism we

have developed in the first stages of our journey through earth life.

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church

Fathers, such as Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of andria

( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of

souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of

reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works,

especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: " Is it not

rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance

with their merits and previous deeds . . . ? " And in De Principiis he

says that " the soul has neither beginning nor end. " St. Jerome (AD

340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the

Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some

Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an

esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few " as a traditional truth which

was not to be divulged. "

Synesius (AD 370-480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept,

and in a prayer that has survived, he says: " Father, grant that my

soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the

illusion of earth. " Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain

lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so

purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a

thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: " It is possible by labor and time,

and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge

from this dark abode. " This passage reminds us of verses in the

Revelation of (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language

leading into: " Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple

of my God, and he shall go no more out. "

We need at this point to recall what happened after Constantine

declared Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman empire.

The church forgot the injunction about rendering unto Caesar the

things that are Caesar's only, and allowed itself to become entwined

with the administration of Caesar's realm -- the political arena. Its

destiny became linked to the fate of the empire itself and its rulers.

The several differences in teaching among the Christian sects of the

fourth century paralleled the provincial disturbances under the weak

emperors, so that by the time ian took charge in 527, he had

serious problems. He worked desperately to reunify his crumbling

empire, and proceeded to do so on two lines: the first prong of his

effort was the drive of his army against the petty states within the

larger fold; the second set out to enforce a uniform canon of belief,

to be strictly adhered to. No mean theologian himself, he launched his

campaign against the beliefs of the Nestorian Christians and other

minority groups, and to do so he had to circumvent the decisions of

the Council of Chalcedon (451). He ordered Mennas, the Patriarch of

Constantinople, to convene a local or provincial synod to deal with

this and meet the demands of several churchmen who opposed certain

teachings, including Origen's on the pre-existence of souls.

The local synod accepted the bans phrased by Mennas, but this did not

seem to achieve much. Ten years later, ian called the fifth

Council of Constantinople, now known also as the Second Ecumenical

Council -- but this is a misnomer. It was presided over by the

incumbent patriarch of Constantinople, Eutychius, with the presence of

165 bishops. Pope Vigilius had been summoned by the Emperor, but he

opposed the council and took refuge in a church in Constantinople. He

was not present at the deliberations, nor was he represented.

The Council drafted a series of anathemas, some say 14, others 15,

mainly directed against the doctrines of three " schools " or

" heretics, " the documents relating thereto becoming known as " The

Three Chapters. " Only these papers were presented to the pope for his

approval. Succeeding popes, including the Great (590-604),

while dealing with the matters arising out of the Fifth Council, made

no mention of Origen's concepts. Nonetheless, ian enforced the

acceptance of the decision of what seems to have been merely an

extra-conciliary session. He made it appear to have ecumenical

endorsement or sanction. What concerns us here is that the clerics

opposing Origen's teachings, mainly the one dealing with the

pre-existence of souls, secured an official condemnation, which they

tried to make binding.

Although the Great made no reference to Origen when he took up

the affairs of the Fifth Council, he did accept the trend toward

codification of Christian belief that had been developing during the

fifth and sixth centuries, and he could even say that he " reverenced "

the conclusions of the first four Councils as much as he did the Four

Gospels!

From the point of view of public teaching, the idea of reincarnation

disappeared from European thought after the provincial synod of 543

and the Fifth Council of 553 -- and this on the grounds that it

conflicted with a proper understanding of the concept of redemption.

Despite the anathemas, Origen's influence flowed down the centuries

like a steady stream, through leading Christians of the day to Maximus

of Tyre (580-662) and Johannes Scotus Erigena (810-877), the immensely

erudite Irish monk. It even reached such late figures as St. Francis

of Assisi, founder of the Franciscan Order (1182-1226), and St.

Buonaventura, the 'Seraphic' doctor (1221-1274), who became a cardinal

and General of the Franciscans. No less a theologian than St. Jerome

said of Origen that he was " the greatest teacher of the early Church

after the Apostles. "

Apart from Christian sects like the widespread Cathars that included

the Albigenses, Waldenses and Bomogils, isolated individuals -- such

as Boehme, the German Protestant mystic, ph Glanvil,

chaplain of King II of England, the Rev. Law,

R. Alger, and many modern clerics, Catholic and Protestant -- have

supported the concept of reincarnation on logical and other grounds.

Henry More (1614-1687), the noted clergyman of the Church of England

and renowned Cambridge Platonist, wrote in his long essay The

Immortality of the Soul -- a considerable study of the whole subject

of the soul, with cogent answers to critics of pre-existency. His poem

A Platonick Song of the Soul tells it beautifully:

I would sing the Prae-existency

Of humane souls, and live once o'er again

By recollection and quick memory

All that is past since first we all began.

But all too shallow be my wits to scan

So deep a point and mind too dull to clear

So dark a matter, . . .

Speaking then to Plotinus in the poem, he adds:

Tell what we mortalls are, tell what of old we were.

A spark or ray of the Divinity

Clouded in earthly fogs, yclad in clay,

A precious drop sunk from Aeternitie,

Spilt on the ground, or rather slunk away.

As More said in his essay mentioned above, " there was never any

philosopher that held the soul spiritual and immortal but he held also

that it did pre-exist. "

The general opposition of some theologians in the last century is

ebbing away as their successors take a more open-minded stance upon

the subject. Clergymen of varying denominations are beginning to

endorse the ancient teachings about the pre-existence of the soul,

reimbodiment in general and reincarnation in particular. It is spoken

about more widely than it has been for centuries, and the earlier

derision based upon a misunderstanding of transmigration has given way

to a more intelligent inquiry.

One of the more common arguments against the idea of rebirth is that

we do not remember our past existences. But there is a memory other

than that stored up among the cells of the brain. Skills, or facility

to do or understand certain areas of thought or activity, often

evident in early childhood, surely betoken a resumption from a past

familiarity. Does it matter what the name of a personality was, if the

quality expressed through that lifetime continues into the present,

modified according to the kind and intensity of the earlier period of

self-expression? We so often think of life and death as a pair of

opposites. Whereas in reality life is a continuum, with birth and

death the two doorways into and out of our earth phase. Birth, death

and rebirth -- the cycle turns and completes itself over and over

until we refine the dross in our nature into the pure gold of spirit.

Works consulted for this article include The Ring of Return, An

Anthology, by Eva ; The Cathars and Reincarnation, by Arthur

Guirdham; Reincarnation, A Study of Forgotten Truth, by E. D. ;

Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, by G. R. S. Mead; Reincarnation in

World Thought, compiled by ph Head and S. L. Cranston; The

Esoteric Tradition, by G. de Purucker; and Essays and Hymns of

Synesius, translated by Augustine FitzGerald.

>

> I cannot open the file... : (

[Guest guest]

OK, here's the material:

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Borrow loved the Gypsies so much that he roved with them

through many parts of Britain and Europe. Several of his popular books

recount his experiences with them and tell a great deal about this

mysterious people whose origins are still being debated. Some scholars

claim they were the original Bohemians dispersed when their small

empire collapsed a few centuries ago; others point to ancient Egypt --

hence the name: " Gypsies " ; or to the Phoenicians; or again to India.

In The Zincali; or, An Account of the Gypsies of Spain, Borrow

speculates upon the reason for his lifelong fascination with them:

" Some of the Gypsies, to whom I have stated this circumstance, have

accounted for it on the supposition that the soul which at present

animates my body has at some former period tenanted that of one of

their people; for many among them are believers in metempsychosis,

and, like the followers of Bouddha, imagine that their souls, by

passing through an infinite number of bodies, attain at length

sufficient purity to be admitted to a state of perfect rest and

quietude, which is the only idea of heaven they can form. "

Metempsychosis literally means " transference of souls, " and is related

to the process of reincarnation. It is often asked, why was

reincarnation unknown in Europe until recently? Why does not

Christianity teach it?

Actually, the idea is found in the oldest traditions of Western

civilization, as well as being taught throughout the ancient Near East

and Orient. And there is solid evidence that during its first

centuries, Christianity did indeed impart what it had learned about

the pre-existence of souls and their reimbodiment.

phus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first

century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities

of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his

day, while his contemporary in andria, Philo Judaeus, in various

of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form.

Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be

understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of

souls as a generally held belief. For instance, (16:13-14)

records that when Jesus asked his disciples " Whom do men say that I

am? " they replied that some people said he was the Baptist (who

had been executed only a few years before the question was asked).

Others thought he was Elijah, or , or another of the prophets.

Later in (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth

Jesus tells his disciples that the Baptist was Elijah.

(9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman

had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied

that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the

blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be

fulfilled. Or, as St. phrased the thought: we reap what we sow.

The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his

present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

The earliest Christians, especially those who were members of one or

other of the Gnostic sects, such as the Valentinians, Ophites and

Ebionites, included reimbodiment among their important teachings. For

them it enabled fulfillment of the law -- karma -- as well as

providing the means for the soul to purify itself from the muddy

qualities resulting from its immersion in matter and the egoism we

have developed in the first stages of our journey through earth life.

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church

Fathers, such as Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of andria

( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of

souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of

reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works,

especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: " Is it not

rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance

with their merits and previous deeds . . . ? " And in De Principiis he

says that " the soul has neither beginning nor end. " St. Jerome (AD

340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the

Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some

Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an

esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few " as a traditional truth which

was not to be divulged. "

Synesius (AD 370-480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept,

and in a prayer that has survived, he says: " Father, grant that my

soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the

illusion of earth. " Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain

lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so

purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a

thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: " It is possible by labor and time,

and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge

from this dark abode. " This passage reminds us of verses in the

Revelation of (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language

leading into: " Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple

of my God, and he shall go no more out. "

We need at this point to recall what happened after Constantine

declared Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman empire.

The church forgot the injunction about rendering unto Caesar the

things that are Caesar's only, and allowed itself to become entwined

with the administration of Caesar's realm -- the political arena. Its

destiny became linked to the fate of the empire itself and its rulers.

The several differences in teaching among the Christian sects of the

fourth century paralleled the provincial disturbances under the weak

emperors, so that by the time ian took charge in 527, he had

serious problems. He worked desperately to reunify his crumbling

empire, and proceeded to do so on two lines: the first prong of his

effort was the drive of his army against the petty states within the

larger fold; the second set out to enforce a uniform canon of belief,

to be strictly adhered to. No mean theologian himself, he launched his

campaign against the beliefs of the Nestorian Christians and other

minority groups, and to do so he had to circumvent the decisions of

the Council of Chalcedon (451). He ordered Mennas, the Patriarch of

Constantinople, to convene a local or provincial synod to deal with

this and meet the demands of several churchmen who opposed certain

teachings, including Origen's on the pre-existence of souls.

The local synod accepted the bans phrased by Mennas, but this did not

seem to achieve much. Ten years later, ian called the fifth

Council of Constantinople, now known also as the Second Ecumenical

Council -- but this is a misnomer. It was presided over by the

incumbent patriarch of Constantinople, Eutychius, with the presence of

165 bishops. Pope Vigilius had been summoned by the Emperor, but he

opposed the council and took refuge in a church in Constantinople. He

was not present at the deliberations, nor was he represented.

The Council drafted a series of anathemas, some say 14, others 15,

mainly directed against the doctrines of three " schools " or

" heretics, " the documents relating thereto becoming known as " The

Three Chapters. " Only these papers were presented to the pope for his

approval. Succeeding popes, including the Great (590-604),

while dealing with the matters arising out of the Fifth Council, made

no mention of Origen's concepts. Nonetheless, ian enforced the

acceptance of the decision of what seems to have been merely an

extra-conciliary session. He made it appear to have ecumenical

endorsement or sanction. What concerns us here is that the clerics

opposing Origen's teachings, mainly the one dealing with the

pre-existence of souls, secured an official condemnation, which they

tried to make binding.

Although the Great made no reference to Origen when he took up

the affairs of the Fifth Council, he did accept the trend toward

codification of Christian belief that had been developing during the

fifth and sixth centuries, and he could even say that he " reverenced "

the conclusions of the first four Councils as much as he did the Four

Gospels!

From the point of view of public teaching, the idea of reincarnation

disappeared from European thought after the provincial synod of 543

and the Fifth Council of 553 -- and this on the grounds that it

conflicted with a proper understanding of the concept of redemption.

Despite the anathemas, Origen's influence flowed down the centuries

like a steady stream, through leading Christians of the day to Maximus

of Tyre (580-662) and Johannes Scotus Erigena (810-877), the immensely

erudite Irish monk. It even reached such late figures as St. Francis

of Assisi, founder of the Franciscan Order (1182-1226), and St.

Buonaventura, the 'Seraphic' doctor (1221-1274), who became a cardinal

and General of the Franciscans. No less a theologian than St. Jerome

said of Origen that he was " the greatest teacher of the early Church

after the Apostles. "

Apart from Christian sects like the widespread Cathars that included

the Albigenses, Waldenses and Bomogils, isolated individuals -- such

as Boehme, the German Protestant mystic, ph Glanvil,

chaplain of King II of England, the Rev. Law,

R. Alger, and many modern clerics, Catholic and Protestant -- have

supported the concept of reincarnation on logical and other grounds.

Henry More (1614-1687), the noted clergyman of the Church of England

and renowned Cambridge Platonist, wrote in his long essay The

Immortality of the Soul -- a considerable study of the whole subject

of the soul, with cogent answers to critics of pre-existency. His poem

A Platonick Song of the Soul tells it beautifully:

I would sing the Prae-existency

Of humane souls, and live once o'er again

By recollection and quick memory

All that is past since first we all began.

But all too shallow be my wits to scan

So deep a point and mind too dull to clear

So dark a matter, . . .

Speaking then to Plotinus in the poem, he adds:

Tell what we mortalls are, tell what of old we were.

A spark or ray of the Divinity

Clouded in earthly fogs, yclad in clay,

A precious drop sunk from Aeternitie,

Spilt on the ground, or rather slunk away.

As More said in his essay mentioned above, " there was never any

philosopher that held the soul spiritual and immortal but he held also

that it did pre-exist. "

The general opposition of some theologians in the last century is

ebbing away as their successors take a more open-minded stance upon

the subject. Clergymen of varying denominations are beginning to

endorse the ancient teachings about the pre-existence of the soul,

reimbodiment in general and reincarnation in particular. It is spoken

about more widely than it has been for centuries, and the earlier

derision based upon a misunderstanding of transmigration has given way

to a more intelligent inquiry.

One of the more common arguments against the idea of rebirth is that

we do not remember our past existences. But there is a memory other

than that stored up among the cells of the brain. Skills, or facility

to do or understand certain areas of thought or activity, often

evident in early childhood, surely betoken a resumption from a past

familiarity. Does it matter what the name of a personality was, if the

quality expressed through that lifetime continues into the present,

modified according to the kind and intensity of the earlier period of

self-expression? We so often think of life and death as a pair of

opposites. Whereas in reality life is a continuum, with birth and

death the two doorways into and out of our earth phase. Birth, death

and rebirth -- the cycle turns and completes itself over and over

until we refine the dross in our nature into the pure gold of spirit.

Works consulted for this article include The Ring of Return, An

Anthology, by Eva ; The Cathars and Reincarnation, by Arthur

Guirdham; Reincarnation, A Study of Forgotten Truth, by E. D. ;

Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, by G. R. S. Mead; Reincarnation in

World Thought, compiled by ph Head and S. L. Cranston; The

Esoteric Tradition, by G. de Purucker; and Essays and Hymns of

Synesius, translated by Augustine FitzGerald.

>

> I cannot open the file... : (

[Guest guest]

Hi, Ken

I fully respect the high level of education you have acquired, and

would be interested in discussing this with a fellow Aspie.

However I have a completely opposite point of view, re, body coming

from mind.

Also I am wondering how much a religious outlook influences your

professional training. Perhaps its better if I contact you off-line.

Ill do so shortly-meaning today or tomorrow.

> >

> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

like

> > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

mean.

> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

Difference can be used to describe the

complete

> > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi, Ken

I fully respect the high level of education you have acquired, and

would be interested in discussing this with a fellow Aspie.

However I have a completely opposite point of view, re, body coming

from mind.

Also I am wondering how much a religious outlook influences your

professional training. Perhaps its better if I contact you off-line.

Ill do so shortly-meaning today or tomorrow.

> >

> > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

like

> > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

mean.

> > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

Difference can be used to describe the

complete

> > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I'd prefer to keep our communication in the context of the forum.

That's about all the time I have at my disposal right now.

I simply mentioned my educational background to make the point that

I've really studied the scientific, materialistic approach to

understanding life, and I find it wanting in many respects. My

metaphysical studies and practices have led me to perspectives that

make a great deal more logical sense. Furthermore, looking back in

history, I can see that perfectly good ways of viewing reality were

suppressed because they did not suit the socio-political needs of

those in power.

I'm not advocating that you or anyone else accept this, but I can't

help speaking out about this and will continue to do so.

Ken

> > >

> > > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

> like

> > > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

> mean.

> > > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

>

> Difference can be used to describe the

> complete

> > > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I'd prefer to keep our communication in the context of the forum.

That's about all the time I have at my disposal right now.

I simply mentioned my educational background to make the point that

I've really studied the scientific, materialistic approach to

understanding life, and I find it wanting in many respects. My

metaphysical studies and practices have led me to perspectives that

make a great deal more logical sense. Furthermore, looking back in

history, I can see that perfectly good ways of viewing reality were

suppressed because they did not suit the socio-political needs of

those in power.

I'm not advocating that you or anyone else accept this, but I can't

help speaking out about this and will continue to do so.

Ken

> > >

> > > >I'm curious. A different post triggered this question. I would

> like

> > > >to banter about what the terms disease, disorder and difference

> mean.

> > > >Frequently here we say that AS is a difference, not a disorder.

>

> Difference can be used to describe the

> complete

> > > human, but a lot of Aspies have difficulty accepting a specific

> > > brain/body part labelled as impaired.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

>I have a doctorate in chemistry and post-doctoral training in the

biomedical sciences, yet my metaphysical training and experiences have

led me to question an underlying assumption of medicine and most of

science, which is that physical materiality rules, that we are the

body and our minds are some kind of emergent property of the brain,

and that all illness results from some kind of lesion in the body.

I'm broadly in agreement with you about the underlying

epistemological focus of Western knowledge. It has rejected much

wisdom of ancient cultures, thrown the baby out with the bathwater as

you put it. Maybe all illness does not result from lesions but what

do you think is behind AS?

For the last 20 years, it is emerging from new theories in

neuroscience, philosophy and literary criticism, that our concepts

and the very language we use come from abstractions our sensory-

motor cortex actions. This areas of cognitive science conclude:

" The mind is inherently embodied, thought is mostly, unconscious,

and abstract concepts are largely metaphorical " .

>I'm pretty well convinced that the mind does not emerge from the

body,rather the body is a contraction (shadow if you will) of the

mind, which in turn is a contraction of yet more subtle levels.

I understand that your describing a movement from spirit to mind to

body. A downward involution of the kosmos. But what about the

evolutionary development of the body?

>Given this perspective plus the concept of karma, one might assume

that alterations to the mind might go back one or more lifetimes, and

any effects to the brain might result from developmental factors

resulting from a congenitally atypical mind.

>I think medicine's assumption that some genetic glitch causes brain

problems that translate into behavioral problems is vastly

oversimplified. It's a complex universe, and we can't just take a

cookie cutter and make all phenomena fit.

So instead of medical and therapetic research you think people with

AS should pray for forgiveness. And then pray some more that they do

not genetically or via karma have a child with autism?

Have you completey rejected your doctorate knowledge; do you not

agree with any of the chemical or biomedical conclusions on AS like

those mentioned in my previous post?