Bechamp or pasteur is an awesome read, I’d recommend checking out “Holographic blood: a new dimension in medicine” by Harvey Bigelsen as well on this topic! Books changed my life completely, I collected so many most interesting finds that owning a Huge library is now a life goal lol
First, let me say that my soulful and brotherly love for you is real.
It is real and meaningful and significant, to me. Though I say rhis subjectively, also, to anyone who trusts me, it can truthfully be considered an objective reality, something that is the case, is true, is existing.
Next, ask these questions with me. What is the cause or source of love? Have we any clue at all, any indication of an origin that can be pointed to or named, be it via the awareness, the thinking, the feeling, or the expression?
Rabbit from a hat?
Note the elements in this simple sentence: "I love you."
Take "I." Does "I" refer to a body? Some collection of grouped protons, atoms, with fields of vibrational or radiative energy?
Do sentences like:
"These protons love those protons."
or
"This energy field loves that energy field."
or
"This frequency of wave pulses loves that frequency of wave pulses."
make any sense whatsoever?
Let's look.
I am not my body. Evidently so. Then what does my body (a collection of grouped protons and energy fields) encounter in order for me to point to my head and
reasonably say that my thoughts are there? Or what does my body encounter when I point to my heart (a collection of grouped protons and energy fields, that happens to serve as a blood flow regulator) and say I have this or that feeling here?
What's "love"? Matter? Energy? I'd say no to matter or energy. What then? Are we talking about a common or shared encounter of relationship? I'd say yes to all three elements: a shared awareness, an encountering (each to the other), and a relationship of two different entities.
In fact I'd say relation comes even before the entities related. That might sound weird to some.
I'd also say that the awareness or consciousness stuff comes before the physical material stuff. I guess that must sound weird to most.
Where did I get such ideas? Mostly from Iain McGilchrist. Blame him. I'm studying, reading and listening to these and related ideas expounded in "The Matter With Things."
If anybody asks why I sit at the handicapped table at the coffee shop I say I read slow.
No worries, OK?
My mom always said if I had half a brain I'd be dangerous. See? No worries.
re The Master And His Emissary, (2009), Ian MacGilchrist
.
First, I offer a criticism of criticism. What is wrong with a book, or what are the limitations of its ideas? The critic will gladly tell you many things.
However, the more that creative imagination is involved while writing about or reading about the ideas of a book, the less the critic will have to say. Ask a highly paid critic how inspired he was by the ideas in a book, and he just might shrug his shoulders. Critics tend to be precise. At what cost? Ay, there's the rub.
Second, I kiss the wound to make it all better. Our right brain, the master, if it's worth its salt, is always willing to consider new input from the heart, gut, left brain, and also the input of other brains.
That master is like a great poet, who just happened to flunk every spelling test. The emissary is like the poet's typist, always very precise and exacting in the execusion of his tasks.
Emissaries sometimes think they know all there is to know about "beauty" simply because they can consistently spell "beauty" correctly, and can use it in a sentence correctly.
While left brains might consider humanity as 8 billion or so, right brains might consider all humanity as actually one.
If you want to consider much larger implications of the McGilchrist brain hemisphere hypothesis, try his next little pamphlet (two volumes, 1579 pages): "The Matter With Things" (2021).
Though part of my brain can be small-minded, I believe I was in my right mind as I attended to what I meant to tell you in this comment.
For a taste of "larger implications," see the "McGilchrist Wager." See "Pascal's Wager" first, if that idea is new to you.
In order to consolidate my bibliographic list of 2000+ printouts, magazines, science journals, pdf's, and books that I have studied and kept, I'd like to give you a link to a pivital author who gently pried me from my addiction to institutional authority.
With John's help, I have studied and carefully examined new ideas and gradually learned how and why to question traditional authorities, especially those related to schooling.
Here is
"The Ultimate History Lesson" a 5-hour interview by Richard Grove, author of Podomatic's "Peace Revolution" series and "Grand Theft World" website & podcasts.
Bechamp or pasteur is an awesome read, I’d recommend checking out “Holographic blood: a new dimension in medicine” by Harvey Bigelsen as well on this topic! Books changed my life completely, I collected so many most interesting finds that owning a Huge library is now a life goal lol
That book is new to me! Noted.
.
Tom.
Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom.
re body as "fundamentally electromagnetic"
(?????) (OMG)
First, let me say that my soulful and brotherly love for you is real.
It is real and meaningful and significant, to me. Though I say rhis subjectively, also, to anyone who trusts me, it can truthfully be considered an objective reality, something that is the case, is true, is existing.
Next, ask these questions with me. What is the cause or source of love? Have we any clue at all, any indication of an origin that can be pointed to or named, be it via the awareness, the thinking, the feeling, or the expression?
Rabbit from a hat?
Note the elements in this simple sentence: "I love you."
Take "I." Does "I" refer to a body? Some collection of grouped protons, atoms, with fields of vibrational or radiative energy?
Do sentences like:
"These protons love those protons."
or
"This energy field loves that energy field."
or
"This frequency of wave pulses loves that frequency of wave pulses."
make any sense whatsoever?
Let's look.
I am not my body. Evidently so. Then what does my body (a collection of grouped protons and energy fields) encounter in order for me to point to my head and
reasonably say that my thoughts are there? Or what does my body encounter when I point to my heart (a collection of grouped protons and energy fields, that happens to serve as a blood flow regulator) and say I have this or that feeling here?
What's "love"? Matter? Energy? I'd say no to matter or energy. What then? Are we talking about a common or shared encounter of relationship? I'd say yes to all three elements: a shared awareness, an encountering (each to the other), and a relationship of two different entities.
In fact I'd say relation comes even before the entities related. That might sound weird to some.
I'd also say that the awareness or consciousness stuff comes before the physical material stuff. I guess that must sound weird to most.
Where did I get such ideas? Mostly from Iain McGilchrist. Blame him. I'm studying, reading and listening to these and related ideas expounded in "The Matter With Things."
If anybody asks why I sit at the handicapped table at the coffee shop I say I read slow.
No worries, OK?
My mom always said if I had half a brain I'd be dangerous. See? No worries.
mark spark
[ :-)
.
.
re The Master And His Emissary, (2009), Ian MacGilchrist
.
First, I offer a criticism of criticism. What is wrong with a book, or what are the limitations of its ideas? The critic will gladly tell you many things.
However, the more that creative imagination is involved while writing about or reading about the ideas of a book, the less the critic will have to say. Ask a highly paid critic how inspired he was by the ideas in a book, and he just might shrug his shoulders. Critics tend to be precise. At what cost? Ay, there's the rub.
Second, I kiss the wound to make it all better. Our right brain, the master, if it's worth its salt, is always willing to consider new input from the heart, gut, left brain, and also the input of other brains.
That master is like a great poet, who just happened to flunk every spelling test. The emissary is like the poet's typist, always very precise and exacting in the execusion of his tasks.
Emissaries sometimes think they know all there is to know about "beauty" simply because they can consistently spell "beauty" correctly, and can use it in a sentence correctly.
While left brains might consider humanity as 8 billion or so, right brains might consider all humanity as actually one.
If you want to consider much larger implications of the McGilchrist brain hemisphere hypothesis, try his next little pamphlet (two volumes, 1579 pages): "The Matter With Things" (2021).
Though part of my brain can be small-minded, I believe I was in my right mind as I attended to what I meant to tell you in this comment.
For a taste of "larger implications," see the "McGilchrist Wager." See "Pascal's Wager" first, if that idea is new to you.
https://youtu.be/L1Lx35Dn5UM?si=blLlRuuk18Wemg0O
.
.
In order to consolidate my bibliographic list of 2000+ printouts, magazines, science journals, pdf's, and books that I have studied and kept, I'd like to give you a link to a pivital author who gently pried me from my addiction to institutional authority.
With John's help, I have studied and carefully examined new ideas and gradually learned how and why to question traditional authorities, especially those related to schooling.
Here is
"The Ultimate History Lesson" a 5-hour interview by Richard Grove, author of Podomatic's "Peace Revolution" series and "Grand Theft World" website & podcasts.
https://youtu.be/IZBdv2yznmI?si=nPnl52rMzTSBY97D
.
.
See
John Taylor Gatto,
especially
"The Underground History of American Education" (2000)
"A Different Kind of Teacher" (2000)
See list:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/41319.John_Taylor_Gatto