tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2894514913516471357.post1379633462218477881..comments2023-07-13T05:01:01.343-07:00Comments on Holistic Recovery from Schizophrenia: Rupert Sheldrake on habits and expectationsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700295858497275586noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2894514913516471357.post-9245700165981910792010-09-22T22:00:03.736-07:002010-09-22T22:00:03.736-07:00Man is truly confined by the limits of his own ima...Man is truly confined by the limits of his own imagination, his own beliefs, and the context from within which he thinks.<br /><br />The universe is infinitely more complex than we are capable of rationalizing it and all living organisms and matter are interconnected within the universe.<br /><br />The limitations of man's knowledge allow him to rationalize that which is symptomatic and partial in nature as being whole. This is why "modern" medicine cannot cure illness it can merely treat the symptoms of illness. Think about how many diseases are cured versus symptomatically treated.<br /><br />With reference to the treatment of psychosis it is naive to think that man's pharmaceutical intervention would have any greater effect than the body would have in remediating itself. <br /><br />I agree that whether man believes he can or whether he believes he cannot that he is right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2894514913516471357.post-55793318141358301372010-09-22T07:40:42.468-07:002010-09-22T07:40:42.468-07:00True science always questions itself, is never 100...True science always questions itself, is never 100% certain, always leaves room for doubt. Scientists are human beings, not gods. They make mistakes, they think inside certain belief systems, they have expectations, and they'd need to be 100% aware of it all the time, they'd need to be in a state of constant enlightenment, they'd need to be gods, if it were not to influence their work. Greg Craven has made some pretty interesting videos about what science is (or should be... ): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE" rel="nofollow">"Nature of science"</a>, 1st part of 3.<br /><br />Most of the science the public today is presented with is not true science. At least not in the way the public is presented with it: as if it were the one and only truth. That's not science, it's religion -- and sometimes it will seem to me, that "science" is our time's religion --it's dogmatism.<br /><br />A little more Greg Craven: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg" rel="nofollow">"How It All Ends"</a>. Now, if you look at his risk-benefit analysis concerning the climate debate, and what he says about the nature of science, and compare it to the "science" biopsychiatry engages in, biopsychiatric "science" in almost every regard both represents the opposite of science, true science, <i>and</i> in addition, because it isn't science but dogmatism, fails to conduct a sensible risk-benefit analysis.<br /><br />In order to really understand, find answers, solutions, we (or science)'d first of all need to accept our (minds') limitations. Instead of engaging in the kind of megalomanic, self-satisfied ego-worshipping biopsychiatric "science", among all the different, specific branches of science, maybe is the most glaring example of.Marianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16273435151682585281noreply@blogger.com