Posts Tagged ‘incurable illness’

The myth of incurable illness

September 25, 2012

The myth of incurable illness:

a medical culture of worshiping demonic possession by hypochondria
We are talking about myths here, so let’s be clear about what is required in order to have a myth. For one thing, myths require words.
What else do myths require? We could say that myths also require someone to be there to believe in the words. That’s about it, though: myths require words plus someone believing in those words.

“But how can 1 inch be 24,000 inches!?!?! 1 inch is only 1 inch! This is preposterous!”
Superstitions are any sequence of words that are believed, especially without understanding. In other words, opinions are superstitions and so are beliefs. You will understand why in a moment.
First, what is one sign of a superstition? If people are afraid of sequences of words that differ from their own favorite sequences of words, then their favorite sequences of words may be superstitious idolatry (including opinions and beliefs). If someone worships a superstitious idolatry, they may be so afraid of alternate sequences of words that they defend their favorite sequences of words with antagonism and even rage.
“But how can one inch equal 50 miles?!?!? It’s just not possible! It’s an outrage! It’s insanity! It’s WRONG! It’s EVIL!”
Have you ever noticed someone anxiously defend a particular sequence of words with antagonism or rage? (maybe even you personally?) The anxiety of the rage is a type of fear. Whether defending beliefs with an anxious rage or opinions with a desperate rage or any other sequence of words with a paranoid rage, the anxiety of rage is always frightened.
So, one sign of a superstition is that anxious rage. In other words, one sign of sin is that raging anxiety. Sin is a label for “a mistaken perspective,” as in “missing the mark” or a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
If we were to use the label “sin” to refer to a set of several things, the first thing that we might emphasize as a sin is the possibility of misunderstanding the reality of the unity of existence. There is only one reality, which is continuous. There are not two isolated realities, such as the past and the future or heaven and hell. There is a continuity of time which can be divided with language in two segments like “the recent past” and “the distant past,” but those two linguistic categories are not isolated realities, but just distinct labels for a single continuous reality. There is also a continuity of experience which ranges from heaven to hell, but they are not literally places. The myths of heaven and hell as places are useful metaphors. However, even when we refer to two different places, such as Arizona and America, those two different places are not two independent realities. Those are two labels for the the only reality, which is a single, continuous reality.
English: Sunset in Superstitions, Arizona - ht...

English: Sunset in Superstitions, Arizona – (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, the first thing that we might emphasize as a sin is the possibility of misunderstanding (or simply not recognizing) the reality of the unity of existence. Arizona is not a different reality from America. Arizona is within America, but so is Alaska. Even though Alaska is very different from Arizona, they are still two labels for different portions of the same continuous reality.

An example of Allāh written in simple Arabic c...

An example of Allāh written in simple Arabic calligraphy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reality is singular, but there are many labels for it, many words in it, many names of it. For instance, consider the words God, Allah, Yahweh, and Brahman. In different languages, different words may reference the same idea or linguistic distinction. Likewise, someone can write the word Allah in Arabic, in cursive, or bold, or in italics, in black ink or colored ink, and yet it is still the same word. Someone can pronounce the word with an accent or say it with a high pitch or a low, deep tone of voice.
English: The word Allah, in Arabic. alif hamza...

English: The word Allah, in Arabic. alif hamzat waṣl (همزة وصل) lām lām shadda (شدة‎) alif khanjariyya (ألف خنجرية‎‎) hā (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, we might list 10 or 100 or 1000 ways to say or write the word Allah. In fact, every time the word is used, that is a new occasion of that word being used. However, it is still the same word, right?
Likewise, no matter how many words are used within reality, reality is still a singular, continuous unity. There are many labels for the singular, continuous unity of reality, which have been represented in different languages using different words, such as Allah, Brahman, Yahweh, and God.
Many people may misunderstand those words and just superstitiously worship the individual words in a particular language, such as a word in Hebrew or English or Arabic or Sanskrit. That is a completely understandable error- totally innocent. In fact, making that error may be practically essential in order to recognize the fact that it is an error to worship a particular word or sequence of words.
Arabic Ligature Allah

Arabic Ligature Allah (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, let’s move on to a few popular superstitions. First, there is the idea that the world is flat. As a sequence of words, that grammatical construction is quite valid. In fact, many parts of the earth are quite flat and, because of the limitations of human visual perception, it is quite natural to label the earth as flat. Standing on the surface of the earth at a height of six feet, human eyes and brains interpret the earth as flat.
However, from the top of a very high mountain, it is possible to directly see the curvature of the earth. High in an airplane, the curvature can be seen or even far away from the earth in a satellite in orbit around the earth.
Quite plainly, the earth is not actually flat. It just appears flat from a certain perspective. Labeling the earth flat is quite natural, though technically imprecise.

About the time of Buddha (6 centuries before the “common era” of Holy Roman Imperial Christianity), a fellow named Hecataeus published this flat map of “the known world” (as much of the world as he personally knew).

So, just because someone is using a conceptual model that is flat (a flat map as distinct from a spherical map of the globe), that does not prove that the planet is flat. Also, just because someone uses an Arabic or Sanskrit word for the singular, boundless, continuity of reality (Allah or Brahman), that does not mean that the only valid way to label reality is using that particular language.
Pronouncing a word in a recognizable way does not establish comprehension. I can properly spell and even recognizably pronounce the words calculus, Sanskrit, dimethyl triptophosphate, but that does not make me an expert in those subjects, does it?
Further, pronouncing the word Allah or Brahman or God does not prove comprehension of the ancient, primary meaning of those words. Even parrots can pronounce those words. Even three year-old in Sunday School can sing those words in pretty songs. Even ignorant, arrogant, anxious, raging preachers can pronounce those words, sometimes very loudly. That reminds me of trying to effectively communicate to a deaf person by shouting.
When the blind lead the blind, that is a lot like someone who does not comprehend the Sanskrit language trying to teach Sanskrit, then all the students complaining that Sanskrit is gibberish and very hard to learn. Someone who is not competent in the field of Sanskrit cannot help people to be competent. Similarly, someone who is not competent in the field of spirituality (which I consider to simply be the comprehensive study of language) cannot help people to be competent in spiritaulity.

Ptolemy challenged the conventions of the science of geography by publishing this alleged map of “the real world.”

So, quite simply, sin is mistaking imprecision for invalidity. It’s like if someone asks me my height, I might say “between five and six feet tall.” That is imprecise, but valid.
I could be more precise, right? I could give my height to the nearest foot or the nearest inch or the nearest millimeter. Those are just different degrees of precision. Any unit of measurement is valid, but each one is distinctly precise.
So, someone who understands the singular, continuous nature of reality is also clear about words and labels. While some may argue and rage over whether inches or millimeters are the most valid units of measurement, that may be recognized as a misunderstanding of the word “valid.” All units of measure are valid. Likewise, while some may argue and rage over  whether English or Hebrew or Arabic or Sanskrit is the most valid language, again that might be recognized as a misunderstanding of the word “valid.” Finally, while some may argue and rage over whether Allah or Brahman or God or Yahweh is the most valid label for the singular, continuity of reality, some might see such anxious arguing and desperate rage as based on an innocent misunderstanding, a reactive superstition, a verbal idolatry.
Reality is singular and continuous, all-present and all-mighty. There is no other reality but reality. Labeling reality in various languages does not alter the singularity of reality, just like measuring length or height in various units of measurement does not alter the length of something being measured.
Arabic language

Arabic language (Photo credit: United States Forces – Iraq (Inactive))

Now, we began with the topic of the myths and superstitions and sin and language, and now we turn to the more precise subject of the specific myth of incurable illness. Basically, when someone does not understand the science of biochemistry and physiology, they may label something as incurable because they personally do not know how to cure it.
This is like saying that a language is incomprehensible. To someone who is illiterate in Arabic, reading Arabic is impossible. All Arabic writing is illegible to someone who does not know how to read Arabic- even if they can speak it fluently.
Consider a three year-old who knows how to speak basic English quite well but cannot read a word of it. That child may label all written words “impossible to read” or even “illegible” (though most three year-olds have a limited vocabulary, right?).
So, when a person has a limited understanding or limited vocabulary, they may label some condition as incurable. That means that they personally do not claim to be able to cure it.
Allah in Arabic

Is green the most valid color to write the word Allah in Arabic? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Next, there is the issue of labeling things as “an illness” which may in fact be only “a diagnosis.” Consider that baldness is not a substance. It is just a label. When someone has no hair, they have skin but not any hair on it. That is not the presence of some substance called baldness. That is the presence of skin unaccompanied by hair.
When someone has a variety of vitamins but very little or no Vitamin C, that leads to certain physiological symptoms that can be labeled “scurvy.” The label scurvy is not the presence of a substance, but only the presence of a diagnostic label. The presence of life with little or no vitamin C can be labeled “scurvy.” That is entirely valid. That is perhaps somewhat imprecise. More precise would be to say “we measured for the presence of Vitamin C, and here is exactly what we found….” The measurements could be rather approximate or measured down to the precise number of molecules of Vitamin C in the body, which might be a bit ridiculous to actually count one by one, right?
So, when someone is operating from a mild panic, a state of paranoid hysteria, we could call that hypochondria. They might label “baldness” as an incurable illness that they have, rather than recognizing baldness as a label in language for the presence of life unaccompanied by hair. they might label “scurvy” as an incurable illness that they have, rather than recognizing scurvy as a label in diagnostic language for the presence of life unaccompanied by certain levels of Vitamin C.
They might label “diabetes” as an incurable illness rather than a label for “sweet urine” or “sweet body fluids” or “sweet blood” or “high blood sugar” or “blood that has lots of glucose due to eating lots of carbohydrates.” There is no diabetes in their blood. There is blood and there is glucose in it from eating foods that contains lots of complex sugars that can be broken down in to glucose.
They might label “autism” as incurable, rather than recognize symptoms that correspond to the presence of various things in various amounts (unaccompanied by other particular things). Same for cancer, multiple sclerosis, alzhiemer’s, celiac disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, asthma, arthritis, allergies, cavities, and so on. Each of these labels refer to the presence of various things in various amounts, right?
When there are not many minerals in the diet, then there will not be many minerals in the teeth, right? The teeth will get softer and then may cave in. That is called having cavities. However, the word “cavity” is derived from the word cave. It is empty. There is nothing in a cavity. There is nothing in baldness.
If someone wants to “cure cavities,” they would need to strengthen their teeth by providing the relevant minerals. When there are enough minerals for the body to build and maintain strong teeth, there is no caving in to label as “having a cavity.” When the body needs minerals so desperately that it takes them out of the teeth so as to maintain the more essential functions of various organs, then that produces a decline in the mineral concentrations in the teeth, resulting in softening and caving in.
So, where do we get the linguistic model of “having an incurable illness?” It is from a superstitious, religious model of demonic possession. It is a variety of forms of hypochondria (imaginary issues or deluded perceptions, believing that diagnostic labels are substances rather than just labels).
“I have incurable cavitosis.” No, there is just the presence of various minerals in various amounts. “I am possessed by incurable diabeticisis.” No, there is just the presence of various amounts of sugar in the blood, perhaps related to diet. “I am possessed by incurable obesitosis.” No, again there is just the presence of various substances, perhaps related from diet. “I am possessed by the demon of incurable baldness.” No, that is the presence of skin and the absence of any healthy, productive hair follicles. Get implants (or a wig).
No one has ever been possessed by a demon of an incurable disease. No one has ever been possessed by tooth decay or by a contagious cavity taking over their teeth or by an emptiness in their stomach. Tooth decay is not the presence of something, but the diagnostic label for the absence of a diet rich in minerals and the symptoms or natural consequences of such a diet. The model of demonic possession by incurable diagnostic labels is a totally superstitious idolatrous language, innocently practiced by many mainstream believers of the religion of modern medical science.
I didn;t watch this yet, but it looks related:

“incurable illness” is a linguistic fallacy

March 11, 2012

<this is from a comment on another blog of mine:
You can go there to read the comment I was responding to, which makes reference to “fundamentalism” and superstitions about how demonic spirits cause disease.>


Image via Wikipedia

…if some [scientific] fundamentalist insists that there is such a thing as something like baldness OTHER THAN AS A LABEL, that is still fundamentalism. There is such a thing as hair, but there is no such thing as a baldness. Bald is just an adjective. Baldness is not an actual tangible something, so to say “my baldness was caused by ____” is a convenience in language, but is not literally sensible.

Baldness is not incurable. Baldness does not cause hair loss. Baldness is a label for hair loss (or no growth). Baldness does not need a ritual exorcism to remove it from someone’s head. There is no such physical thing or substance as baldness. Baldness is just a convenient label in language to point to a contrast with the physical presence of hair. Again, there is no such thing as “incurable baldness” (except as a convenience in language).

Likewise, as for those who insist that there is such a thing as scurvy and that it is incurable, those fundamentalists are just as idiotic as the ones who insist on the existence of diabetes or cancer or demons, then call them incurable. Entire linguistic models are fallacy from the beginning.

Scurvy is just a label. It is not a physical thing. It does not do anything like cause baldness (and baldness does not cause hair loss). Infants born without hair do not have a case of baldness. They have heads. Some heads have hair and some do not. That’s it!

As for scurvy, some organisms have lots of Vitamin C and some do not. There is no such presence as a scurvy to be “cured” or to be labeled as “incurable.” Same for cancer and diabetes and autism and all the various diagnostic labels for the natural physiological developments that correspond to particular metabolic and biochemical patterns.

Cancer does not cause tumors. Cancer is just a label in language. Tumors are the concentration of physical substance from when the immune system is overwhelmed (lacking the capacity to handle the removal of a particular amount of “waste”). In the presence of tumors, some idiot can come along and say “you are possessed by a cancer and now we need to do an exorcism and it will take 3 years and cost $300,000, but we will charge most of that to the taxpayers of Canada, so just relax.”

English: Retinol 3D structure

Image via Wikipedia

In other words, “incurable illness” is a linguistic fallacy. So, for instance, is autism curable? No, autism is just a diagnostic label, like the label on a jar of “cured” pickles. We cannot cure a label on jar of pickles either.

However, if mainstream medical science advances to comprehend and incorporate the basics of nutrition and physiology, as taught by thousands of years by “witch doctors” and “shamans” sprinkled throughout time and space, then the physical patterns that have been given the convenient label “autism” can be reclassified in relation to the new understanding.

Similarly, people do not talk much lately about “catching scurvy.” There is no such thing as scurvy to catch. It is just a label like the label on a jar of pickles.

Why? Because finally mainstream medical models recognize that the diagnostic label scurvy just references the level of functionality of an organism when there are lots of things working and lots of vitamins and minerals present, but not Vitamin C. The absence of various nutrients results in the functioning of less and less organs and systems, resulting in the application of approximations in language called “diagnostic labels” which are useful in making a prognosis.

Vitamin C does not “cure” scurvy because there is no such thing as scurvy except as a label in language. Vitamin C does not even cure the label on a jar of pickles.

If anything, ignorance is curable. The presence of intelligence “cures” ignorance just like Vitamin C cures scurvy, which is to say, that is a figure of speech that could be useful, even if it is not literally precise, given that there is technically no such presence as an ignorance to be cured.

I took this photograph April 7, 2006. Edited w...

Image via Wikipedia

healing words of the soul

December 11, 2011

healing code words of the human soul

You are a soul. More specifically, you are soul. You are not an isolated identifying in language, not a self-image, not an ego, not a personality, not a person or an estate in law or accounting. You are an eternal soul.
You as a soul are simply more fundamental than any of the linguistic identities or images that you may have mistakenly identified not as “mine,” but as “me.” Those come and go in time while a soul, relative to those temporary things, is lasting or unchanging or eternal.
By eternal, I do not mean that you as a soul are immortal. You as a soul are not immortal. Only soul is immortal. An isolated soul is only eternal. Soul itself is immortal.
So, do I have a soul or am I a soul? If I can identify a thing, then how can that thing be “me?” I am the one recognizing my self-awareness as distinct from patterns in language such as some name or some reputation or some description in language of “how I am.”
I am not a set of personality traits that can be described in language. Personality traits can develop or fade or mature. I am not the personality traits that I have. I have them. They are not me. I am a soul.
Before “I” arises in language, soul is all that is. Even when language arises, soul is still all that is.
The soul is earlier than any of those things that can arise in language. The soul is the source of language. People can change their names, learn new languages, and even lose neurological functions of language or memory, yet the soul is still present.
Now, language may refer to a body as having a disease, such as scurvy. All of that is a construction in language. Scurvy is a label for various physiological developments. The use of the term scurvy does not imply that at a particular moment in time, a scurvy appeared in a certain portion of a certain body, and then later disappeared or exited. That is the linguistic model of “possession” such as by a demon. There is another model.
There is no healing of scurvy because there is no scurvy except as a label in language. When there is a certain amount of vitamin C as well as various other things in a body, then life (or soul) does not produce the physiological functionality that can be labeled scurvy. When there is a lesser amount of vitamin C in a living body, then the physiological functioning arises that can be labeled “scurvy.”
Scurvy cannot be cured. Scurvy is a label in language.
Scurvy is not a demon possessing a body. Scurvy is a six-letter word.
But what about other “incurable illnesses?” There are such things as physical parasites, but scurvy and cancer and diabetes are just diagnostic labels in language. Parasites can be killed or driven out, at least in some cases.
However, “incurable” diagnostic labels in language cannot be killed or driven out or exorcised. A soul cannot have cancer or diabetes or scurvy. However, a soul can have a body that has various vitamins and various physiological functionalities that can be labeled “incurable scurvy” or “incurable demon possession” and so on.
The linguistic model based on the theory of demon possession is the same model that is used when saying “that body has scurvy” or “that body has cancer” or “that body has diabetes.”
Diabetes is a diagnostic label for a particular level of sugar in the urine (and blood). The word diabetes is derived from the Greek words for sweet urine. A body is not possessed by sweet urine. A body is not plagued by sweet urine. A body can produce urine and that urine can be notably sweet. All that sweetness in the urine is because of an excess of sweetness in the rest of the body which is being eliminated through the urine. Certain levels of sweetness (carbohydrate) can be detrimental to physiological functionality, like circulation and vision and glandular function and nerve function.
Diabetes does not cause those symptoms. Diabetes is a diagnostic label in language for those symptoms, with sweetness in the bodily fluids (such as urine and blood) being the first signal of too much carbohydrate in the diet. too much carbohydrate in the diet can produce sweetness in the blood and urine, as well as a variety of other noticeable effects, such as what is called blindness or numbness.
However, even blindness or numbness are just labels in language. Remove the carbohydrates from the diet, and then the impairments to nerve functions such as sensation of touch or visual functioning may decline.
A body does not have numbness or blindness or baldness. A body may or may not have the capacity for sight and touch and growth of hair.
A chair is not numb or blind. A chair just does not have the capacity for sight or touch.
A chair cannot have scurvy or diabetes or cancer or any incurable illness. Neither can a soul.
A soul cannot be healed. Only what is broken can heal, such as a scratch on skin. However, a soul can recognize it’s wholeness and perfection and invulnerability to language.

a diet fit for human physiology

November 19, 2011

What we eat effects our functionality. Here is a brief instruction on what to eat for optimal functionality.

Principle #1: Food is sacred.

Recall the traditional blessing before eating: “Take this and eat it. This is my body….” The body is nourished by what we eat, drink, and even breathe. Nourishment is the foundation of functionality. (By the way, not only is food sacred. Everything else is sacred, too. )

Principle #2: The longer that humans have consumed a particular food, the better the food is for humans.

So, the core of the ancient or paleolithic diet is food that is wild and raw. Note that anything that we have to cook, like beans, was not a primary component of the diet of ancient humans.

In addition to things like wild berries, the primary distinction between the diet of ancient humans and other primates is the eating of wild animals. The high levels of two substances in the diet of certain ancient primates has been identified as the cause of the expanded size of the human brain over that of other primates, as well as the capacity for language and other “higher functions” of humans.

Those two valuable substances are Omega 3 Fatty Acids called EFA and DHA. We need both. The most concentrated natural sources of these substances are wild animals (though some supplements also can provide excellent sources of these and other valuable substances).

In modern life, we can get healthy wild animals either through hunting or out of the water. Also, we can

get food from grass-fed domesticated animals, such as cows or free-range chickens (including eggs). Grass-fed and free-range animals have an abundance of Omega 3 Fatty Acids, unlike grain-fed, “conventionally-raised” commercial livestock. Note that among the only creatures designed to consume grains raw are molds and birds, which have evolved specialized organs for digesting raw grains called gizzards.

The Omega 3 called ALA which is found in plants like hemp and flax does provide a fraction of the nutrition of EFA and DHA, but is much more nutritious than most of the fats in vegetable sources. Notably good vegetable sources of fat are coconuts and olives. The less these are processed the better, including heating them (cooking).

Principle #3 Organs are the most nutritionally-sensitive and nutrient-dense tissues.

So eat them. While fat is of great importance, as is protein, the highest concentrations of a wide range of essential nutrients are in the various organs. Again, the organs of wild or grass-fed creatures are the most nutrient-dense foods naturally available to humans, especially when consumed fresh (raw) or fermented.

Principle #4 Mammals are designed to consume raw milk, especially in infancy.

Note that humans may have only consumed the dairy products of other animals for around 10,000 years. Around that same time, humans began cultivating wild grains and sprouting the seeds to eat the much more nutritious sprouts and greens.

Around 100 years ago, the quality of dairy products was falling from modern conventional practices of raising livestock. Pasteurization of dairy products (and fruit juices and alcohol) became popular, as well as fortification with added vitamins and other “remedial steps” to aid in the sale of such substances.

Note that the pasteurizing or cooking or sterilizing of milk has similar effects to the same processes when used for other foods. The first cooking of meats by humans was to dry them out and preserve them as jerky, but primitive humans ate meat raw or only moderately heated (“rare”), starting with the organs and the fat, and then preserved the less desirable excess portions for later consumption or trade.

As for parasites, they can be killed using the modern techniqueof freezing “questionable” meat

Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Poly...

Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Polyface Farm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(such as meat raised in unhealthy conditions like “factory farms”).

Generally, a small portion of fresh high quality meat (no more than moderately heated) is far more nutritious than a bunch of sterilized meat from sickly creatures that require anti-biotics and supplements to survive to adulthood. Similarly, those humans who have unusually low physiological functionalities (and insufficiencies or deficiencies of nutrients) that lead them to value anti-biotics and supplements are the ones who can benefit most from small amounts of the most concentrated nutrients from natural, ancient sources.

Principle #5: Beware of modern things like modern foods and modern medicine.

Avoid carbohydrates and gluten-rich, refined carbohydrates in particular. Avoid low-grade vegetable oils, especially when cooked. Focus on ancient fats from healthy animal sources as well as primitive or traditional sources of vegetable fat like coconut, olives, palm kernels, and avocados.

While the next commentary on modern medicine is not an instruction of what to eat, it is relevant to the subject of promoting health. Modern medicine is well-known for labeling various sets of symptoms as incurable, such as scurvy. Scurvy is just a label for a set of symptoms of the predictable consequences of a lack of VitaminC and the deterioriating of various organs and functions that arise in the absence of Vitamin C (as in the discontinuing of functionalities that depend of the presence of certain amounts of Vitamin C).

Joel Salatin gives a tour of Polyface Farm. He...

Joel Salatin gives a tour of Polyface Farm. Here he stands inside electric netting surrounding a flock of laying hens and their portable coop, dubbed an Eggmobile. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note that the language of modern medicine in diagnosing various physiological states as incurable may be entirely a reflection of the relative comprehension or ignorance of physiology on the part of the one using that language. If someone calls some development incurable, that may simply mean that the person using that language does not understand the physiology and nutrition relevant to that development.

To a fully-trained  and licensed practitioner of western medicine, scurvy was functionally “incurable” (relative to the extent of their knowledge and competence). However, to someone moderately competent in the realm of basic nutrition, the panicked diagnostic terminology of “incurable scurvy” or “incurable disease” may be deemed something of a “mental illness” or at least a lack of maturity and competence. While modern doctors may desperately panic about scurvy and other so-called incurable diseases, even not having any idea what is going on and why and just reactively labeling something incurable, western scientists at least as far back as the 1930s have been documenting the deterioration of the health and functionality of modern populations subsequent to the popularizing of modern diets and modern food production.

Modern medications have been popularized for their capacity to interrupt the functioning of the immune system (like cough suppressants). While that result of suppressing coughs and other eliminative functions may be valuable in terms of getting an expendable soldier back on the battlefield or an expendable slave back to work, interrupting the functioning of the immune system does long-term harm (including the poisoning of the symbiotic bacteria in the human guts).

Joel Salatin and pigs at Polyface Farms in Vir...

Joel Salatin and pigs at Polyface Farms in Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Modern medicine includes some very short-sighted interventions to suppress secondary eliminative functions of the immune system. It would not improve someone’s health or nutrition to give them poisons that prevent them from having a bowel movements or urinating either. The idea of suppressing the immune system derives from military settings in which the immediate risk to survival is so high that long-term functionality is not a priority. Similarly, in an emergency room of a hospital, people may try interventions that are quite extreme which would be considered negligent if used with more healthy, stable people.

Medical suppression of the human immune system has it’s relevance, but it should not be misunderstood as a replacement for proper nourishment and optimal functionality. Further, when consuming dense sources of nutrients, be aware that suppressed immune functions may be activated. That activating of the immune system does not mean that ancient foods that humans have eaten for thousands or millions of years are poisonous.

An active immune system means that poisons are being eliminated. Those poisons may have been stored in the tissues for years or decades. Simply use moderation in terms of the amount of nutrient-dense foods consumed in any particular period of time. Note that much smaller portions of nutrient-dense foods will be filling than when eating nutrient-deficient substances.

Principle #6 Get very high quality food and consume it conservatively, transitioning gradually toward ancient methods 

For instance, if you have never eaten raw wild-caught fish, begin with a small, experimental amount of it. Transition conservatively by raising the quality of your foods and transitioning toward traditional preparation techniques, like marinading flesh in lemon juice or raw apple cider vinegar then cooking it, but later marinading and just heating it, and finally eating it at normal temperatures (body temperature or room temperature is more digestible than refrigerator temperatures).

Before transitioning to all wild or all raw, unless you have a dire health emergency, you might first transition through a diet that includes some raw dairy and raw, sprouted grains (or even cooked). Also, if you have weak bones, make bones in to broth and eat that. If you have an issue with a certain organ, eating a healthy organ of the same sort is a great place to start when seeking all of the components of a healthy organ of that type.

Also, if you have been eating much refined sugar, a sudden and total discontinuing of sugar consumption may result in symptoms of withdrawal from the addiction, which may include detoxification headaches. When quitting a substance as addictive as sugar, transition conservatively and consume a lot of high quality water (adding minerals is often very beneficial, even when not addicted to sugar).

Eating a lot of sugar can make someone sick to their stomach. Stopping eating sugar allows for the body to stop dumping sugar in to the fat tissues throughout the body and to begin to eliminate it. The body may respond to a sudden decrease in sugar consumption by dumping internal glucose stored in fat tissues and so a moderate sickness to the stomach may result. When quitting sugar, it is best to be drinking high quality water and you can experiment with consuming at least small amounts of very high quality rich fat, which is one of the most satisfying substances to the human palate.

By transitioning from a carb-based diet and metabolism to a fat-based diet and metabolism, energy levels may rise dramatically. This is due to the higher efficiency of ketosis relative to the aerobic metabolism of sugar (three times more efficient), which is itself about 8 times more efficient than the anaerobic metabolism of sugar.

Fat is the primary fuel for human physiology. Supplying adequate amounts of proper fuel will provide long-term energy. Energy drinks and other less-than-primary sources of fuel will have only a fraction of the long-term benefit (if any long-term net benefit at all) of even small amounts of providing high quality fat for cellular metabolism.

Kara’s video reply about her results and her dietary changes:

“incurable illness?”

September 12, 2010

incurable illness VS spiritual authority

In the beginning, a spiritual authority is at the root of all religious traditions. There is an author at the origin of all teachings and all rituals.

And there is much in common throughout the many variations of religious tradition. One of the things in common is the recognition that some teachers are more or less able than others. Some people that might be called prophets may yet be imprecise in their understanding. The people that may be called wise by the masses may actually be fools.

So, popularity is not a measure of accuracy. Popular ideas have included the idea that the earth is flat, or that the planets rotate around the earth in perfect circles rather than in elliptical orbits around the sun, or that real estate prices always rise, or that there is such a thing as an incurable illness, such as scurvy. Despite the popularity of these theories, they may be recognized by you as contrary to obvious evidence, as in false, or at least questionable, as in there could be other valid ways to communicate the underlying reality that could be more precise and practically useful.

James Lind (1715-1794), Scottish doctor, portr...

Image via Wikipedia

For instance, when there is a particular range of a certain vitamin present in an organism, certain symptoms predictably arise and a label in language that can be given to the arising of certain symptoms is scurvy. Scurvy is not an objective physiological reality, but just a linguistic concept or categorization.

Even the idea of an incurable illness is itself the symptom of a certain level of understanding about physiological development and nutrition. People who believe in the existence of incurable illness are likely to use that term and to believe that someone diagnosed and labeled as having an incurable illness actually has an illness that is in fact incurable. So, the foolish could believe that someone diagnosed as having scurvy has something that is incurable, rather than correctly interpreting the signals from the organism that there would be value in providing the nourishment of a certain vitamin.

Is autism curable? Well, I’m not concerned about arguing over the word “curable.” However, I do know 1 person, Aajonus Vanderplanitz, who was diagnosed with autism (among many other things) and completely recovered. He reports many cases, as do various physicians and nutritionists, such as the author of the book “Body Ecology.”

A person with a certain amount of a particular vitamin does not have an incurable scurvy. They simply have a particular amount of various vitamins, which can be very easy to change.

In other words, the application of the label “incurable illness” is a curse. There is no such thing as having scurvy physiologically. Scurvy exists only in language, not in physiology. Different levels of vitamins exist physiologically. That is why no one has ever found a scurvy, because there is no such thing. One cannot physically find a darkness or a silence or a blindness or a scurvy because they are not physical, but only linguistic.

All incurable illnesses are diagnostic labels given from a particular linguistic model as a curse. We could think of those diagnostic labels as acts of psychological warfare, as distinct from simply measuring the presence of various nutrients and categorizing the developmental maturity and functionality of various organs and physiological systems.

So, as with diagnostic labels like incurable illness and scurvy, people can learn traditions and repeat phrases they learned from someone else, but is there any authority at all in the words themselves? Is there authority in the words, or is the only authority in the spirit or heart of the one using the words?

Parents, think about when your children call out to you. Do you only listen to the words they say, or do you listen to the way they say them? Do you listen to the spirit of the message?

Even before an infant can use any words at all, we can hear their spirit in their voice. We can identify crying as distinct from laughter. We can identify different kinds of crying- from distress to disappointment.

Many teachers can even claim that their own teaching is the only correct teaching, and that only certain words in particular are the correct ones. They may say that some words are more sacred than other words. They may be fanatically focused on words. They may have no focus whatsoever on spirit. In the extreme, many teachers can claim that their teachings are so obviously superior to all other teachings, that the other teachings must be ridiculed or even exterminated so as to keep their own teachings safe from the apparently immense threat of a teaching that is allegedly vastly inferior.

Some of those teachers call themselves spiritual teachers. Some call themselves political leaders.

They divide people against each other based on words. They invest their time in arguing and struggling and invading and warring. It can be very dangerous to follow such teachers.

Those who are called wise may be revealed as fools. Those who are called fools may be revealed as wise.

this prior video is a recording of a live 2-way communication, but includes all of the above text:

good news (“resist not evil”)

September 3, 2010

“Resist not evil.” – Jesus

I am complete with sin and “maya” and injustice and other similar words, like “incurable illness.” Instead, I may use “inconsistent” and “mistaken” and “inapplicable” and “imprecise” and “ineffective.”

Yes, the second set are adjectives, not nouns. However, that is the point!

Consider that there is simply no such thing as “a sin,” or not until someone says so. There is even no such thing as a crime, or not until someone “criminalizes” something and then enforces their declaration of the existence of a crime.

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Image via Wikipedia

For instance, in the US during the early 20th century, the production of alcoholic beverages was criminalized by an Amendment to the US Constitution, then de-criminalized by a later Amendment. So, is it inherently criminal to brew alcohol or not?

Alcohol may ferment naturally from fruits. If an apple falls from a tree and begins to ferment, producing alcohol, has someone committed a crime or not? Aha, but what about a grape!

In other words, is the natural biochemical process of the fermentation of fruit, which produces alcoholic liquid, inherently criminal or evil or sinful or shameful or bad or dangerous? Consider that there is nothing inherently criminal in any inaction (such as failure to join a national military) or in any action (such as dropping a bomb and killing thousands of people in the name of freedom or equality or retribution or terrorism or peace-keeping, etc…).

Governments criminalize certain activities as part of their normal functioning of regulating (governing) the behavior of the territories they occupy. Punishments (and rewards) are invented and enforced by certain people against others. All governments are occupation governments, operations of organized coercion or violence or intimidation, AKA military governments.

This is not a condemnation of any or all governments. They are not inherently evil. Nothing is inherently evil. Evil is a category in language that is invented and applied and later redefined, like the terms “crime, sin, and injustice.”

Even the definitions of what is an illness change over time. You may have heard of an incurable illness called scurvy. You may have at least heard that, at one time, certain medical professionals may have referenced an “outbreak” of incurable scurvy among sailors who were all on a long sailing voyage together. Perhaps the ignorant medical professionals simply misunderstood innocently that what they called scurvy was just the name for some symptoms of a certain level of Vitamin C.

When we identify something as “the symptoms of a relatively low level of vitamin C,” we are not creating an illness or performing a curse in black magic. A particular level of Vitamin C cannot be labeled an “incurable illness.”

Of course, there is really no such thing as an incurable illness or even an illness at all. Every so-called “illness” is declared into being (perhaps as distinct from such things as an injury or bio-chemical toxicity). An “illness” is fundamentally an activity in language, a process of categorization, a “social construction” of so-called “agreement reality.”

There are any number of actions that are inconsistent with a statement of intent or ineffective for producing a certain result, but the belief that there is something inherently wrong with anything in life – any of “God‘s Creation(s)” – is what I would call diabolical (from the roots dia-bolos, meaning accusational or villifying) as in Satanic or shaming or cursing. I did not come to condemn the world, but to remove the sin of the world, to free the humble from shame with a truth that many people may ridicule as foolishness…. or simply dismiss.

The humble will be innocent and curious and peaceful, like children, and experience what we might call the state of “heaven.” Those who worship vanity and wickedness and evil and illness may continue to burn with envy and animosity and condemnation and guilt and contempt and antagonism and belligerence.

Now, when a linguistic model fits well with a particular circumstance or context, then it is useful. When it does not fit, it is inconsistent with the circumstances, irrelevant, ineffective, inapplicable. Using an inapplicable model, especially obsessively or stubbornly, can produce surprises, frustrations, confusions, conflicts, and exhaustions.

So, the use of words like sin and crime and evil and injustice are simply for the influencing of behavior, for governing, for herding. So is the use of the words “our enemy.”

When we are taught by commercial media and public schools and governments that certain purchases are safe, such as because they are government-regulated or government-operated, consider that such teachings are what we might call a “sales pitch.” State lotteries and casinos and the FDIC and the FDA and the insurance industry and the mortgage industry and the Social Security Administration have something in common. What they are have in common is that some people have faith in them, some people value them particularly, some people regularly invest in them, and some people might even get insulted and argumentative or even violent at a reference to the reality of the extent of sustainability or wisdom or integrity in certain operations or trends of changing behaviors.

For instance, people may complain about the TARP program as a bail-out program for the banks redistributing wealth from the US taxpayers to the least responsible gamblers among the banks. However, the FDIC is also a very similar program for attracting business to the qualifying banks (and thus benefiting those who own shares of ownership in the banks). Previously, deposit accounts were insured by the US government for up to the amount of $2,500 (as shown in the image below), but that number has incrementally been increased 100-fold to $250,000.

Why should the US government be co-signer for billions or trillions of dollars of debt owed by all of these banks? Perhaps because the banks saw the benefit of that and lobbied for it. Whether it is FDIC or TARP, it is clearly a huge advantage for the banks at the expense of taxpayers.

FDIC placard from when the deposit insurance l...

Image via Wikipedia

Beware of those who worship a particular linguistic model for reality as if one particular linguistic model is inherently more sacred or moral or applicable than all other models. They may be fools who do not understand the function of language. Language, by the way, may be a tool for influencing the behavior of others, for organizing behavior, for governing.

Again, I am complete with sin and “maya” and injustice and other similar words, like “incurable illness.” Instead, I may use “inconsistent” and “mistaken” and “inapplicable” and “imprecise” and “ineffective.”

Yes, the second set are adjectives, not nouns. However, that is the point!

original video: