|
Hi Keith,
You do understand the laws of love; it is apparent
in the good work
that you have described that you do, and your humane views on
world affairs
and local issues which you extend to others. That's not
brain--that's Keith.
"What you do attests to what you
believe."
Regards,
Natalia
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:37
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
Hi Natalia,
I hope you won't mind if I
answer your post fairly briefly.
The big problem is that you make
assumptions as to the existence of entities like "mind", "soul", "soul
energy", "love energy" , "laws of love" and so on. I am afraid that these are
concepts which simply don't mean anything to me. I'm simply unable to write
anything at all if I have to use these terms. So we're really just talking
past each other's heads.
This is not to say that I am one of those
hard-nosed positivists who can only believe in what can be directly perceived.
Most of the universe (96%) is totally invisible to us and, so far, is of
totally unknown character. For example, there's "something" that is "glueing"
the space between stars so that the whole galaxy spins like a cartwheel and
not like a Catherine Wheel (that is with the innermost stars spinning faster
than the outermost stars). It may turn out to be ordinary matter which has
been difficult to see hitherto, but it might always remain invisible. However,
it has a gravitational effect and we are thus able to infer its existence. So
I believe in this "something" -- whatever it is. I also believe in some other
things which are totally unperceivable but which can be inferred from their
effects.
However, as to your comments about the pharmaceutical industry
I largely agree with you. I happen to believe that it is one that is
particularly prone to corruption and bad practice of all sorts. As a chemist,
I am deeply suspicious of most of their advertising. I'm sure that a huge
amount of mis-prescribing and over-prescribing goes on to the benefit of
doctors and the industry. The only answer to this is a gvoernmental policy of
requiring increasing transparency of information from any business or
profession, pharmaceutical or otherwise, which supplies products and services
to the public. But such is the relationship between some lobby groups and some
politicians that such transparency is very slow to become the norm. However,
due to increasingly educated voluntary pressure groups, I think we are
gradually getting there.
Best wishes,
Keith
At
15:12 09/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
When I said, leave it to the
scientific mind to ask & then try to prove the obvious,
I simply meant that I'm amazed that the
scientific mind demands proof of existence
of what is obvious, and will waste valuable
time pursuing what cannot be realized in
terms of a physical or objective validation. Scientists are primarily
focusing on finding
the mind
within the brain, and I'm saying that it is mind that controls brain, so the
work would have to somehow
overcome the limitations of linear thought, which the
foundation of science does not allow for. You
cannot measure or seek out an energy
whose force is eternal. It requires no physical confirmation from
science; it simply is.
Further to that part, I'm saying that mind is behind
creativity. Brain is the machine
which carries out the needs of actual physical operations and
physical communication.
Music,
art, design, literature, dance, laughter, love and compassion are not
measurable
and your capacity for
these will never be found in a physical mechanism. Your brain is
incapable of becoming one with
creativity, as was suggested by Ray in talking about art
and the artist becoming indistinguishable
once involved in a piece.
The soul is what is alive, the brain is but a puppet. You just
have to look at the face of
a
loved one who has just died to know that that's just not who you knew.
I knew a kitten
called Stuey, who stayed at the side of his ailing dog companion day
and
night, until the moment his
buddy died. He got up and left the dog's side at once, recognizing,
it seemed that what was his
companion was no longer there. He never returned to the body.
I'm not certain whether the kitten was raised
in a religious household, or whether or not his
"genes" had the programming or capacity for
sensing soul energy.
Love energy
is that which is the sole force of what is real. What is real is eternal.
Nothing
exists that can overcome
its extensions. Love is the only force that creates, and is at
peace
forever in this knowledge.
Love is the condition for true creativity. Power-over is not
genuine
power, and its
self-serving directions always stray into the avenues of destruction--of
self-esteem,
society, or
environment. Arriving at the "end game" of the industrial era, we can see
the price.
The mind that has
been taught badly can mis-create, but miscreations do not last, their
basis
being founded on illusions
of fear. Fear and its derivatives appear to be real, but are always
overcome by love, just as peace
is the only answer to war. Peace is recognized as truth once
it is experienced. Mind weighs love against
fear throughout our physical existence, but only
experiences a fruitful life by the laws of
love. Again, love cannot be measured; your capacity
is eternal.
I realize that what I'm saying is not being expressed in
scientific language and that it is
in opposition to it. Science's inability to consider what they cannot
see or measure accounts for
its
inability to make requisite progress. It has to open up to evolve.
Unfortunately, where money
is
involved, creativity is stifled by the need to produce publishable
work--which depends on
supportable data that other scientists deem to be traditionally
acceptable. This does not mean
that science is generating an accurate representation of all data,
and I will use the pharmaceutical
industry as a relevant example.
In an interview about her controversial book,
"The Medical Mafia:
How to Get out of it Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth"
Guylaine Lanctot, M.D., discusses her
experiences with the medical system.
"The bottom line is
that the medical systems are controlled by financiers in order to serve
financiers.
Since you cannot serve people unless they get sick, the whole medical
system
is designed to
make people sicker and sicker."
" "Social marketing"
or "social engineering" is a science that gets people to buy ideas
that
make no sense,
whose goal is the submission of conscious, to put consciousness to
sleep
in order to
influence. Medical social marketing is designed to sell sickness to people
in-
stead of
health!"
Dr.
Lanctot cites one of countless examples of gross misconduct around the polio
vaccine and
its contamination
with VS-40. Since 1960, authorities have known that polio vaccine is
contaminated with VS-40, which,
amongst other things, can cause brain tumours. The culture
of the vaccine is grown on monkey kidneys,
and those monkeys are (were) contaminated with
VS-40. A 1989 publication by Edward Shorter
called, "The Health Century", remarkably no longer
in print, proved the repressed information
and that authorities knew it. Scientists were told by
researchers not to use those contaminated
monkeys, but they did it anyhow, in 1960. Dr. Lanctot
has been banned for life from practicing
medicine because she dared to speak out in direct conflict
with what mainstream medicine recognizes. Her
excellent work prior to publication earned her a
wide following, and she is at least content
that she managed to expose the system despite media
opposition.
Joel Lexchin, M.D., wrote a
book called "The Real Pushers", about the incestuous relationship
between the pharmaceutical
industry and the medical system. As Jim Harding,
School of Human Justice, University of Regina
writes:
"Perhaps the
book's most challenging conclusion is that it is the expansion of the
pharma-
ceutical
market by the multinational corporations, and not the advancement of
pharma-
cological research per se, which explains the escalating number of
prescription (and over-
the-counter drugs) to which the public is exposed. As in other commercial
sectors, brand
name
marketing--not fundamental innovations--is the core strategy behind the
drive
toward
power and profits in the pharmaceutical industry. ... ...the World Health
Organization
has
stated, "In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the number
of pharma- ceutical
products marketed; however there has not been a proportionate improvement in
health."
...As more
people face the disruption of unemployment, pollution, poverty and cutbacks,
it will
become even
more vital to be critical of the medicalization of social problems and its
role in
social
control."
Lexchin states that in an effort to expand the use of drugs, the industry
has even tried to create
new
diseases that require drug treatment, termed "medicalization", in the
examples of Valium and
Ritalin.
Drug advertising encourages doctors to view social or family problems like
loneliness or de-
pression due to
unemployment as medical concerns, and anti-depressants are the answer. It's
the
easiest solution in the ten
minutes they spend with a patient.
He cites that a 1977 report
by W.H.O. found that only about 230 of the many thousands of drugs
marketed at the time were really
indispensable for health care. In the U.S. the F.D.A. set up
scientific panels from NAS & NRC to
evaluate claims for all drugs introduced prior to 1962. Of 16,000
products' therapeutic claims,
from both large and small companies, 66% of the claims could not be
scientifically substantiated.
Today, the
market is off the charts, and still festering. They can't afford studies
that would expose
the industry
tactics. Tactics such as releasing drugs to control schizophrenia with a
very low
positive response rate,
but great patient manageability value in hospital settings, thereby keeping
the patient unreleasable and
drugged. A popular thing to do is to change a patient's drug at Christmas
time, according to the countless
patients I worked with. Sudden changes to chemical alignment
often results in devastating depression, and
even suicide. All patients are introduced to the
bottom of the line drugs first, and climb the
ladder every 6-12 months to a more effective one because
the government is encouraged to buy up an
abundance of drugs at cheap prices, so they must use up
the surplus first, and provide costly
evidence to the patient and the system to support the use of the
next level of control drug.
Dr. Lexchin
goes on to quote pharmaceutical industry reps admitting that manufacturing
does not target uncommon
diseases as they would not generate sufficient profits.
Another top motivator is
whether or not a product can be patented. Lithium was first
discovered as effective in 1949, but the
industry waited to research and manufacture it until the
late 60's, once a slow-release process was
compounded. L-Dopa, has been known since the 30's,
derived from fava beans, a natural substance
not patent-able. Once the drug companies could
synthesize it, Parkinson's patients were
finally treated with it.
It was also revealed, by a U.S. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee
classifying 176 important drugs,
that countries not issuing product patents performed substantially
better than those that did. Also,
Lexchin suggests that directing research toward patentable chemical
therapy results in discouraging
research in the fields of nutrition,public health, biochemistry and
preventive medicine since funding
is not available. He asks, How much does the knowledge of where
funding can come from influence
the kind of questions that researchers are even willing to consider?
Right from
college, companies like Eli Lilly provide students with medical handbags
full of medical
utensils, offer
free vacation seminars to promote their company products, and continue to
bombard
the graduate with
extensive perks and freebies. The manipulative literature appeals to
doctor's ego's,
and the influx
of new products precludes the physician's time to properly investigate new
products.
Advertising works
subconsciously well.
I do have a lot to say about research, and the motivations
behind it. Universities are known
to produce some of the best work only when the large corporations are
not behind funding. In
these
hard economic times, governments are telling universities to go into the
business of
fund raising to
carry out their programs of training minds.
Pharmaceutical/petrochemical
companies account for a very broad range of smaller industries, in
addition to the commonly
accepted definitions. In Canada, at Guelph University, renowned for
agricultural research,
almost all
funding is derived from the diverse pharmaceutical giants, and consequently
most
research is now looking at
their agendas of genetic modifications and better killer
pesticides.
Even when government
kicks in, it will very often specify the type of research to conduct
because
pharmaceutical companies
will have lobbied elected representatives within the responsible
ministry,
or worse still,
government agendas will promote research that is solely commercially viable.
>From the above,
you can deduce that scientists and researchers are at best nothing more than
human; some responsible and
innovative, others once employed mostly not--just like most other
professions...
I never said that there were
separate pathways for the different types of memories. I was
merely trying to account for the activity you
described prior to response in the experiment cited.
Why are you surprised that the response seems
to be almost immediate? Thought is the
fastest energy possible, but being magnetically attracted (for lack
of a better analogy) to the
brain's electrical energy, it gets a bit filtered in time by our
memory data.
As
to, How do you know you are free to "take" decisions?--barring mind control,
you are free to
think what ever
thoughts you wish, just as you are free to absorb and process new
information
in order to
reformulate what you once believed or hypothesized. Freedom will, I must
say, be a
condition that may be
difficult to arrive at under certain economic and social restrictions. A
child
born to a war-torn starving
country may never have the opportunities of middle-class America,
yet
within its sphere of
existence, will still have the ability to feel one way or another about its
own
experiences. I'm free to
change my mind about all of the above, but reason and logic have led me to
this place, and it had nothing
to do with publishable science.
Cheers,
Natalia
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath,
England
|
