New book description: Growing Sustainable Children and Schools Worthy of Our Affection

I’ll be sending our gift copies of the digital version of volume one in next few days. Okay to request a copy.  HealingToolbox (at] gmail.com Also up as eBooks on Amazon. Paper editions coming shortly.

Subtitles: Team Human K-12 Teacher Training;
Waldorf 2.0 for Public Schools, Local Assembly Required
How to Re-Invent Face-to-Face Culture Series

In 2017, for Waldorf’s 100th birthday, 2019, I thought it might be timely to discuss what the next 100 years could bring. Here it is. One of several themes proposed is: Team Human K-12 education.

In 2016 Douglas Rushkoff proposed humanity as a team sport; everyone is on Team Human–tho not everyone recognizes-acknowledges this yet. “Team Human” is a healthy response to Faustian, dystopian “Team Machine” (programming people to conform to technology). Check out Doug’s podcast.

From multiple angles, this book project uses Team Human to refresh Waldorf schools as “seedbeds of social-cultural innovation.” In the coming 100 years, how will we engage NEW generations to innovate socially and culturally? How will they create another 2,000 practical seedbeds prototyping alternatives to dystopia? I found some answers. See if you agree–or disagree 🙂

Can Waldorf evolve in the next 100 years? How exactly? How an authentic USA Waldorf did not yet evolve–and could–is discussed.
This is also the first text I know of written for BOTH private-independent and public charter Waldorf teachers and trainees.

The book project is organized around What is “real work”?
– What is “real work” for children on their journey thru the Land of Childhood?,

– What is “real work” for adults who will teach children in the Land of Childhood–before and after puberty?

– What is “real work” for parents?

– What is “real work” for everyone, at a K-12 community center towards a Team Human positive future?

The endgame? Grade 12 graduates who are:
– Emotionally Intelligent,
– self-propelled problem-solvers, and
– cooperative-collaborative, willing and able to play on a team or lead a team.

Read as much or as little as you like. Five short volumes of 125-150 pages each, are divided over three SECTIONS:

SECTION 1 ~ Theme of Team Human K-12 ed. Couple introductions. “What is Real work for Children?” Lays out the 100-year-old wisdom of Sensitive Periods and how our Outer Game of Life as a child, becomes our Inner Adult Game of Life.

SECTION 2 ~ “What is Real work for Teachers and trainees?” Annotated short history of childhood. Annotated short summaries of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) and related Best Progressive K-12 Practices from outside the ‘Classic Waldorf box.’

SECTION 3 ~ What is Real work for Parents and Everyone at a school? “Classic Waldorf is primarily characterized by its metaphors,” building on the UNESCO characterization. Waldorf metaphors universally useful. Metaphors only useful to “parochial” Anthroposophic schools. School as a person. School as a Commons. WHO do we graduate? Conclusions. Three ways to re-brand Waldorf for the coming 100 years.

Comments, corrections, additions on the entire effort are welcomed.
Written primarily for teacher trainees, I hope this usefully outlines ideas for Team Human parent education.

A robust USA version of Waldorf incorporating Best Practices from holistic-humanistic movements, has yet to develop. The Best Practices likely to be useful are summarized, a way out from the dead-end of USA schools trying to succeed as European-Waldorf-lite.

For an authentic USA Waldorf to emerge, schools will have to embrace North American genius in the areas of Emotional Intelligence, interpersonal competency, personal growth, and healthy group process.

Openness to innovations and self-assessments, compatible with Classic Waldorf, from OUTSIDE the Waldorf box will play a big part.

Can USA Waldorf evolve? Will it evolve? Let’s hope the answer is “yes” to both.

If Waldorf ed is new to you, check out the Waldorf100 video on YouTube to feel its worldwide, international momentum for yourself. Celebrate here: Waldorf100 video (17-min.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfec6eF4I_4&t=1s

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 was falling more and more into extreme one-sidedness, into exclusively rational Thinking.  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 experiments was two-sided:  increase of human knowledge of lawful patterns and behavior; as well, the growth, maturing and metamorphosis of the experimenter. 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.

/// this directly above may have been built on Wikipedia verbiage.  Often their verbiage is terrible and very stimulating to edit, revise and upgrade.

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