The Corruption of Science

I feel strongly we are in at least the beginnings of a major scientific revolution.  The existing paradigm of science has degraded to nothing more than subjectivity and filling agendas.  Nice article by Dr. Nancy Swanson…

Originally posted in ISIS Report, May 14, 2014

Many are the ways in which the powers that be obstruct and obscure our paths to knowledge  Dr Nancy Swanson

Say it in Latin for God

We need only look at the historical record to know that those who crave power have seized upon the belief system of the people in order to manipulate and control them.  All good ideas start out well enough but, sometime after gaining wide acceptance, they inevitably become corrupted.

Those who ruled the Roman Catholic Church used it as a tool for absolute control of the masses.  People who did not fall into line were threatened with excommunication, doomed to burn in hell forever.  If they fell too far out of line, they were burned alive on the grounds of heresy.

One method of control was to use Latin for mass.  The entire structure was formed around a language that the people did not speak, read or write.  This forced people to have a go-between, a priest, to intervene with God on their behalf.  Ostensibly God only understood Latin.

The great crime committed by Galileo Galilei was not so much what he said, but that he insisted on saying it in Italian, the language of his people, rather than the language of the scholars and priests [1].  Kepler and Copernicus had already published much of what Galileo espoused.  But they did it in Latin and therefore did not incur the wrath of the church.  Apparently you could say pretty much anything so long as very few understood what you were saying.  Not only was Galileo excommunicated, his book was banned, he was placed under house arrest for life and he was forced to recant.

View Original Article 

Radical sustainability beyond the illusion….

A great article from Giles Hutchins

The Nature of Business

Radical means getting to the root of it.  Illusions are shattered when we get to the heart of the matter….and so by being radical in our approach to life we find that we can uncover artificiality which may cloak our ways of attending to our selves, each other and our wider neighbourhood.

‘The way you see people is the way you treat them, and the way you treat them is what they become.’ – Goethe.

Love 2

Learning to love our selves and each other is perhaps the most important task that lies before us. Put another way, the beginning of any new paradigm ought to be grounded in love if it is to be authentic and seek to replace old ways with truly fresh, new ways beyond current illusions.

Here are five tips or pointers that may help remind us to remain flowing within the tides of love:

–          Empathy: the…

View original post 911 more words

Incorporating Goethean Science into Equine Ecology

The science of ecology studies the interplay between individual organisms and their environments, including interactions with both conspecifics and other species – including humans. Ecology is an interdisciplinary science that embraces both the biological and Earth sciences. Ethology is the study of animal behavior under natural conditions (as opposed to behaviorism, the study of behavioral responses under laboratory settings). Anthrozoology (aka human/animal studies) is a subset of the biological sciences that is also very much interdisciplinary with ethology as well as anthropology, human and veterinary medicine, and psychology. All of these disciplines are quite interrelated. Ecology should not be confused with environmentalism; the latter, in its more common definition, is more a system of social and ideological beliefs. Nonetheless, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a sustentative environment is a requirement for a healthy organism. Instead of taking a traditional segmented approach to equine behavior and welfare that concentrates on individual “parts” *, I have chosen to approach all aspects through the ecological environment in which the horse lives. In other words, this allows me to view the species as a whole from its overall biological needs while also regarding each individual horse as it lives and interacts within its own particular ecosystem.

* The “parts” that I am referring to here equate into the various “fields” in the equine sciences including nutrition, behavior and its modification (aka “training” whether by classical, operant or any of the so-called “natural” methods), medicine, and so on.

The Enlightenment historical period gave us scientists and philosophers such as Newton, Descartes, Galileo, Bacon, and Locke. While they all differed in their individual philosophies to varying degrees, their works shaped and molded our current quantitative, materialistic approach within the sciences. Modern science attempts to understand the world and everything in it through a veil of mathematics breaking it down into parts, quantitatively analyzing each phenomenon in (primarily) artificial settings in attempt to understand cause and effect, with the ultimate purpose of prediction and control. This is a science in which human perception is regarded as untrustworthy. It is one in which the methods to achieve the results have become the ends in themselves rather than a means toward extrinsic value. (Robbins 2005) This approach to science as applied to nature can become monstrous and destructive when it loses sight of the original purpose of its calculations. This type of “monster” brings us everything from the capability of mass destruction to pharmaceutical drug side effects. While modern science claims to be objective and not subject to the subjectivity of human “nature”, it is really nothing more than an odd, historically contingent way to view the world. (Robbins 2005) To say that science is without any subjectivity is to say that humans are not part of nature, and indeed modern science has given us the view that humans are “aliens in the machine” known as the world. (Robbins 2005)

It is not that understanding the function of all the “parts” (i.e., “reductionism”) is a bad thing in itself. It is, in fact, necessary. It is the total reliance upon what we discover in these parts and then thinking we can sum up the parts to achieve the whole without ever having examined the whole (and how it is affected by its environment) in the first place that gets us into trouble. Reductionism is then used to explain the world of experiences by reducing their meaning to the causal events behind the phenomena. Reliance upon this type of science to provide all the answers gives us “nothingbutness” disease (Frankl). And so we see the living body as ‘nothing but’ a structured sack of bones and soft tissues in which parts operate under a system of complex chemical reactions; in other words, we lose the extrinsic meaning or purpose.

In the century following the birth of the Enlightenment period, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) gave us another approach to science – a participative one that makes a distinction between living, growing, developing forms, and dead ones. Modern science on the other hand loves to perform scientific investigations by dissecting dead organisms and/or by taking things apart. Goethean science does not look at just an interconnected set of actualities but also considers a holistic structure of possibilities. Goethean science is formed out of reciprocity for each phenomenon being studied. Goethe wrote: “Natural objects should be sought and investigated as they are and not to suit observers, but respectfully as if they were divine beings.” (Seamon 1998). Conventional science investigations tend to separate the student/scientist from that which he is studying and can lead to arbitrary or inaccurate understandings. (Seamon 1998) In contrast, this participative, engaging type of science actually becomes therapeutic for the scientist. According to Brent Dean Robbins: “The process of owning up to our obligations is one that can be a healing process, a process of coming home to ourselves; hence it is “therapeutic”.” (Robbins 2005) [Quotes original] This process is what Goethe referred to as delicate empiricism; in other words, direct, sensorial experience. Every part of nature is always in a process…of being born, growing and developing, and of dying. Understanding of this continual cycle in a holistic manner cannot be reached through mathematical abstractions; it can only be reached through careful observation and perception.

There are at least two aspects of this delicate empiricism: 1) the empiricism gives primacy to the perception; and 2) out of the “delicacy”, there is an ethical responsibility to what is being observed. (Robbins 2005) The first aspect leads to the second (at least in a healthy person); and if the second aspect were always observed, there would be no discussion about welfare of laboratory animals and no need for animal advocacy.

To ignore our own, initial, living, responsive relations to living phenomena in our inquiries into their nature is to cut ourselves off from the very spontaneous calls and invitations they exert upon us in their way of coming-into-Being—and thus to deny ourselves the kind of knowledge we need if we are to answer their calls in ways that ‘they can understand’, that are appropriate to their nature. (Shotter 2000) [Emphasis original]

Shotter referred to Goethe’s method as “relationally-responsive” in contrast to conventional science’s “referential-representational” approach to understanding. In the latter we are acting separate from nature and never allow the phenomenon being investigated to “claim” us, and thus we never have any obligation to what is being investigated. In a relationally-responsive understanding “…we allow ourselves to be claimed by phenomena, we open ourselves to feel our relational obligation to them. In other words, we become morally engaged with them. Indeed, when we spend time in deep contemplation of the structure of a plant, for instance, we come to appreciate the plant as an end in itself rather than a mere means. We come to better understand ways that we can live harmoniously with the plant. We sensitive [sic] ourselves to actions that may violate the value of the plant. And through the wisdom we gain, we create a space not only to improve our own lot, but also ways to improve the plant, which we come to understand as an extension of our own existence, indeed, as part of the ground of being that sustains us.” (Robbins 2005) Every bit of this applies to animals as well as any living organism.

Goethe borrowed his manner of observation from the external world, not forcing his own upon it. We tend to view the entire world in one of two ways: from a mechanistic viewpoint that mathematically maps out inter-dependencies and effects; or we see the external world as some secret mystical element. While one or the other may be appropriate for one or another class of objects, we find ourselves in all kinds of errors when we try to apply one or the other to all classes of objects, and become very one-sided in our view; we open ourselves up to forcing constructs upon the object that were never there to begin with. Instead, when we allow the object itself to dictate the manner of observation, as Goethe did, we simply cannot err because the object of the observation will tell us everything we need to know.

These are the philosophical underpinnings with which I approach all aspects of animal welfare and behavior, and, indeed, all aspects of my life.

Philosophy doesn’t ‘stand above’ thought, but unfolds from ‘within’ it. Science, likewise, is a grand enterprise but, in my view, subsists not in totality (as a total explanation of phenomena) but rather in spontaneity (as a way of engaging phenomena). (Goff 2010)

Rupert Sheldrake – The Science Delusion

A talk given by Rupert Sheldrake at Schumacher College in the UK

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers, and is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory. At this talk Rupert shared thoughts from his latest ground-breaking new book “The Science Delusion” and explored the implications of his radical discoveries for both science and society.

 

Clinical Homeopathy

Clinical homeopathy employs the use of:

Isopathy – the prescribing of potentized remedies based upon their biological similarity to the disease*; this category used to be separated into several more distinct ones, however most clinical practitioners combine targeted treatments (except conventional drugs and homeopathic “vaccines”) into this one category.  Isopathy was originally based upon the Law of Equals; in effect, however since a potentized remedy is used it no longer is an “equal” but becomes a “similar” – we can still refer to it as “like treats like”.  This category can include organotherapy as well as specific disease* treatment.  An example would be to use a potentized version of Herpes Zoster to treat the actual virus; another example would be to use Insulin in a 12C potency to suppress the production of insulin in the body (the potency determines whether there is an action of suppression, balance, or stimulation when it comes to specific organs, i.e. “organotherapy” – however it still acts under the Law of Similars).

Tautopathy – the prescribing of potentized remedies based upon their chemical similarity to the disease*; this is generally the approach used to remove the effects of conventional drugs.  An example of this would be to give potentized steroids to remove the effects of the drug.

Homoprophylaxis – the preventative treatment of constant disease*; includes the use of nosodes as an effective, and is a completely viable alternative choice to conventional vaccination.  Some of the same substances that are used in Isopathy may be used in Homoprophylaxis – however they are given as a preventative measure as opposed to treating a disease* process.  Therefore, this application recognizes there are certain diseases* that remain constant and have the potential to infect those that are susceptible – a good example would be Chicken Pox in humans or Rabies in animals.

We can also utilize the broader scope of homotoxicology; this is an indication-oriented approach and holds that the processes, syndromes, and manifestations that conventional medicine views as “disease” all have a biological basis – in other words they are natural, teleological processes that serve poison defense and detoxification.  (Please note that homotoxicology is NOT a “purging detox” and is completely suitable even in very advanced cases.)

In all situations, I try to ascertain the disease* etiology as defined homeopathically; this is known as treatment from the tonic (or constant) aspect.  Homeopathic prescribing based upon symptoms alone is known as the pathic aspect; this is how “classical” homeopaths prescribe.  Treating the symptom picture is fine, but as Hahnemann taught, we need to first attempt to discover and treat the underlying cause(s).

Note that “homeopathy” is included in most states’ veterinarian practice acts (USA) and therefore a non-licensed practitioner cannot legally “treat” you or your animal with homeopathy.  However, in most states you have the power to do whatever you wish concerning your own medical treatment or those of your animal (human children are, unfortunately, a totally different area and subject to restrictive laws in most if not all states).  Non-licensed practitioners act as consultants, and can therefore educate you about and make recommendations for homeopathic remedies.  It is up to you to actually utilize anything suggested in consultation.

All remedies are perfectly safe to give to any animal.

* Disease here is not defined as conventional medicine does; nothing here should be construed as the diagnosis of disease as conventionally defined. Homeopathic “diseases” are much different than conventional ones and will never call for any allopathic drug. In fact, it is the allopathic drugs that cause many of the diseases as they are defined homeopathically!