J R Fibonacci Hunn This seems to me to be a rather eclectic group. Feel free to “re-state the purpose of the page.”
[To borrow from the description of this group,] the basic idea of a “geek recognizing a misalignment with reality” (and then presenting an elegant re-framing of the actual causal chains relating to health) fits with the content that I shared.
My interpretation is that the realm of medicine in general suffers from a profound lack of attention to logic and language. In that “disempowering context,” that status quo is that resignation, cynicism, and simple hysteria dominate the mainstream conversations regarding health.
Not only do I address that quite directly, but I present a set of elegant, simple, and scientific alternatives. My basic premise is that “medical science” as I know it is largely unscientific. Basic presumptions are not refined but simply repetaed and then defended as sacred rather than as the superstititions that they are.
For instance, the use of terms like “incurable” implies to me resignation, cycnicism, and of course incompetence in regard to the specific physiological process in question. Only someone who does not how to produce a particular temporary effect would sincerely call that effect irreversible (or, in this case, “incurable”).
Until people can recognize the mainstream programming of paranoia and hysteria and be at peace with it, there is little alternative but operating within that conceptual context (of superstitious hysterias and paranoias). My target subject matter pertains to very practical breakthroughs in health (as well as simple explanations of the remarkable decline in health in recent decades such as rocketing obesity, autism, arthritis, and alzheimers). However, it is the context of my conversation that is most remarkable.
In other words, it is not the simplicity of improviing health that is most astonishing to me, but the mainstream loyalty to the maintaining of disempowering conversations. By shifting conversations from defending the familiar… toward sorting which interpretative models are most effective at producing the measurable results valued most, then many old familiar conversations may suddenly lose momentum entirely.
actually, I found your ‘explanation’ more interesting than the video, JR.. as someone who meditates, pays attention to my breathing, eats minimally processed foods, etc., there was little ‘new’ and I found myself wondering a couple of times what your purpose was in going to the ‘trouble’ of recording it..
one item in your video: ‘eat less carbs; eat more fat’ seems to inadvertently play into the very disempowering conversations you are seeking to avoid.. a reversal of the message we all heard over and over again about avoiding fat… which was then replaced with carbs.. yes, that was almost criminal… but just ‘eat more fat’ is as lacking and potentially ‘dangerous’ as the ‘eat less/no fat’.. human bodies seem to need some fat.. good, clean, healthy, organic fats and oils from plant and animal sources.. agreed not chemistry lab manufacturers.. and, yes, most of us need to eat less carbs.. particularly simple and overly processed carbs… but what we really do need to eat more of (per my bio chemist friends and nephew) are more – in quantity and variety – fruits and particularly vegetables.. green leafies and multicolored.. my objection is that the carb/fat more/less is missing the main point and diverting attention from the more important thing we can do for our own health…
But what I do like about your ‘explanation’ is that you come through as an individual with passion to make a difference.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Hi LS! If you have a specific question (or two), I am open to addressing them.
I will note for now that if you have not studied the research of Weston A. Price, then you might be interested in it. He documented the incredible health of a wide variety of primitive tribes, including the Inuit / Eskimo. The primitive Inuit people reported extremely low levels of plant food in their diet, yet they had extremely good health despite living in conditions that would kill most modern people within a few weeks.
There is a part 2 of the video (already published). In it, I make passing reference to things like the manufacture in a human body of baking soda, of salt, of water, and of cholesterol (among other things). I do not know if most biochemists are aware that humans make water frequently.
Most people that I talk to speak of water as if it is not a compound that humans create in thousands of chemical reactions. For instance, even when burning a candle, that creates water vapor as the carbohydrate of the candle wick’s fibers provides hydrogen which combines with O2 in the air to form H2O. We also make water within our body WITH every meal.
Further, near the end of part 2, I mention that carbon and nitrogen are not “two isolated realities.” They are labels for two stable patterns of energy.
In nuclear reactions, a stable compound of energy called “carbon” is “FUSED” (infused) with another stable compound of energy called “hydrogen” and then [some would say that] “those two patterns disappear and are replaced by a nitrogen atom.” In reality, “atom” is not a very scienfitic word (and neither is “matter”).
There are many forms of energy (a few stable patterns of energy or compounds of stable patterns of “energy fields”). Some of these distinct forms are labeled carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen. We can say that carbon and hydrogen combine to form nitrogen (or transform in to nitrogen).
However, are we aware that hydrogen and carbon are just labels? Would we say that one ounce of water “combines” with two ounces of water to “form” three ounces of water? Or do the various separate “ounces” transform in to a single new “thing” of “a three ounce?”
Even the word “transform” is not being used scientifically there. There is no “thing” of hydrogen or carbon that forms in to a “thing” of nitrogen.
There is energy. It has many forms (patterns).
So, I can say “my open hand *transforms* in to a fist and then my fist *transforms* in to the hand gesture for an L-shaped pistol.” However, the fist was never a “thing unto itself.”
It is just a form (or a label for a form). The fist does not do anything. The fist does not “go anywhere” when fingers stretch open to expose the palm. Fist is not a physical reality, but a linguistic convenience.
Likewise, carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen are not things unto themselves. They are not “real” in any ultimate sense.
So, “atom” is a useful word. However, the atomic theory of physics has been established as false around 100 years ago.
To speak in terms of “atoms” is not scientific (unless one is very clear about the context in which the words are being used). To use the context of “atoms” is already interpretative. Sometimes that context is useful and sometimes completely silly- like talking poetically about a fist that
chooses to transform in to a pistol.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Technically, there is no such “thing” as an atom (except as a way of labeling a stable form of “energy”). Physicists tried to find an atom and instead all that they found were protons and electrons and other stable forms of energy that they presumptively labeled “particles.”
[See image above.] Upon further inspection, it was established that spiraling waves of energy appear as two dimensional subatomic waves when viewed from the side and appear as spinning subatomic particles when viewed from “straight ahead” along the trajectory of the spiral. Of course, some spirals “go straight” and some move more like a full balloon flying around as it empties itself of the higher air pressure inside of it.
So, the word “quantum” means basically “a measurable phenomenon.” The linguistic concept of a “fundamental substance” has been generally rejected. There are no atoms as such. Some atomic forms have measurable half-lifes with constant rates of decay in to other forms of energy. Subatomic “particles” are measured as appearing and disappearing in tiny periods of time.
The really “funny” thing though is that language is always interpretative. Even the word “scientific” is interpretative.
So, if we do not understand how the public is programmed to use words like criminal and “scientific,” then that may be a topic of interest. Many people however seem terrified of exploring their own linguistic presumptions and pretenses.