--Gil Hedley, Integral Anatomy
--Gil Hedley, Integral Anatomy
~ Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
About Pirsig and his book: I was made to read this book at approximately age 18, when I first started working at the Nantahala Outdoor Center in North Carolina. I was quite moldable, impressionable, unformed at that age. Payson Kennedy was in charge of training and orienting all new staff, and reading this book was his one requirement. What it taught me was a lesson that took many years to sink in, that small details deserve our full attention, that doing your best it the only way to do anything right. Thank you Payson for requiring us to read this book, for it has helped form my perspective for over 30 years since then. I think it may be time to reread it.
This of course was all brought up because Pirsig has died at the age of 88. It's encouraging to note that his book was rejected by 121 publishing houses before someone decided to print it.
SIX TENETS as taught by Deborah Frances
1. Primum non nocere - first do no harm (suppression is harmful)
2. Vis Meicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature (elemental)
3. Tolle causum - seek and remove the cause
4. Tolle totum - whole person
5. Docere - doc as teacher
6. Praeventare - prevention
Tonify, balance, bring to the middle
Do not Suppress symptoms, allow them to express, or else you push the illness deeper
Depression = suppressed fire: let it out and you have irritation, anger
Healing occurs in 3 directions
within-outward (more severe within, less severe the more peripheral)
in reverse order that it happened
ALIVENESS OF MEDICINE
vitamin C from a factory as vs from rose hips
complexity of plant medicine: many constituents with the wisdom of a living thing
HIERARCHY OF CARE
stimulate the vis
foundation -- start here and work upward in the heirarchy
The Naturopathic Physician's Oath as written in the 2008 NCNM convocation brochure is long and wordy and I do not like it. I must prefer and do swear by the Classical Chinese Medicine Oath:
I will promise to follow the way of the great physician.
I will strive to live in harmony wiht nature, and teach my patients to do the same.
I will stay calm and completely committed when treating disease.
I will not give way to personal wishes and desires, but above all else hold and nurture a deep feeling of compassion.
I will be devoted to the task fo saving the sacred spark of life in every creature that still carries it.
I will strive to maintain a clear mind and be willing to hold myself to the highest standards.
It will be my duty to diagnose sufferings to treat disease.
I will not be boastful about my skills and not drive by the greed for material things.
Above all, I will keep an open heart.
As I move on the right path I will receive great happiness as a reward wihtout asking for anything in return.
OH I just dug deep enough into the notes to find some gold. I'm not going to dissolve this file after all. Going in archive.
I call it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view. Interestingly, I can take two conscious agents and have them interact, and the mathematical structure of that interaction also satisfies the definition of a conscious agent. This mathematics is telling me something. I can take two minds, and they can generate a new, unified single mind. Here’s a concrete example. We have two hemispheres in our brain. But when you do a split-brain operation, a complete transection of the corpus callosum, you get clear evidence of two separate consciousnesses. Before that slicing happened, it seemed there was a single unified consciousness. So it’s not implausible that there is a single conscious agent. And yet it’s also the case that there are two conscious agents there, and you can see that when they’re split. I didn’t expect that, the mathematics forced me to recognize this. It suggests that I can take separate observers, put them together and create new observers, and keep doing this ad infinitum. It’s conscious agents all the way down.
--Donald Hoffman, Professor of cognitive science UC, Irvine,
In Demian Herman Hesse suggests that the truth is not any of these religious structures, the truth is something far simpler, but harder to live. It is not easy to go through this world stripped of comforting beliefs. Hesse says we create gods and then we fight with them. Many of his ideas are reminiscent of Nieztsche, for whom I've always had a soft spot. He is the German philosopher who said "God is dead" and pissed off generations of religious people.
The protagonist of Demian is a young man named Sinclair, and his story begins when he is only 10 years old. He is early at becoming aware. Demian is a character who helps him, initially simply to avoid a predatorial character, and later to begin to think critically and to trust in himself. When they are schoolmates Demian suggests alternate interpretations of Bible stories, especially the one about Cain and Able, and the mark of Cain. By the end of the book I was thinking that I too must bear that mark, because I have never been a joiner, never been willing or able to submit to authority or dogma.
This book would make excellent reading for a teen who is beginning to sort out a path through all the competing authorities. It does not provide a blueprint, but it does say that you must find your own path, and that it won't be easy or comfortable. When Hesse first released this small book in 1919 it was in pieces in a magazine, and anonymously. Why didn't he want his name attached? Why didn't someone recognize his voice and thoughts, when they are so distinctly his? Perhaps it is because Demian is also a commentary on the sadness of war, on the fruitlessness of giving lives for some shared ideal which might be bunk. Some of the things he writes harken to the Jungian concept of collective consciousness, for example the shared premonitions of the onset of world war one. Do we really share a consciousness, or do we simply share some of the same inputs, and arrive at some of the same intuitive conclusions? Jung and Hesse did.
The most fruitful thing a person can do is to become themselves, I agree with Hesse on this point. To be with people who are also themselves, this is a very satisfying thing.
The first step of DOING science is to ask a question about the world. The question doesn't have to be complicated, it just has to reach into the unknown. Once you have your question, it is a good idea to snoop around and see if anyone else has already answered it, or tried. Learn everything you can about the variables that might influence the answer. Once you've studied up on it, you're qualified to make a guess---a "theory" in science terms---as to what the answer might be, and why. A true scientist knows that a theory is just a theory--it has to be tested repeatedly by people who agree and by people who disagree. A true scientist is not heartbroken when the data shows that his theory was bunk. That is useful information. Time to come up with a new theory.
This testing is the experiment. There can be many different ways to test any one theory. The most useful experiments are often the simplest, changing only one variable between two groups of test subjects. Scientist use many different methods to approach the same question, and this diversity adds richness to the picture painted by the results. We might know that B follows A three quarters of the time, but until we know WHY they are correlated, and what other variables contribute to the correlation, we do not understand. A--->B at a rate of 75% is enough to know that there is a connection, but it is not enough to say that A causes B. We don't know that. Something else could be causing it. We take our results from that experiment, share them with the other scientific thinkers in the world, and update our theory if possible. Usually an experiment brings up new questions, which indicate new possible experiments that need to be done to understand.
So science does NOT discover causality. It discovers correlations. Correlations can have multiple contributing variables so more experiments are needed. Sometimes someone repeats the same experiment and gets the opposite result. This is evidence that there was something operating in the system that was not being measured. This is a sign that the original theory was based in deeper ignorance than perhaps we thought at first. This is hard to admit, even for scientists.
Just because an experiment gets peer reviewed and published in an journal does not make it the truth. There are many false conclusions that have been published. Egostists who call themselves scientists publish more books than all the real scientists put together. Real scientists tent to be intraverts who'd rather stay out of the limelight and just keep digging into these interesting questions. Every experient needs to be repeated from a variety of angles before a result is accepted as Truth.
So there is a basic primer on the scientific method. My area is mostly medicine, though I am fascinated by all science. Medical science is more than double blind placebo controlled studies. It includes the careful evaluation of population outcomes and biochemical mechanisms and every other factor that could influence the answer. Science is a process of asking questions and trying to figure out if our theories about the answers are right or not. A theory is just a theory.
Evolution, by the way, has been proven in so many ways by so many different experiments, that it is not a theory anymore.
--Matt Ridley in Evolution of Everything; How New Ideas Emerge, page 270
He has written several books, including Disproving Christianity, which he wrote right out of undergrad school I believe. The Belief Book and the Book of God are intended for the education of children by parents who want to satisfy their natural curiousity with actual information instead of indoctrination. And he announced last night for the first time in public that he has signed a contract for his next book, No Sacred Cows, which will be a manual for teaching critical thinking to children and adults.
I am very excited that this young man has taken to writing, and based on his public speaking, I suspect he is a clear and concise writer. I look forward to reading some of his books, and I may start giving them as gifts too. =-]
His main point in this talk is that the reason that there is so much dogmatic religion in the US is the lack of religious studies education. People who do not know what religion is and what it has done in history are more likely to be religious, and more likely to be fundamentalist. He says that to protect your children from falling prey to fundamentalism, teach them about all relgions, and satisfy their curiousity with real information. Without this education there is in his words a "snowball effect" that leads to a widespread lack of critical thinking---which is exactly what we are seeing in today's political sphere. If there were a strong component of religious studies integrated into primary school history and philosophy classes, there would be more critical thinking nationwide.
He mentioned an organization called the OASIS network, which is jokingly called "atheist church" but really it "an alternative to faith based community" that provides among other things programs for kids. For freethinkers surrounded by religiousity, the name is really appropriate
Here's his blogpost on how to respond to door to door religion sellers:
**Created tag: freethinker
Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change.
When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken
depend on the ideas that are lying around.
That, I believe, is our basic function:
to develop alternatives to existing policies,
to keep them alive and available
until the politically impossible becomes
the politically inevitable.
There is a great deal of difference
between loss, change, and transformation.
A loss is a step backward;
a change is an opportunity;
transformation is a step forward.
The common denominator in these three realities
is the fact that one must
give up something.
It is possible for both loss and change to lead to transformation,
but it is not possible for transformation to occur unless
something is lost and something is changed.
( deciphering notes on a tattered envelope which I just squashed a fly in )
...Marketing: I will leave the word "holistic" out of my elevator speech, but it will be a part of the next speech to follow.
Seems like these amazing things on the web are popping up everywhere. Unfortunately I have no time for extra surfing, because am going surfing on REAL WATER. So I just save up these links. A friend sent me this one by email. I intend to watch the one she recommends. Here's what she said about it:
We've discovered this wonderful project designed to deliver scientific knowledge and philosophy in musical form. It's incredible...I am in awe watching it. Watch "Ode to the Brain" which is on the first page of the link and you'll see what it's all about. Of course, you need sound turned on and full screen if your computer can handle it. Wow!
Understanding Conspiracy: The Political Philosophy of Julian Assange
by Urizenus Sklar
thanks to skyojos for leading me to this
= a syllogism or other argument in which a premise or the conclusion is unexpressed