Re: Etheric Body and Energy (was Candida diet)

[Guest guest]

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

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

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

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. "

I would like to emphasize that this has NOTHING to do with my original

point in this thread, and is a side-point that I got caught up into

defending a statement that made.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> 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.

Just as a quick passing point, the conventional understanding of the

role of ATP in the cell is largely based not on its role so much as a

storage of energy, but as an inducer of conformational changes. That

necessarily involves energy, but to think of ATP just as a storage

unit of energy like a gas tank is for a car is totally, totally wrong,

by the conventional view.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.)

Actually I was totally serious, because I was referring to a post in

which I was, for the second time, accused of posting on

for monetary gain (the " ulterior motives " to which I

refer). Where I refer to " accusations of ignorance, " I'm referring to

a plethora of accusations directed at me that I speak from my own

ignorance.

I would like to know what specifically you find unacceptable, because,

while I agree that it isn't the kind of post we'd like to see

encouraged on the list, I honestly have trouble figuring out what

specifically in it is somehow different than what I was responding to.

My mention of ignorance on her part was in response to about 2 dozen

accusations laid in the opposite direction, and my whole point in the

paragraph was to say that the only thing I ever suggested she had a

lack of knowledge in was an advanced area that no one would be

expected to have knowledge in and which we both know from having

shared our academic backgrounds that she does not have (which, by the

way paralleled my own disclosure of the areas in which she had a

background that I did not, in the post to which I was referring.) So

this can't possibly be what you object to, if you did not object to

the 2 dozen times the accusation of ignorance was laid against me.

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.

So please clarify.

Thanks,

Chris

> > > 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

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

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

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

> direct ancestor of our modern understanding?

Oh, they *definitely* used it in a spiritual way-- see, for example,

the Palamite theology of the, I think, 15th century, wherein the

" energies " of God's nature are discussed.

However, I don't think the Greeks at this time would AT ALL have seen

any sort of distinction whatsoever between a " spiritual " and a

" scientific " sense of the word.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> 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,

I thought cutters used Ambesol. Maybe I watch too many movies.

B.

[Guest guest]

--- In , Furbish <efurbish@g...>

wrote:

> >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.

[]

In the end I don't feel it necessary to labor the argument about

whether X or Y is a science or not. Who cares, really. The question

ends up being whether the rational is adequate to some of the

(arguably) most important tasks.

Yoga is a philosophy, a discipline for knowing the self. It was

organized into a science by a pioneer named Patanjali.

Here's the deal: every pose has a specific benefit, which creates a

biochemical change in the body.

B.