I'm not even sure how to word this post, but I wanted to throw out some ideas and have others complete my thoughts.



Today, I was just thinking about "the world" we live in and asked myself, "I wonder if we got some things all wrong?" and then, "I wonder how close we are to actualization?"

To give you an example of what I'm trying to communicate, lets use this example. If I were to read a science book, how much of that book is truly the truth?




I honestly don't believe that 'what we know' scientifically is 100% empirical evidence, but what we know is based on what we are looking for.

If I were a student of neurology and the building blocks of the field was based on the concept of a simple neuron: dendrites, soma, axon, axonal hillock, with pre- and post-synaptic junctions, How do I know that everything I'm about to learn is constructed around confabulated ideas?




If someone says, "silly, there is empirical evidence supporting the idea of neurons based on using electron microscopes, conduction, chemical changes, and other means of detection."

We can follow this train of thought through a hierarchial process. We then can ask, is the equipment used to detect elements of neurology designed specifically to support the scientists own theory? rather than designed to seek truth? How much of something has a faulty foundation that has been built upon through years and years of mis-directed research? (e.g. the cure for cancer? How do we know the cure is found through medicine [or raw foods] and not magnetic resonance therapy)

Albeit alittle bit cynical, we can integrate this concept into everything we do.

Have you guys ever thought about anything close to this? If so, what ideas have you tried to deduce.

OR do I just have too much time on my hands?

You dont have too much time on your hands.
In fact,I believe its people like you that are leading us closer and closer to truths all the time.

Thanks.

Its all an evolutionary process.

I believe someday there will be no medical field as we know it.
People will naturally know what to do to stay well,it will all come from within,and the idea of needing any outside help will seem silly.

Albeit,this might pretty far off in the future.

Vin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2010 02:28PM by eaglefly.

This got me thinking of the realm of the very small, and the quote "Nature abhors a vacuum". The quote sounds scientific to me, though it was written by a monk, Francois Rabelas (French monk and satirist 1494-1553), but I probably learned the quote in science class and so think of the vacuum of space or applications in physics when I hear it. It's not so surprising I guess, great ideas at the scales of the very small and very large sometimes coming out of meditative minds, some seemingly with no formal scientific background. Rabelas might have had something else in mind entirely when he wrote it... But such an idea can help explain the nature of matter. Why do we exist? How did the universe come to be? How do things, like neurons, work?

loeve,

I believe Rabelais was refering to the Renaissance concept of horor vacui, which compelled artists, including himself, to cram their works with stuff--the blank page, so serene to the balanced mind, was somehow menacing to them because it provided space for the intrusion of inconsistency, doubt, and(of course!) the Devil. Who is actually the product of the other two, frankly. Newhoove is entertaining thoughts somehow analogous to this, in wondering how much data is absolute truth and how much is supposition(the brother of inconsistency) and falsity(the brother of doubt).

You can make yourself crazy. I consider the words of that inestimable philosopher, Donald H Rumsfeld:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.(courtesy Wikipedia)

Or, what we know, if it be plausible, reasonable, and sound, is the best that we know of it at this time.

Oh well, maybe he was more a doctor than a monk, and wrote social and political satire in his spare time. The French seem to love him.

"ALL WRONG"

I try not to take this approach, which to me, is to doubt or reject ideas until proven correct. It's a hard way to live, for me.

"ALL RIGHT"

Neither this approach, though I try to keep an open mind and not reject ideas out of hand.

Somewhere in the middle...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2010 03:50PM by loeve.

"Rabelais introduced the phrase (in Latin) natura abhorret vacuum in a drinking scene in one of his books. The idea was “don’t leave me with an empty glass!” [podictionary.com]

"Natura abhorret vacuum" -- A monk/physician would have known Latin.. currious context with the drinking scene... sort of figures with the Renaissance idea.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2010 04:50PM by loeve.

Another way of looking at it is that according to some classical systems there are five elements; "Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and a fifth element known variously as space, Idea, Void "quintessence" or Aether". One could say this is correct or incorrect according to their school of thought, and might even find it more relevant to their daily existance than the periodic table.

These questions are what lead people to make up stories like religion to explain the inexplicable (please excuse me, I am reading Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth" at bedtime these days).
I'm not saying that it's bad to question yourself into crazy, I'm not saying that it's futile either, only that it seems that way to me. Maddening and pointless.
Things are as they are, our understanding of them makes no difference whatsover. The only difference it makes is in our own minds, which is where reality exists for each individual so it actually makes all the difference. So, the truth, the real and actually truth, is only the one that exist within you since that is the truth of things for you and therefore the only real truth there is.

See how crazy making that is? I just don't even bother with that sort of train of thought anymore. I'm focused more on living and loving what IS, whatever that may be.

The image of neurons firing messages back and forth might be useful. I've read sodium is the primary atom that transmits the signal, then calcium atoms at the muscle finish the transmission. Mammals have central nervous systems and need to be able to run from tigers and so need macro amounts of sodium. Plants don't and can't tolerated more than micro amounts. Then how easy is it to get enough sodium from plants? Yet some teach that salt is toxic and even poison. Do we have new definitions of toxic and poison, or are we being told this for our own good or what? Are plants here for our benefit or are they entities unto themselves? There's so much that is taught that colors reality.

By the way, in F.A.Q.s John Kohler says salt doesn't agree with him and that he prefers seaweed, acknoledging the need for sodium.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2010 09:17PM by loeve.

Hey!

Eaglefly.. Thanks for the kind words.. I really appreciate them.

Tamukha and loeve.. you guys are intelligent as heck. I would like to someone how contribute to your conversation but I'll stick with my simplistic and naive forum post. hah

I may have to google and look into buying some books related to some concepts you talked about! Intriguing stuff.

Has any scientist so far been able to figure out what makes a seed grow?
I dont mean water,and air,and sunlight.
I mean...why does the process start?
And how does it know to even start?

Vinny

yeah

i figured it out

its love

love makes the seed grow

and love makes the sun dance with the water molecules and all that
and makes the seed grow

and love

has all the intelligence

it sustains life

now if i could only figure out what love is actually

but i think i know

i mean

i think i do

well

kind of

like

the feel of water over my lips

the feel of autumn leaves beneath my hands

the sound of wind soundless before it makes a sound

the smile in my heart that hides a beautiful secret

"I'll stick with my simplistic and naive forum post. hah ,,. I may have to google and look into buying some books related to some concepts you talked about! Intriguing stuff."

Newhoove, a primer on some of this could be an overview of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) who wrote of horor vacui (nature abhors a vacuum), the five elements, science, and so much more.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Aristotle's science was a wholistic approach, more so than the modern 'scientific method'. He was quite an intuitive thinker whose writing was a strong influence through the Renaissance.

The idea of horor vacui is central to my personal view of creation, where G_d 'let' the universe come into being through an 'abhorent' or 'horrible' tension that exists as part of the nature of infinite space. Where there is tension there is energy, and so you have it, that is, ideas that we are personally working on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2010 12:39PM by loeve.

newhoove,

Thanks for complimenting our intelligence, but for my part, I'll say you seem really bright yourself : )

This thread is a real mind-twister--fun-fun!

"what makes a seed grow?"

In The Fifth Element they had to activate an ancient device to stop an Evil
force, and after completing four steps by using four elements, air, earth,
water and fire, they momentarily anquished over what could be the fifth,
which they finally realized was love.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2010 08:00PM by loeve.

So Aristotle said that nature abhors a vacuum, eh? Well, I like my vacuum a lot and use it often! However, I abhor a microwave.


My favorite raw vegan

Aristotle wrote horor vacui. Francois Rabelais wrote "nature abhors a vacuum" 1900 years later. Aristotle was a linguist and no doubt in Latin his writing was powerful, no? The French monk/physician/satirist Rabelais is credited in translating the idea and putting it in the context of a drinking scene in one of his works. Whether an empty glass or an empty page there can be discomfort with the void, coupled in Rabelais' writing with an attraction for oblivion so not to have to face it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 11:31AM by loeve.

Er, Rebelias wrote Natura abhorret vacuum, Latin for nature abhors a vacuum, in his classic work, Gargantua.

I love my vacuum too, obviously, and have mixed feelings about my microwave.

I have a Hoover vacuum

it sucks up dirt on my carpet
and lint
and whatnot

not sure if i "love' my vacuum

is this possible? LOL

but it does the trick heh hehhhh

Hoovers are very fuzzy

Another vacuum--

[www.nhn.ou.edu]

They trained the Hubble telescope on an area of space where they wondered if there would be much of anything, where they might see evidence of the edge of the known universe, and were surprised to find no matter which direction and how far you look this is what you see, galaxy after galaxy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2010 04:05PM by loeve.

That was in 1996. In 2004 they aimed the Hubble telescope in roughly the
opposite direction near Orion for another deep view into space.

[www.cambridgeblog.org]

Ha-ha, scientists think there are parts of Space that are empty! Silly scientists!

Bruce Lipton's Where mind and matter meet segments on youtube dealing with cell biology and energetics addressed concepts that were supposed to be 'facts', but turned out weren't quite so.

Wishing you vibrant health

I've listened to the first six segments and Bruce Lipton is wonderful. He likens each cell to the entire body, having virtually the same abilities and complexities. Segment six discussed the cell membrane as the "brain" of the cell, as opposed to the nucleus where the genes are located. He's building on the idea that it's the environment and our response to it that determines our well being, rather than our genes, the genes accounting for maybe 5%. Nice series...

The only thing I know for sure, is that I can know nothing for sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator --
I love your Leo Buscaglia quote!! My favorite book is "Living, Loving, and Learning"

thanks newhoove, yeah I love that old guy, i was sad to find that he lived a 20 minute drive away from me up till his death, and I never had the opportunity to know him, he was a really great man, thats my favorite book of his as well, and the first one I ever read, I found it in the bargain bin at a used book store, asked them how much they wanted for it, she said it was $1, I only had like $.87 and so she gave it to me for that... that book is so worn out now,lol... and so worth more than $.87... *gives you a big warm interweb huggle* lol for leo