Three Sciences, Goethean Holistic Science, intro 2018

Since “holism” was coined in 1939, Second Order “hard” Science has been philosophically “at war” with holism; especially, holistic healing and Energy Medicine, of every kind.

A way out of this conflict exists.

It requires a slight paradigm shift: We use Three Sciences every day. Not one, not two–three.
Once we accept, live with, and begin to be creative with the shift, ‘Feeling is equally rational with Thinking,’ we begin imagining how an entire Order of Science (rational thought and experiment, hypothesis, experiment, result, new hypothesis) must exist in the individual and the subjective.

How we do many rational things interiorly, based on Feeling, is outside of Second Order Science, but NOT outside of science altogether.

Everything “hard” science objects to in holism and holistic health and healing is outside of Second Order Science. All methods, session, experiments and research in holistic healing, Energy Medicine, of every methods are within First Order Science, the science of the subjective, the science of healing and self-healing. Remaining ethical-moral aspects are in Third Order Science.

To assume Second Order Science defines all boundaries for all science–is where all the male arrogance comes from (also occasionally from women scientists thinking like males).
Where do find evidence for Three Sciences?

Parents of children inevitably use all three Sciences every day:
– Teaching my child the dangers of crossing the street with cars (Second Order Science, survival science),

– Providing nurturing experiences-opportunities for my child to develop self-esteem (First Order Science, science of the Inner Game of Life in terms of self-esteem and self-concept),

– Estimating if I bought enuf materials at CostCo to feed the entire family for the next seven days–or not. Deciding how to spend limited funds to meet the demands of all stakeholder in my family unit.

Show me a parent who does NOT make rational choices and experiments in all three areas. Can you?

Three Sciences exist. A holistic perspective always reveals this. Since 2014 we’ve been able to begin articulating it.

On the macro scale of mainstream culture, deliberate exercise of each science, in proportion to the others, is needed to keep a culture in balance.

A great deal of our cultural breakdown since 1995 has been ignoring how Science is far wider and deeper than Second Order materialistic consumer-industrial-electronic-genetic technology.

If one Order of Science gets too robust and hogs most attention and activity, the whole culture eventually spins out of control like a poorly loaded clothes washing machine on spin.

Hmm, funny. This sounds like what’s been happening in Western corporate-consumer-congressional-military culture since about 1960. How do these things sound together to your ear?

Cultures giving no effort to weighting all Three Sciences equally, giving each equal weight as values, are doomed to spin further and further out of control, until the civilization collapses.

If Three Sciences is our healthy direction forward, where will it take root and begin?

It might be in healthcare. Three Orders of Science has special significance to holistic health and Energy Medicine. The next paradigm of healing after only the rich can have good health care, can only come in the framework of Three Sciences, three equally valid value systems, all practical.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
Holistic Brain Balance intro-start here
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox

Goethean Science: From mere categorizing to interactive experiments

UPDATED DRAFT Why did Goethe feel a new way of seeing was needed?

Compared to centuries of earlier superstition and Alchemy fallen into mere witchcraft, one-sided, left-brain intelligence, exercised in the Enlightenment and Age of Reason was indeed a step forward.

However by 1750 Western philosophy had fallen into extreme one-sidedness.  Goethe was one of few aware of this flaw. He recognized it as an ethical and moral dead end.  More and more Goethe saw the consensual view of the human being falling into exclusively mechanical understanding and rhetoric.

Goethe believed every act of looking at a thing turns into observation, every act of observation turns into mentation, every act of mentation turns into associations. Thus it is evident we theorize every time we look attentively out into the world.”

For Goethe, the ultimate aim of science is nothing other than the metamorphosis of the scientist . In Goethean Science, experiment is the ‘mediator between object and subject.’ Experiments are two-fold, revealing more about the natural world; at the same time, revealing more about the experimenter to him or herself.

Where Cartesian-Newtonian science accepts only a single, practical syllogism about experimenters and research topics, Goethe stood for and demonstrated the practice of science as an art, an artistic practice directed towards partnership with Nature and refining the experimenter’s perceptions over time towards Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition.

Goethe’s method of science as art, of experiment as mediator between experimenter and Nature, can be applied to studies of every kind, in the arts and humanities as well as in science.

To cut through the vast sea of Goethe verbiage discussing his significance, I think the useful contrast for modern readers is between Goethe and Carl Linnaeus.

What did Linnaeus do? Carl Linnaeus was the founder of modern taxonomy. His books are the beginning of modern botanical and zoological nomenclature. Linnaeus drew up rules for assigning names to plants and animals. He made naming and identifying plants in the field more workable. “…he introduced the standard hierarchy of class, order, genus, and species. His main success in his own day was providing workable keys, making it possible to identify plants and animals from his books. For plants he made use of the hitherto neglected smaller parts of the flower” ~ Britannica online

“[His] folio volume of only 11 pages presented a hierarchical classification, or taxonomy, of the three kingdoms of nature: stones, plants, and animals. Each kingdom was subdivided into classes, orders, genera, species, and varieties. This hierarchy of taxonomic ranks replaced traditional systems of Linnaeus’s classification system has survived in biology.” His naming system was implicitly hierarchical. Each species is classified within a genus ~ Forgotten online source

Linnaeus’ impulse started or at least greatly accelerated, the left-brain science of making categories and nested sub-categories.

Before Linnaeus there was only a system of biological classification based on mutually exclusive divisions, or dichotomies, too simple to handle the wide diversity of sub-species existing in Nature.

The result? Naturalists everywhere had to use Linnaeus’ classifications directly or at least use them to determine if specimens in their collections were indeed new species or not.

Goethe’s concern was a narrowing of attention to mere category accuracy was a step sideway, not forward.

Specialization per se in science, emphasis on accumulation of mere data, in a merely mechanical manner, devoid of human creativity or human values, could not be by itself, a step forward to integrating Man and Nature.

To put words in Goethe’s mouth, he wondered, ‘How does such activity benefit or further human development of and awareness of the UR-human?’

///

For Goethe, any science defining itself exclusively by how well it presented information gleaned from only physical-material characteristics, selected external traits, was absent humanity. With the limited rhetorical tools available in his time, he fought against a narrowing-contracting interplay between humans and Nature.

Putting words in his mouth again, a science reducing human beings and human nature to merely collecting and tabulating Nature was a job clerks could do. The best and the brightest could exercise a much wider range of intelligences.

Again putting words in his mouth, what was needed, was a bigger idea, a workable comprehensive theory of how to bring ALL of the human explorer to ALL of the subject in Nature, he or she was studying.

I think it’s fair to say Goethe wished a rhetoric about how, in modern language, humans could surrender to Nature; and how in turn, Nature could surrender to human beings.

Implied in the above modern formulation of Goethe’s ideas is how in surrender, Nature will “give up” and reveal her secrets to human beings.

Conversely, human explorers can expect to surrender, have their own private, secret and unresolved issues and unanswered questions (mental-emotional, moral, ethical) uncovered, triggered and revealed.

Finally in Goethe’s comprehensive theory of holistic science–our words, not his–the end-product is a summary text–or better–artistic work, to share with other explorers and interested lay persons, the uncoveries of Nature’s secrets (the additive human knowledge fetch-quest so prized by left-brainers).

As well, share with other explorers and interested lay persons the uncoveries the explorers made into their own issues, the new personal realizations, the new ethics, the clarified morals, and what more of the UR-human was revealed, as individually defined.

In the above complimentary external-outer uncoveries and internal-inner uncoveries, Goethe saw a balanced use of human intelligences in “science.”  In modern language–this I believe was Goethe’s new way of seeing.

In fewer words, Goethe believed it’s natural, normal and healthy for the experimenter to be altered and changed by his or her observations and conclusions.  These “personal growth” benefits of experimentation ought to be celebrated and incorporated into reports and findings.

This did not go over well with left-brainers committed to the exclusively Ahrimanic strengths of “one-eyed, color blind, kinematic intelligence” (Ernst Lehrs).  For the exclusively left-brain thinkers, knowledge was all and only about facts, the more isolated the better.

For Goethe, the production of new knowledge was inseparable from the personal, ethical moral, and spiritual(?) growth of the experimenter.  In Steiner’s terms, a balance of Lucifer and Ahriman was called for. In modern terms, a whole-brained approach, a Team Human Approach, was called for.

Q: Was Goethe closer to the nebulous older alchemists and mystics?

A: Ernst Lehrs and other Goethe literature suggests, no, this was not the case. Goethe knew well the dangers of superstition, the dangers of ‘too warm’ thinking, with no emphasis on consistency, rigor or precision. In his late teens he made a study of alchemy:

quote In his autobiography, Goethe half-apologetically admits the youthful enthusiasm he experienced for alchemical and mystical readings: Georg von Welling’s obscure Opus Mago-Cabbalisticum et Theosophicum and the anonymously published Aurea Catena Homeri, as well as works by Paracelsus, Basilis Valentinus and van Helmont ~ Goethe the Alchemist: A Study of Alchemical Symbolism in Goethe’s Literary and Scientific Works (Cambridge Library Collection – Literary Studies)

The result? He learned the limitations of this overly-subjective insufficiently objective thinking. A little symbolism might be tolerated. Too much spoils the soup. Goethe was not a closet-Alchemist. He was a throw forward to thinking which mostly did not come again until 1975, our first holistic, whole-brained thinker.

As a whole-brain thinker–my term, not his–knowledge separated from Nature and from human Thinking~Feeling, from Imagination, Intuition and Inspiration, was ‘dead thinking,’ thinking only natural to soulless automatons.

Arranging material phenomena in logical linear sequence is a valid scientific method.  Why separate it? Why carry out the activity in isolation from your own Thinking~Feeling development?  Aren’t you interested in sharpening your powers of observation, in how new facts help us correct our own faulty conclusions, fuzzy ethics and weak moral development?

In a fantastic image, imagine Goethe in his time machine visiting the Manhattan Project.  You would see him making notes for for a Faust Part Three.  He would have seen the one-sided thinking of the A-bomb scientists as a dramatically tragic illustration of left-brain thinking mostly devoid of and separate from natural human powers of self-correction, ethical and moral development.

Goethe’s middle way between cold and warm thinking was a living interaction with Nature “the labor of experimentation”.

I imagine Goethe seeing only very occasional use for the cold machine of first coming up with an abstract hypothesis; then, setting up an artificial experiment to test the hypothesis ‘to see if it works or not.’

Today we recognize this kind of one-sided experiment as vulnerable to narcissism, arranging facts and observations to line up with our own hypothesis. Alternatively, we recognize one-sided left-brain experimenting as having the sole intention to invent new products corporations can market, the use of experimental method solely for commercial purposes.

///

Since 1970s at least we recognize the usefulness of “whole system analysis” seeing the parts within the natural whole.

In the educated West at least, a lean towards more holistic science suggests a workable directon for the evolution of human thinking, away from the cold-only thinking of Galileo-Descartes-Newton and towards warmer whole-brainedness, back towards Goethe and his experimental method.

Q: Does Goethean Science’s altered value system regarding quantification, cause it to have less rigor in its experimental method compared to Galileo-Descartes-Newton science?

A: It’s a needed question. If whole-brained Goethean Science was easy to do, we would have done it yesterday. Goethean Science is more rigorous about experimental method than conventional scinece.

Why? How? In addition to conventional Second Order standards and criteria for studying external phenomena quantitatively, Goethean Science asks its experimentalists to be rigorous in two additional realms:

1) The subjective realm of:

– Monitoring personal biases and prejudices,

– Monitoring personal Aha!s gained thru the observations and experiments,

2) The moral-ethical realm (Third Order Science) of how observations and experiments in the outer world are changing the experimenter’s inner life of morality and ethics, if any.

The above suggests a balance of quantitative observation and qualitative observation.

Q: What’s an example where practitioners of such balanced science can be observed?

A: Agriculture, farming and Biodynamics. Scratch the surface of any humanistic agriculture; such as, https://www.biodynamics.com/what-is-biodynamics and you quickly find discussion of ethical questions relating to sourcing fertilizers, pest control, etc.

50 years after Goethe’s death, Rudolf Steiner became Goethe’s student and editor of his scientific works.

RS absorbed enuf of Goethe’s holistic method to become a throw-forward, our second modern holistic thinker. His best-known legacy? A Goethean Psychology of human development, child development and K-12 schooling, curiously titled, “Waldorf-methods education.”

Goethe challenged the view experimentalists can look on their target devoid and naive of their own theoretical and personal context.

He likewise challenged the assumption shared common language in science research and innovation was fully evolved, in its final form. In more modern language, Goethe at least intuited each person perceives uniquely; therefore, scientists talking and using language as if everyone thinks and perceives the same was dangerous illusion. Further, new generations were going to think a bit differently, hence shared common language in science research and innovation would respond to this as well.

== Essence and Ur phenomena ==

For Goethe when scientists adopt a more living, more humanistic, approach, capable of entering into the living essence of Nature, expressed in the phenomenon studied, this leads the experimenter towards a face-to-face meeting with an essence of Nature, crucial underlying archetype-patterns (”Ur-phänomen”).

The Goethean Experimenter does not try to define or explain the essence; he or she reads the essence, appreciates the essence as you would gradually get to know the character and preferences of your own newborn child, revealed over some time.

The inherent order and logic of a very young child’s character, talents and preferences while invisible, are clearly objective not subjective, not invented by the experimenter. The very young child is not defined or explained; they are “read;” or better, “appreciated” and later understood in terms which can be shared with others.

///

Goethean Holistic Health, how our visible and invisible bodies weave together

Physical health analogized as warp and woof of physical anatomy and etheric anatomy

Warp and woof of health in our physical body

Physical health as the intersection of physical anatomy and etheric anatomy

More precisely, each reader’s physical health is the intersection of how healthy each and all of the following bodies:

Visible: Physical

Invisible: Etheric double including acupuncture meridians

Invisible: Imaginal (astral) body including template of the Christ

Invisible: Emotional (causal) body, including unresolved attachments

Invisible: Mental body, including unresolved faulty beliefs

Invisible: Mythological (upper etheric) body, including unresolved identifications with Creation.

Warp and woof are weaving terms; they indicate the two directions of threads in cloth. When woven together, warp and woof create whole cloth, regardless of the raw material.

If one reads Rudolf Steiner and his students, they make clear the place to look for the major, leading, primary logical level of waking brain function ought to be found in etheric structures of some kind. These structures, quadrants, were theorized by Ned Herrmann in the 1970s and independently(?) uncovered again and verified and validated by Bertrand Babinet, around 1985.

Advanced Energy Medicine techniques and methods are available now; yet, are not widely available and will not be for another 100 years.

For self-care, most people are benefitted by attending to their lowest two bodies, physical and the lower etheric, where acupuncture meridian activity occurs.

As an image, as a metaphor, we can analogize physical health as warp and woof of physical anatomy and etheric anatomy.

In simpler words: How etheric structures and activity influences our physical body function.

Leaving aside the influences of our higher bodies, within just the domain of our two lower bodies is access to:

– Our acupuncture meridians, designed by the Angels as our Inner Dashboard,

– Our self-connection–or lack of it–between gut brain and head brain, the HTPA Axis,

– Imbalanced charge in our etheric body, undercharge leading towards depression; overcharge leading towards inflammation and cysts-tumors.

Q: Why is this a new or unusual idea?

A: To follow the above scheme means to release and let go of:

– The minimalist fantasy of waking brain function is primarily characterized by the triune brain (reptile brain, flock brain, cognitive brain), and

– The maximalist-materialist fantasy-theory how a waking adult brain can be 100% understood as the combined interaction of electro-chemical and genetic interactions.

The maximalist-materialist theory fuels pharmaceutical research, advertising and profits. It may produce more useful drugs. It will create more drugs corporations promote for sale. However the maximalist fantasy is obfuscation, promoting the endless dark light, Faustian glamour: if only we knew more, had more knowledge, we could understand how our immortal-eternal soul works.

Even if tens of thousands of electro-chemical-genetic interactions are described, you still fall short of a convincing picture or explanation of quality thinking, ethical thinking, creative thinking; let alone, Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:

https://www.HeartSpaceOC.com/healers/
Paper books, eBooks, booklets on Amazon-Kindle
https://holisticbrainbalance.wordpress.com/
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
Three-Sciences-We-Use-Everyday
Bruce on Plus.Google.com

Spiritual Geography PACME 101 In your hands, handy version
https://youtu.be/SPYXtidpwss

Inner beauty

Inner beauty
 
The following expresses what I believe is a Goethean approach to beauty; that is, an inner perception of beauty balanced with relevant outer sensory images. 
“Recently, I was moved by a slide show dedicated to Audrey Hepburn, with quotes and pictures showing her in her dazzling youth and her radiant maturity.
 
“As a child in the Netherlands, Hepburn nearly died of hunger in a country devastated by World War II, and was rescued by the UN refugee programme. Towards the end of her life, she was asked about her beauty secrets. She replied with remarkable grace: ‘For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people. For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. For beautiful hair, let a child run his or her fingers through it once a day. People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed. Never throw out anybody. The beauty of a woman is not in a facial mole. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It is the caring that she lovingly gives, the passion that she shows, and the beauty of a woman with passing years only grows.’ …”
 
from https://www.psychologies.co.uk/self/what-is-inner-beauty.html
Inner beauty may be described as something experienced through a person’s character rather than by appearances.

“What Is phenomenology?” Reduced & revised for clarity from 2003 article by Michael D’Aleo

Reduced and revised for clarity from “What Is phenomenology?”  Article written by Michael D’Aleo originally published in the Waldorf Science Newsletter, Volume 10, #19 Fall 2003. In 2017 the original still available at http://www.waldorflibrary.org/articles/597-what-is-phenomenology

Phenomenology is the way human beings come to understand the world through direct experience… (Littlejohn & Koss, 2011, p. 47)

… Phenomenology does not have its origin in Waldorf education. It comes from European Continental Philosophy of the late 17th and early 18th century.

While people familiar with Waldorf schools know Goethe (1749-1832) and Steiner (1861-1925) advocated such an approach, parallel efforts exist by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714-1762), Johannes Mueller (1801-1858) and Edmund Husserl (1859-1938).

Q: Is Goethean-Steinerian Phenomenology limited to just a few dead geniuses?

A: Not at all. In reading the writings of any of the great historical scientists, one finds references to their process. They each saw a new “pattern of lawfulness” in repeated personal observations, lawful relationships-connections which had not been documented before; often, simply overlooked, often for decades.

Goethe-Steiner phenomenology in many ways advocates nothing at all new if we posit as natural and healthy two-pronged approach to expanding human knowledge: an objective experiential approach, an Outer Game component (documenting repeated objective observations); and, an Inner Game component (journals, drawings, diagrams, recorded voice notes casting about for new connections). This characterizes perhaps the most common method by which human knowledge expands.

Da Vinci’s phenomenology

A clear advocate for an experiential approach is found in da Vinci’s notebooks. He describes the difficulties he had with the scholars of his day. In his time, about 1600, much scholarly university activity and debate focused on how to interpret work left behind by Greek and Roman “masters.” Original, contemporary individual inquiry into real-time phenomena, into the world around them was not yet within the academic purview of 1600.

For example, in Galileo’s time the commonly accepted view of objects “naturally dropped” (simply dropped), was a heavier object will (can, must) fall faster than a lighter one.

Galileo wished not to take this on authority of the ancients. Thru careful experiments of his own devising, he considered the assertion to be only a testable theory. In his experiments, Galileo noticed inconsistencies. Through a combination of intuitions, thought experiments and actual demonstrations, he concluded all “heavy” objects (ignoring feathers, dust, etc.) fell through the same distance in the same time; and, each object’s speed (velocity) increased at the same rate. Furthermore, the rate of acceleration for both small and large weights was constant. This example is often used in the 10th grade Waldorf Physics block in the study of Mechanics.

In The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci as translated by Edward McCurdy (Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1938), the first entry reads:

[Rather than] quote from ancient authors as [contemporary] scholars do, it is a far bigger and more worthy thing to read by the light of experience, the instructress of their masters. [Contemporary scholars] strut about puffed-up and pompous, decked-out and adorned not with their own labors but with those of ancient others. They will not even my own labors [a fair hearing]. If they despise me who am an inventor, how much more should blame be given to themselves, who are not inventors but trumpeters and reciters of the work of others.

To use a word NOT of Da Vinci’s choosing, he applied “phenomenology,” keen objective observation backed up by intense internal Thinking and Feeling, towards perceiving “patterns of [already existing natural] lawfulness.”

Consciously observing the phenomena of the world, this is the starting point for the middle school science curriculum.

Phenomenology in middle school science

We begin with the premise all empirical knowledge must start with attending to sensory impressions. Every concept we form, be it in science or everyday life, must ultimately be based on a combination of sense impressions; which later, are elaborated (woven) into concepts.

No natural sensing is excluded from our observing. Sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. With practice, we may exercise additional sense impressions: our sense of motion, balance, thoughts, etc.

The foundations for such an approach to understanding the world, was outlined in depth by Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf educational methods, in his book The Philosophy of Freedom or Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path.

One of RS’s central themes in his book might be outlined in the following manner. When we experience a new or unfamiliar environment for the first time, we choose specific observations to focus on. Then mentally we remove (extract) these details from the whole of the environment [we limit our attention] to a finite number of sense impressions.

Having decided to focus on specific observations, we then find relationships or order within our observations. Relationships also appear between observations which have been separated out; and even, with the whole environment from which they were removed.

One can think of our observations as sense-based perceptions. The relationships we later perceive as thought-based conceptions. …

The fascinating part of the process outlined above is looking for relationships between our perceptions is not linear; nor, one which can always be arrived at through logic.

The process of finding the relationship for the first time is often referred to as “intuition.” Intuition is the process by which one first has an insight into a conceptual framework which can unite a given set of perceptions, or one set of perceptions with other concepts. This can be the “aha” or “eureka” experience we’ve all had, making sudden big new connections. In this moment a new relationship is perceived. Then and only then can logic be rightly applied to determine if the relationship will hold true in the context of other known relationships. This process of looking for new relationships among phenomena is a true activity of thinking. Contrast this with “thinking” defined as simple recollection of previously known facts.

Herein lies the biggest distinction between a phenomenological approach to science and more conventional educational approaches. In a phenomenological approach, one strives to give students a sensory experience of phenomena first; then, have them wrestle to connect within themselves perceived thoughts and feelings. Finally, have them bring their processed perceptions into order, ideally in an artistic product: journal, drawings, sculpture, music, theatrical play, etc. …

In this we invite students to compose-assemble their own conception of the world instead of relying on the world-view of dead people, regurgitating the past, as scholars in Da Vinci’s time were prone to do. …
The phenomenological process cultivates individual and powers and capacities necessary for independent-critical thinking. Thinking becomes an activity, becomes a verb, something dynamic and living.

Along conventional academic approaches, the laws or relationships are given initially. then the student is guided through a proof of why they are supposed to hold true. In this approach, students are not tasked to use their own thinking capacity in a healthy exercise. They simply need to follow a logical argument. They are not primed to have an original insight themselves as encouraged by a phenomenological approach. This is why in conventional education, thinking becomes mere data acquisition and data processing.

Goethean-Steiner phenomenological approach

What if almost every new idea and invention in science, resulted from a person consciously or unconsciously using a phenomenological approach?

Consider: a scientist considers an old concept, one passed down “as is” for decades. Suddenly our individual scientist perceives something new in the phenomena not represented in the existing-traditional concept. In this moment, the scientist leaves convention, stops viewing the problem thru old, fixed concepts. Instead, our individual becomes interested in new detail(s). They naturally desire to “make sense” of the new in light of the old–if possible.

This is precisely the kind of thinking we wish to lead students in a Waldorf school to. Whether they choose to become scientists later in life is immaterial. The sciences give everyone opportunity to flex their thinking muscles, develop capacity to see things anew, to enter existing situations, take stock of what is known, what is present now (make observations); and then, be free to uncover new relationships, connections forming new concepts of the whole of the situation. …

BIO (2003) ~ Michael D’Aleo teaches Physics and Physical Sciences at the Waldorf School of Saratoga Springs in Saratoga Springs, NY and is an instructor in the summer high school teacher-training program at The Center for Anthroposophy in Wilton, NH. After being a class for teacher for grades 6–8, he co-authored a book with Stephen Edelglass, Sensible Physics Teaching, a guide for teaching Physics in grades 6-8. Prior to teaching, Michael worked as a design and development engineer in the electronics industry and is listed as an inventor on seventeen U.S. Patents. He is currently the director of research for SENSRI, a non-profit scientific research group investigating methods and applications of phenomena based science.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
http://blog.goetheanscience.net//?s=three+sciences
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox