The title sounds more complicated than where my thoughts are heading.
Didn't most of us learn in school the scientic 'discovery' that all things are made up of atoms that are in constant movement (energy)? And that the only difference between human skin, a mango or a table surface is the rate those atoms move? Albeit, a bit oversimplified, but wasn't that the jist of it?
Wow, weren't we impressed by *science* then! Today we also know that this was hardly a new scientific discovery, rather ancient knowledge as understood by Chinese or Ayurvedic medicine as well as other so-called 'primitive cultures' on most continents. Ah, but it took *science* to prove it under a microscope. Reductionist thinking.
So, why is it that those same kids, who grow up, enter medical school (where they learn that the human body is merely a kind of machine with replaceable parts - yes, I remember that) that the whole concept of human energy - with all its healing possibilities - is categorically scoffed at and dismissed as 'quackery' or these days endulgently called 'alternative medicine'.
Yet, same said medical body acknowledges that the mind (mind/thought=energy) can make us ill (just think long enough of something revolting and pay attention to how your stomach reacts) - however, the concept of learning to use the mind to heal is just not on the agenda. So yes, the mind can make us ill, but to get better we need pills for the symptoms and more pills to counteract the side affects.
I suspect the answer is that it is not *scientific* enough. Yet what about what we learned as kids?
Back to the drawing board.
No comments:
Post a Comment