Harpo Marx meets Dr. Frankenstein

Harpo Marx’s contribution to whole-brain theory and practice.  Redeeming Feeling capacity in holistic brain study

Harpo&Lucy

dg-Harpo

We need some context to understand Harpo Marx’s contribution to whole-brain theory and practice.

At the height of the right~Left Brain fad, 1975-1985, it was common to hear people–inaccurately–describe themselves as strictly “right-brained” or “left-brained.” The left-brainers bragged about their math skills; right-brainers emphasized their creativity and intuition.

Which brain hemisphere do you think Harpo was more expressive of?

Which brain hemisphere do you think Groucho was more expressive of?

Before we reinforce erroneous over-generalizations of right~left brain contrast, let’s set the record straight.

Our waking psyche is multi-intelligent. Waking adults enjoy the use of multiple intelligences. Without multiple intelligences humans would only have only instinct and habit to solve problems.

Ever see a cat with its head stuck in a tight-fitting small bag? The cat only has instincts and reflexes to get out of the bag. The cat backs up. The cat jumps. The cat is unable to think, “Maybe if I put my two paws up and grasp the bag, this could knock or push the bag off.”

If you ask them, an adult human can think of 5-10 ways to get its head out of a paper bag. Ability to think of multiple solutions to the same problem is highly suggestive of Multiple intelligences.

Full discussion of Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligences 1.0 and MI 2.0, can be found in Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul.

Back to Harpo Marx. Harpo’s humor arises very much from what he limits himself to.

Does Harpo limit himself more to his right brain hemisphere or left brain hemisphere?

Right, you got it.

Harpo pretends he has no language ability and no math computation ability. He limits himself to responses to life a creative child (or a creative, silent Buster Keaton) comes up with. We like Harpo because he has no Inner critic and refuses to let anyone else’s Inner Critic or cultural norms dampen his enthusiasm and joy for life and people.

Harpo makes it possible to contrast his one-sided cartoon of right brain expressions with a “cartoon” of left brain hemisphere expressions.

Our left hemisphere is dominant in language processing, formulating thoughts and words you have not expessed before. Left brain is dominant in interpreting what you hear. It handles the duties of speaking beyond screams, yells, cursing and other more guttural (gut brain) habitual and learned expressions of emotional liking and disliking.

Left brain is also dominant in constructing logical sequences in–among other areas–exact mathematical computations.
To simplify, in waking adults, left brain is dominant in activity where rational Thinking-Feeling are at the fore.

Harpo shows us what humans would be like if we turned off our left brain.

In Horse Feathers, Harpo grabs a book off the shelf, opens it, laughs at the contents; then immediately, throws the book into a roaring fireplace. Later in the scene, we see him again involved in his attack on written language. This time he is shoveling a large pile of books into the fireplace ~ p. 100, A Century of the Marx Brothers by Joseph Mills

Harpo proposes, if we turned off our left brain, if we approached the written word more skeptically, we would get a lot less work done; and, have a whole lot more fun.

Whole-brainedness proposes a balance of left~right is best. If you need encouragement to redeem your right brain abilities, Harpo is your inspiration.

Which brain hemisphere do you think Chico was more expressive of? That’s right, a little bit of both right and left.

Harpo shows us a human living more in Feeling

One of the big philosophical struggles being worked out as we speak, is how to reframe science-technology so it serves life and truly human values; instead of, too many Dr. Frankenstein creations, one after another.

A simple way to language this is we need a science more aligned with and attuned to Feeling.

Fortunately how a right brain Harpo science works out and dovetails with left brain-only science is already accomplished. It’s the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday, a major topic of this website. Full discussion in Goethean Holistic Science and the Three Sciences We Use Everyday for Holistic Practitioners and Self-Healers: Chapters 19-20 from Balance on All Levels-PACME+Soul Plus Related Essays.

First Order Science is theory and experimental method for, the rational choices we make using feeling and intuition. Harpo Marx could be the cartoon mascot–but then–so could Goethe, the West’s earliest holistic thinker.

It’s fun for me to re-imagine the conversation between the one-eyed, color blind scientist and Goethe as a conversation between Harpo Marx and Dr. Frankenstein.

To Learn More
The Card of Destiny for both Harpo Marx and Sai Baba is the 10Hearts. You can look up its characteristic expressions.

BIO ~ Author and Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson is a wounded healer who completed his Heroes Journey this lifetime. He likes to share the Elixirs of Life he found, with those interested. “Service to myself and others is why I get out of bed each morning.” Find him at http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46

Waldorf-methods approach to learning acupuncture meridians

(Hint – use polarities and patterns)

A Waldorf-methods approach to learning meridians.  

Excerpted from a larger work, to be incorporated into the book, Meridian Metaphors

A whole-brained, grasp of meridians, in a humanistic-holistic Western framework, includes BOTH Memorization of names and placement; AND, Encouraging direct experience of flow in meridians

The present author has taken no TCM nor acupuncture training or certification. I don’t have access to TCM staff and faculty at any TCM college or training institute. My research is limited to fairly wide exposure to TCM literature, a few acupuncture practitioners and the internet.

2017 research with Mr. Google suggests by the standards of Holistic-Humanistic Psychology, student training methods for learning acupuncture meridians remain rudimentary everywhere I can see online. Hopefully live courses for students have additional humanity and promote Intuitive Feeling equally with Intuitive Thinking. No Meridian Coloring Book seems to exist, might be a good idea too.

“Rudimentary by the standards of Holistic-Humanistic Psychology” points to existing teaching methods limited almost exclusively to learning names and physical placement. Online I can find no encouragement for students to feel their own meridians and the meridian flows in clients–outside of Donna Eden’s Meridian Tracing courses at Innersource.net. Donna Eden and her teachers use Holistic-Humanistic Psychology and humanistic psychotherapy as their idealogical foundation.

If readers know of TCM and meridian training schools explicitly using Humanistic Psychology-psychotherapy as an idealogical foundation, I would love to know of them and list them here.

What Mr. Google tells us is, existing student training methods for learning acupuncture meridians are out of balance towards left brain intelligences. The orientation of meridian learning is strongly titled towards only the Outer Game of Life.

What about Asian acupuncture literature? Asian acupuncture literature is even more strongly titled towards outer-orientation of meridian learning than Western literature and methods.

Asian TCM student training methods for learning acupuncture, accessible online, suggest brute force memorization (making clear inner mental pictures) backed up by hands-on clinical practice may be the only accepted training methods.

I’m in favor of both memorization and clinical experience. These are needed aspects of learning meridians.

Let’s also consider what’s missing, the Inner Game side of meridians.

Western meridian training, since 1974, starting with Touch for Health; and then, Donna Eden’s Meridian Tracing (InnerSource.net) encourages students to attend to, and expand, the feeling experience of meridians.

In living meridians, the feeling quality of flow is colored by:

– If energy is flowing–or not,

– Is energy flowing in healthy direction of flow–or not?

– Perceiving another quality when energy flows backwards, against its healthy direction of flow,

– Perceiving stuck energy, uncertain, undecided which direction to flow,

– Perceiving different qualities in each bilateral meridians of a pair,

For those wishing a whole-brained, left~right brain grasp of meridians, in a humanistic-holistic Western framework, the endgame is BOTH:

– Memorization of names and placement,

– Encouraging direct Feeling perception of flow in meridians.

To be clear, the first appeals to left brain (us from neck-up), objective observation is encouraged. The second appeals to right brain (us from neck-down), individual, subjective (inner) percepts of flow, color, taste, smell, soun

    1. Whole-brained approach to learning meridians

As a trained Waldorf teacher and an Energy Medicine practitioner, I’m aware a Waldorf-methods approach can be applied to learning meridians. A Waldorf approach appears to be simpler, clearer and more conducive to whole-brain practice.

In Grade One, the whole of mathematics and number is reduced to polarities, patterns and characters. One example, the abstract idea of odd and even numbers is presented as Boy and Girl numbers, using kids in the class to alternate and demonstrate this.

The whole of drawing is reduced to a polarity of straight and curved in Nature and architecture.

In Grade Five and later, history and biography are made more vivid and impressive by emphasizing polar opposite expressions, even in the same person.

Waldorf teaching methods for any new topic suggest starting with the most obvious, largest polarity; progress to smaller nuances as students can grasp additional finer details.

Many readers will recognize this as “whole-to-part” thinking. Indeed, this is part of the method. The rest is “not to define but to characterize” (Steiner paraphrase). “Naming” and “Definition” are left brain exercises proclaiming and affirming placement and proximity to other ideas.

“Characterization” is a right brain exercise, related to first impressions, caricature, representation (including parody) and gut instincts. Do both. For audiences younger than puberty, Characterization will be preferred over Definition. For audiences after puberty, the reverse. If you want whole-brain thinkers, after puberty–DO BOTH.

Q: What about Characterizing meridians by their elemental quality?

A: All well and good. However please notice left brain’s tendency to use elemental association as a tool for mere PLACEMENT in a TCM scheme of elements. What’s missing we can now add is encouraging students to FEEL FLOWS, in whichever sensory channel is most-open for them now. I believe feeling-sensing the elemental quality directly is a much advanced skill, which few ever master, short of those already highly clairvoyant.

    1. A Waldorf-methods approach to learning meridians

What polarities and patterns are perceptible in acupuncture meridians? Many.

Leaving aside the necessary grouping meridians by elements for the moment, here’s how I would sequence instruction. First:

    1. Origin of the term “meridian” in acupuncture

The term “meridian” was introduced by Soulie de Morant as the translation for the Chinese word “luo.” Yet a more accurate description would be “vessels,” “pathways” or “channels,” and these terms are sometimes used interchangeably. “Meridian” is typically used to describe the invisible longitudinal lines of the earth, while “vessels” are pathways through which vital substances flow throughout the body.

http://www.yogiapproved.com/health-wellness/qi-meridians-yin-yang-depth-look-acupuncture/

Second, leave aside Governing Vessel and Conception Vessel. These are much deeper than the 12 more superficial meridians. The two are easy to treat as a pair. Use these to go deeper after students have a feel for the realm of the 12.

    1. Overall front~back pattern of flow

Third: If you had to make a wet-on-wet watercolor painting of the meridians (hint-hint), using red for upflow and blue for downflow, how would you paint?

Please do honor student guesses about representing the polarity of red-upflow and blue-downflow in their paintings. No wrong way to approximate this. The only way to wrongly approximate this is to paint nothing at all.

Afterwards, after class review of student work, lead them to consider these possibilities:

– On the front of the trunk, minus the arms, the main direction is upwards (Stomach meridian in only major meridian going down on front of trunk. Conception also flows up).

– On the sides, Gall Bladder is altogether a downward flow on entire side of the body, both sides (no contradicting meridians whatsoever among the 12).

– On the back, the major direction is down (Back of the body below shoulders “belongs” to Bladder Meridian. Upward flow is represented by the Governing Vessel. Leaving it aside for the moment).

– Our head altogether resists such simple ideas. My suggestion is the cowl shape, like in the Assassin’s Creed game and movie. Up to you if it’s red or blue. I dunno.

Then have them do a second painting.

To Learn More

For those interested, behind the four elements, is the pattern of etheric formative forces, discussed most clearly in Man or Batter, 3rd Ed. (1985).

BIO ~ Author and Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson is a wounded healer who completed his Heroes Journey this lifetime. He likes to share the Elixirs of Life he found, with those interested. “Service to myself and others is why I get out of bed each morning.” Find him at http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
– Green Spirituality 2.0 ~ http://GreenSpirituality20.cmslauncher.cloud
https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net

Predictability and Reproducibility in the Three Sciences

Two immutable tenets of Second Order ‘ego survival’ science or “hard science;” also, present untenable paradoxes for both First and Third Order sciences.

As far as I know, only Three Orders of Science we use everyday has resolves this “paradox.”

Part of the resolution here is more attention paid to when ‘two things are true at the same time.’

In early 2017 current mainstream science paradigm is based on Predictability and Reproducibility. Why? It goes back to mercantilism in the Renaissance, codified into science in the 1800s.

This thinking is, ‘if we can predict what will happen, we can control what will happen. If we can control what will happen; hopefully, we can then make money off what we know will happen.’

Old Boys Clubs, Boys Clubs and Patriarchy are comfortable thinking this way.
Take for example investments made in stock market and commodities trading. Predictability and Reproducibility are the Holy Grail.

Before that, consider investments made in the Age of Discovery, funding the great age of ocean exploration, hoping to find gold–or at least slaves, tobacco, tea, rum.

In Western culture, the Age of Discovery or the Age of Exploration, was an informal and loosely defined European historical period. It extended from the end of the 1400s thru much of the 1800s. It was characterized by extensive and intensive overseas exploration.

During this Age, a large fraction of European free capital was invested in supplying, staffing, launching and collecting profits from slave, commercial and colonization efforts made possible by large sailing ships. Looking back, this age was the beginning of globalization (paraphrased from Wikipedia).

Predictability and Reproducibility were major factors in deciding whether to invest your money in this or that seafaring expedition. Since the Renaissance especially, Predictability and Reproducibility in the marketplace have been desperately sought.

To earthly human egos focussed on only physical survival and profit, Predictability remains elusive–therefore valuable–if you can assure it.

Isaac Newton in his time wanted desperately a predictable system of physics.

He looked for and hoped for a ‘mechanical precision,’ a physics “machine” which could explain many or all observable phenomena. The hope was, if you understood how the machine works, you can understand the whole of Nature.

My view is Newton uncovered some of the laws of inertia, which he believed to be laws of a sub-phenomena of inertia we call “gravity.” Newton believed with contemporary and later scientists, if humans can understand the workings of Nature, humans can understand the workings of God.

Later thinkers combined Predictability and Reproducibility with “cause and effect” so successfully, they began to believe every natural phenomena could be predicted, controlled and profited from. Why do you think Monsanto is copyrighting and patenting genes? To predict, control and profit from them for investors.

Before Climate Change became a pressing crisis, Predictability plus Reproducibility plus Cause and Effect was good, safe, and secure. So they thought, so they said.

Seeking for Predictability and Reproducibility inadvertently colored Western culture.

Survivalist egos began to hope as life becomes predictable, humans will feel more safe and secure. Earthly egos think this way; and, let’s honor they do; because, this is true up to a point. Without Predictability and Reproducibility in physical sciences, we would have no indoor plumbing nor hot and cold running water.

Let’s remember tho what a life with TOO MUCH Predictability and Reproducibility looks like. It looks like imprisonment, incarceration, where every day is the day, your life is no more than a cog in prison machine routines.

Q: Didn’t Quantum science expand the old science usefully?

A: The Quantum Discussion at the dinner table, beginning in the 1990s, engendered hope in many; that was good. However the Quantum Discussion became more science fictional than practical in nature. It did not reform, evolve or expand the science paradigm of the 1800s where it was fundamentally disturbed and out of synch with the human experience of the 1990s and beyond.

The science paradigm of the 1800s gave us indoor electrification and indoor plumbing. 1800s science is not disturbed there. It’s very effective in electro-mechanical affairs. Where the paradigm is most disturbed is in its incomplete moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

Quantum Discussion among science popularizers and at the dinner table, did indeed “soften” the edges of “hard science.” Gregg Braden and others intuit correctly science philosophy from the 1800s-1900s is immature and needs to evolve. However the specific remedies proposed by the Quantum Discussion were largely a return to “religion is the opium of the masses” in the clothing of science.

The solutions Quantum Discussers will ultimately find workable, in about 100 years, are etheric in nature. Why can’t Quantum scientists discuss etheric phenomena openly now? Because it’s discussion is inextricably linked with moral, ethical and philosophical maturity. Dr. Frankenstein is more alive, stronger and healthier than he ever was in the 1800s. Dr. F. is now employed by corporate investors and academic corporations who wish to explore, experiment, and innovate OUTSIDE of moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

We call this, “work made for hire.” Just do your work, take your paycheck, don’t think about how your creation changes you, don’t think about its implications, don’t think about the consequences of your creation.

The Three Sciences does not wish to alter Predictability and Reproducibility in Second Order Science. That’s not where we’re having a problem. Whee our science paradigm is dysfunctional is Predictability and Reproducibility over-generalized to apply to First Order (subjective) activity; and, Third Order (the shared commons) activity.
Embracing Principles of Uncertainty

In 1935 Heisenberg introduced natural unpredictability, the Principles of Uncertainty. Did earthly survivalist egos joyfully leap to embrace Uncertainty as a needed balance for strict hard science paradigm thought? No. Predictably, earthly survivalist egos clung desperately to Predictability-Reproducibility-Cause-Effect.

Why does this paradigm still rule many minds and all media in early 2017? Because it is in concert with and supports the paradigm of corporate-consumerism which needs Dr. Frankenstein not Goethe working for them.

How little the genius of natural unpredictability has influenced the 1800s science paradigm, is the Electric Universe theory. Mainstream prejudice against many facts contradicting the gravity-only universe is rampant.

Electric Universe ideas go back to early 1900s research into the aurora borealis in Scandinavia. Velikovsky in the 1950s was a fore-runner of Electric Universe ideas. The main website got going in 2009.

Remember, prior to Electric Universe ideas, earthly survivalist egos embraced a universe 100% run on gravitation. No batteries (electricity) required.

As more and more NASA space scientists trickle towards Electric Universe ideas, what we realize is adding electricity to a gravity-run solar system and universe–makes things less predictable.

How slowly Electric Universe ideas have spread among astronomers suggests how attached even they are to getting paid to verify and validate the predictability of celestial phenomena based on gravity alone–even when the facts contradict this.

The Electric Universe controversy is ongoing. People still want to cling to simple mechanical cogs and wheels, Newtonian explanations of cosmic events. This is one of the negative aspects of “the clockwork universe.”

Role of double-blind experiments

One advance which reduced superstition and subjective errors in observations in the 1700s-1900s was double-blind experiments. Well-designed experiments ruled out and eliminated individual-subjective beliefs, attitudes, biases and preferences altogether. That was good.

On the bad side, double-blind experiments were used to eliminate and invalidate individual-subjective thoughts and feelings of highly skilled experimenters and scientists–where their subjective impressions, thoughts and feelings were relevant to various commons and to humankind as a whole. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons and fracking come to mind.

Hard scientist trolls like to invoke the ethos of double-blind experiments to exclude, invalidate, discredit and if possible, to prohibit whistle-blowers who wish to warn the public Dr. Frankenstein is at it again.

Double-blind experimental protocols attempt to keep experimenters out of every experiment–even tho, each experimenter is both an observer and a direct participant.

Leaving the experiencer out of an experience is why PTSD was not studied until only recent decades.

Leaving the experience out of an experience is why some Army doctors remain mystified by the extreme PTSD of drone pilots, stationed here in the US, flying armed drones with guns and rockets, overseas. Unlike bomber pilots in WW II, drone pilots must circle back to see and report on the physical and human destruction they cause.

If scientists knew how expectation and anticipation, belief and attitude, thought and feeling, choice and decision are the raw materials of change, the common denominators of change, maybe some would be more honoring of individual-subjective thoughts and feelings.

First Order Science is where individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are accepted, honored, instigated, so we can learn from them.

For purposes of personal-spiritual growing, individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are raw materials of self-transformation. How else could it be? The only motivation to eliminate them from experiments is because they interfere with results potentially profitable to investors.

Keeping out individual-subjective thoughts and feelings so everything can remain predictable to investors and controllable by corporations, is the cultural fight, the battle, ongoing now in science.

Propaganda to make all natural and subjective phenomena predictable and controllable is a losing battle. A clumsy, inaccurate, imprecise awakening thru quantum mechanics –which embraces Uncertainty–has already begun in mainstream media.

We can no longer retreat back into our old friend Predictability. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

More informed “New physics” is not replacing “old physics.” It is not an either-or world. Rather, two additional paradigms of science, categories of rational human thinking, are taking their place on either side of “old science.”

Out of this, perhaps in 100 years, an expanded science paradigm will emerge. It will be capable of taking up where Goethe, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs left off in uncovering natural etheric forces and their phenomena. This new whole will definitely be greater than the sum of its parts.

References

Inspired by, massively revised and adapted from a much longer talk by
Lazaris online 2016: http://www.lazaris.com/blog/shifting-paradigms-another-look
Author, Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson can be found at https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

Amazon Author Central page   There you will find three book series:
– Best Practices in Energy Medicine.
– Holistic Brain Balance,
– Group Process as an Art-form Series; Putting group process at the center of thriving, Progressive orgs

Four quadrants in our Head, Gut and Heart – Q&A

Hardly a metaphor here, my most left-brain science-like article on this to date

Four quadrants in our Head, Four quadrants in our Gut, Four quadrants in our Heart – Q&A

whole-brain-model-herrmann-2016Last week I was asked by a wonderful psychologist to explain what I do. The title above popped out. I explore our Four Quadrants for purposes of healing and wholeness. Perhaps this raises more questions in your mind…

Q: Are all three sets of quadrants the same?

A: No. Each resides in a specific location in our body image. The locations are stable universally.

Q: Where are they on the Freud-Jung-Steiner scale of Conscious, Sub-conscious, Unconscious?

A: All quadrant activity is unconscious. No wonder it took so long to come to the attention of Westerners doing basic research in human psychology.

A: Are all sets of quadrants the same frequency?

Q: No. Each functions within a distinct range of frequency. These do not overlap much–unless and until–you wish to become more integrated and whole-brained.

Q: In one quadrant system, is the content of each quadrant the same or different?

A: All different, but the same four archetypes appear in each quadrant system (Bertrand’s uncovery of the Inner Family).

Q: Are the Inner Family arranged in the same pattern in all three quadrant systems?

A: No. Quadrants in the lower two systems, heart and gut, have the same arrangement and presentation. The Inner Family in our head quadrants are arranged in a separate, stable presentaton, universally present.

Q: Are all three quadrant systems the same for men and women; or, do they vary between male and female like the chakras might?

A: All three sets of quadrants the same for men and women universally on Earth.

Q: Are they the same for children and adults?

A: No. The principal and primary pattern of human development birth up to puberty is as described in all Waldorf whole-child development texts.

Q: What happens to the quadrants from before puberty to after puberty?

A: The stable pattern of quadrants can only be cognized after puberty. In Three Selves terms, the Basic Self is the locus of control in children in utero up to puberty. Prior to puberty, the four quadrants in our gut predominate and are the locus of control. Their task is to build self-esteem as recorded and measured in the Conception Vessel in front.

After puberty the locus of control switches to Conscious Self. From then on our Head Quadrants and Governing Vessel (self-concept) in back store for playback the majority of our Habits as adults.

As children before puberty, we are primarily conscious and awake to the activity of our gut quadrants as this is where our habits of reacting to self, others, world, God are stored.

After puberty Conscious Self becomes the stand-in for our immortal-eternal soul. Its task is to make healthy choices and decisions. That’s The Plan anyway.

Want to give God a chance? If it’s good–do it. If it’s not good–don’t do it ~ John Morton

Q: Do animals-mammals have these same quadrants?

A: No evidence of this to date. The speculation is no evidence is likely to come forward. Human beings are not the same as even the higher apes, as materialistic science wishes to equate us.

Q: Why is four quadrants such a common, durable pattern?

A: It is not a theory, not an abstraction, not “quantum.” Four Quadrants can be perceived-verified-validated by two approaches. The presence of, and contents of, quadrant systems can be perceived thru direct clairvoyant observation, for those who can see and wish to look.

The second method is muscle testing and self-testing. Basic researchers in psychology no longer have to be highly clairvoyant to perceive the pattern of the quadrants. You can perceive them thru self-testing and muscle checking experiments.

Q: Is a Four Quadrants approach the same as “humoral medicine”?

A: No. It’s a mistake to think “history” as intellectual or religious tradition plays much of a role here. True, considerable history of Four Elements exists, in Western thought, since ancient Greek times as “humoral medicine.” The Four Humors was the major, accepted pattern in human psyches used by healers and doctors, until the 1850s, when the germ theory took over. Greek origins are at the base of humoral medicine. Not so for the Four Quadrants and Inner Family. Four Quadrants is also NOT the same as Rudolf Steiner’s Four Temperaments.

Q: Why is this ancient pattern coming back since 2000?

A: Two reasons. One is while few people are sufficiently clairvoyant to perceive-verify-validate natural phenomena in the Four Quadrants, since the mid-1960s hundreds and then thousands of people became active muscle testers and self-testers. A significant fraction of these work on clients in clinical settings, affording them opportunity to conduct large numbers of basic research experiments.

For those curious, the reality of differing, stable character of four quadrants in each of three areas is cheap and easy to perceive-verify-validate.

The second reason the Four Quadrants is coming back is the effectiveness of understanding and working with Unconscious Patterns. In the 1850s when the germ theory took over from Humoral Medicine, the germ theory in the West wiped out any, all and every competing insight into human health and disease; for example, homeopathy and chiropractic. 50 years now into holistic health and healing, it may be difficult to imagine the utter stranglehold and corrupt anti-competition practices used to promote-establish germ theory as the sole, undisputed model of human health and disease. It was at the time a big positive breakthru. At the same time, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Superstition and humoral medicine were thrown on the trash heap of Western history, along with any interest in Unconscious Patterns.

This skewed medical and psychology basic research towards only pathology, drugs and surgery. Authentic basic research into human psyches was put on hold.

Interest in Unconscious Patterns only re-awakened in original Psychosomatic Medicine, 1955-1965. In the mid-1870s the topic re-emerged in the wider context of the whole person. Psychosomatic symptoms were immediately recognized as a useful paradigm in holistic healing methods of all kinds. The lack of a comprehensive holistic theory and general holistic experimental method prevented stronger forward movement. Courtesy of Goethe, these were uncovered in 2014.

Due to the wide availability and low cost of muscle testing; and, the tremendous therapeutic power of Unconscious Patterns, the Four Quadrants are coming back into use slowly. We should see significant mainstream interest in about 100 years.

Q: Is the Four Quadrants the same as our etheric body?

A: No. The Four Quadrants is only one of an unknown number of etheric forms, features and capacities.

The Four Quadrants arise from the four-fold character of etheric formative forces. Let’s remember etheric forces are mystery itself. The “Great Mystery” points 100% to etheric forces, which can be defined many ways; including, as the Divine Feminine.

Q: What is the state of etheric forces literature?

A: There is hardly any significant literature. The book Etheric Formative Forces, by Rudolf Steiner’s secretary, Geunther Wachsmuth, free online, if you can find it, has proven over time to be more a defense of Steiner’s ideas than a modern introduction.

The better starting place on a literature of etheric forces is one single book, Man or Matter, 3rd ed. (1985) by Ernst Lehrs. Nick Thomas (Editor), Peter Bortoft (Editor) The preferred third edition is HERE.  It’s about $30 delivered. The first edition is free online but is a famously difficult read. I’ve read both. Start with the third ed. By the way, the original title was Man and Matter, which makes more sense. I recommend the first 12 chapters of third ed; the rest is esoteric even beyond Energy Medicine.

Theosophical-Rosicrucian literature on etheric forces exists but has not proven popular nor useful. Why? Because it attempts a mental understanding of etheric forces. Not until Lehrs, in the 1950s, who was a Waldorf high school science teacher, was anyone able to write in such a way to point to the etheric without equating ether and mind. Paradoxically what we call “thinking” is another manifestation of etheric phenomena, at its higher frequency end.

Lehrs antidotes most every flaw and confused idea of the Quantum Discussion. Man or Matter is one of very few books in any field speaking directly to a future Goethean Holistic Science compatible with and supportive of truly human values.

The second piece of etheric forces literature which can stand with Lehrs, known to me, is chapters 19-24 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul; Finally, a general holistic experimental method; The Three Sciences we use everyday; Holistic Psychology 2.0

Chapter 19: Goethean Holistic Science

Chapter 20: Three Sciences

Chapter 23-24

Comments welcome. Conversation invited.

Christmas 2016

Find author and Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson at https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com He writes on Best Practices in Energy Medicine (30 books) http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46

Another blog: http://blog.GoetheanScience.net

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/