Science vs. Healers

Written by Robert Bruce Baird

Sherry (My ex) had a couple of problems of a medical nature. Her hypoglycemia had been miss-diagnosed and she had been given massive cortisone shots that I believe had contributed torepparttar cancer that resulted inrepparttar 122128 partial mastectomy. I got her off caffiene and throughrepparttar 122129 power of LOVE she was healed in two years. Women are not treated as men are when it comes to medical treatment; as well as every other aspect of misogyny in society. My studies of wholistics and hermetics were becoming quite extensive and alchemy founded and continuesrepparttar 122130 real science. I am going to quote two authors from quite different sides ofrepparttar 122131 fence.

These books are recent but representative ofrepparttar 122132 studies I was engaged in as well as givingrepparttar 122133 reader an insight torepparttar 122134 continuing problem of censorship and supposed 'expertise' that prevents a great deal of truth. David Depew and Bruce Weber of MIT wrote 'Darwinism Evolving' in 1995 and it says on pages 492 & 493:

“They also made it harder forrepparttar 122135 scientific worldview to be received with equanimity by other sources of culture. Indeed, sincerepparttar 122136 reducing impulse undermines fairly huge tracts of experience, people like Wallace, who feel deeply about protecting phenomena they regard as existentially important, frequently conclude that they have no alternative except to embrace spiritualism, and sometimes even to attackrepparttar 122137 scientific worldview itself, if that isrepparttar 122138 only way to protect important spheres of experience that have been ejected from science's confining Eden.

In response, scientists and philosophers who feel strongly aboutrepparttar 122139 liberating potential of a spare, materialistic worldview began to patrolrepparttar 122140 borderlands betweenrepparttar 122141 high-grade knowledge scientists have of natural systems andrepparttar 122142 low-grade opinions that inrepparttar 122143 view of science's most ardent defenders, dominate other spheres of culture and lead back towardrepparttar 122144 superstitious and authoritarian world of yester-year. 'Demarcating' science from other, less cognitively worthwhile forms of understanding was already a major feature of Darwin's world. A line beyond whichrepparttar 122145 Newtonian {Newton was a Rosicrucian who achievedrepparttar 122146 status of an alchemist per Haeffner's 'Dictionary of Alchemy') paradigm could not apply was drawn atrepparttar 122147 boundary between physics and biology. We have seen how hesitant Darwin was to cross that line and what happened when he did. Twentieth-century people are sometimes prone to congratulate themselves for being above these quaint Victorian battles. They may have less reason to do so, however, than they think, forrepparttar 122148 fact is that throughout our own century,repparttar 122149 same sort of battles with emotional overtones no less charged, have been waged atrepparttar 122150 contested line where biology meets psychology, and more generally whererepparttar 122151 natural sciences confrontrepparttar 122152 human sciences. Dualisms between spirit and matter, and even betweenrepparttar 122153 mind and body, may have been pushed torepparttar 122154 margins of respectable intellectual discourse. But methodological dualisms between what is covered by laws and what is to be 'hermeneutically appropriated' are still very much atrepparttar 122155 center of our cultural, or rather 'two cultural', life. Cognitive psychologists and neurophysiologists are even now busy reducing mind- states to brain-states, while interpretive or humanistic psychologists are proclaiming how meaninglessrepparttar 122156 world would be if mind is nothing but brain. Interpretive anthropologists are filled with horror at what would disappear fromrepparttar 122157 world ifrepparttar 122158 rich cultural practices that seem to give meaning to our lives were to be shown to be little more than extremely sophisticated calculations onrepparttar 122159 part of self-interested genes. Conflicts of this sort would have given Darwin stomachaches almost as bad asrepparttar 122160 ones he endured over earlier demarcation controversies."

These authors userepparttar 122161 term hermeneuts much asrepparttar 122162 early 20th Century supposed scientists ridiculedrepparttar 122163 quantum physicists by calling them 'atom-mysticists'. Hermeneuts is a new epithet for alchemists such as myself who OBSERVE and try to fit ALLrepparttar 122164 facts together and don't eject anything 'from science's confining Eden'. This quote continues to raiserepparttar 122165 spectre ofrepparttar 122166 'Bible Narrative' and Bishop Ussher whose late nineteenth century proponent was Wilberforce.

"The rhetorical pattern of these battles is still depressingly similar, in fact, to Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce. Hermeneuts ridicule scientists like Hamilton, Dawkins, and Wilson when they suggest that nothing was ever known about social cooperation until biologists discovered kin selection. Reductionists in turn criticize hermeneuts, now transformed largely into 'culturists', for bringing back ghosts and gods, just as their nineteenth-century predecessors were taxed with being 'vitalists' every time they said something aboutrepparttar 122167 complexity of development. Humanists identify scientists with an outdated materialistic reductionism. Scientists insist that hermeneutical intentionality is little more than disguised religion.

Perhaps, a way out of this fruitless dialectic betweenrepparttar 122168 'two cultures', can be found if each party could give up at least one of its cherished preconceptions. It would be a good thing, for example, if heirs ofrepparttar 122169 Enlightenment {Credited to Bacon, Shakespeare, Jonson and others with an alchemical background.} would stop thinking that if cultural phenomena are not reduced to some sort of mechanism, religious authoritarianism will immediately flood intorepparttar 122170 breach. They should also stop assuming that nothing is really known about human beings untilrepparttar 122171 spirit of reductionism gets to work. Students ofrepparttar 122172 human sciences have, after all, been learning things alongside scientists ever since modernity began. Among other things they have learned that humans are individuated as persons withinrepparttar 122173 bonds of cultures and cultural roles, they are bound together with others in ways no less meaningful and valuable thanrepparttar 122174 ways promoted by strongly dualistic religions. Byrepparttar 122175 same token, it would be helpful if advocates ofrepparttar 122176 interpretive disciplines would. abandon a tacit assumption sometimes found among them that nature is so constituted that it can never accommodaterepparttar 122177 rich and meaningful cultural phenomena humanists are dedicated to protecting, and that therefore cultural 'ought never' to be allowed to slip comfortably into naturalism. Humanists seem to have internalized this belief from their reductionist enemies, whose commitment to materialism is generally inseparable from their resolve to show up large parts of culture, especially religion, as illusions. These opponents, we may safely say, take in each other's laundry."

The See-Saw

Written by White Feather

We all have numerous egos and all we do is fight them and try to kill them. We label them as bad and we must exterminate anything that is bad, right? Egos are not bad. They are a part of us. We're confused because we're doing battle against parts of ourselves.

Stop fighting your egos. The more you fight an ego,repparttar more energy you give it andrepparttar 122127 more it will fight back. Drop your weapons. Stoprepparttar 122128 confusing war. Get to know your egos. Try to understand them and you will eventually be taken torepparttar 122129 source of their power. Egos are driven by emotions. Fear isrepparttar 122130 main one, but all emotions fuel egos. We created egos for protection from our fears, but we also created them to act out all our other emotions. We need our egos to get through those emotions and we need to get through those emotions in order to get to what is atrepparttar 122131 root of all emotions, and that, of course, is unconditional love.

Emotions can be seen as both our resistance to unconditional love and our attempt to translate unconditional love into a system of duality where our egos can act out that translation. So we don't get back to unconditional love by killing our egos, but rather by making peace with our egos and trying to understandrepparttar 122132 translation they are showing us.

The thing about dark nights ofrepparttar 122133 soul is that they are followed by bright days ofrepparttar 122134 soul, which are followed by dark nights ofrepparttar 122135 soul, which are followed by bright days ofrepparttar 122136 soul, etc. Living in duality, this isrepparttar 122137 natural flow. We can go withrepparttar 122138 flow, fight it, or go beyond it by focusing onrepparttar 122139 center null point of ONE-ness. Just like with our days and nights on planet Earth, there is incredible beauty to be found just before sunrise or just asrepparttar 122140 sun is setting; those times when it's neither fully day nor fully night. It seems like it's half day and half night. The two are, ever so briefly, balanced out. Edgar Cayce said that sunrise and sunset were big windows into other dimensions. The center null point of balance is always a window.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use