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

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Additionally, money is not the only, and probably not the primary,

>motive that obfuscates science. What pharmaceutical ties did Ancel

>Keys have?

I have no idea. I haven't looked into his bio. Perhaps he had ties to the

vegetable oil industry, though, which I understand was extremely active in

the defamation of animal fats. Money certainly isn't the only factor

distorting science, but I don't believe it's possible to make a legitimate

case that it's not the primary one. Religion, for example, is a powerful

factor, but religious fundamentalists wouldn't have the power they do today

if they weren't allied with big money. I haven't yet read it myself, and I

might not because it's liable to be extremely depressing, but I'm told that

_The Republican War on Science_ offers some really outstanding reporting on

the subject. (And no, I'm not saying that the Democratic party is up for

sainthood in this domain. Far from it. But its obfuscations are

junior-league compared to the modern GOP.)

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>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.

This strikes me as a strange sort of PC, multi-culti argument to make. The

fact is that the English word 'energy' has very defined meanings,

particularly in the scientific domain. I don't see why it's supposed to be

legitimate to translate foreign words with entirely different meanings to

'energy' and then announce that the _translations of different and

essentially unrelated foreign words_ should have precedence over the

English meanings. It would be much better to talk of 'chi' and whatnot and

look into whether there's actually anything to the idea of flowing or

blocked chi and so on and so forth.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

If it's not a science, why call it a science? Why not call it philosophy

or religion or whatever's more appropriate? Science applies to the

material world and requires the scientific method. Without the scientific

method, there is no science.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Actually I'm sort of the opinion that human nature is the primary

>obstacle to science.

Inasmuch as all human behaviour is determined by human nature interacting

with the environment, isn't that sort of tautological? I think it's more

useful to consider which elements of human nature are involved -- only

specific understandings will enable us to combat the forces which oppose

and distort science.

> I think that pyschological obstacles to the

>scientific method need to be vigilantly combatted against in a

>scientist, usually with at least some degree of failure.

Sure, but combatting them in a scientist is only one problem among many.

>I'm sure Keys' theories were boosted to prominence in part by the

>financial interests who found them useful, but I've not seen any

>indication (in the little looking I've done) that Keys had direct ties

>to them, nor do I see that as necessary for an explanation.

It's not necessary that Keys had financial ties to the vegetable oil

industry or any other industry, it's only possible. Perhaps he simply saw

his lies as a route to power. After all, self-interest is a very powerful

element of human nature, and people will lie, even to themselves, in the

pursuit of money and power.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>So the Greek word " energhia " post-dates modern physics? I seriously doubt

>it.

What's that got to do with anything???

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>

>> 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>.

>

>Cockadoodledoo. *chirp chirp* <snort>

Are either of you free range? Cuz I'm getting mighty hungry from laughing so

hard at this exchange.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >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.

>

> If it's not a science, why call it a science? Why not call it philosophy

> or religion or whatever's more appropriate? Science applies to the

> material world and requires the scientific method. Without the scientific

> method, there is no science.

Well, because it's often neither religion nor philosophy. As much as

I despise this, since we're basically disputing terms, here's what the

first dictionary I found says about science:

a) The observation, identification, description, experimental

investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

...etc

Yoga (i.e. the actual spiritual " science, " not the power yogas and

other such workout programs pumped out of our desperate new age) would

be a good example I think, and it's really the only one with which I'm

familiar enough to make an argument. It's intimately concerned with

observation, identification, description and experimental

investigation. It certainly doesn't ask for faith - belief should

only come through direct experience. Its " theoretical explanation "

will stick in many craws by virtue of the fact that it resists a

reduced material explanation. But as Jung explained with psychology,

it enters realms where the terms of science aren't enough.

So a discipline like Yoga has by necessity to abandon the strictly

rational, repeatable experiment and draw from the remaining (large)

fraction of human sentient experience. The human questions of primary

importance require this fraction if there are to be answers.

This is a seriously loaded set of terms, I know. My point in the end

was really just that high science existed well before the strictly

material metaphor (and it really is a metaphor - as much as anyone

might like to insist on " truth " ). I'd cite books like Hamlet's Mill

(on astronomy and myth) or work by zillions of mythologists like

Heinrich Zimmer as important examples of this. The language was often

esoteric (they were no democrats - some truths are too great) but

nonetheless intricate knowledge of actual things was being expressed.

Last night I recalled electricity and magnetism. Polarized fields and

opposite charges, so familiar and real. Ancient concepts -

polarization, opposite faces of the divine, light and dark, over and

under (water). The strictly " scientific, " this model, can never

divorce itself from the humanity from which it sprang. A humanity

possessed of the will toward the uncertain, a negative capability

(term stolen from Keats) that does push us toward.

So maybe the point is not just that science mostly existed before.

Maybe it's the extent to which they refused its pursuit that's

important. That the real questions would never be subject to it.

Leptons do not a Self discover. Or something.

Anyway, I know I skirt both sides of the fence, so please don't read

this as an exposition on the merits of cave dwelling. I'm a computer

engineer with a minor in quantum electronics, for god's sake.

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >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.

>

> This strikes me as a strange sort of PC, multi-culti argument to make. The

> fact is that the English word 'energy' has very defined meanings,

> particularly in the scientific domain. I don't see why it's supposed to be

> legitimate to translate foreign words with entirely different meanings to

> 'energy' and then announce that the _translations of different and

> essentially unrelated foreign words_ should have precedence over the

> English meanings. It would be much better to talk of 'chi' and whatnot and

> look into whether there's actually anything to the idea of flowing or

> blocked chi and so on and so forth.

Sure - I never intended to argue precedence over the scientific

concept or any of the obvious PC chicanery. But to say that science's

energy is somehow primary and that other uses have " co-opted " it

bespeaks serious ignorance of history. The concept is ancient. It

seemed important to be clear about that.

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> in case that doesn't work OUT, LOL

haha! thanks - there's nothing better than waking up to gut-splitting laughter.

eric (worked it)

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

<quack quack quack>.

>> >

>> >Cockadoodledoo. *chirp chirp* <snort>

>>

>> Are either of you free range? Cuz I'm getting mighty hungry from laughing

>> so

>> hard at this exchange.

>

>I've had it with your sarcasm. Eat me.

LOL. It's a good thing isn't the jealous type because this is a

provocative double entendre. <g>

Having said that, how do you prefer to be prepared? Grilled? Poached?

Marinated in lemon juice and put in a Ceviche salad? Fried? Or would fried

create acrylamides? If I make brain soup, will I become smart like

you?

<actually beginning to salivate...sshhhh...don't tell anyone>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

<snip>

> http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html

> Alternative Medicine and the Laws of Physics

> So-called " alternative " therapies, mostly derived from ancient healing

> traditions and superstitions, have a strong appeal for people who feel

> left behind by the explosive growth of scientific knowledge.

> Paradoxically, however, their nostalgia for a time when things seemed

> simpler and more natural is mixed with respect for the power of modern

> science (Toumey 1996). They want to believe that " natural " healing

> practices can be explained by science. Purveyors of alternative

> medicine have, therefore, been quick to invoke the language and symbols

> of science. Not surprisingly, the mechanisms proposed to account for

> the alleged efficacy of such methods as touch therapy, psychic healing,

> and homeopathy involve serious misrepresentations of modern physics.

Come on, of course there are major woo-woo quacks out there. I'll

never defend the " New Age " (an hilarious, apt term) flimflammery with

which we're all familiar. *Before* all of that, and before your

version of science as well, there were disciplines that were certainly

not shams. Hold them up to the blinding light of your squinched

" skeptics " or not - as said of herself, I have nothing to

prove. But such ready dismissal could only come from ignorance of the

abundant evidence that these practices were (and still often are) real

and important and life-giving.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > > I think that pyschological obstacles to the

> > >scientific method need to be vigilantly combatted against in a

> > >scientist, usually with at least some degree of failure.

> >

> > Sure, but combatting them in a scientist is only one problem among many.

>

>I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean that psychological obstacles inside scientists aren't the only

problems impeding scientific progress. Psychological obstacles in the lay

public can impede progress, greed on the part of people willing to distort

science can impede progress, etc. etc. etc.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Well, because it's often neither religion nor philosophy. As much as

>I despise this, since we're basically disputing terms, here's what the

>first dictionary I found says about science:

>

>a) The observation, identification, description, experimental

>investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

> Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

>..etc

That's a very loose definition. A much better one can be found in the

Columbia Encyclopedia.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/sc/science.html

It begins:

>>For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge

>>concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper

>>definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through

>>which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a

>>particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity. 1

>>

>>The Scientific Method

>>The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to

>>be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of

>>steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of

>>the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a

>>preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by

>>inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a

>>number of implications that may be tested by further observations and

>>experiments (see induction; deduction). If the conclusions drawn from the

>>original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis

>>becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are

>>in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in

>>favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even

>>an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory

>>evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown

>>after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid

>>only for speeds much less than that of light. 2

>>

>>Role of Measurement and Experiment

>>All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a

>>scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality. Measurement

>>plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test

>>his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will

>>yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment

>>work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that

>>in turn suggest further experiments. Although these methods and attitudes

>>are generally shared by scientists, they do not provide a guaranteed

>>means of scientific discovery; other factors, such as intuition,

>>experience, good judgment, and sometimes luck, also contribute to new

>>developments in science.

We can speak loosely or metaphorically, as in " the sweet science of

pugilism " or " he's got poker down to a science " , or we can speak

rigorously, as above.

>Its [yoga's] " theoretical explanation "

>will stick in many craws by virtue of the fact that it resists a

>reduced material explanation. But as Jung explained with psychology,

>it enters realms where the terms of science aren't enough.

I know next to nothing about yoga, but if it doesn't make testable

predictions, it's not a science.

I am also dismayed by the way so many people feel that scientific

explanations of reality somehow " aren't enough " . You imply that when you

talk of a reduced material explanation. The actual physical universe is

much more enormous, majestic, complex, and awe-inspiring than any of the

mythologies we've created -- even when they incorporate useful, functional

components.

>So a discipline like Yoga has by necessity to abandon the strictly

>rational, repeatable experiment and draw from the remaining (large)

>fraction of human sentient experience. The human questions of primary

>importance require this fraction if there are to be answers.

IOW your worldview holds that there's a separate spiritual reality which is

not amenable to scientific investigation, and that this is where a large

fraction of human sentient experience transpires? Why?

>The language was often

>esoteric (they were no democrats - some truths are too great)

I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder whether profitable discussion is

possible between us when our philosophical orientations seem to be so

radically different.

>Last night I recalled electricity and magnetism. Polarized fields and

>opposite charges, so familiar and real. Ancient concepts -

>polarization, opposite faces of the divine, light and dark, over and

>under (water). The strictly " scientific, " this model, can never

>divorce itself from the humanity from which it sprang. A humanity

>possessed of the will toward the uncertain, a negative capability

>(term stolen from Keats) that does push us toward.

Huh?

>So maybe the point is not just that science mostly existed before.

>Maybe it's the extent to which they refused its pursuit that's

>important. That the real questions would never be subject to it.

>Leptons do not a Self discover. Or something.

The charitable way for me to put this would be that you're losing me here.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>do people *drink* and *post*?

I can't seem to get the breathalyzer HTML tags to work in most people's

email clients...

-

[Guest guest]

This is really inappropriate if meant seriously, and as there is literally

no context available to support any other kind of interpretation, I want to

make it clear that it's unacceptable.

> > I'm amazed that after a night of PUI and the chance to recover you

> > would still continue in the same vein, making the most outrageous

> > accusations of ignorance (which I suppose are a step better than

> > ulterior motives!), apparently because you are annoyed at me for

> > correctly pointing out your ignorance of advanced molecular and

> > cellular biology-- as if that's something to be embarassed about!

>

>Libel

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

That's exactly what I was referring to, but I took Deanna's objection to

mean that she'd brought up the workings of a neuron earlier and I'd just

missed it.

>[PAUL]

> >> 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.

>

>[DEANNA]

> >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.

>

>(Then apologized for the misattribution.)

>

>Actually, I think, , you may have been referring to this, in which

>I was the first to bring up a neuron, and was referring to the

>relative ease with which we can examine it compared to the

>interneuronal formations of thoughts and memories:

>

> >In fact, just look at how much more difficult it is to understand how

> >thought processing in brain tissue works compared to how difficult it

> >is to look at the activities of a single neuron. We have a

> >half-decent grasp of the latter, but we don't even come close to

> >understanding how multiple cells interact together to form a thought,

> >and store it in memory.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I originally said that the use of the term " energy " considerably

>predates modern physics; thus, modern physics cannot claim exclusive

>rights to the term, so long as those using it are clear what they mean

>and not conflating the terms.

>

>You, then, pointed out that the Eastern models of Chi do not use a

>word from which the English word is derived and have different

>meanings; therefore, we should not use the English word to describe

>them.

>

>My above statement is meant to point out that the English word has a

>direct etiological and definitional lineage to pre-modern-physics

>words like the Greek " energhia. "

OK, but did the Greeks use the word in any spiritual way, or was it the

direct ancestor of our modern understanding?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > This is really inappropriate if meant seriously, and as there is literally

> > no context available to support any other kind of interpretation, I want to

> > make it clear that it's unacceptable.

>

>I assume that you're referring to *my* comments, right? (The

>substantial portion of the content where most of the words are.)

No, I'm sorry if I gave that impression (though I thought it would be clear

since I included the reply, " Libel " ) but I mean that it's absolutely

unacceptable to accuse you of libel. I didn't address yoganidd by name

because I don't know what his or her name is. (I seem to recall the author

is a woman, but heck if I can remember her name, and I could be completely

wrong about that anyway.)

>The only thing left is my reference to " PUI " which was, although

>someone tongue-in-cheek, being an acronym for " posting under the

>influence, " doesn't seem to me any worse than suggestions that I'm

>posting here for the money (???), especially when the post to which

>I'm referring is filled with farm animal noises of rather random

>origin.

Eh. Really not an issue. I haven't caught up with Deanna's messages yet

(I'm very behind and I was out all day today in court -- oh joy) but if

she's accusing you of posting her for monetary gain, that's both silly,

since you've been active on this list for years, and uncool, since there's

no legitimate basis in fact for the accusation. I gather she's kind of

steamed and I don't really want to make a big deal out of what seems like a

minor dust-up, but that's my position on the matter, FWIW.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I may not have enough time in the next few days (going hunting! to

get a good response in, but I want to send a quick reply to one

section where I wasn't clear enough:

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >The language was often

> >esoteric (they were no democrats - some truths are too great)

>

> I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder whether profitable discussion is

> possible between us when our philosophical orientations seem to be so

> radically different.

I think this may have sounded like I was attributing a belief in the

need for esotericism to myself. I didn't mean that. It should be

something like " they were no democrats - they believed some truths to

be too great. "

Maybe that bridges the gulf a bit.

On rereading my post, I see that a lot of my language is getting in

the way, and there are a lot of phrases that'd have to be heavily

qualified to be anywhere close to explicit. Sorry 'bout that.

Anyway, until later,

[Guest guest]

-

>I think this may have sounded like I was attributing a belief in the

>need for esotericism to myself. I didn't mean that. It should be

>something like " they were no democrats - they believed some truths to

>be too great. "

>

>Maybe that bridges the gulf a bit.

I have no idea why you brought up the issue of democrats in the first

place, but if you mean that you believe that some truths are too great to

allow for democracy, then there's an unbridgeable gulf between us. If you

mean something else, please correct my misinterpretation.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

I didn't address yoganidd by name

> because I don't know what his or her name is. (I seem to recall the author

> is a woman, but heck if I can remember her name, and I could be completely

> wrong about that anyway.)

Its Deanna.

--

Pleasure is a nutrient - Mati Senerchia

[Guest guest]

-

OK, now I feel like a total fool, because I should've remembered

that. I'll use the stressful day excuse. <g> I like Deanna quite well,

but that doesn't change the fact that accusing of libel is totally

unacceptable.

> I didn't address yoganidd by name

> > because I don't know what his or her name is. (I seem to recall the author

> > is a woman, but heck if I can remember her name, and I could be completely

> > wrong about that anyway.)

>

>Its Deanna.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >I think this may have sounded like I was attributing a belief in the

> >need for esotericism to myself. I didn't mean that. It should be

> >something like " they were no democrats - they believed some truths to

> >be too great. "

> >

> >Maybe that bridges the gulf a bit.

>

> I have no idea why you brought up the issue of democrats in the first

> place, but if you mean that you believe that some truths are too great to

> allow for democracy, then there's an unbridgeable gulf between us. If you

> mean something else, please correct my misinterpretation.

I mean that *they* were no believers in democracy in this sense - that

the ideas were viewed as too important/dangerous/etc to be given to

just anyone. So I was trying to use that as an explanation for why

they'd be hidden in esoteric language.

I could imagine an idea/truth/whatever so utterly shattering that it

would be dangerous for the unprepared. Or that one possessed of it

could be dangerous. But that flight of fancy is a far cry from

seeking to restrict talk or exchange of ideas. I'm certainly not

looking to restrict anyone.

[Guest guest]

,

I have had several acupuncture tx in the past and did

find them to be painful. Not severe pain, but pain

none the less.

I've read many accounts of what cutters feel. Most

(not all) say that it's a good (pain) feeling (not the

type of pain you may be thinking of esp. after doing

it repeated times. Maybe similar to the good pain

feeling of a rolfing session! Hurts soooo goood.

Something like that!

jafa

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> 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.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

-

>

> OK, now I feel like a total fool, because I should've remembered

> that. I'll use the stressful day excuse. <g> I like Deanna quite well,

> but that doesn't change the fact that accusing of libel is totally

> unacceptable.

Well she does switch back and forth between mailboxes, so it would be easy

to forget, especially since I don't think she has used yoganidd in awhile

(although I could be mistaken).

The libel charge is silly and inappropriate. She charged me once on

NT_POLITICS (I think for the same reason) with the same thing (and worse,

LOL!) And other terms come to mind like stalker which wasn't directed at me

fortunately.

And no Deanna, if you are reading this, I'm not resurrecting the past, only

noting that you threw out some choice goodies at and yet seem to be

unable to take as good as you give. And you give STRONGLY at times but seem

to flinch when someone even looks hard in your direction.

Of course it doesn't much matter to me, since my philosophy of discussion

when people come at me strong is " no quarter asked for, no quarter given "

and if don't have time to engage I will either say so or just drop it. But

it does make it hard when that same person seems to hit with a sledgehammer

but then complains when you throw a whiffle ball back at them.

--

Pleasure is a nutrient - Mati Senerchia