Bruce Lipton is on a complete collision course with the cancer industry. He shows that the central dogma is a fallacy as previously discussed. I will be investigating further what the implications of this, but here is a clip from the movie “The Forbidden Cures”, a movie about cancer:-
This is the established view of where cancers come from, and Bruce completely contradicts these unsubstantiated methodologies of the cancer industry, if the genes do not control man then why is the cancer industry promoting the genome project and seeking such expensive solutions.
What about other cures?
Here is a movie on Dr Simoncini’s use of baking soda as a cure for cancer. Of the ones I have mentioned this is my least “favourite”, but what is clear is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant research. What is clear is that “acidic” conditions are conducive to cancer growth, and baking soda is a tried and tested method of alkalising the system – however drastic it might be.
Are the other cures based on disproven axioms? No. have they been proven? Equally no. But why not investigate? Pure science would investigate, 1% science controlling the cancer industry does not wish to investigate losing a potential goldmine.
Bruce, you disprove the cancer industry, you are at risk.
Posts Tagged ‘Lipton’
When I was putting the “blogs so far” online, I was not impressed, and when a friend asked me to expain what I was doing I found it hard. The stuff is not integrated, there was not a feeling of wholeness about what I am doing when I read it. I tried to convey to my friend what I was doing discussing the building blocks of science, but was getting nowhere – and this was with someone who wants to understand what I try to do. In the end I remembered she had experienced Chi Gung, and then she began to understand. How can science negate something she has exprienced?
Of course not everyone has had Chi Gung experience, so my presentation of this has to be much better. Give that time. But I do need to reflect a little before moving on. Let me begin with where I am at with science. Science has much to offer, don’t get me wrong. The most obvious examples are technology, what we can do with computers is in general greatly beneificial; the failure in computing is the political reality that governmental awareness does not include the legislation for the right to work. Computers are putting people out of work because of their efficiency, and the 1%-controlled governments are not democratic enough to perceive that its responsibility includes ensuring a self-worth that embraces the right to work.
The next that science is often lauded for is medicine, but when one considers the whole package connected with medicine there are doubts. To a certain extent one can describe the process of health as the outcome of the food and medicine we take. The quality of our foods has deteriorated since we have begun to process our foods. BigFood has determined that there are greater profits to be made from the sale of foods which contain preservatives or in which there are additives such as excitotoxins. For many the addition of these chemicals is enough to determine a strategy of never eating processed foods. Whilst mother’s milk is Nature’s ingredient and necessity for healthy babies, there are doubts that milk from cows is what Nature intended for the rest of our lives. There are sufficient people around who claim that by eating a diet of grains, legumes fruit and vegetables – preferably organic (and fish for B12 and other benefits), much of the need for medicine disappears. But if we do take allopathoic medicines, then it is questionable whether the side effects are more damaging than the healing properties of the medicine itself. When it comes to the lifestyle diseases that have come to dominate the health of many, especially the elderly, there are even stronger indications that the natural diet described above would be more beneficial than medicines offered. With regards to cancer medicine offers chemotherapy as experienced by Farrah Fawcett, yet the scientific basis for chemo is not proven. A lifestyle change as suggested in “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out” is considered by some more beneficial, but such a lifestyle involves an energetic approach such as Chi Gung or Tai Chi,, meditation to calm the mind and relieve stress and daily exercise to keep the body functioning.
But then there are other “advances”. Firstly there are concerns that vaccines that are supposed to have wiped out diseases such as tb etc are now the source of 21st century maladies such as autism and so on. Rather than assuage these concerns the US government is forcing parents who don’t want these vaccines to have their children vaccinated against their wishes. And then there is the modification of crops. As a crop wheat was altered to produce greater yields. Now we have coeliac’s disease, and more people are forced to eat gluten-free diets. If that were not enough, BigFood scientists genetically modify crops so that farmers are forced to use their pesticide and buy their seeds – a Monsanto practice. GM foods are being promoted by capitalist benefaction such as Bill Gates, yet these foods are having many deleterious results in the Third World.
On the other hand laboratory testing has helped provide indicators of health conditions. Life-saving operations have clearly helped many people, the technology for which did not exist without the advancement of science. Every time I go to the dentist I wonder what people used to do to cope with decay. From my own perspective I have healed myself of GERD and migraines through healthy eating, and having changed my lifestyle I feel much better for it. My last involvement with medicine was a trip to the doctor’s two years ago to have the wax cleaned out of my ears. But I consider myself fortunate. Those less fortunate than I are more dependent on the medical establishment but I deeply question their level of involvement.
And this is before I consider the work of Bruce Lipton. He has exposed the central dogma of biology that the genes are our command centre, exposing the fatalism surrounding hereditary diseases. He encourages people to take a more “spiritual” approach to healing.
For me “the jury is out” on medicine as a whole, but healing through change of lifestyle and eating natural foods is empowering. But what is very clear to me is that we need to regain control of the process of pharmaceutical approval. Aspartame has been approved but the approval process was very questionable. The cancer industry vetoes research into treatments whose efficacy has determined a need for research such as Gerson, Burzynski, B17 and cannabinoids. Quite simply the priority is not our health. Whilst I am inclined to believe the value of such treatments and whilst I would have no hesitation in using such treatments personally, they cannot claim truth as valid cures, not because there is evidence against their usage but quite simply because the establishment refuses to investigate. This is not science. Science is concerned with discovering knowledge, and there is no search for knowledge concerning these treatments. Yet there has been much research on chemotherapy, and the evidence is not clear as to its validity as a procedure but the medical establishment continues to push chemo – and many claim that is because of the huge profits for the cancer industry.
Science ought to be an unbiassed search for knowledge, not simply knowledge that produces technology or knowledge that leads to patent and profit, but knowledge that would come under the category of benefitting mankind.
And it is for this benefit that on a broader level I am suggesting the very framework science has established is not conducive. The methodology of science that restricts scientific verification to hypothesis and experiment is a restrictive methodology. Where it suits the scientific establishment quantitative research, a research process that focusses on experimental method, is expanded to qualitative research. This is particularly the case in what is called “social sciences”. I was required in my Masters in Education to write a dissertation which was based on case studies – qualitative research. Inasmuch as I was awarded an M Ed this approach was accepted by the system, and yet there is no way that it would stand up to inspection through the experimental methodology of quantitative research. Was it knowledge? I have no doubts at all that it was. Were the conclusions of my dissertation verifiable by experimental method? NO. Was it knowledge? Definitely, YES.
So what about acupuncture? Centuries dating back to the Yellow Emperor in China have added to the empirical knowledge used in this system of medicine, and yet because chi is not recognised in western medicine, a recent upstart 200 years old, acupuncture is not considered science. Do I consider it knowledge? Definitely, YES. Here is my most obvious example in personal experience. I was living in Botswana at the time, and I came down with an illness. Basically I had a recurrent flu. I would wake up fine go to work and by lunch-time (mornings were 7.00 am to 1.00 pm) I would be feeling ill only capable of going home and sleeping. I would wake up the next day and go through the same routine. The doctor tested me and told me I had the liver of an alcoholic – I had been an alcoholic and had not touched a drop for 5 years or so. He gave me pills to strengthen the liver, but this illness prevailed for two months. Eventually I went to the acupuncturist who was working in the local hospital, and after one treatment this cycle of recurrent flu disappeared. Proof for me, sufficient; proof for you, maybe; proof for science, definitely NOT.
The framework of science that is practiced is restrictive. The status quo that is encouraged by the 1% establishment is limiting the questioning that could remove these restrictions. I have already referred to Bruce Lipton’s exposure concerning the central dogma of biology. I have also mentioned the investigation of the atom that has brought into question atomic theory suggesting that sub-atomic particles need to be considered as points or waves, but cannot be considered as both at the same time. Similarly light functions as a point source or as a wave source. I have suggested a fundamental axiom that recognises this point-wave duality (I have to do much more to substantiate that suggestion).
And then we have broader religious considerations that we might consider axiomatic. Elsewhere I have discussed ONE planet. With this ONE planet approach, for me it is an axiom, not only does nature function as Gaia, but all of life including human life works together in unity. We are unity, ONE planet. Now this suggestion needs far more substantiation if it could be considered an axiom, but there are immediate social and environmental benefits of it accepted as axiomatic. We are ONE planet, so any rationale for war would not be based on the power of the hegemony but would be based around minimising the deaths of equal peoples, one Middle Eastern death is the same as one Western death. Climate change would never have happened because it would never have been necessary to exploit oil usage – we would have sought sustainability. This is one scientific axiom that can never be globally accepted because of the power of the addicted 1%. Yet it is a viable axiom. Science tends to work from building blocks when it is developing axioms. It tries for simplicity and then builds on that simple basis. But is that the correct approach to axioms? How much more knowledge would be opened up based on the axiom – ONE planet?
At this stage I am questioning the axioms that make up science. As yet I do not know where I am going with it. That is enough for now – Mandtao so far.
Tags: 1%, 4 Agreements, Lipton
It is clear that Bruce is extending his arms to understanding but does that mean that science is? Furthermore does it mean that science has left behind its baggage or even that Bruce has left behind his science baggage? At this point I can only ask.
However for understanding to fit into science there is much that has to change with science, and if we limit our understanding by that which science is willing to accept we miss out on much that is genuine. Cowtowing to science is restrictive. In the first part of his book, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz described how our conditioning changes us and fits us in. We agree to accept the conditioning that parents provide in the home, teachers in school, and the keepers in religious institutions. Significant in this agreement is that we accept science as knowledge, and often measure our intelligence by benchmarks developed from this knowledge. Whilst I believe that the primary purpose of our school system is to prepare the 99% for wage slavery, it is an important secondary purpose to inculcate the 99% into the acceptance of the restricted system of knowledge that we have come to know as science. We agree to both these purposes because we have accepted that society has developed with the interest of all the people at heart. Whilst I have never accepted this I am pleased to hear the progress of the Occupy movement who in general do not agree with either of these purposes.
Rather than cowtowing to science with its dubious masters, what about starting from Nature? Where else better than the sea? How many seas are there? One with many names. It moves in and out, in and out, its motion is fundamental. At any point in the sea that point moves in the direction of the tide, but in addition that point would become part of a wave. The sea is a unity with dual attributes of point and wave.
Now what about light, through light we can see – it has a functionality. How does that light function? Some of physics would describe that light coming from a point source, and yet other physicists describe light as a wave motion. Through calculation we can determine that light has a speed, a speed at which the point emantaing from the source would be travelling.
Suppose we ask what is light? We get no answer, we only get a description of properties. What is electricity? What is sound? Again no answer, simply a description of properties. Can we not describe as fundamental properties of all a point and wave duality? So rather than not having a description which is the scientific position now, we start with an axiom that in all aspects of life there is motion or momentum that is both point and wave. This is not too distinct from established physics where the principle of conservation of momentum applies ie continuous motion.
So if we start from the sea, axiomatically we might start differently but quickly we join with established science through momentum. Point and wave as fundamentals is also accepted as scientific, but in both cases we would not describe them as axiomatic because the scientific framework is different. Science starts by postulating building blocks that it calls atoms. But then through scientific method the nature of those fundamental building blocks has been refuted, and yet science patches over this. It does not say let us re-examine our framework.
And with Bruce we have another fundamental axiom of biology exposed, that of genes controlling life. What do we have instead? The gene as a blueprint. Cells contain genes and protein, and this protein has receptors which receive information as signals through the cell membrane that then cause the genes to actuate. Where do these signals come from? Life in general.
What about man? Compare this with man, s/he has a blueprint. Through perception of what happens around her/him signals actuate the genes, and if there are no signals no actuation. Man, cell. The same process, is this unreasonable? But what if we start with man? Man is conscious of life through mind that perceives. Where does the mind get the perception, through signals that happen as a result of perception and these signals get passed to the brain to the cells. So the question is not where is the brain of man, the brain is a known physical central unit that transmits the signal to the cells in the body. The question is where is the mind of man, and here we have point and wave. The mind centres on a point often seen as resting in the heart, and yet through perception mind spreads out from the point as waves to perceive through the centres including the skin, the cell membrane of man.
There is no inconsistency with this new science and what can be considered from religion, however the framework is different because of the axioms. Yet the axioms of science have been exposed as false. There is no fundamental axiom concerning what is light, sound or electricity. There is an unresolved position concerning the building bliocks as to whether they are masses or energy, and in biology the central dogma is an empty shell. We are expected to cowtow to science not because science is based on axioms that then produce a well-integrated body of knowledge. No the agreement is that we accept science as our knowledge system and not question science’s inconsistencies.
Starting from life as motion which is both point and wave we have an axiom that meets easily with established science and prevailing religious knowledge – back to Bacon.
I have just finished watching the Biology of Perception at the question “where is the brain of a cell?”. This clip explains where that question came from (click the Mandtao gif for the clip):-
As you have seen Bruce demonstrates that the gene does not function as the command centre quite simply because removal of the gene does not leave the cell inoperative. So Bruce quite sensibly asks where is the brain of a cell? I was not satisfied with the answer but equally I am not satisfied with the question. The brain sends signals to the parts of the body in order for those parts to act, but does the brain make the decision? I would claim not, the mind does. The mind interacts with the brain leading to the signal being sent along the nervous system.
Let’s return to the cell. On a physical level a cell consists of gene and protein. Now the gene is a blueprint which is protected by protein and the gene is activated with an appropriate signal that removes the protein-protection. The source of this signal is not the gene. Now Bruce argues that the signal comes from our beliefs but as he would say there are too many empty black boxes. How is that signal reaching the cell? The nervous system. If it is belief how does that belief create the signal? How does the belief become part of the nervous system?
These are important questions because they are asking about the nature of mind, its relationship with the brain and where does energy fit in with all that? At the moment the answers are not clear to me. But I am beginning to see mind as a sense. Where is the mind? This question is not asked in the West with sufficient vehemence. Mind is accepted as a philosophical hot potato which is hypothesised and dismissed with ease. It is an academic toy that these pretend seekers of truth enjoy grappling with whilst enjoying holding their seats of fame and fortune. But understanding mind is the crux of happiness in life. In the Treatise I investigated how improving the mind leads to happiness, but I never asked what is mind? Now I must ask.
Now we have sense-perceptions that come eyes, ear, nose, throat and our bodies touching, these are known as the 5 perceptions. In some way I want to consider the mind as a sixth.
What is the set of knowledge we know as science? Basically it is a set of axioms that is then developed through logical thought analysis and experimental method. Science is so complex because we have invested a great deal of money in scientific education and scientific research. At first glance this appears perfectly reasonable. But on closer inspection this apparent reason leads to much questioning, as the third agreement says “Don’t make assumptions”. What is an axiom? It is an assumption, it is the hedge fund of assumptions inasmuch as what is packaged as a robust knowledge base can all be deeply questioned when you see that the fundamental axioms are not based in truth but based on conjecture – perhaps a loan that should never have been given?
I am going to look at two of these. The first is the one I have just been discussing – the central dogma of biology that the gene is the command centre of the cell (talk – biology of perception). As Bruce says, if the gene is removed the cell functions; it would be sound to dismiss this central dogma. This axiom is a hedge fund.
Now the other axiom that has been undermined is that of the atom consisting of protons, neutrons and electrons. Sub-atomic investigation leads to continuing postulation of yet smaller atomic particles. In the Tao of Physics Fritjov Capra pointed out that it depended on the viewpoint of the observer whether an atom functioned as a mass or whether the atom functioned as momentum. In a throw-away line somewhere Bruce described the atom as consisting of energy. I don’t think we can say that, I would suggest that on occasions the atom behaves as a particle and on other occasions it behaves as energy. I put this forward as an axiom. If this is an axiom what implications does it have? Physics as described in terms of particles has been investigated for a long time as evidenced by my being taught atomic structure at school in the 60s. But what about energy? Let us examine kinetic energy, the energy of movement. This is calculated as 1/2 mv squared, it is worked out in terms of what happens to a particle of mass m.
But how does that relate to the chi? This is energy that is all-around and we can tap into this energy through various techniques such as Tai Chi or Chi Gung. I remember someone on an online forum saying that someone doing Tai Chi in the US was once described as playing with spirit. Is this chi energy not the energy that exists sub-atomically? This is an axiom of new physics, the particles of established physics and the sub-atomic energy, known as chi, that as yet we have not determined a way of measuring. But that does not say that science does not have a way of measuring any chi, because the chi in humans can be measured as three pulses as explained here.
Despite over two thousand years of medical understanding that has repeatedly been verified in practice western science does accept this energetic medicine. It is worth considering the theoretical basis of acupuncture as a means of accepting the dual axiom of particle and energy. Starting from the axiomatic approach that energy flows in the human body, acupuncture then started to consider what did this energy flow along – channels – these are also called meridians. What happens if you block these channels? Disease. So if we can unblock these channels so that the human energy flows naturally then health returns. If one accepts the axiom that human energy flows in the body, this is a perfectly sound explanation for disease. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has a long established analysis of the flow of energy in the body, and has numerous different branches that perform treatment. For example acupuncture uses needles to unblock these channels. TCM doctors over time have developed charts of these energy channels, they know particular points along these channels which are beneficial for particular illnesses. In fact as far as I understand it now, Chinese acupuncture hospitals don’t teach so much about the flow of the chi but teach recognition of the channels and effective points. Shiatsu or acupuncture applies pressure at these points for alleviating illness, and independently Thai Traditional Medicine (TTM) uses the notion of sen lines (Thai equivalent of chi) and so by massaging along these sen lines TTM doctors release illness.
For millenia in China and Thailand these medical systems based on the energy axiom have functioned. Then along came western medicine based on a particle or static view of understanding. This view started with the axiom that the human body is a static organism, and that if one experiments on this static body certain results happened. This led to a medicinal approach to recovery whereby the static illness is removed by applying medicine statically to relieve the illness – allopathic medicine. In China the two medicines run side-by-side, this fits in with the axiom that I put forward that there is an axiomatic duality of particle and energy. In Thailand the two medicines co-exist but not comfortably, and the majority of the medicine fits the western model.
But what is most significant is that the western model is not able to explain a significant portion of our diseases – the major ones, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s etc. None of these can be dealt with by static medicine. But energetically they can be explained. The human body is not static, energy continually renews the organs and if we provide our bodies with the appropriate energy to renew these organs we can cure illness. We can get our energy from the environment or we can get it from food. It could equally be argued that food is a static substance and the causal link between good food and regaining a healthy body has been recognised to be curative. This recognition sadly is only minority, and that minority look on as people suffer the awful indignity of a chemotherapy death whilst rejuvenated health is available through healthy food and lifestyle.
The axiom of new physics can be applied elsewhere, and health is a good example.
Where does Bruce fit into all of this? I contend that the gene could be considered a static component of the cell, the gene is a blueprint that does not change. But within a cell there are two components, the static component of the gene and the energetic component which Bruce describes as protein. Now the protein is what interacts with the signal, and the signal is energetic by nature – this doesn’t feel quite right
I have watched the talk “Biology of Perception”, and it is confusing. But confusing in a good way. It is a talk that appears to be holding its arms out ready to embrace spirituality. The talk can be downloaded here . It seems that Bruce has had the insight to see through the central dogma that the genes are in control, but then has a questionable approach to the brain. When I watch my mind starts reaching out to all kinds of possibilities. On a broad level it starts me to think about “what is”, what is man? As opposed to the “how to” that I have been working on in the Treatise.
This is interesting because science and religion have always been considered different, for me the two personally don’t meet and in society there is an uneasy alliance. This separation of course is a dilemma that in conception ought not to be happening. Starting from Bacon knowledge was divided – knowledge that could be ratified by logical proof and knowledge that required spiritual acceptance. In Bacon’s conception both were seen as knowledge, but as time has progressed knowledge that comes from logical proof has been reduced to that of scientific method – primarily hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. For example this would exclude empirical knowledge such as acupuncture whose tried and tested methods have worked for millenia, but the veracity of the rationale for the efficacy of acupuncture cannot be proven because science cannot build machines that measure chi. Other empirical conjectures such as those concerned with meditation are not accepted by science because although it is verifiable by repeated methodologies – empirically, meditation cannot be “proved” , again because it cannot be measured using scientific instruments.
As time has progressed the knowledge that was scythed in two by Bacon’s position has now been reduced to a scientific establishment that only accepts knowledge through scientific method and then relegates all other knowledge to “Faith”. This is why the two fundamental scientific premises that are referred to in this Mandtaonic exploration are so important. The first one is the one that was happening as I grew up, and came to my awareness as Fritjov Kapra’s “Tao of Physics” and Gary Zukav’s “Dancing Wu Li Masters”. In my 60s schooling I learned that fundamental particles were atoms with protons, neutrons and electrons. But earlier in the 20th century science was exploring the atom, and postulated that inside the atom were smaller particles. And then these particles became indistinguishable from energy, the motion within the atoms could not be determined as particular or energetic (wave-form). It is my understanding that such knowledge is now incorporated into the education system as quantum mechanics. Lipton referred to all this as fundamental particles being energy, I am not sure whether that is accepted by the science establishment. Such energetic considerations are not accepted by the science establishment as chi, and this is something I have difficulty with. When we talk of kinetic energy, this energy of movement is accepted. There is an accepted notion of potential energy – “energy that hasn’t happened yet”, but such energy that hasn’t happened can be used in calculations and scientific method – a postulated requirement of the scientific model. Why couldn’t we hypothesise that there is energy all around and that we can tap into it? Such a hypothesis doesn’t exist, and for science neither does chi, yet for many established religious systems chi or prana is a fundamental. When considering “what is” I need to re-investigate chi and its connection with energy as defined by science. Vibration?
This is the problem with people like Bruce reaching out, established method does not want to change. Whilst science can accept irrational concepts such as potential energy because it suits the realm of calculation and therefore fits in with the methodology, science does not accept chi – seemingly boundless global energy that can be accessed through energetic exercise such as Tai Chi or Chi Gung. After Chi Gung I feel invigorated but can I measure that energetic level?
In the talk Bruce was envisioning that what he had to say would become established science within 10-15 years. Will it? Science is not now driven by the enquiry for knowledge per se. Knowledge is now governed by those that pay for the research – primarily the 1%. This blatant control of knowledge is most obviously seen in the field of sustainable energy, especially those providing alternative fuels for the car. Whilst their research is of great benefit to the ecology and therefore humanity, it is marginalised by the influence of the oil industry whose profits would be slashed if sustainable power was introduced.
Perhaps the 1% will not try to marginalise Bruce’s work, but the conclusions that follow from his dismissal of the central dogma of biology could open the door to healing of cancer and other degenerative diseases through mental signals of health as suggested by transmitting change to protein structures. If such a healing were possible the 1% are not going to be willing to stand by. What has happened to Gerson, macrobiotics, Healing Cancer from the Inside Out, Burzynski, cannabinoids and B17 where cures are suggested without providing BigPharma with profits? These potential cures are marginalised at the expense of those who could benefit – who could live or at very least not die the sad death of chemotherapy as with Farrah Fawcett.
But then is Bruce’s position always sound? In this examinations of genes he discusses the assumption of the central dogma. As the brain is the centre of the human isn’t the gene the centre of the cell? He then refutes the cellular hypothesis by pointing out that genes can be removed from cells leaving complete functionality whereas brains cannot be removed. Therefore genes cannot be brains; click the Mandtao gif for the clip “Where is the brain of a cell?”
But can brains be brains? What is the connection between brain and mind? Is it the brain that controls the body or is it the mind acting through the brain? What is mind? And then he starts looking into perception. Does the brain perceive or does the mind perceive? He promotes a complementary speaker, Rob Williams, who is looking at the “Psychology of Change” or here. Perhaps he goes into all this? We will find out.
To my mind academia leaves many of these questions intentionally unanswered. I blame the 1% but I blame the 1% for everything quite rightly. But what am I blaming them for here? Now that is difficult to answer. First science is basically used for profit-making. Therefore directing science into the search for profit through technological and weapons research can without any huge leap be attributed to the 1%. I would also expect the 1% to have encouraged research into particle physics as there has to be the potential for the generation of huge energy. And yet such energy would destroy the oil industry. Apart from BigCancer and BigPharma would science be that concerned about Bruce? But I feel more the 1% sponsor the status quo, because in the status quo the 1% have control, so perhaps I blame them little more than for maintaining the status quo. Mind you when you consider global analyses of war an climate change the status quo at the moment is pretty horrendous.
So apart from the status quo how does one connect spirituality with science? I suspect that is what HHDL’s mind and life is aiming for. Meditation, chi, Unity, soul etc. Comparison of scientific method with spiritual understanding as different forms of knowledge – or just poles apart. We can “physically” measure the world we are in, but as we cannot measure that which is not physical the knowledge of that which is not physical cannot be accepted as scientific knowledge. Individually we live with these two forms of knowledge without achieving forms of integration into one knowledge. To me mind has created this schism, can it unify knowledge? “What is?”
What I liked so much about the Mercola clip was that it demonstrated that genes controlling man was dogma, and that dogma was a religious principle. Typical of science is that what has become an accepted scientific approach is not based on a scientific proof. The atomic theory I learned at school has been discredited as a means of proper description yet I was taught it as facts. I never got into biology so the issue of genes never came up, but it has always been a typically scientific causal principle that never gave a good picture for me. Genes as building blocks for man seems ludicrous to me yet genetics appears to work from that basis. This appears to be a significant part of science’s answers as to how man works – by the direction of genes. Even if science is ludicrous, that has never stopped this establishment steamroller. What about my favourite? There is no chi. No-one can tell me that, because I have felt it. But I have a scientific friend who tells me that the chi exercises people do create the physical strength, so the “swatting flies of Tai Chi, causes muscular development”. Interesting hypothesis with no experimental proof, simply a theory that fits in with established science and established science needs no questioning.
What is required is insight and the basis of Bruce’s work on this view of biology came from insight. Excellent.