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.  

Goethean science as 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 it could embrace, support, shelter and nurture diverse techniques-methods under a single roof?  A “big tent” is a metaphor for 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 to 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 the topic of a “big tent” in psychology exists; however, 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, how humans compare to animals; and, whether humans are or are not “spiritual” resulted in knock-down, drag-out fights and heated debate.  Looking back, these seem no more productive than other unnecessary wars fought by men.

Mr. Google persuades me today the foundation on which a big tent for psychology can be erected—if possible—has nothing to do with psychology per se.  It has to do with science. 

In psychology we are, it seems, arguing with on diverse assumptions about science, physics and metaphysics–without recognizing our rhetorical ground is not level.

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

Review of Man or Matter (1985) the Einstein of etheric forces

bk-man-or-matter

Review of the 1985 edition, the preferred edition, the most clear, readable and definitive of the three editions. If you have tried the 1951 edition free online, find it inspiring yet also confusing or hard to read, try the 1985 edition.  Tho clearly edited, 1951 edition was more a “first draft” of a later, more presentable edition.  1985 is author-revised and professionally edited by two editors. 

Note ~ You are correct, “Man or Matter” makes little sense. The original title was Man AND Matter. ‘Man AND Matter’ is the relationship Lehrs builds up. The unnecessary title change and forgetting the 1951 copyright suggest a lot about amateur publishing quality circa 1950.

A Waldorf high school science teacher by profession, Lehrs works from a detailed history of science and science biography, at a high school level. He cogently, coherently and politely points out the errors, detours and dead ends exclusively materialistic science took.

Lehrs honors and values the intelligent capacities of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. Lehrs shows how awareness itself, as part of Nature, is like salt crystals dissolved into water. If over time salt content increases, eventually, salt re-crystalizes out of the water into visible, separate crystals. Lehrs likens ‘salt crystalizing out of water’ to the emergence of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. This ego is a limited self, yet a necessary self, a necessary middle position in post-modern science.

Lehrs introduces his famous metaphor of conventional-traditional scientists as one-eyed, color blind, spectator-observer, isolated, divorced and apart from Nature. This caricature is also known as “Island Man.” The self-destructive addictions of the fictional Sherlock Holmes point to the dangers of humanity divorced and separated from Nature and from healthy self-connection. in recent generations, 19th century materialistic science is now the iron bands around the chest of our expanding capacities for Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination.

Lehrs re-frames the entire history of science using Goethe’s holistic-humanistic approach. This leads readers to clearer view of Goethe’s comprehensive holistic theory and Goethe’s general holistic experimental method. These are then applied to etheric formative forces, with varying degrees of success. At its best, a way forward is laid out to re-incorporating into post-modern science, etheric formative forces neglected-dismissed-ignored by Enlightenment science.

The reader is taken on a journey similar to Lewis Carroll in Alice into Wonderland and to the protagonist in Flatland. In little steps, a wondrous unforeseen landscape is gradually uncovered in glimpses.

For Lehrs, the big picture is Nature, the external world, and all the forces within it, are created out of gravity and levity, other polarities arising out of the primary polarity of gravity~levity. In the world Lehrs describes, gravity~levity are constantly at play and in play. Their meeting is the motive energy behind heat, friction, electricity, magnetism and radiation. Emphasis on how all forces devolve from gravity~levity is absent from the first edition. It may help to keep it in mind if you attempt reading 1951.

Along these lines is the modern idea, perhaps coined after Lehrs’ death, of “strong and weak forces.” I think Lehrs might agree that on Earth, gravity is the stronger force, levity is the naturally weaker force. While Lehrs proposes gravity~levity interacting to form other forces, a 50-50 proposition, is clearly not the case.

Q: Why did science of the 1890s abandon all ether theories?

A: No way to model the phenomena of mass was found in ether models–short of including God (our “rock” our “ground”) in atomic theory. This men of the time would not do. The solar system model of the atom, proton, neutron, electron was the best Plan B model they had. For atheistic 1800s scientists, this was the best they could do. See The_Vortex_Atom_A_Victorian_Theory_of_PDF

Lehrs resonates with Goethe, advocating a return to direct, personal observation of natural phenomena, to doing the inner work of evaluation and synthesis, to the final outer work of sharing what has been learned and how the experimenter has been changed by his or her study. This amounts to something like a return to healthy, truly human values in science.

With Lehr’s science coaching, it’s possible to begin perceiving in Nature the over-arching influence of gravity and levity, dancing in countless combinations and expressions all around us.

The result? Sure enough, there is a place for etheric formative forces in post-modern science. Ether can no longer be dismissed as metaphysical abstraction and unreliable clairvoyance. Lehrs Man or Matter is not the last word on ether; it is certainly a most wonderful first word. I recommend it over Wachsmuth’s, Etheric Formative Forces, which I would read second, not first.

A second result of Lehrs gentle touch is much of what is called “physics” today is shown to be “Naïve physics”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_physics

Lehrs suggests the following are also “Naïve physics:” “The Sun makes me hot;” and, “The diameter of this small ball of copper expands when heat is applied because the atoms are agitated and moving further apart.”

Our Naive scientist (inner three year old) likes simple “logical” explanations and is satisfied by over-simplified, naive ideas. This insight explains the origin of most superstition; such as, decaying meat directly causes-births house flies.

When our Conscious Waking Self goes along with naive conclusions, accepts naive explanations as the “final word,” we end up with dogma. which can take centuries to rectify. Lehrs politely suggests how many ideas of modern science, (1850-1950) are more similar to superstition. In the light of Goethean Holistic science theory and method, many of these dissolve and are transformed.

Q: How much progress has been made replacing more naive science ideas with more clear post-modern science ideas?

A: Not much. In 2018 we remain only at Day One of re-evaluating the naive conclusions of Natural Science in this new light. For those interested, the next step is an expanded science paradigm. This is the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday.

The later sections of Man or Matter 3rd, on esoteric planetary and Hierarchy influences will interest only those already steeped in Rudolf Steiner’s esoteric Christianity.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
https://blog.goetheanscience.net/?s=Three+Sciences+we+use+everyday+article
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox

 

The human being lives between gravity and levity, not gravity alone

BABY-SMILE-levityPlants demonstrate BOTH gravity and levity. This especially observable in seeds sprouting n the Earth.

The root shoots downward. Above ground the stems and leaves are drawn skyward.

Given this clear demonstration of TWO equal forces, in the birth of new terrestrial life, why do we think the human being is defined and bound by gravity alone?

We imagine human beings are defined and bound by gravity alone if we look at the human being with only our intellect.

Our intellect, “Man’s Presumptuous Mind,” is ‘gravity mind,’ our ‘death thinking.’

If we do not also view our life thru the wisdom of the heart, there is only “death is the end,” there can be no ‘resurrection thinking’ no Easter.

The human being is not bound by gravity alone.  Only the intellect believes this, perceives this way.  The human being lives BETWEEN gravity and levity.

Secret Life of Plants 117, Goethe section, inspired the above thinking.  Treat yourself to this chapter if you have not read it.  The whole book is online.  For paper copies try your library or AllBookStores.com for best price.

Written by Bruce Dickson

The naturally supportive science for exploring the whole person, Goethean Science

BodyMindSpirit-320px

Confusion, mystery and cultural conflict surrounds Energy Medicine (EM) methods in 2014. This is largely due to trying to understand EM with only Second Order, Cartesian-Newtonian scientific materialism.

The naturally supportive science for holistic healing of all kinds and its development is a different order of science, historically represented by Goethean Science (First Order Science).

Goethean Science is the naturally supportive science for exploring, and making use of, cell-level-intelligence; indeed, all aspects of the whole person.

Once recognized, this connection is so strong, “Goethean science” could easily become “Goethean Holistic Science.”

How do we access and make use of Cell-level-intelligence?

Cell-level-intelligence is sometimes called the “sum of our cells,” as if the intelligence of each cell connected into one larger intelligence.

I’ve collected 22 names so far for this ‘intelligent sum our cells.’ Three of them are “growth body,” “floating brain,” and “neural default mode.” See all 22 here: http://www.healingtoolbox.org/tools-that-heal/54-three-selves/126-22-names-for-inner-child-1of2

However you term this field, this is what every method of dowsing and muscle testing, 25 or more methods, tap into.

If Goethean Science is the naturally supportive science for our “growth body,” it suggests some surprising conclusions.

1) Goethe’s intention for natural science experiments was choosing a topic in natural science, performing simple experiments. Accumulated practice develops new inner capacities and expanded perception in the experimenter.

An intention for self-development in the experimenter applies 100% and fits like a glove, to all experiments and explorations in dowsing and muscle testing, since George Goodheart and Applied Kinesiology in 1965.

2) Given how many more people worldwide employ dowsing and muscle testing than are replicating Goethe’s plant morphology and color studies, this suggests dowsing and muscle testing have been the premier and most popular Goethean Science experiments since about 1970.

3) Goethe scholars and Anthroposophy students could be latecomers to this party; if, GS remains defined as only plant morphology, color study and geology.

4) Goethe’s intention for natural science experiments as a means of self-development for the experimenter applies more generally to all holistic health and healing; particularly, homeopathy.

How do self-healers and holistic practitioners work? They start with the whole person and experiment with their method of choice to learn as many causative factors and pathways to symptom relief, for this symptom, in this person, at this time.

5) This suggests Goethean Holistic Science is the science holism has been looking for since 1970. If true, holistic health need no longer contort itself, its philosophy and methods, to appear credible to old-school scientific materialism.

Your comments and discussion are welcomed on this by email 

Bruce Dickson, Health Intuitive HealingToolbox [att] gmail.com

 = = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
https://holisticbrainbalance.wordpress.com/
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
https://blog.goetheanscience.net/?s=Three+Sciences+we+use+everyday+article