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.

Colored shadows demo how all color has a subjective aspect. Let’s apply this to ether studies

colored-shadows4 colored-shadows3 colored-shadows2 colored-shadows1According to Goethe, all hues are colored shadows. Later, color scientists, most famously Edwin Land (founder of the Polaroid Corporation), appear to produce shadows of virtually every hue… (ref)

The above photo-demonstrations serve to bring healthy doubt into Newton’s one-sided, 100% materialistic explanations of color.

If studied, the images suggest a definite subjective element must be part of how we perceive color, how we estimate and imagine polarities where they may or may not exist, how in fact, each person may do this somewhat uniquely.

These photo-demonstrations of colored shadows are part of an old argument which may have new meaning in our post-2012 world.

You may know in the field of “free” energy, older ideas about ether are being revised and upgraded as we speak.

A main piece of the old argument between Goethe~Newton on color can be summarized freshly as:  Is color 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we view color?

This is a microcosm to the identical dilemma and conflict encountered by etheric researchers.  Those who know Goethe’s view of color can propose a useful question to etheric researchers:  Is ethericity 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we perceive and work with etheric formative forces?

If you have seen Chapter 19 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul it should be clear how one-sided scientists, paid by corporations, often prefer totally one-sided science, where human ethics, morals and choice are irrelevant.  Conversely, how Goethean, two-sided scientists-experimenters celebrate the etherical, moral and transformatinal aspects of working with ethericity.

The current generations of etheric researchers are intelligent and collaborative. See the free two-hour YouTube video of intro statements by 30 of the leaders at the 2015 gathering of researchers, approximately HERE

However current etheric researchers tend to be less interested in artistic and metaphysical Oneness than Steiner and his immediate successors on this topic in Anthroposophy, most notably, Ernst Lehrs.

Goethean science as a big tent for science and psychology

tent_bigThe idea of a “big tent” in psychology goes like this:  what theory of psychology is sufficiently broad and inclusive so that it could embrace, support, shelter and nurture diverse techniques-methods under a single roof?  A “big tent” is a big idea under which subordinate ideas can gather, identify common ground, find support and engage constructively.

In the 20th century, scores of competing models of the human psyche, each attempted to uncover strong therapeutic direction, what to do with this client in this circumstance.  This intention was healing, even tho many times between models, “the words got in the way.”

Academic psych texts, God bless them, often compounded this problem by comparing and contrasting psychological models.  This emphasized the individuality of each tree in psychology at the cost of a sense of direction and purpose of the whole forest.  This is why Gerald Corey’s Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, latest edition, is so well-respected.  He minimizes the conflict between facets of the field, emphasizing a synthetic and collaborative approach.

It’s September, 2014 now as I write this.  After 45 minutes of search and reading, Mr. Google has convinced me while the topic of a “big tent” in psychology does indeed exist, the issue is no longer of much interest, addressed mostly in brief remarks to build consensus in opening talks at live, in-person, psychological conferences.

I agree, we do not want to return to the 1850s when primitive ideas about the human psyche, where humans fit compared to animals and how humans were or were not “spiritual” resulted in knock-down, drag-out fights and much heated debate.  Looking back, that seems no more productive than many other unnecessary wars fought by men.

Mr. Google persuades me today the foundation on which a big tent for psychology can be erected—if it can be erected—has nothing to do with psychology per se.  It has to do with science.  In psychology we are, it seems, arguing with very different assumptions about science and physics; let alone, metaphysics.

Mr. Google suggests where most thinkers on big tents in psychology get stuck is in defining science.  They want to define science.  They want one science, with these principles, these values and their definition.  They want a one-pointed science as their big tent in science.  Then they attempt to shoe-horn the human psyche into this mental definition of “science.” Continue reading