lol. the collective "you".
works with whole planets too. People believe that "common sense" is somehow independent of knowledge and intelligence, eg "why can't we feel the Earth moving so fast?"
So many example... two chickens rotating on a spit, one says to the other,"look, you infected me with brown skin!"
RE: A Little Respite
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A Little Respite
Ahaaaa the old 'collective'. You a collectivist young Rycharde? ;-)
Not a FE? A globalist too?
haha way too easy to trigger ;-)
I could have said "plural", but where is the fun in that!?
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
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" ;-)
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.