REH
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
One might visualize a play in which people say
nothing most of the way through, but simply interact positively, reverentially
and respectfully toward each other through several difficult situations.
In the final half hour or so they might talk to each other, one saying he or she
had experienced love, another saying he or she had experienced respect, etc.,
the idea being that words really don't matter, behaviour does.
However, I don't think it would work, not
without sex and violence.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:50
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
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
|
