|
I think you have to define what the words mean to
both to make that judgment Ed. She can call his actions anything she
wants. They have to come to an agreement about the meaning of the
words. Real respect comes with an agreement about that from
the very beginning instead of trying to place one's words over
another. IMHO
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:40
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
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
|
