More coherent spine-flower analogy, human is upside-down plant

upside-down-plant-steiner

By Bruce Dickson, https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

Rudolf Steiner started us thinking on how plants and the human being are similar. RS called the human being an inverted plant. The flower on an annual plant are the sex organs of the plant. In a flower they point up. In human beings, our sex organs point down.

In a plant, its roots are in the relatively stable, unmoving soil. In the human being, our roots are invisible, in the higher worlds, in the mental and emotional realms; which are, relatively stable and unmoving compared to Earthly conditions. This paraphrases Steiner.

What was not worked out to my knowledge was how the spine vertebrae–similar to the leaf-leaf-leaf rhythm of leaves on a flower stalk–evolve into the sphenoid bone and skull.

I like our skull is analogous to a flower on top of the spine. I like in our etheric body, a lotus flower sacred geometry thing exists in the head or at the top of the head. All this is wondrous to me.

The remaining issue is in human embryology where the human head forms first, not last. Our lower body uncurls from the head the way a lima bean plant uncurls from a moistened dry lima bean between two wet paper towels, in the dark, in kindergarten.

I believe it was Steiner quoting Goethe siting the evolving form (morphology) of our vertebrae going up the spine does what the flower does. The leaves transform first into the calyx and then this transforms again into the flower.

This suggests our Axis Atlas and sphenoid bones are analogous to the calyx, our skull and the beauty of the human face, are analogous to a flower.

What’s disturbed with this analogy is it only makes sense in embryology if we correct Goethe and imagine the flower coming first. Our beautiful face, as we are before birth, in the higher realms, comes first. We’re connected FIRST; we start from connection with our higher form. For human embryology…

It makes mores sense if our beautiful face and loving thoughts-feelings DEVOLVE down into the butterfly bone of the sphenoid.

It makes mores sense if our sphenoid DEVOLVES down into the atlas and axis vertebrae.

Then our atlas and axis DEVOLVE down into the cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae.

Finally our lumbar vertebrae DEVOLVE down into the sacrum; finally, to the most primitive part of the spine, the coccyx.

The above Evolution is in concert with the human being, in utero. To use a color analogy, we devolve, uncurl and descend from ultraviolet frquencies, down thru purples, down thru blue frequencies, down all the way to base red frequencies of the root center connected with the coccyx.

The above suggests an updating of Rudolf Steiner’s original, seminal idea of the human being as upside-down plant, in addition to what is given at top of this article:

– While the plant grows primarily up from its roots, the human being, in utero and in the first five years, grows primarily down from its flower, down from its beautiful face.

– While a plant begins establishing its roots in the soil first and grows towards a flower, the human begins already established in spirit; then, grows down towards its roots in the red frequencies and root center, out of which come our legs and feet–our under-standing.

This seems to improve on Goethe’s understanding of the morphology of the spine. He had the correct idea but imagined the process in the same direction for both plants and humans, growing upwards. The bigger picture is humans and plants grow analogously, but in the opposite direction.

In this sense, the human being is an upside-down plant.

Your comments invited.

From Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment

inertia-k-12-science-physicsFrom Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment
Transition from perceiving behaviors as gravity-dominated to inertia-dominated
The bridging rhetoric for perceiving ether

One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.

Tho I have a Goethean Science blog http://blog.goetheanscience.net I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”

I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.

I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.

No such thing as “rest” in our solar system

Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.

What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.

When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.

Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.

My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.

My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.

Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.

If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.

What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:

“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.

The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.

The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?

What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.

What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.

When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.

If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.

This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.

I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.

The propositions:
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and

– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’

…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.

If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.” http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

To Do possibilities

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/contact-us/

Flowering plants speak to us of evolution and transformation (Ernst Lehrs paraphrase)

abstract-stamen-flower_lily16kIt appears the most active level of our waking adult psyche is four head quadrants, not anatomical brain quadrants, not physical-anatomical brain parts in any combination.

But wait, there’s more. “Brain quadrants” are only an analogy, a metaphor, for activity both obvious and subtle, occurring in our etheric body.

Brain-head quadrants appear to be the primary active level of waking thinking-feeling.

Before readers go off half-cocked, neither quadrants, nor any one quadrant, is the primary active level of our immortal-eternal soul.

Quadrants make possible the 3-dimensionality of all our habits (learned behaviors) of thinking-feeling, 95% of our psyche.

The other %5 to 10% of conscious deliberate choice-making is made possible by our immortal-eternal soul.

Keeping quadrants in perspective assists us not to over-generalize the significance of quadrants, as was done earlier with right~left brain hemispheres.

Building on Rudolf Steiner, a flower analogy is presented to show how all these things connect and evolve.

From our neck-up, in our thinking-feeling, we have something surprising, not predicted by the organization and activity of our gut brain, the capacity for independent thought, of critical thinking.

The surprising appearance of independent thinking on top of our more animalistic child within is exactly analogous to the surprising appearance of a rose blossom on top of a stem with only rose leaves.
If you just landed here from Mars, a desert planet, with not one flower at all, and you had never seen a flower on TV, nor any flowering plant; if you were seeing your first rose in bloom; and, the rose portion was blacked out, so all you could see was the roots, stem and leaves, could you easily predict a rose blossom?

No. Only a very poetic-intuitive consciousness would be abel to predict a flower blossom from only roots, stems and leaves.

Contemplating the majesty of how our head quadrants expand possibility in the human psyche, can lead us right into the natural character of transformation.

A rose blossom is the climax of a year-long cycle of slow, patient growth.

Independent thinking-feeling is the climax of 12 or more years of slow, patient development.

Nature’s developmental stages are visible in us. Humankind’s developmental stages are reflected in Nature—as Goethe and Steiner were trying to tell us.

Polarity of Connectivity~Renunciation (surrender)
Building on Goethe, in Man or Matter, Chapter V p. 85 in the 3rd Ed. “The Adventure of Reason,” Ernst Lehrs proposes “the Principle of Renunciation.”

Lehrs describes Goethe’s insight how the leaves of an annual plant have to renounce their comfortable rhythmic growth and predictable alternation to produce something completely different, new and unexpected, a flower.

The comfortable process of leaf, leaf, leaf has to be let go off to concentrate vitality towards producing a flower.

In turn the flower has to renounce its color, more-perfect geometry, fragrance and sexuality to make something altogether different: seeds.

In turn the seeds have to renounce living in the dreamy bosom of the Ur-plant, in perfect abstract potential, to do the work of germinating, sprouting and make the long climb of leaf, leaf, leaf.
Each stage has to give up a lot for the next stage to “blossom.”

Abstract-summary of the Three Sciences we use everyday

Abstract of Three Sciences chapters 19-20 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul ~

“Hard scientists,” especially those skeptical of holistic ideas and subjective phenomena, forget we use two other kinds of science every day.

three-sciences-triptych-hi-resThe average adult—especially women–use Three Orders of Science each day.

Second Order Science: Physical survival intelligence ~

Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solving; in fact, navigating any new situation unfamiliar to us.

Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.

First Order Science: Immune System Self intelligence ~

Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 1 am? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?

Down below our neck, in our Small Intestine, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” and “testing,” “Is this nutrient floating by safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?” Either this nutrient is safe and beneficial now or it is not safe and/or beneficial now.

Even tho they concern me and me alone, these activities and choices are also “real” and rational.

The two above add up to TWO kinds of rational thinking; now two categories of “science” we use everyday.

Let’s pause here to not “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences get fused, cross-wired. Then “all about me” becomes the criteria for every moment of waking life. In extreme cases, my needs become more significant than yours or anyone else’s. A certain Republican candidate for President in 2016 demonstrated the error of this mis-use of thinking magnificently. We can all learn what not to do from his example.

Third Order Science: Intelligence of the greatest good for the greatest number ~

If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources we have in hand against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy it is to get more of each resource; and, how each need will expand or shrink in the next time period to come.

In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; and often, extended family members. Even tho thinking here concerns me as perhaps one small part of a greater whole, choices made in this area are also real and rational. Ask any parent.

By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.

Q: What practical application does this have?

A: The Three Sciences may have have the most immediate and timely relevance to methods of holistic healing and Energy Medicine, all of them.

This is because Second Order (ego-survival, “hard” science) has been at war with holism and holistic thought since the 1970s [including everything in Waldorf].

The Three Sciences make the conflict unnecessary. ONE science alone cannot span the range of rational thinking we use every day; on one end, what is beneficial at the cellular level; and, what is beneficial for highest good of everyone and all critters on Planet Earth.

We can, we do, and we must use different Orders of thinking to address issues, depending which scale of concern is before us presently.

First Order Science is the naturally supportive science for holistic studies
How our cells and immune system “think” is 100% First Order Science. Not Second, not Third. First Order Science is the Science of the subjective; where, we honor and uncover more of both its intelligence; and, its limitations.

First Order Science is the key to forward progress in health and healing because ‘each person heals uniquely’ (Rudolf Steiner paraphrase). What is workable to heal me is highly individualized. It may or may not be workable for you. What works is often subjective. Outside of accidents and physical injury, the vast majority of healing for humans must be calibrated to the single individual. Humans are the least herd-like of creatures.

What thinking, which Science, characterizes hospital-drug-surgery-medicine? Can you guess?

Conventional 20th century medicine is 100% Second Order Science, the science of physical-material survival and male-ego-survival.

This is why it was pointless for John Thie, DC of Touch for Health and his practitioner colleagues to struggle for 25 years to get T4H services accepted by established medical authorities, why insurance companies never paid for Touch for Health by anyone except MDs. Holistic healing is literally outside what they call and consider “science,” beyond what they consider “real.”

With Three Sciences, we can say, just because holistic idea X is not Second Order Science does NOT mean no science, no rational, no critical thinking is occurring. Critical thinking occurs at three or more levels of intelligence inside us each and every day.

Q: Where does the science of Galileo-Descartes-Newton-Hawking fall?

A: Second Order. The middle Science was the first to evolve. First Order did not get going outwardly until the 1970s. Third Order began with Lincoln, Ghandi and ML King.

First Order Science healthcare has no conflict with Second Order medical healthcare. Why should they? they are separate Sciences. We want Second Order Science healthcare for accidents, injuries, and needed surgeries. We want First Order Science healthcare for most other wellness, health and prevention needs. A future, more Goethean Psychology will address concerns in all Three Sciences.

No flowering plant grows just to make seeds; just ask any plant

red_flowerExcerpted from the forthcoming book on Brain Quadrants and Holistic Brain Balancing

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

We tell school children the purpose of plants is to make seeds so new plants can grow next year.

That is how the one-eyed, color-blind survivalist intellect thinks.
That’s not how a flowering plant thinks.

The plant thinks: “Just making seeds is boring. What’s the fun of doing the same thing over and over again endlessly?”

The plant thinks: “I want to make a FLOWER! I was born to make flowers!

“The leaf-leaf-leaf rhythm is all very well, but I’m just getting ready for the climax, the big event, my FLOWER!

In our etheric aura, each living thing aspires to become something more. We nominalize this into a static noun, “evolution.” Our etheric body experiences this as a verb and an affirmation, “I am evolving.”

Physical locomotion, crawling, walking, is the biggest physical metaphor for evolving. If I can move, when I’m in motion, I’m more likely to get to something better.”

To paraphrase Ernst Lehrs, what does a flowering plant aspire to? The animal kingdom.
In its flowering, the plant approximates, in plant terms, the sex organs of animals. Many flowers create scent as well, like animals do.

A plant’s sexual expression with partners close by or at a distance, mimics and pantomimes, as best a plant can, the sexual activity of animals.

As humans we look at flowers less as sex organ images and more as divine images. Why? At no time does an annual plant express so perfect a geometry as in its flower.

In the simplicity and perfection of its geometry, flowers approximate and remind us of the perfection and potential for symmetry in Divine Archetypes.

red_flowerThe seeds are a consequence of the flower. However compared to the advent of a blossom, more like a useful after-thought, clearly not the main event in the life and death of a flowering plant. Seeds are what it does as physical life and vitality is slipping away. Flowers is what plants do at their peak of vitality.

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

It may be helpful to add here the image of a gentle upward spiral. Flowers are the rapid, accelerated development that punctuates the otherwise peaceful process of leaf, leaf, leaf. Every intelligence in our brain-psyche aspires to a gentle upward spiral. In Holistic Brain Balance we test and check to learn if a gentle upward spiral is present or not. If not, we apply what we know so a gentle upward spiral is present.