Nicholas
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 666
thank you for your comments. i do reference that there are more stimuli than food in this thread, though not in the original post.
part of perceiving is perceiving that you aren't always going to be perceiving things correctly. this is a wise place to be. resting (as in taking solace in the "irrefutable") on "good science" and therefore thinking that this is resting on truth because science is somehow more reliable and superior to perception itself is exactly the foolish place i described of those who are ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth.
a discussion like this is difficult to have in this format as i may be misunderstanding things you are saying and vice versa and the heart of the discussion can be muddied by linguistic gymnastics. The core of my perception is actually rather active and practicle.....though it has been fun to flesh it out more here in an internet forum where the full extent of what people can see of you is contained in a bunch of markings on a page.
I'd like to remind anyone that my post started out as a challenge to a healing philosophy on this forum and in the world. It was not a challenge of "good science". Reviewing the scientific literature, taking supplements or food or any of the myriad of therapies available, and expecting to micromanage the cell and body is not "good science" even if it consults "good science" in its endeavor (i.e. consulting the literature on B6 interactions). At the end of the day, this approach of micromanaging the body is a philosophy....just as my approach is a philosophy. The difference, is that i believe the philosophy i am trying to shine the light on actually uses "good science" as its FOUNDATION (i.e. using scientific understanding of the cell to dictate the very philosophy itself). In other words, the philosophy of micromanaging the cell and body....that action/pursuit.....is a very contradiction of the good science which these philosophers promote.
part of perceiving is perceiving that you aren't always going to be perceiving things correctly. this is a wise place to be. resting (as in taking solace in the "irrefutable") on "good science" and therefore thinking that this is resting on truth because science is somehow more reliable and superior to perception itself is exactly the foolish place i described of those who are ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth.
a discussion like this is difficult to have in this format as i may be misunderstanding things you are saying and vice versa and the heart of the discussion can be muddied by linguistic gymnastics. The core of my perception is actually rather active and practicle.....though it has been fun to flesh it out more here in an internet forum where the full extent of what people can see of you is contained in a bunch of markings on a page.
I'd like to remind anyone that my post started out as a challenge to a healing philosophy on this forum and in the world. It was not a challenge of "good science". Reviewing the scientific literature, taking supplements or food or any of the myriad of therapies available, and expecting to micromanage the cell and body is not "good science" even if it consults "good science" in its endeavor (i.e. consulting the literature on B6 interactions). At the end of the day, this approach of micromanaging the body is a philosophy....just as my approach is a philosophy. The difference, is that i believe the philosophy i am trying to shine the light on actually uses "good science" as its FOUNDATION (i.e. using scientific understanding of the cell to dictate the very philosophy itself). In other words, the philosophy of micromanaging the cell and body....that action/pursuit.....is a very contradiction of the good science which these philosophers promote.