Digest - 13 Feb 2001 to 14 Feb 2001 - Special issue (#2001-88)
>> >Since I am a reductionist, let's cut right to the
>> >chase :) <snip>
>> presented that way it is not a question but a
>> statement that there is two
>> camps that are imcompatible but i see them as
>> perfectly complementary.
>
>I formatted my question that way so as to avoid any
>ambiguities. But, I also see a huge difference in the
>two philosophies - one being that there is an external
>force at work, the other being that it is an entirely
>internal matter.
That is all my point ,i suggest that inside and outside are the same . they
are 2 sides of the same coin , a reflection of each other .
viruses are the product of the cell they don't have a life of their own.
>
>> To give an image the virus will be the piece of
>> information that you have 3 <snip>
>
>Let's see if I understand your analogy. It's kind of
>like the "victim" of tabloid news (National Enquirer)-
>the reaction is either that of serenity ("who cares
>what they write about me"), or anger ("I'll sue the
>pants off them!")??
i don't see that much serenity in the (who cares ...) mor an arrogance , but
yes the serenity is to knows the inside from the outside and vice versa to
realise the oneness between all creations.
>
>> Note that there is no need for you to have a "strong
>> immune system " to
>> "fight" off the disease you just knows better and
>> smile at this silly
>> statement.
>
>I did not say you need a "strong immune system" - that
>notion carries a lot of baggage. I would prefer to
>think of it as a properly functioning immune system -
>an immune system that has not been damaged by poor
>diet or lifestyle.
okay!
>
>> Also it makes sense that if this statement has
>> succeded in you perceiving
>> yourself differently it will be usefull to be
>> passed around so all the
>> species can benefit .
>
>Huh?
I made a mistake here because of french thinking i didn't meant <all the
species > but < all the individus in one species>
also i realise that i jumped there without that much explanation so i try
those ones
If the information brought by the virus have been integrated by one individu
it is normal that this information want to spread, being shared by others .
also if this information is relevant to one individu it is most likeley to
be relevant for others
there is genetic diversity and unity brought by sexual reproduction and i
foresee viruses as "uniformity force" to maintain some unity inside a
species .at the same time that it help the Dna to evolve. paradoxal and
complex isn't it.?
>
>> In my daily life of raw food eater i can say there
>> is many viruses,
>> parasites and bacterias that i enconter or even
>> carry and transmit but i am
>> not affected by it while my surrounding , eating
>> differently , are
>> periodically or even chronically "dis ease " by
>> those encounters, <snip>
>
>So how does that differ from my contention that the
>immune system can be compromised - thereby allowing
>the *disease* organisms to cause problems?
what i want to say is that there is no such thing as "disease " organisms ,
the disease is in the RELATIONSHIP between the 2 entities, the
multicellular organism and the virus or bacteria or parasite.
that relationship can be mutually benefiting or parasiting that is the
choice given to us to create the relationship we want.
I'll throw
>my own analogy in here. Picture yourself as an
>independent country of cells, bacteria, viruses, etc.
>all living in perfect harmony. Picture an "evil army"
>of bacteria, viruses, etc. from another country, who's
>only goal is conquer and destroy. You are safe as long
>as your defenses are strong - they have no reason to
>attack you. But if your defenses are weakened (because
>of budget cuts, politics, poor planning, whatever),
>you are suddenly at the mercy of this "evil army".
that is exactelly this kind of perception that create the problem in the
first place , by choosing a relationship of rivalry it becomes a reality.
and in that kind of relatonship i guarantee you that the virus the bacterias
will have the last word in front of more elaborate forms of life
.
the virus is an information proposed to who is susceptible to listen to it
.( they are often species specific or in a limited range of species)
In an "at ease" relationship
Either this information is integrated and become beneficial or it is
irrelevant and will dissipate
In a" dis ease" relationship either the information is fighted resisted to
and paradoxally made real and it becomes hell or the information is so
overwhelming that it trigger the destructuration of the organism
>
>> about the word CAUSE can you say that the sun cause
>> life on earth when the
>> same sun reaching the moon don't have this effect at
>> all .?
>> you need more than one cause to get even only one
>> effect . So the more
>> complex muddling up of causes and effects of reality
>> is beyond the
>> comprehension of the most successfull analytical
>> mind.
><snip>
>> this way of thinking ( analytical) favorised by the
>> whole education system,
>> getting its apatheose in scientists is far from
>> being the only way of
>> thinking .
>> I understand that when you have been trained to
>> think that way it is hard to
>> see differently.
>> jean-claude
>
>Interesting -ANALYSIS-, Jean-Claude :)
this one made me laugh ( de bon coeur), it shows that words are and will be
inapropriate to transmit what i have to say may be i should send a virus
instead.
>jean-claude
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
