|
Or perhaps, as I suspect, Keith understands the rules of decency and
respect for others. He does not have to love someone or everyone to apply
those rules.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:23
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
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
|
