To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/03/14 15:06
Subject: [K-list] K and science (Was: Re:new Buddha..)
From: Jani Mattsson
On 2000/03/14 15:06, Jani Mattsson posted thus to the K-list:
From: "Jani Mattsson" <jmattsso+onelistATnospamniksula.hut.fi>
Lisa Meyler <elisaveta.meylerATnospamswipnet.se> wrote:
> Thanks for your story! As far as I know, the chakra thing, as all
> else involved in spiritual/K processes is experienced individually,
> meaning you´ll have your own personal experience of the
> chakras. For me it was definitely _feeling_ them in my body, as
Hmm... actually now that I started to think about it, as somebody
suggested that you would feel the chakras most noticeably when
there are blocks of energy - I sometimes have kind of "relief"
feelings in the chest area, for example, after taking a deep
breath and relaxing, or perhaps after a mental relief of some
sort... so perhaps this is then some kind of chakra activity,
like blocks giving way, although not very pronounced.
>At the time of my 'chakra opening', I had no idea about the concept
>of chakras, and was to a loss as for what on earth was happening in
>my body, and finding descriptions of chakras was a revelation.
So it needs some sort of 'opening' or sensitizing to start to
feel them?
>Wonder how long it´ll take for the medical/scientific community to
>acknowledge those subtle energies and do something useful with that.
This is actually something I've been contemplating lately. Is
it just a question of pride and prejudice that science has not
taken these issues, together with the issues on consciousness
in general, seriously. Or is there something that makes the
current scientific method inevitably insufficient for the
research of such phenomena? And if so, what kind of extensions
to the scientific method would we need? I actually planned to
pick up some books on the philosophy of science when I'll have
the time to see if there's fundamentally something difficult here.
Probably it's just the lack of will to start investigating
these topics... and you might even find out something that doesn't
please your financier, get results people don't want to hear.
On the other hand, I feel that there would be many sane people
who would be extremely interested in doing research in these
fields if it just somehow could be made more accepted and
the need for such research could be effectively communicated.
My experience from the corporate world is that not actually many
people take their work that seriously, don't do it because they
were that interested in the results of their work but do it as
that seems to be what one is expected to do, without realizing
that there might be other alternatives that would actually need
much more attention. That is at least how I myself am feeling
right now. So I would like to believe that it is just the
question of gaining critical mass and not too far away
now... of course, some reliable hard fact results from such
research made public would help a lot. :) But once the critical
mass is gained, my guess is that there will be a lot of interest...
and there's already a lot of information available, you just
have to be a little critical and able to filter the essential
from the huge mass of material with varying quality.
A while ago, there was a lecture series for general public in
the University of Helsinki on the world views for the new
millennium. I saw two of the lectures, of which the first one
I attended was I think highly interesting. The topic was "Brain
functioning: neural or psychological explaining?", discussing
the differing views of the traditional natural sciences and
the humanities to the topic. There were four panelists, each
of them giving their own presentation in the beginning, followed
by general discussion. The panelists were some top Finnish
scientists in their fields: an academy professor in biology,
a cognitive philosopher working in futurology, an emeritus
professor in psychology and a MD doing clinical brain research.
I guess during my academic studies I've never been so attentive
on a lecture, usually it's just been that I sit in some kind
of a lethargy and wait for the thing to end.
Well, the thing that I can most clearly remember from the
lecture by the biologist was that according to their current
view, the brain is a biological system that completely adapts
to its environment, meaning the neural stimulus it receives, i.e.,
the areas that get attention are strenghtened in the brain
structure. Nothing new here, but actually the main point was that
the control loop is actually not only two-way as traditionally seen
where the environment is in interaction with the formation of
the neural patterns in the play, but that there is also an active
regulation system whereby the brain itself controls the formation
of the neural structure of the brain. Additionally, the brain is
the most receptive for gaining different capabilities at different
periods of the development of an individual, from child to elderly,
if these capabilities are nourished in the right age. At least I
found this statement to actually very well validate the Kundalini
phenomenon; that by directing attention, you can actively manipulate
the formation of the neural structures in your brain. So in this
light meditation and visualization techniques would not be
bad at all. Naturally the lecturer didn't dare to think that far,
or at least say it aloud, but I think that it is a clear indication
of the fact that there are lots of potentialities in the human
brain that can be utilized just by attention. And that is, I think,
what the K thing is all about. So the conclusion is that the
"scientific community" might not be that far anymore after all...
The futurologist gave also a very interesting lecture. He started
by describing how the human world view had been based on
intentional explaining ("a tree grows because it wants sunlight")
and lately became replaced by functional explanations ("trees
orient towards light as a result of a mechanistic process involving
complex cybernetic control"). I think the conclusion was that
neither view could actually be held more 'valid' than the other.
The discussion continued to explain the concepts of reduction
and emergence forming the basis of the structure of the current
scientific theories, from physics investigating the smallest
particles to the 'higher level' sciences like psychology and
sociology. Well, this again aroused in me a lot of thoughts about
how the spiritual things could actually be connected to all this
and how the way of seeing the reduced particles as fundamental
might actually be exactly the wrong approach and how these anyway
are different ways to perceive things and things in the end really
always are just as they are, independent of how we like to perceive
them, but I think I'll save you people from any more boring
homebrewn philosophy... :)
I can't remember much of the lectures by the psychologist or the
MD. One thing the psychologist mentioned was that they had
conducted a research in the University of Turku (my original
hometown btw) with hypnosis, and were able to detect pretenders
from really hypnotized patients by means of some EEG measurements.
So these things are gradually being researched and I guess some
of the K effects could as well be seen in EEG or some other
clinical measurements if someone in the field just had the
motivation and/or courage to do such research.
>My motto is; if there´s no such thing as what you´re looking for,
>create it yourself.
Yep... well, I guess I should have a motto like 'if you're not
happy with science, just go ahead and shift the paradigm'. ;)
Well, maybe not that easy in practice, but well worth a try. :)
> http://home.swipnet.se/reality_center
Actually I checked your homepage and found a link to the
Holma college of holistic studies in Sweden, seems actually quite
interesting. On the first look it seemed like a fresh and
sane approach... hopefully this kind of things get more attention
so they'll sooner or later have an effect on the whole academic
world. And it might actually be a good idea not to deviate too
much from the established science to avoid being categorized
as "religious" or "nonsense", a sure death to any good attempt.
Best regards,
-- Jani Mattsson <jpm ATnospam iki . fi> -- http : // www.iki.fi / jpm / --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/937/2/_/680797/_/953071580/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.