Energy Healing: Why Does it Work? Why Doesn’t it Work?

energy healingCall it Qi, call it Chi or call it Energy: whatever you want to call it, energy healing is a popular subject these days. Some swear by it, some debunk it and some hard sell it, but everyone seems to talk about it and many people dabble in it. A few even learn how to make it work.

My first introduction to energy healing that worked was in 2004, when I was in Bali. Every day when I walked from my guesthouse to the internet cafe, I passed a shop with a big sign outside that said, “Spiritual Healing.” There was an attention grabbing poster outside that showed the energy meridians as they’ve been mapped out in Traditional Chinese Medicine. As I hobbled past the shop each day, feeling depressed because my back was giving me trouble, my first thought was, “Bullshit.” It wasn’t that I didn’t believe it could work, it was because I firmly believed that any healer who hung out a shingle in a prominent location was a fake or incompetent. I still believe that – sort of.

Fortunately, one day I decided to set my prejudices aside and give the healer a try. The first three sessions could be explained away as having a basis in the physical sciences as we know them, but on the fourth session, I not only felt the healer draw negative energy out of my body, I saw it. That led me on a quest to find out how energy healing worked.

It’s a long story and one I want to tell at a later date, but after taking a series of classes, I learned how to do energy healing myself. For awhile, I was on a roll, but with all that’s transpired in the past 5 years, I seem to have lost my mojo. Why?

I think I’ve identified two reasons why energy healing might not work:

  1. Lack of focus: I came to this conclusion originally after learning a set of rituals or protocols that worked, but that I didn’t fully believe in. Healers in different cultures follow different sets of rituals, too, but come up with similar results. What the successful ones seem to have in common is focus when they’re working.
  2. Pride: That’s pride, not ego. “I want to save the world” is an egotistical statement, but that’s more or less what motivates healers to learn their craft. When you watch the video below, notice what happens when the second healer falls victim to pride and shows off his skills. They work, but they do harm instead of good.

I’m not going to argue my case for believing energy healing works. I’m convinced of it from personal experience. I know it doesn’t work, too and that’s what’s most interesting to me. I don’t buy the line that you have to be a “spiritual” person for it to work. I’m no more or less spiritual than a wart hog, but it worked for me. I believe it worked for me because, unlike most wart hogs, I’m able to focus my mind and energy occasionally on something besides food and sex.

I’d love to hear your take on energy healing. Just do me a favour: don’t tell me it can’t work. I won’t believe you, so you’ll be wasting your breath.

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit
Posted in Healing, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

What is Evil? What is Good?

In my previous post, Of Mice and Men and Empathy, I wrote: “Now that I’ve removed us humans from the pinnacle of goodness, let’s take a quick look at evil, because this is where we reign supreme.” Well, I’ve kind of changed my mind.

First of all, comments here and elsewhere rightly point out that “good” and “evil” are human concepts. I agree with that to the degree that they are “concepts” but am not sure that they are limited to our species. In my illusory universe, they are inextricably linked with duality itself.

In a previous post,  David Icke vs Alfred Korzybski (22 October 2011), I came to the conclusion that, “In my opinion, the more we explore the meaning of the word love, the more liberated (or enlightened, if you prefer) we become.” Rather than repeat myself, I invite you to read that entry and decide for yourself if it makes any sense to you on any level.

In an earlier post, Thomas Campbell, William Blake and John Lennon: A Strange Symbiosis, I came to a similar conclusion. Tom Campbell is interesting to me because he is both a practising physicist and an experienced astral traveller. He has more experience in both realms than I have, yet seems to have not fallen for the the illusions of either. In his view, the acquisition of knowledge in either of those realms is beside the ultimate point. As he said when asked the rhetorical question, “You say that by eliminating fear and ego and lowering entropy, you become love?”:

Yes. Consciousness is love. Spirituality is love.

Elsewhere in the video I took this quote from, he suggests that we all have to follow our own path. That was the William Blake connection. Blake, who created a system that was in its way as complex as any, said the same thing in different words. Ditto for John Lennon. Ditto for me. Nothing else rings true for me. That probably sounds egotistical, but look at it this way:

  1. The only “reality” I am truly aware of is my own.
  2. My consciousness perceives as “real” only what I am focused on at any given “time.”
  3. When I am most conscious, I am also most expansive, least self-centred and most loving.

Anyway, evil, in my opinion at this moment, is anything that constricts consciousness. Good is anything that expands consciousness because, and I believe this to my bones, the first or original expression of consciousness is unconditional love.

Here in the realm of duality (or the Matrix), evil to me is the control system that actively and incessantly seeks to limit the experience and expression of consciousness (love). I have some theories about who is behind that, but they are still based on the opinions of others and not personal experience, observation or even research, so I’ll save that for another day.

Thanks for visiting.

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit
Posted in Spirituality | Leave a comment

Of Mice and Men and Empathy

I have a pet mouse. It’s not exactly a pet because it doesn’t live in a cage, but it lives in my office and uses my internet cable as a ladder to the air vents in the wall to enter and leave the house. It does this every evening, so I often see it scurry behind my desk, up the cable and out through the air bricks. Sometimes, my pet mouse stops at just about eye level and turns around briefly to check me out, but if I so much as blink, it races off. I don’t blame it.

As I sit at my desk working or web surfing, I often think about my mouse and what it thinks about when it looks at me. I’m pretty certain it is not burdened with language centres like I am, but is it conscious or is it, as so many learned scientists like to believe, just an unconscious or dimly conscious creature incapable of thought, reflection or random acts of kindness?

Rats in loveOne of our greatest human conceits amongst countless others is the contention that “only humans are capable of feeling empathy or compassion.” Anybody who has a pet dog knows that is nonsense, but now even science is coming to the party. Recent studies have proven pretty decisively that mice may be better “Christians” than we are. In one study, an uncaged rat went out of its way to free a caged rat and had to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to figure out a way to open its cage. Not only that, but it chose to engage in this act of compassion despite the enticement of freely available chocolate, which apparently rats love. To make matters even more interesting, it released its captive before it ate the chocolate and freely shared it with the other rat after releasing it. (Sources: Psychology Today and Science Daily)

Or how about this one, also from Psychology Today, Wild Justice and Emotional Intelligence in Animals:

CeAnn Lambert, director of the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center, saw that two baby mice had become trapped in the sink and were unable to scramble up the slick sides. They were exhausted and frightened. CeAnn filled a small lid with water and placed it in the sink. One of the mice hopped over and drank, but the other was too exhausted to move and remained crouched in the same spot. The stronger mouse found a piece of food and picked it up and carried it to the other. As the weaker mouse tried to nibble on the food, the stronger mouse moved the morsel closer and closer to the water until the weaker mouse could drink. CeAnn created a ramp with a piece of wood and the revived mice were soon able to scramble out of the sink.

On the other side of the equation, just the other night I saw a story on TV about a group of people on a beach in California who stood by and watched a man drown. Even though he was not in deep water and they had the means to save him, not one of them went to help him because they were afraid of the legal consequences if they did. In another segment on the same program, which was exploring just how selfish and brutal we have become (actually it was about America in particular), firefighters came to a burning house but refused to put out the fire because the owners hadn’t paid a $75 fee that entitled them to the firefighters’ services.

battery hensSome animals kill other animals, just like we do, but they don’t tend to torture them or slaughter them unnecessarily. They’re hungry, they kill and they eat. Foxes didn’t invent bizarre torture chambers like these cages for battery hens, for instance. Humans came up with that idea.

Now that I’ve removed us humans from the pinnacle of goodness, let’s take a quick look at evil, because this is where we reign supreme. Those of us who like the triune brain/frontal lobes theory like to believe the frontal lobes are the most evolved parts of the brain and are responsible for our feelings of empathy. There might be some truth to that, but, as I mentioned in an earlier blog and others have written about more eruditely elsewhere, the frontal lobes are now thought to be the seat of the executive centre and only incidentally connected with empathy or compassion. I can’t think of a single “less evolved” animal that regularly and methodically plans and executes the kinds of evil deeds we do. The fact that we undertake them consciously and upon reflection justify and “improve” our torture and murder techniques  just makes it worse.

We frontal lobe lovers like to lay the blame for ego and evil on our reptilian brains, but that really doesn’t hold water, either. Crocodiles don’t torture their prey and they certainly don’t go to elaborate lengths to invent horrible ways of killing others just for the sake of gaining, say, some oil-rich land.They kill, they eat and then they sleep or make baby crocodiles. There’s nothing inherently evil in any of that, so calling the reptilian part of the brain “reptilian” and saying it’s the seat of evil is kind of an insult to crocodiles.  Besides, our “reptilian” brains work tirelessly to keep us breathing, so we should show them a little gratitude.

Okay, I know you can come up with stories about cannibalism and infanticide in the animal kingdom. I’m not saying they’re all ascended masters or saints – just that an objective look at the facts seems to indicate that we are very far down on the evolutionary ladder (if there is such a thing) when it comes to stuff that really matters, like love and empathy.

So if evil can’t be so easily explained away, where does it come from? Well, I’m way above my self-imposed 500 word per blog limit, so I’ll save that for another post. Or you tell me. Thanks for visiting.

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit
Posted in brain science, Consciousness Studies | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

My Opinion Debunked, a Political Rant and More!

In my second-last post, The Battle of the Brains, I wrote:

At the beginning of this post I promised you a possible way to end the battle of the (individual) brains. Well, here it is. I try to make it a point to insert “in my opinion” in all my, well, opinions, no matter how dear to my heart they are. For example, it hurts when I stub my toe and I form a firm opinion that the stone is a more solid object than my toe and is therefore able to hurt me. However, as Einstein pointed out, “Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.” On a molecular level, there isn’t much substance to either my toe or a stone.

Well, I think there’s a problem with that theory. Thanks to Rowdy Mason, I was led to explore Robert Anton Wilson and Eprime a little bit. In Toward Understanding Eprime, RAW writes: “A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic.” I can attest to that, because when I started replacing “facts” (or ‘to be’ verbs’) with the more open-ended “in my opinion,” worlds of possibility opened up and “miracles” became more commonplace in my life (really!). However, I also started to become a little bit wishy-washy.

In the same post, I wrote: “For example, it hurts when I stub my toe and I form a firm opinion that the stone is a more solid object than my toe and is therefore able to hurt me. However, as Einstein pointed out, ‘Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.’ On a molecular level, there isn’t much substance to either my toe or a stone.” When I stub my toe, it hurts, no matter what my opinion about the ultimate reality of stones and toes may be. It would be foolhardy (notice ‘be’ word) of me to say to myself, “This seems to hurt” and kick it again, while holding the thought that “matter is (another ‘to be’ factoid) an illusion” firmly in mind in hopes that my toe would pass harmlessly through the stone. With enough re-programming, I believe that is a possibility, but after a lifetime of stubbed toes, starting from the time I learned to walk, I apparently have become too firmly convinced that matter is solid.

In order to function, we make some fundamental assumptions and behave as if they were “facts.” Prior to 9/11, I operated on the assumption that the United States, while deeply flawed, was fundamentally a society based on humane values. Since then, I’ve increasingly formed the opinion that it is an “Evil Empire” hell-bent on achieving world dominance and dominance by the few at the expense of the many. In the past year, I’ve formed the opinion that if there is a chance at all for America to redeem itself, that chance is Ron Paul. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever backed a Presidential candidate and I’ve never voted. While I’ve kept my opinion open-ended enough to allow for debate, no one yet has convinced me to change that point of view.

I’m sure Ron Paul is as flawed a human being as any, but he represents positive change almost as profoundly as Gandhi or Martin Luther King did. As Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote in America’s Last Chance, “he is the only candidate who is not owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.” He goes on to say that even in the unlikely event that he was elected, he would be prevented from implementing any of his policies, but that he should be backed and, if possible, elected anyway. This is why:

The reason we should vote for Ron Paul is to signal to the powers that be that we understand what they are doing to us. If Paul were to receive a large vote, it could have two good effects. One could be to introduce some caution into the establishment that would slow the march into more war and tyranny. The other is it would signal to Washington’s European and Japanese puppets that not all Americans are stupid sheep. Such an indication could make Washington’s puppet states more cautious and less cooperative with Washington’s drive for world hegemony.

So, while I still believe that all our opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, there are times when firmly standing behind our opinions becomes vitally important. I welcome voices of dissent, but if you’re an American living in America, I’d like you to look beyond domestic issues to the bigger picture and realise that the President you elect has an effect on all of us. If we all had a vote, I am almost certain that Ron Paul would win by a landslide because he is the only candidate telling America to stop messing with the rest of the world. Also, please read America’s Last Chance before commenting. Thanks.

 An alien in ancient Egypt?

Who is this guy?

Okay, I’ve stated my opinion. Now I can go back to being a cosmic schmuck for a little while. By the way, there’s no reason why the pyramids couldn’t have been built by master craftsmen who spotted a few curious aliens while they were working. That would be one explanation for this very alien looking creature.

 

 

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit
Posted in Activism, Politics | Leave a comment

Were the Pyramids Built by Aliens?

I don’t know, but I proved my point.

I’m really pleased with myself this morning. In my last post, my primary point was to suggest that, in so many words, if we put our heads together cooperatively, we could come up with solutions to problems. I used a couple of examples to illustrate my primary point, which was that in nature we see examples of brilliant engineering and cooperation towards reaching a desired goal without having to sit down and work it out on paper, whereas, it seems to me, we humans have become a fractured species.

I also wrote about the building of the pyramids. I knew that by putting forward the aliens argument I was heading for trouble and wrote:

When you read that I found it more plausible that aliens helped make the pyramids above, did you heartily agree with me, laugh and cancel your subscription to my newsletter or something in between? Had it been something in between, we could have started a dialogue.

Well, my two comments illustrate what I was getting at perfectly. In the first one, Neil Slade took the time to rationally explain another, even more rational solution to the aliens-in-charge theory. In the second one, a reader just whipped out a couple of insulting sentences, calling me a “cosmic schmuck.”

One thing I did leave out of my argument was an interesting tidbit about the building of the pyramids that I read someplace and that was that graffiti has been found etched in some of the stones. The graffiti strongly suggests that the builders of the pyramids were not slaves, but willing and enthusiastic workers working together towards a common goal.

As for the comment about the “great Anton Wilson”: yes, he’s a really interesting guy, but I’m not sure that putting him on a pedestal and suggesting that he would have sent me a searing rebuttal is the best way to go about making your point. The “great” Alfred Korzybski, who came up with the system that’s come to be known as general semantics, suggested something very similar to what I suggest about “in my opinion.” This is how they put it in the Wikipedia entry about him:

His system included modifying the way we consider the world, e.g., with an attitude of “I don’t know; let’s see,” to better discover or reflect its realities as revealed by modern science. One of these techniques involved becoming inwardly and outwardly quiet, an experience that he termed, “silence on the objective levels”.

Anyway, in my opinion, Neil Slade gets an A+ for his comment while Rowdy Mason gets a D-.

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSubmit to reddit
Posted in Activism, brain science, Uncategorized | 3 Comments