Re: Re: Etheric Body and Energy (was Candida diet)

September 13, 2005

Chris-

>Rather than invent a term that has no meaning like " etheric, " why not

>try to work within the model of what is observable? It's not like

>science hasn't given us a LOT to think about in terms of " energy. "

Not to mention that " energy " as used by EFT and other disciplines is

strictly a metaphoric term. Nobody knows whether it has anything

whatsoever to do with the sort of energy physicists talk about except

inasmuch as all bodily (and therefore mental) processes do of course

require and use energy.

-

September 13, 2005

,

>Not to mention that " energy " as used by EFT and other disciplines is

>strictly a metaphoric term.

>

I think it is used esoterically to laypeople ignorant of physics and

science in general, but ultimately useless in any real space-time

" observable " sense.

>Nobody knows whether it has anything

>whatsoever to do with the sort of energy physicists talk about except

>inasmuch as all bodily (and therefore mental) processes do of course

>require and use energy.

>

If this stuff had anything to do with physics - the work energy theorem,

change in kinetic energy, entropy, and all that, believe you me it would

have been explored by now. I mean heck, if we can determine the energy

of a neutron with a specific mass, over a a specific time interval in eV

(electron volt, a measure of energy for microscopy), then certainly we

can deal on a molecular level. I think there is much to the placebo

effect, and that may be why some of these techniques work. Maybe there

are other reasons sometimes as well. But if it is *really* energy

(1/2mv^2), then it is highly detectable.

Deanna

September 13, 2005

> I do not see, at all, how the idea of EFT, or acupuncture, etc,

> conflicts with Western science. While I'm not sure exactly what an

> " etheric body " is, judging by the way it sounds, I do not understand

> why this is necessary to explain the results of EFT or other " energy "

> paradigms.

You are correct. There is no necessity to modify existing paradigms to

explain how EFT and acupuncture work. EFT could be purely cognitive in

nature and the tapping merely an affect. Or the tapping could simply reset

biochemical imbalances in some way. All well within the current framework

of understanding.

On the other hand, remote work in which someone effectively acts on someone

else from a distance DOES require an expansion or change in the existing

Western paradigm and I have had enough experiences of this kind of thing to

point me in that direction. So when I'm hinting around to that some of

the Eastern models may be accurate it is based on these more than a handful

of purely subjective experiences that I have had. Herein lies the

difficulty of communication.

>

> We know that all life emits various forms of energy. Humans, in fact,

> are phosphorescent in our skin at a level too visible for the eye to

> see -- I will link to this article in Issue six of my newsletter --

> and we know that magnetic properties allow for radiation, oxidation

> states, etc, to have a viral-like perpetuation (see, e.g. Mark

> Purdey's theory of BSE).

>

> Rather than invent a term that has no meaning like " etheric, "

Your points are well taken but I would suggest that etheric has meaning and

may be useful in some contexts. It may better explain some of the more

outré phenomena that is reported than other models do.

Ron

September 13, 2005

Deanna-

>If this stuff had anything to do with physics - the work energy theorem,

>change in kinetic energy, entropy, and all that, believe you me it would

>have been explored by now. I mean heck, if we can determine the energy

>of a neutron with a specific mass, over a a specific time interval in eV

>(electron volt, a measure of energy for microscopy), then certainly we

>can deal on a molecular level. I think there is much to the placebo

>effect, and that may be why some of these techniques work. Maybe there

>are other reasons sometimes as well. But if it is *really* energy

>(1/2mv^2), then it is highly detectable.

Well... yes and no. I doubt EFT and other " energy " techniques like

acupuncture have much to do with " energy " , but much of the actual cellular

and intercellular workings of the body -- including its production and

utilization of energy -- are still largely a mystery to us. Recently Chris

questioned the entire idea of pumps and even suggested that ATP might not

play exactly the energy storage role it's believed to play. Dunno whether

he's right, but the point is that there's a lot that's unknown and a lot

that's " known " but wrong, as the entire cholesterol controversy and the

large scale prescription of statins demonstrates.

At any rate, " how does EFT work? " would be a lot harder to answer than

" does it work? " .

-

September 13, 2005

>I just get the sense that you're quick to dismiss things as quackery

>and like to flaunt your knowledge of physics.

>

I think this is getting pretty personal.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

>We know that all life emits various forms of energy.

>

Life emits heat and sometimes sound. I've been known to emit some

methane and pheromones from time to time <g>, so I can go along with

chemical energy as well. What other *various forms of energy* are

emitted?

>Humans, in fact,

>are phosphorescent in our skin at a level too visible for the eye to

>see -- I will link to this article in Issue six of my newsletter --

>and we know that magnetic properties allow for radiation, oxidation

>states, etc, to have a viral-like perpetuation (see, e.g. Mark

>Purdey's theory of BSE).

>

My veterinarian can find ringworm by shining a black light on my cats'

skin. So ringworm has phosphorescence. Is phosphorescence a good

thing, I wonder? Too visible for the eye to see? What does that mean?

If humans are phosphorescent in the skin, I would like to know at what

wavelength or frequency range of the emr spectrum that it is

detectable. Do you have any citation for this idea that humans are

phosphorescent in the skin?

>Rather than invent a term that has no meaning like " etheric, " why not

>try to work within the model of what is observable? It's not like

>science hasn't given us a LOT to think about in terms of " energy. "

>

Yes, there is a lot we do know. The vast majority of medical

instruments are based on physics, not biology. From the microscope,

stethoscope, ultrasound, x-ray, MRI, CAT scan, EKG, ABR and others, we

are able to detect the workings of the bodies through purely physical

science-based devices. Some of these instruments do have an effect on

the organism, however.

What I am saying is if some of these alternative forms of healing want

to use the terms of science, then they should be scrutinized

accordingly. We can observe energy from one end of the scale to the

other. If we can't observe it then we don't know the merit of it.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

Chris

>

>I don't think so.

>

Well, I do. Do I sit and rant on list about you flaunting your

knowledge of biology? There is no need to address the person in this

way. Address the issues, please.

>You were, essentially dismissing it as quackery,

>and the bulk of your post was about how they use physical concepts in

>communication with those who don't know physics. That's a common

>theme that comes up when you dismiss something as quackery-- I mean,

>I'm not implying things beyond what you present on the surface.

>

No I was not. Again " you you you " . This is what I said:

" I think it is used esoterically to laypeople ignorant of physics and

science in general, but ultimately useless in any real space-time

" observable " sense. "

All I am saying is whatever level it is working on, the terms of science

are probably being misused. Whether or not it is quackery is something

else *entirely*. Personally, I feel that many alternative health

modalities are very effective. I feel others are flim flammery. So

what? Please do not put words in my mouth or announce my position on

things. Not only can I state them myself, they have absolutely no

bearing on the content of the post. Next you're going to tell me my

humanistic assumptions make it impossible for me to discuss these things

with any objectivity. Please, leave *me* out of this. Discuss the

issues, not my personal motives. For the record, I have no opinion on

EFT concerning whether it is quackery or not.

>And I suppose " flaunt " might have been a somewhat provocative word,

>but it is true that you tend to show off random bits of knowledge like

>any given formula that aren't germane to the point. I'm not

>suggesting that's necessarily some flaw on your part-- I guess you're

>trying to make the point that there's hardcore knowledge to be had or

>something like that.

>

Show off random bits of knowledge? Perhaps I did not explain myself

adequately, but I assure you I am not " showing off. " Drop the " flaws on

my part " stuff. All I said was if it is energy, then it is detectable.

See my response to your other message in this thread about energy and

phosphorescence.

>But what happened to 98% of my post?

>

I wanted to address the personal nature of your post initially. If you

can refrain from personal comments, then I can discuss the rest of the

*issues* in your post.

Thank you.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

>

>I wasn't addressing your personal motives, but the appearance of your

>public writing. That said I apologize if the statement seemed to

>imply some sort of lack of integrity or appeared to strike at personal

>motivations.

>

Thank you. I apologize for quickly replying off the top of my head to

just before beddibye.

>Fair enough. I guess it didn't seem to me like something offensive

>when I wrote it, but apparently it was so I'll just concede the issue.

>

I'll address you other points soon. I think we all come to the NN table

with our own knowledge base, experience, bias, preferences, etc. That,

imho, is what makes it such a great place.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

,

>

>Well... yes and no. I doubt EFT and other " energy " techniques like

>acupuncture have much to do with " energy " , but much of the actual cellular

>and intercellular workings of the body -- including its production and

>utilization of energy -- are still largely a mystery to us.

>

Okay. There are many things with which we are unaware.

>Recently Chris

>questioned the entire idea of pumps and even suggested that ATP might not

>play exactly the energy storage role it's believed to play. Dunno whether

>he's right, but the point is that there's a lot that's unknown and a lot

>that's " known " but wrong, as the entire cholesterol controversy and the

>large scale prescription of statins demonstrates.

>

Yes, but then we have political and monetary motives highly involved in

the cholesterol controversy. Of course, that may be why I take a dim

view of the pharmaceutical community generally (that and I used to be a

registered pharmacy tech). Profit is fine when it is based on science,

but it is unethical when science is obscured for the sake of it. If I

make an MRI machine that works without causing (no known) harm to the

patient, then great . When I perpetuate a cholesterol myth to gain ever

more patients to take a drug that is not only not needed, but

detrimental to health, then that is not very nice.

With alternative health protocols, it gets a bit fuzzier in terms of

effectiveness and such. Some of them are probably completely useless,

some have some proven merit, some may cause harm.

http://www.srmhp.org/0201/emotional-freedom-technique.html

" The results of the present study indicate that EFT was effective in

decreasing fear in a nonclinical population. However, EFT was no more

effective than either a placebo or modeling control procedure.

Participants who were instructed to tap on various locations of their

arm reported similar reductions in fear as those participants who were

instructed to tap on meridian points. The location of the points did not

play a measurable role. Furthermore, participants who tapped on a doll

also reported similar decreases in fear ratings. Overall, these findings

suggest that certain components of EFT were effective, but not dependent

on meridian points, as EFT supporters contend (Pulos, 1999). It is

possible that systematic desensitization and distraction are mediators

of EFT's apparent effectiveness. "

I have seen similar discussion wrt acupuncture.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006 & articleID=00019055-0198-12D8-BDFD8\

3414B7F0000 & colID=13

" These findings might help explain the results of a study published in

the May 4, 2005, issue of the Journal of the American Medical

Association, in which Klaus Linde and his colleagues at the University

of Technology in Munich compared the experiences of 302 people suffering

from migraines who received either acupuncture, sham acupuncture

(needles inserted at nonacupuncture points) or no acupuncture. During

the study, the patients kept headache diaries. Subjects were " blind " to

which experimental group they were in; the evaluators also did not know

whose diary they were reading. Professional acupuncturists administered

the treatments. The results were dramatic: " The proportion of responders

(reduction in headache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture

group, 53% in the sham acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list

group. " The authors concluded that this effect " may be due to

nonspecific physiological effects of needling, to a powerful placebo

effect, or to a combination of both. "

" In my experience, " needling " (where the acupuncturist taps and twists

the flesh-embedded needle) isn't painful, but it is most definitely

noticeable. If acupuncture has effects beyond placebo, it is through the

physical stimulation and release of the body's natural painkillers.

Finding that sham acupuncture is as effective as " real " acupuncture

demonstrates that the Qi theory is full of holes. The effects of being

poked by needles, however, cannot be ignored. Understanding the

psychology and neurophysiology of acupuncture and pain will lead to a

better theory. And for all such alternative medicine claims,

testimonials can steer us in the direction of where to conduct research;

science is the only tool that can tell us whether they really work or not. "

Deanna

September 14, 2005

>

> " In my experience, " needling " (where the

> acupuncturist taps and twists

> the flesh-embedded needle) isn't painful, but it is

> most definitely

> noticeable. If acupuncture has effects beyond

> placebo, it is through the

> physical stimulation and release of the body's

> natural painkillers.

> Finding that sham acupuncture is as effective as

> " real " acupuncture

> demonstrates that the Qi theory is full of holes.

> The effects of being

> poked by needles, however, cannot be ignored.

> Understanding the

> psychology and neurophysiology of acupuncture and

> pain will lead to a

> better theory. And for all such alternative medicine

> claims,

> testimonials can steer us in the direction of where

> to conduct research;

> science is the only tool that can tell us whether

> they really work or not. "

>

> Deanna

Deanna,

I recently saw a special on TV that was looking into

" cutting " . Some people do (esp. teenagers) this who

have emotional problems. What wasn't understood by

parents, etc. is why would they do something that

appears to be so painful. When the people who cut

were asked about it, they all said it feels good,

makes them feel better. Anyway, a study was done and

what was found was, when these people cut themselves,

endophins were released and I believe serotonin levels

rise. Well, there's the answer. This type of thing

may be what is occuring in accupuncture as well.

jafa

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

September 14, 2005

Sorry to jump right into the middle of someone else's conversation here, but:

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> >We know that all life emits various forms of energy.

> >

> Life emits heat and sometimes sound. I've been known to emit some

> methane and pheromones from time to time <g>, so I can go along with

> chemical energy as well. What other *various forms of energy* are

> emitted?

EM fields, for instance. Others maybe too, but see below for why I

won't bother with that.

> What I am saying is if some of these alternative forms of healing want

> to use the terms of science, then they should be scrutinized

> accordingly. We can observe energy from one end of the scale to the

> other. If we can't observe it then we don't know the merit of it.

Now this is just too much - " use the terms of science? " As if they

were doing the co-opting. Energetic theories/philosophies existed

thousands of years before Maxwell et al. And yes, they were sciences

with observable properties and all of that malarky (e.g.

yoga/sankhya's highly-developed pranic theories).

The scrutiny would best be placed on upstart " sciences " (and its

ideologues) that prides itself in ignoring or forgetting the sum of

acquired human knowledge. As threatening as it may seem, these

people, who expressed deep understanding in terms of myth or

nonrational/nonmechanistic language, were not fools or grunting

primitives. The (unfortunately still) dominant mindset that can deal

only in such highschool physics equations as the ones posted earlier

in this thread will prove, I believe, to be a dying one. And deeply

harmful as well, as we've seen in the last few centuries.

This isn't to say that the science you're talking about can't teach us

anything. But that hyper-Western you-are-not-my-science perspective

is just utterly absurd. Can't we admit to a realm of possibility as

yet unknown or recently forgotten? Are you really going to argue that

it doesn't exist because we don't yet (or any longer) have the correct

terms?

Anyway, I bet this will be quickly dismissed along with any other

response that doesn't enclose itself in the known (safe) terms of the

known (safe) world, but this perspective sometimes gets to be too over

the top not to comment on.

ps, , if you're listening - I loved your discussion on the

thread dealing with Ayurveda (and in general), and I think (what I

perceive to be) its subtext is an important addition to this

discussion. Strange and uncomfortable and " primitive " metaphors can

be as " correct " as those with which we're familiar.

September 14, 2005

On 9/14/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

>

> > ps, , if you're listening - I loved your discussion on the

> > thread dealing with Ayurveda (and in general), and I think (what I

> > perceive to be) its subtext is an important addition to this

> > discussion. Strange and uncomfortable and " primitive " metaphors can

> > be as " correct " as those with which we're familiar.

>

> ,

> Are you single?

> B.

Uh huh. And full of primitive metaphors.

hah,

September 14, 2005

Deanna-

>Yes, there is a lot we do know. The vast majority of medical

>instruments are based on physics, not biology. From the microscope,

>stethoscope, ultrasound, x-ray, MRI, CAT scan, EKG, ABR and others, we

>are able to detect the workings of the bodies through purely physical

>science-based devices. Some of these instruments do have an effect on

>the organism, however.

Most modern machinery exerts physiological effects, though the equipment

industry would disagree, of course. More to the point, the scans you name

all give us a macroscopic view of some aspect of the organism. It's easy

to examine the workings of a single neuron, as has said, and it's

easy to examine the mechanical function of an arm, but there's a lot that

MRIs and whatnot won't tell us.

>What I am saying is if some of these alternative forms of healing want

>to use the terms of science, then they should be scrutinized

>accordingly. We can observe energy from one end of the scale to the

>other. If we can't observe it then we don't know the merit of it.

Isn't that kind of beside the point? I mean, yes, terminology should be

scrutinized, but why not see whether acupuncture or EFT or whatever _works

at all_ before trying to figure out how it works and whether whatever

explanation the discipline itself offers has any real relation to

reality? Acupuncture might be effective for reasons having absolutely

nothing whatsoever to do with " energy meridians " or " pathways of function " ,

but if it works, it works regardless of whether practitioners understand why.

-

September 14, 2005

Deanna-

>Yes, but then we have political and monetary motives highly involved in

>the cholesterol controversy. Of course, that may be why I take a dim

>view of the pharmaceutical community generally (that and I used to be a

>registered pharmacy tech). Profit is fine when it is based on science,

>but it is unethical when science is obscured for the sake of it.

Yes, but money plays a role in more than just the pharmaceutical

market. That's why the AMA has historically tried to squelch competitors

like doctors of osteopathy and chiropractors -- not because MDs are better,

but because they didn't want the competition. This sort of thing is

rampant. It's one of the big reasons we have a sickness (not health care)

industry. Sickness is profitable. And the stuff that makes people sick is

profitable.

-

September 14, 2005

Deanna-

> " In my experience, " needling " (where the acupuncturist taps and twists

>the flesh-embedded needle) isn't painful, but it is most definitely

>noticeable. If acupuncture has effects beyond placebo, it is through the

>physical stimulation and release of the body's natural painkillers.

Maybe, but isn't acupuncture itself supposed to be painless? I've never

tried it myself, so I'm just going by hearsay. And isn't there all sorts

of competing mud and cloudiness on the subject of its effectiveness or lack

thereof? I have heard from many people that a little while after an

acupuncture session, they abruptly crash out and fall asleep. I don't see

why the placebo effect would manifest in such a specific and unusual way,

so it sounds like _something_ might be going on. But again, I have no

opinion on whether it's effective or why it is if it is. It's not

something I've looked into at all.

-

September 14, 2005

Jafa-

>Anyway, a study was done and

>what was found was, when these people cut themselves,

>endophins were released and I believe serotonin levels

>rise. Well, there's the answer. This type of thing

>may be what is occuring in accupuncture as well.

Acupuncture, though, is supposed to be either painless or the next thing to

it, whereas cutters definitely feel pain but kind of get off on it and get

a sense of control over their lives and bodies by being able to cut

themselves, so I'm not sure that this analogy holds water.

-

September 14, 2005

>Obviously it would be inefficient for me to ask you for clarification

>for every single statement regardless of how apparent your meaning

>seems to be. This order of difficulty is DIRECTLY IMPLIED in the

>quoted text above. You assert that it is easier to determine

> " molecular workings " than it is to determine properties of subatomic

>particles, when in fact the phenomena to which you refer are more

>accurately referred to as intermolecular or subcellular.

>

With this logic, cosmology would be the easiest of all to understand.

No I didn't imply ease, and really who cares? I in fact apologized for

being hasty in writing that last night. End of discussion. No

implication of ease either way. This is a big stinky red herring, and I

do not appreciate it.

>No kidding. The only reason biology doesn't make a difference in

>physics is because physics strips physical phenomena of their context.

> If you think for a moment that you can look at the physics of a

>biological system distinct from its biology, that is a joke! Isolated

>physics is theoretical. Physics in a biological system is BIOLOGICAL.

>

Yeah fine, but originally, we were talking about energy. Energy is

measured in Joules, calories, eV or what have you, no matter where they

are measured - in people or in engines. It seems energy and energy

fields are metaphorical and/or esoterically co-opted in some contexts

that have nothing whatsoever the common usage. That is all I meant.

> " Highly " is relative. We know much more than we used to, but to think

>we " highly " understand how thinking relates to brain physiology is

>ridiculous.

>

That is true, highly is relative. I did say _becoming_ understood.

>

>You are the only one claiming simplicity. These entire discussion is

>founded upon your claim that if there was anything related to " energy "

>regarding EFT and such treatments, we would already know of it,

>because it must be easier to detect things at the molecular level than

>that of subatomic particles.

>

No, you miss the boat. I am saying that we can measure energy, be it

chemical, nuclear, mechanical electrical or otherwise. So if there is

energy involved we would probably know. As far as some new energy form,

fine, I can swallow that idea, but I wouldn't bank on it.

>So there is nothing different about magnetizing a paper clip and

>magnetizing brain molecules.

>

I never said that there was not a difference in effect! If magnetism is

acting on a paper clip or a brain, it is still magnetism. I was not

referring to consequences of the application. Going back, if EFT

influences energy, then it is energy.

>This is absurd. Again, inflammatory or

>not, you are insisting on a simplicity that does not exist.

>

No I am not insisting on simplicity for the umpteenth time. Physics is

anything but simplistic. To understand the theories of molecular

bonding, one must look to physics. If you haven't done that, then you

must accept it on faith. Chemistry and biology are complex, sure. But

they operate within the laws of the universe.

> I

>apologize if this leads me to speculate that this is derived for your

>specialty in physics, a discipline that isolates these phenomena as a

>rule, but that seems readily apparent regardless and I'm going to say

>it again, and if I cease to say it for politeness I'm still going to

>think it.

>

You know, I don't think you have adequate experience with physics to

knock it just so. I remember arguing with you over the idea of

statistical mechanics - a quantum version of thermodynamics - which you

would not accept as a bona fide field of study no matter the citations

from college physics texts I offered. This is the classic argument from

ignorance. Mathematics is my real specialty, btw.

>>>We DO know that organisms emit all kinds of " energy " and it *is*

>>>detectable. What effects that might have on arrangments at the

>>>intercellular, cellular, and subcellular levels is something

>>>super-complex that will take a long time to discover.

>>>

>>Well, you mentioned radiant energy recently. That is by definition

>>electromagnetic energy. And yes, we emit infrared, but that is about it

>>as far as radiant energy goes. We sure don't emit light, gamma, x-rays,

>>microwaves, radio and long waves, at least not to my knowledge.

>>

>We emit light.

>

Oh yeah? Do support this claim. Do you glow in the dark? Cuz I

don't. Sorry, we may reflect, but we don't emit visible spectrum waves.

>>Infrared is heat, which I already mentioned. So we have heat, chemical

>>energy and sound. What else?

>>

>A whole world of biological complexity that interacts with these energies?

>

At the end of the day, I can yield that biology is complex with many

factors to consider, many that we haven't an adequate grasp of. But you

said various energy sources are emitted from the human body. You have

yet to support this.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

>Most modern machinery exerts physiological effects, though the equipment

>industry would disagree, of course. More to the point, the scans you name

>all give us a macroscopic view of some aspect of the organism. It's easy

>to examine the workings of a single neuron, as has said, and it's

>easy to examine the mechanical function of an arm, but there's a lot that

>MRIs and whatnot won't tell us.

>

No, actually *I* said the workings of a single neuron were examinable.

Sure, there is much that medical instruments can't tell us. They can

tell your vision pretty well, and without exerting any ill effect also.

I am beginning to really feel bullied on this list.

>Isn't that kind of beside the point? I mean, yes, terminology should be

>scrutinized, but why not see whether acupuncture or EFT or whatever _works

>at all_ before trying to figure out how it works and whether whatever

>explanation the discipline itself offers has any real relation to

>reality? Acupuncture might be effective for reasons having absolutely

>nothing whatsoever to do with " energy meridians " or " pathways of function " ,

>but if it works, it works regardless of whether practitioners understand why.

>

Well, does it work? If so, if there is any information to be gained,

why wait? That is like saying, astrology or Ayurveda works, so why try

and understand why. If Johannes Kepler had said that, then the field of

astronomy might not ever have existed. How very sad.

Adieu,

Deanna

September 14, 2005

>Actually as pointed out I'm quite sure that you are the one

>co-opting the term " energy " for its exclusive use in specific contexts

>whose descriptions and theoretical formulations considerably post-date

>the first use of the time, and given the population difference between

>Eastern and Western countries I certainly doubt that the usage for

>which you are claiming exclusive rights to the word is actually more

> " common " than the Eastern models.

>

Oh puhlease Mr. Bandwagon. Why don't you define energy ... or stop

responding. Is it conserved? Does it have potential and kinetic

components? Where does heat fit in?

>But what I was responding to was your assumption that the " energy "

>must not equate to any " Western " concepts of energy simply because we

>have not yet determined the mechanisms (if they exist) by which EFT,

>acupuncture, and other " energy " models work.

>

Define the concepts. There is no western science and eastern science,

only if you consider psychology a science, then yes, there is a

difference with respect to citta and manna. Demonstrate this supposed

dichotomy in science, Mr. Scientist. $$$ Quack quack quack $$$. FTC.

FDA. You can fool some of the people ...

>> So if there is

>>energy involved we would probably know.

>>

>

>We already know that fingers emit energy.

>

Whoopdifunkingdoo. They ain't emitting light. Ah haaa haaa haaaa!

>I never suggested it, though it's possible. I don't think that's

>necessary, though, to establish some minimal degree of plausibility

>for a mechanism by which EFT or acupuncture could exert real effects

>using some " Western " sense of " energy. "

>

Please do define the difference of Western and Eastern science,

especially in terms of energy. My God, the Indians have nuclear weapons

(such peace loving vegetarians)! Do tell, your knowingness, what

difference their science has from ours. Are their bombs more full of

prana? Should I contact Homeland Security??? <not> <bs> <know the

difference> <quack quack quack>.

>Going back to EFT, we already know that fingers emit EM energy and

>transfer potential energy through kinetic energy, etc. What we don't

>know is the great complexity of intermolecular workings, the knowledge

>of which could establish-- or refute-- a plausible mechanism by which

>these energetic -- in the Western sense -- phenomena could make EFT

> " happen. "

>

Mumbo jumbo. Cite it or smite it Dr Eastern Alternative Pleasure. Why

don't you research it and measure it if it really exists? And why, pray

tell, do you have a website devoted to science if you can't even figure

out what is and what isn't science? $$$

> Absolutely agreed. Chemistry is nothing but applied physics. I think

>it would greatly enhance the learning of chemistry if physics were a

>prerequisite to chemistry; however, I seem to have been the only

>student to whom calculating the vectors of dipole moments sounded like

>an additional layer of fun to add to Gen Chem 2.

>

Well, physics depends on higher math. Both chemistry and biology do

not. So unless you can be doing differential, integral and partial

differential calculus while being science-non-existent, then you'd have

to fill it with something like biology and chem, which, last I checked,

are not dependent on any math 'cept algebra 1 (5 years away from the

lowliest mechanics physics that would be core curriculum for anything of

substance). But wait. This is all western bullshit! Let's smoke a

joint and do sun salutations whilst looking to Eastern Science <whatever

that is>!

>Agreed. Although it is impossible to learn any of the subjects to the

>point where we can avoid taking things on faith-- it's just a matter

>of where we draw the line.

>

Okay, agreed.

>> I remember arguing with you over the idea of

>>statistical mechanics - a quantum version of thermodynamics

>>

>

>I'm glad you now admit it's the domain of thermodynamics....

>

No, thermodynamics is macroscopic. When you spoke of entropy in

microscopy, then it was statistical mechanics. Again, you demonstrate

ignorance with respect to the subject matter. Do you have a physics

book handy, as it would really help?

>Likewise, you absolutely refused to accept the term " thermodynamics, "

>despite the fact that all standard college chemistry textbooks refer

>to statistical mechanics as " thermodynamics. "

>

Thermodynamics is easily understood with calculus in physics on the big

scale. Statistical mechanics is exactly analogous to quantum mechanics,

when you look at classical mechanics on the macroscopy. Get it?

>Since you recall the

>situation, you'll also recall that the debate did NOT arouse from my

>objection to you using the term " statistical mechanics, " but to YOU

>objecting to MY use of the term " thermodynamics, " despite the fact

>that my usage was and is both appropriate and accepted.

>

Okay, I don't remember, so I will acquiesce here.

>What you mean by " not accept, " in the above quoted text is my refusal

>to agree to your lack of acceptance to the standard terminology that I

>was using, NOT my lack of acceptance of your alternative, but also

>appropriate and more precise, usage.

>

No, you brought in BS from the EAST and try and pawn it off as yet

ANOTHER RED HERRING. Define and understand energy mathematically and

otherwise, else *you* drop it.

Deanna

September 14, 2005

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> >Actually as pointed out I'm quite sure that you are the one

> >co-opting the term " energy " for its exclusive use in specific contexts

> >whose descriptions and theoretical formulations considerably post-date

> >the first use of the time, and given the population difference between

> >Eastern and Western countries I certainly doubt that the usage for

> >which you are claiming exclusive rights to the word is actually more

> > " common " than the Eastern models.

> >

> Oh puhlease Mr. Bandwagon. Why don't you define energy ... or stop

> responding. Is it conserved? Does it have potential and kinetic

> components? Where does heat fit in?

Again, you're talking in terms that don't apply. It's a different set

of assumptions and most certainly a different set of goals. There are

so many books... it seems a waste of breath (energy?) to expand, given

the evident mockery below. Shrug.

> >But what I was responding to was your assumption that the " energy "

> >must not equate to any " Western " concepts of energy simply because we

> >have not yet determined the mechanisms (if they exist) by which EFT,

> >acupuncture, and other " energy " models work.

> >

> Define the concepts. There is no western science and eastern science,

> only if you consider psychology a science, then yes, there is a

> difference with respect to citta and manna. Demonstrate this supposed

> dichotomy in science, Mr. Scientist. $$$ Quack quack quack $$$. FTC.

> FDA. You can fool some of the people ...

Hmm. Is it so unbelievable that there could be nontechnological

sciences? Like a science of the spirit? Because it resists

definition in this sense can it not be experiential and actual? I

guess I can't see how quantification can be the determining factor.

Yes, you're just being silly, so I won't waste my self in earnest.

There are peoples, histories, even myths. Oh well. I'm sorry you

feel attacked, but it seems necessary. Some see what you're saying as

dangerously mistaken. I know I do. But it's a genuine criticism

meant with the utmost sincerity, so offense really shouldn't be taken.

> > Absolutely agreed. Chemistry is nothing but applied physics. I think

> >it would greatly enhance the learning of chemistry if physics were a

> >prerequisite to chemistry; however, I seem to have been the only

> >student to whom calculating the vectors of dipole moments sounded like

> >an additional layer of fun to add to Gen Chem 2.

> >

> Well, physics depends on higher math. Both chemistry and biology do

> not. So unless you can be doing differential, integral and partial

> differential calculus while being science-non-existent, then you'd have

> to fill it with something like biology and chem, which, last I checked,

> are not dependent on any math 'cept algebra 1 (5 years away from the

> lowliest mechanics physics that would be core curriculum for anything of

> substance). But wait. This is all western bullshit! Let's smoke a

> joint and do sun salutations whilst looking to Eastern Science <whatever

> that is>!

No, there's no higher math in chemistry, heh. I'd better stop typing

before I get enough wine in me to perform equally well.

I'm off to shove a Gauss meter up my ass and prove you so wrong sister.

F

September 15, 2005

On 9/14/05, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

Sorry to jump right into the middle of someone else's conversation here,

> but:

Hey we all do it!

This isn't to say that the science you're talking about can't teach us

> anything. But that hyper-Western you-are-not-my-science perspective

> is just utterly absurd. Can't we admit to a realm of possibility as

> yet unknown or recently forgotten? Are you really going to argue that

> it doesn't exist because we don't yet (or any longer) have the correct

> terms?

" Forgetting " things (as well as things not yet known) is the norm for

reasons that have nothing to do with the truth. It goes on all the time and

is nicely explained in " western " terms by Kuhn.

Anyway, I bet this will be quickly dismissed along with any other

> response that doesn't enclose itself in the known (safe) terms of the

> known (safe) world, but this perspective sometimes gets to be too over

> the top not to comment on.

Well I for one enjoyed your post.

>

> ps, , if you're listening - I loved your discussion on the

> thread dealing with Ayurveda (and in general), and I think (what I

> perceive to be) its subtext is an important addition to this

> discussion. Strange and uncomfortable and " primitive " metaphors can

> be as " correct " as those with which we're familiar.

Hmmm...Like theosis, but I'm very sure that is NOT what you had in mind,

LOL!

--

Pleasure is a nutrient - Mati Senerchia

September 15, 2005

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Define the concepts. There is no western science and eastern science,

> only if you consider psychology a science, then yes, there is a

> difference with respect to citta and manna. Demonstrate this supposed

> dichotomy in science, Mr. Scientist. $$$ Quack quack quack $$$. FTC.

> FDA. You can fool some of the people ...

I have no idea what some of the above means, but there is definitely a

difference between the " western " mindset and the " eastern " mindset,

and it has an effect on all the disciplines, including science. In

Christian theology the difference is so obvious its not even funny,

but it is obvious elsewhere also as so astutely pointed out.

> Whoopdifunkingdoo. They ain't emitting light. Ah haaa haaa haaaa!

I think I'm going to put this in my sig line.

> Mumbo jumbo. Cite it or smite it Dr Eastern Alternative Pleasure. Why

> don't you research it and measure it if it really exists? And why, pray

> tell, do you have a website devoted to science if you can't even figure

> out what is and what isn't science? $$$

I need to frame this post.