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.

Dethroning gravity as the King of the Universe

abstract-gravityWhen man in the state of world-onlooker undertook to form a dynamic picture of the nature of matter, it was inevitable of all the qualities which belong to existence, scientists were only able to imagine and perceive gravity and electricity.

In the 1700s and 1800s mankind’s consciousness was closely bound up with the force of gravity in the human body.  Because of this focus, we were unable to imagine or perceive forces connected with levity, in our body, opposite to gravity.  

Nature is built on and between polar archetypes.  This means it was inevitable the ‘gravity-run-universe’ of Newton will eventually give way to a model of the universe built on gravity and its opposite.  Which we call “levity” in Man or Matter.  

[The process of de-throning gravity as sole King of the universe has already proceeded far in the topic of the Electric Universe (www.Thunderbolts.info, et al) even tho this mis-labels some etheric phenomena as purely electrical.]

To gravity-bound intellects of the 1700s-800s, the only possible counter-force to gravity was electricity. Here lies the origins of our faulty world model, composed of only gravity and electricity, the pro-gravity side of forces, the ‘gravity team.’

We meet the idea of Creation composed and created only by gravity and electricity in the 1900s model of the atom, composed of what?  A heavy electro-positive nucleus circled by virtually weightless electro-negative electrons.  

[Man or Matter goes on to show while gravity is indeed primary, electricity is only a secondary force, NOT the equal opposite of gravity. ]

Heavily revised from Man or Matter, Chapter XIII Radiant Matter p 282.  

Shorter, improved, updated Wikipedia page on Goethean Science

Cover DRAFT holistic-psychology-20-16kHi friends, around mid-2014 the Wikipedia page on Goethean Science received a complete re-write from a knowledgeable but unknown Anthroposophist.  This blog had already started so I paid attention.  The existing Wikipedia page retains a number of my comments and revisions.

For the coming Holistic Psychology 2.0 book, I needed to work with this article again.  This version has hundreds more additions, revisions, etc. than the current Wikipedia page.  Posting it as it’s much more accessible, reader-friendly and woman-friendly.

Wikipedia’s page on GS is here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethean_science  Feel free to upgrade it if you can.

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

By 1750 Western philosophy had reached an ethical and epistemological cul-de-sac. The Enlightenment or Age of Reason was based on a static view of human nature, an increasingly mechanical view of the universe (based on Copernican astronomy, Galilean mechanics and Newtonian physics) and a linear view of the progress of scientific knowledge (based on a mechano-material, reductionist approach). This rationalist approach, what one commentator has termed the ‘one-eyed, color blind’ perspective of the world, raised fundamental issues about “God, freedom and immortality” (Kant) of growing concern to a culture undergoing significant economic, political and cultural transformation.

<ref name=Lehrs>{{cite book|last1=Lehrs|first1=Ernst|title=Man or Matter|date=1951|publisher=Faber and Faber|location=London|url=https://archive.org/details/manormatter05641gut|accessdate=22 November 2014}}</ref>

The scientific method that had worked well with inert nature (Bacon’s ”natura naturata”), was less successful in seeking to understand vital nature (”natura naturans”). At the same time, the rational-empirical model based on the predominance of mentative thinking via the intellect started by Descartes and advanced most notably in France, was vulnerable to arbitrariness. Equally rational arguments could be made for widely divergent propositions or conceptions, leading to confusion and doubt rather than clarity.

The more empirical approach favored in England (David Hume led to the view that reality is sense-based, including the mind. What we perceive is only a mental representation of what is real, and what is real we can never really know.

As one observer summarizes, there were two ‘games’ being played in philosophy at the time – one rational and one empirical, both of which led to total skepticism and an epistemological crisis.

<ref name=”waldorflibrary.org”>{{cite journal|last1=Amrine|first1=Frederick|title=The Philosophical Roots of Waldorf Education|journal=Waldorf Research Bulletin|date=2012|volume=17|issue=2|url=http://www.waldorflibrary.org/journals/22-research-bulletin/1203-autumnwinter-2012-volume-17-2-the-philosophical-roots-of-waldorf-education-part-one|accessdate=22 November 2014}}</ref> Continue reading

Waking up from the dream of Cartesian-Newtonian science

Waking up from the dream of isolation of Descartes

FYI a really excellent objective essay on Descartes’ relevance to the post-2012 world is here:  http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Descartes.htm

Written by Bruce Dickson, SPQR, Spa Fon, On-Off

At least a few pioneering progressive minds, mostly in the fields of healing and personal coaching, seem poised to “cross the Rubicon” in their thinking about science.

The existing traditional barrier is Cartesian-Newtonian science’s presumption it is the ONLY valid science.

Once an individual remembers and acknowledges, we use THREE orders of science every day, there’s no turning back to the idea of ONE, and only one science, no turning back to the Lord of the Rings fantasy of “one ring to unite them all.”

The dream of Cartesian-Newtonian science was a control fantasy; in a phrase borrowed from Alexis Carroll, the fantasy of one science “to predict and control” all others and everything.

This reminds me of John-Roger’s remark, “Control is the master addiction.”
The dream is a Matrix of predict and control working like a swiss watch, completely under control of the small “s” ego.

As long as “predict and control” works for you, there’s no need to consider three sciences. Why complicate something already decided to be simple?

Who are the individuals embracing three sciences? I speculate every one of them has spiritual aspirations that feel unsupported in the matrix of Cartesian-Newtonian science.

It may be, without spiritual aspiration, no solution is called for, no escape from the Matrix is called for, no need exists to step outside the consensus about Cartesian-Newtonian science.

Shifting your world view from one science to three is indeed like jumping ship,; as if, jumping off a slowly moving train. It’s a risk; no doubt about it, because the support of group-think will no longer be on your side nor you on the side of the majority. You are more on your own.

If some of this seems reminiscent of themes from Philosophy of Freedom, you would be correct. Changing your own beliefs, raising your own frequency.

If I allow myself to be indoctrinated through authority-based and reward-punishment-based systems; then, I become part of the cabling connections of the network of Cartesian-Newtonian thinkers and their media handmaidens.

Three Sciences is indeed a more active-dynamic conceptual stance than one science. Crowning second-order science as the one-and-only this serves primarily commercial-industrial-corporate interests, not the interests of seekers of freedom in a post-2012 world.

Breaking the trance that “predict and control” is the greatest good, going through the cognitive dissonance of not one but three sciences is challenging.

Once on the other side, the fresh insights and enhanced awareness can be deeply liberating, generating internal hope and good cheer. Much less of a control system is needed to maintain and protect a scheme of three sciences because the system is less fragile, more synergistic, flexible and resilient.

Imagination, creative visualization, feeling-ization are the engines of a more organic, sustainable and deep, conceptual matrix.

If our imagination is running the dream-program of “predict and control,” we are living in someone else’s dream.

Only in Cartesian-Newtonian science are we hopeless wanderers in a cold lifeless, clockwork universe.

Evidence each soul continues on after our physical body expires is overwhelming, for those open to the evidence of Life After Life, et al. As souls, we go on. Cartesian-Newtonian science was just one chapter in a longer novel with a peaceful, happy ending.

These wisdoms are part of the wealth of a three-science system, connection with galactic significance. Cartesian-Newtonian science is more likely to connect us with more material things nice-to-own and a view of the individual as isolated and alone in a cold universe.

If you have the choice, why allow someone else’s belief system or dream to restrict your imagination? Three sciences supports personal creativity in a way some healthy religions did long ago, 500 years ago and more.

Three sciences inspires independence. When a critical mass of people agree the endgame of “predict and control” is no longer a good game, nor a sustainable game, anymore, then the awesome synchronous power of the universe begins to paint a new world into being, more fulfilling ways of living and evolving individually and in tribes.

The language of this web page was helpful to the above thinking: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11600&page=2