What is with people saying I'm triggered these days? If I was triggered you'd know it. I am not triggered. I am confused tho hahahahaha
RE: A Little Respite
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A Little Respite
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
ok.lol. let's share the confusion!
I started watching Lanka's 2nd lecture, and was thinking of the fastest way to translate it... and I'd take the German transcript then run that through a translator, but that looked like prone to 100s of errors!
I'm not into ascribing anything to a soul-thing - what was removed from biology was the non-contact forces of electromagnetism. hence we get all these blocky materialist images of what is allegedly going on in cells. But even those "contact" reactions are all mediated by electrons reacting to EM fields. No souls needed. AND it tells us where to look, now that we have the tech to actually see.
Ah yes I see now. How are u watching part 2? Do u speak German too?
I think his talk of the soul is probably leading to that but he is taking us on baby steps. We'll see.
is available
https://wissen-ist-relevant.com/vortrage/stefan-lanka-die-biologie-wie-sie-ist-die-leib-seele-biologie-und-die-substanz-aus-der-das-leben-ist/
did German at school, but that's a long time ago - just following the images. lol.
I agree with him that the mind is a very powerful healer - I just would not call it a soul, as that has a ton of metaphysical assumptions that are not necessary to develop a powerful mind.
From my point of view, large parts of the lecture are untranslatable. The sentence structure often lacks coherence and it seems to me that Mr. Lanka, where he cannot derive any linguistic meaning himself, simply adds together several meaning contents, which confuse the listener. This may be due to the fact that he is not able to explain technical matters to the layman or that he himself lacks an explanation and, in a sense, navigates his way through somehow. Hard to say.
It is a pity that he is not a very good speaker.
Regarding the concept of "soul", I also see that people in general have begun to shun the term, but then one could equally begin to shun the term "spirit". Replacing this term with that of "mind", for example, seems to me even far more inappropriate. In my view, "soul" is a word that cannot be explained, but everyone knows when someone is suffering from the soul. Even "psyche" seems to be out of everyday language use. People rather use the term "mind".
That is, after all, the conflict between what is called materialism and what is the subject of the humanities (in German it is literally called "sciences of the spirit"). But where the latter allow the distinction to be taken away from them by the terminology of the materialist faculties and henceforth work only with the terms "mind", "consciousness", they have, in my view, allowed themselves to be outranked.
Nowadays, mind and consciousness are rather assigned to the brain, one follows a biologism in this respect and ignores that "consciousness" can no more be explained than "soul" or "spirit". Nevertheless, if all three terms connoted the same thing, one would only need one of the terms. And so they are different from each other, which I think is good.
The fact that the humanities faculties have a quasi contradiction in their choice of words doesn't seem to bother anyone, it has simply become established and no further thought is given to it, except by those who will probably change this term soon, if not already done or in the making.
I personally think that the humanities cannot in principle be a "science" in the sense of the scientific method. I would rather classify them with the arts. Elevating them to the level of the material or empirical sciences led, in my view, rather to treating the human psyche like a transparent, calculable and measurable thing and to viewing it in a similar way to the organism.
But now I am already in the middle of a dilemma that is not really a dilemma at all. It is neither a hard nor a soft problem, but none at all. Without analysis and thinking, people in everyday life solve this alleged problem in their own way. Body & soul are one, not two separate things, is what I am saying.
Thanks, for the insights that the talk is itself hard to follow in places even by a German. Is the 2nd lecture any easier!?
IMo using mind is a better start as most people think they have one, and hence can learn that an expanded and embodied MIND can be a far more powerful experience than the little mind that the materialists consider a mere epi-phenomenon. eg chakras are real structures that are now called "neural nexus" in the literature, which is what I'd always thought they were! So, if the mind can direct the neural signals to activate those nexuses, then IMO that is a new power that most people are seemingly unaware that they have. That there is no apparent material structure at these nexuses is further proof that they are electromagnetic field maxima - and further help see our biofield as an energetic dimension that cannot be explained by just wires and molecules. Although taking this further, atoms and molecules themselves are not bricks, they are also "wavicles" ;-)
There is a small book by Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science, that was very useful when I started as a science communicator. In it he makes the simple distinction of a scientist working as a scientist should seek to generate new knowledge, whereas the artist as artist can articuoltae that new knowledge so that it is meaningful within the established language and culture. One individual can be both, but they are distinct functions.
One tragic consequence we have seen, and are seeing, is that the articulation of knowledge is the preserve of propaganda - and that most people cannot tell the difference, coz they are largely not scientists. This goes back a long way to early science publishers in Venice, Amsterdam, London. It is not true that knowledge is power - I suspect the arrow is more in the other direction - power is knowledge, the creation of knowledge, even when it is false.
You are describing the very thing which is staring us all in the face. New age and magic were always merged with medical 'science'. Now tho they are revealing that fact more openly with their 'gene' stuff. Someone posted this under my video.
https://odysee.com/@alanthier001:7/Crick-s-Caduceus:3
It kind of sums it up.
I think it is even simpler.
Most of humanity seem unaware that the tech being presented to them as material and beneficial is neither - most of it is spiritual and controlling. There are also branches of science that continue to be kept totally hidden - they also fall into the latter categories.
The sleep is much deeper than eyes wide shut - the third eye is not even aware it is being turned off.
Ah, finally someone says that. I run around like the proverbial fool repeating such. Not related to the utility, but more related to the material/spiritual aspect. Modern medicine is spiritual to the same extent as that which is thought to be shamanic or charlatanic.
There are also branches of science that are still kept completely hidden - they also fall into the latter categories.
Do I want to know? 😬
You are awake? ;-)
I watched in total about an hour. Maybe I will go on, don't know yet.
Yes, haha, everyone thinks they have minds, which is true. How you use it is another affair.
The word "mind", I would argue, is used in such an inflationary way that it loses its depth. Bit like "I love you" is something commonplace or what is perceived as such loses its potential to shock (surprise, irritate, annoy, delight).
Whenever something is in frequent use, it seems to lose its fascination and a term that is used like an everyday object does not make me stumble in thought.
But if I throw a stone between your legs and your run is stopped or vehemently interrupted by it (the stream of thought), it moves you to pause. You are surprised, irritated, even annoyed (or delighted). It is this pause that helps your thinking. But where I habitually read or hear something and I don't get a bludgeon in my thinking habit, I have only moderate interest at best.
Psychologists or therapists who know this also work with conscious irritation, for example, and accept the annoyance that such irritation causes their clients.
Without this stylistic device of deliberate exaggeration, people hardly listen, are constantly preoccupied with their thoughts, which swing from one tree to the next like monkeys. The advertisers know this very well, too. That's why they use "DISRUPTORS", which is a technical term for the advertising industry here.
Neural nexus, I know that from Startrek - LOL - the Borg Queen's ship :) Yes, that's one of those words that still seems new, although I see popping it up everywhere; "neural" or "neuronal", I only have associations with the brain.
Is what you're talking about related to Sheldrake and his morphogenesis?
Whoever knows the secret of the unity of opposites - the unity of the inner and the outer world - can try to tell it further. In most cases, one fails. The funny sages who prefer to keep such knowledge (power) to themselves do not then say that they have anything to teach. Stubbornly, however, people want to learn from them.
Pseudo-disciples get everything the wrong way round and turn genuinely powerful knowledge into pseudo-knowledge, which, I agree, thereby wants to unfold its own power. That's why masters who realise this also prefer not to teach. I would still say that their kind of knowledge has great power.
The powerless (who are afraid of illness, old age and death) remain without this power. I count myself among them.
I have known contemporary self-styled alchemists who stick to the old tradition of not teaching in public - only a few students, and only maybe. All that was shared at the time was some talk and... a very interesting "elixir".
Haha, disruptors annoy most people. I used them for years while teaching, to see who was paying attention.
In terms of morphogenesis, I think we need to investigate more carefully existing phenomena:
flow without pumps.
strikingly similar to cell migration - gastrulation - during embryogenesis.
Now that sounds like the real stuff. ;-) HaHa!
Who was this alchemist, is he/she known by name? Probably not, as it would be a contradiction.
Very good! A former teacher of my husband was throwing chalk at his students. What kind of teaching did you do yourself?
Thanks for the links, always interested in phenomena. Will watch them later on.
When I was young we were experimenting with witch board and glass shifting. It worked pretty well. We had a blast. I always wanted to make a post about it. Maybe I put it into the next one. We'll see. I hope to find my way out of blogging one day, though.
Pleased to meet you!
This is what I love about Lanka, he is not afraid to go where 'science' dare not tread. He is a scientist who dared to think which makes him an artist too. I've always said medicine should never have become a science, it would never work. Now we are learning why.