Blog Posts on Quantum Phyiscs
- Tai Chi and Quantum Physics
- Quantum Physics and Chinese Medicine, Part I of ?
- A Note on All Posts Relating to Quantum Physics
- Health Through Accurate Perception
Tai Chi and Quantum Physics
Once you see it, you see it everywhere. I think that basic statement holds true for a lot of things. Once you grasp some fundamental in one thing, you see it all over the place. That same, basic “mini-truth” in one area of life, pops up in others.
This is why, and how, I am able to move freely from Chinese medicine, to Taoism, to yoga, to Tai chi, to quantum physics, even, briefly, through web development and, believe it or not, contract and constitutional law – It’s all the same thing! Kind of. There are, simply, basic truths out there that are applicable in a lot (all?) fields.
This morning I had a little epiphany of a basic similarity between learning Tai chi and an essential difference between classical and quantum physics. (If you haven’t, already, you may want to read my post on quantum physics and Chinese medicine. It gives a very quick intro/review of physics, as it relates to Chinese medicine.)
For those of you who don’t know, Tai chi (Tai chi chuan) is a martial art that incorporates a style of training that involves slow, continuous movement of the body through a set of postures, all together referred to as a Tai chi “form”. The form takes anywhere from 10-20 minutes to complete.
Tai chi is one of the most powerful martial arts out there. It is, actually, in a class almost by itself. As a side effect of the training, health improves tremendously. Hence, its popularity for use as an exercise for health.
Learning Tai chi is a challenge. That’s the trade off. Its martial ability is far beyond the vast majority of martial arts out there, but it’ll take you, at least, ten years to train to that capability (whereas with the other styles of martial arts, you attain combat ability within a year or two of training).
It’s the same with the health benefits. Daily proper Tai chi can cure all kinds of diseases, lengthen life by many, many years, and improve the quality of life to a level, literally, unimagined before. The downside, of course, is you have to be training properly, doing Tai chi correctly – and that takes a lot of time and effort.
This morning, I was working one-on-one with a young woman who has been studying Tai chi for years (She actually holds a black belt in kung fu.) She knows Tai chi, and can move through the form with skill. It was her skill that allowed us to take the training to a new level. To an outside observer, it would appear we were getting “nit picky” with the details, and in those details I found a great example of an essential difference between classical and quantum physics. That difference, being a “fundamental”, can be seen in many areas of life, as well.
The move we were diving into is basically stepping and, while shifting weight from one leg to the other, moving the hands through a certain movement. As is typical of many Tai chi movements, there are tons of things happening within that single move. It’s very tricky to get all the parts of the body to do all the things they are supposed to be doing in a coordinated, smooth fashion.
In order to learn the move, it has to be broken down into smaller steps. You practice those steps repeatedly, and even have someone demonstrate the full thing to you, so you can try and mimic them. At one point, she did ask to watch me step through the movement. It was in her watching me and commenting on how I was effecting the move, that I realized, you simply cannot break down the move into little pieces. You just can’t. And – boom – there it is.
You can take this complex Tai chi move and break it down into smaller pieces, in order to practice it. However, those little pieces do not constitute the move. There’s the dangerous illusion. You have to reduce the move into smaller parts (just as classical physics does with nature, in an attempt understand it), but the move is not contained within those parts. They can only approximate it. And that is a core realization that came with the discovery of quantum mechanics.
Physicists thought that classical physics was accurately describing the world “as it is”, or was getting really, really close to doing that. But then there were some events that classical physics simply could not explain. Its theories were woefully inadequate. Through much experimentation and “out of the box” thinking, led in part by Einstein, eventually it was discovered that physics, of the time, wasn’t as accurate as once thought.
The world described by the formulas of classical physics, it turns out, is only basically correct. They’re close enough to allow us to do a quite a bit, but when you look closer, when you start looking at things at the atomic level and smaller, the world appears very, very different. Importantly, the “rules” of classical physics, the rules that we all pretty much agree the world follows, break down at the level of the very small, the realm described, specifically, by quantum physics.
I’m trying, desperately, not to get too terribly side tracked, here, but the basic idea is that the world, on the surface, day-to-day, level appears to follow certain basic principles. For instance, things appear quite distinct and separate. Clearly, this laptop is not this table. Causality holds pretty well, to. If I push this coffee mug to the edge of the table and further, it will (most likely) fall off the table and shatter. We have these basic “laws of nature” in effect, right? Well, kind of, but not really…
That way, above, we understand the world isn’t completely accurate. It’s pretty close, but, to get really picky, the above “laws” are only typically how things work. They describe the general tendency of things. (This is a specific point of distinction with the new physics. The world isn’t truly causal, with specific, accurate predictions able to be made. Such causality is replaced with probability.)
So the new physics says the old way of looking at things gives you a good impression of the world, but not it, exactly. With Tai chi, I can break down the movements, but even if we did so, and those steps were followed exactly, it’s still not Tai chi. Tai chi doesn’t exist as the sum of a collection of pieces.
For those who haven’t seen Tai chi in action, think of dancing. Imagine a dancer intentionally executing a list of moves, one after the other. It kinda looks mechanical, doesn’t it? It doesn’t flow. There’s something essential to the dance missing. Dancing is much more than just doing the correct moves in the correct order.
That something missing, that certain thing that brings the dance, Tai chi, reality, itself, alive, cannot be known through the strict logical, reductionistic ways of the old science. That old way gets you close, but it can’t get you there.
Interestingly, another similarity just popped up. Just as you can’t break Tai chi or dance down into isolated movements, reality can’t be broken down into little, indivisible pieces. The idea of atoms as being the basic building blocks of all matter has fallen apart. A world based on that idea approximates reality, but it isn’t it, exactly.
Instead, the new understanding places emphasis on the interaction between pieces of matter. It’s the movement, the dance, of those particles that is of importance. (Well, you may think, that is still using the idea of “particles”. The difference is, however, whenever you try to isolate any individual one, to try and get to know more about it, the less real or tangible, “knowable”, it becomes. It loses definition, meaning, when removed from the context of a specific interaction. It ceases to exist when you look at it by itself. That is, the only “real”, knowable thing is the interaction, the movement, the dance.)
Also, in both dance and Tai chi, there is something essential about the flow of the movements. They only really come alive when you “lose yourself”, the intentional execution of specific moves, one after another, disappears, and the movements just happen. Again, with classical physics, you had little pieces of matter interacting, and that just doesn’t quite cut it. Physicists have been forced to acknowledge that particles are better understood as energy, and not so much as solid, inert matter. Just as dance moves can look mechanical, the world actually appears to be like a big machine, when you try to understand it as made up of a bunch of little pieces. If you think about the world as made up of energy in constant interaction, you get something much better resembling reality.
To me, this extends to so many other things in life. The logical analysis always seems to fall short of truly capturing the nature of the thing described. It’s only in the direct experience that you can truly “know” a thing, any thing, the most important things… And, yet, we value logic as a describer of reality so highly. We demand things “make sense”. We demand strict, rational “proof” before acknowledging or accepting something new… but I am in danger of digressing… again.
I honestly thought the idea for this post was gonna go for maybe three paragraphs. It seemed so simple!
Thanks for indulging me on this one. More later…
Top of Page
Quantum Physics and Chinese Medicine, Part I of ?
It’s an interesting thing. Chinese medicine, and acupuncture specifically, have been criticized as being “non-scientific”, not being grounded in science. Some of these critiques are confused, mistaking “not, as of yet, biomedically validated” (i.e. not enough modern research to warrant full implementation into the modern medical system) for outright un-scientific, and some of these criticisms are prejudiced, acknowledging only certain avenues towards medical practice as being acceptable, missing the essence of science completely.
Yet, others claim Chinese medicine isn’t truly grounded in science because its fundamental theories are so dramatically different from the core theories of Western medicine. This is interesting. I agree that Chinese medicine is fundamentally different. I, in fact, think this is very important (to the point of frustration where many of the those within the Chinese medical field compromise the integrity of the medicine in order to be more widely accepted by those of a biomedical mindset).
When I say “fundamentally different”, I am choosing those words quite intentionally. The two systems of medicine are rooted in different foundational paradigms (paradigms being the very basic mindset, core assumptions, underlying the investigation and categorizing of new information, deeper than the theories based on them, such as chemistry, biology, etc.).
Western medicine is firmly rooted (for the most part) in the classic scientific principles of causality, objectivity, and reductionism, to name a few. Importantly, there is no contention, here. Any MD will speak to this fact with pride. These things, they would likely argue, define “science” and the “scientific principle”, and modern medicine is very much a “scientific” medicine.
Here’s the interesting thing – Times have changed. Science has evolved and in a big way. The old standards, such as causality, objectivity, reductionism, mechanism, have been uprooted. In a series of discoveries of the early twentieth century, the proverbial rug was pulled out from under the scientific establishment. This upheaval is worth a whole book (and many have been written, see the list given at the end of this post), and I will touch on it later. For now, let’s just say the world of science was fully rocked with the experiments and discoveries that led to quantum theory, early last century.
I think that’s exactly why the dramatic shift in scientific understanding has yet to trickle down (bubble up?) to “modern” medicine – The shift is so drastic. It turns everything on its head. To even a lay person, the whole of chemistry is, basically, about “things” interacting with, mixing with other “things”, molecules, atoms, and whatnot, and physics really seems to be about “things” effecting, pushing, pulling, etc. other “things”. It all seems to be based on pieces and parts of things banging around and interacting with other things, pretty much like a big machine.
Well, as it turns out, the world only appears that way. And it really does. Up until the recent mind-blowing discoveries of quantum theory, physics (pre-quantum theory physics is usually called “classical physics” or “Newtonian physics”, after Isaac Newton) was all about treating the world as if it were made up of really, really small things that composed all the different things in our world (including our bodies).
These things interacted with other things in relatively predictable ways. Classical physics treated the world, the universe, and everything in it, like a giant machine. And, here’s the thing, classical physics works! It really is a very useful way of thinking about the world. Unfortunately, such a physics only leads to approximations of what the world is and how it works.
Classical physics is very useful, but, well, it isn’t true; it’s not completely accurate – close, but not it. We know this, now (through many, many experiments carried out with super extreme precision). It’s extremely difficult to accept, but the ideas of classical physics have only limited use, limited applicability in the real world. You can only trust ‘em so far. And, here it is, get out your highlighter, this reflects the usefulness, the applicability of modern, Western biomedicine (which is a great example of classical physics applied). No one argues it has a use and purpose, but it is not complete, perfect, or useful in every situation (simple statement, but just think how it really clashes with a huge, unspoken assumption out there). The paradigms in which it is firmly embedded have now been demonstrated – by the best, most accurate science there is – to be, essentially, inaccurate. They get you close, but do not, in fact, reflect the way the world really is.
Now, interestingly, on the other end of this huge “revolution” (to use the words of a leading quantum physicist, Werner Heisenberg, in his book “Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science”), are paradigms, basic ways of perceiving the world, that are the same as those upon which Chinese medicine is founded. I’ll go into detail in future posts, but the recent discoveries of science have led to a new understanding of the world. This new understanding stands in stark contrast to that of biomedicine, and is, quite interestingly, the same as that of Chinese medicine. Hmm.
This leads us back to the beginning. Is Chinese medicine grounded in science? It looks weird; it looks quite odd; it looks very, very different from modern “scientific” medicine, as we know it. Well, the new science, the latest science, the best science we have looks very weird and nothing like what science of only a hundred years ago looked like. So I would say Chinese medicine has a lot in common with science (much more than biomedicine). I would say science portrays a world very similar to the world in which Chinese medicine has been treating patients for a very long time. I would say Chinese medicine is very much grounded in science.
More later (much, much, more).
Books written for the layperson (i.e. less technical terminology and very little, if any, math), explaining the basics of quantum physics: Greene, B. “The Elegant Universe”, Capra, F. “The Tao of Physics”, Zukaz, G. “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”, to name a few. John Gribben also has several highly accessible books out, such as the popular “In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat”. New books on the topic are constantly being published.
Personally, I am a huge fan of reading the writings of the fathers of quantum mechanics, themselves. But those guys are really smart and their writing gets pretty complex. Plus, they won’t shy away from, say, describing the experiments leading to discoveries in great detail. They leave out math, but still go into pretty good detail, making for more challenging reading. If you’re interested, I would suggest the book mentioned in this post, Werner Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy” and almost any book by David Bohm (you can tell he really enjoys talking about this stuff).
Top of Page
A Note on All Posts Relating to Quantum Physics
I’m not going to be able to stop myself from discussing the topic, so a word is necessary on my knowledge of quantum physics (QP). First off, I am not a physicist. All my knowledge comes from personal study. As I’ll be asking the reader to accept statements I make on QP, I feel I need to detail my studies.
My career in Chinese medicine actually began by reading a book on modern physics. (I half-jokingly tell myself that I wasn’t much more than a coin toss away from pursuing a career in physics – and, in a way, what I do may not be so different.., in a way) This book was “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra. To this day, it remains one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.
In case you’re not aware, “The Tao of Physics” is book discussing the many parallels between Eastern philosophies and modern physics. This book was my introduction to both topics, and it ignited a supernova-sized explosion of interest in both. From there, I began studying everything I could find on Taoism and quantum physics. That was back in 1993. My studies of both have continued up until present day.
I began with contemporary authors, such as Capra, Zukav (“Dancing Wu Li Masters” – equally as influential as Capra’s), Greene (“Elegant Universe”), Gribbin (“In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat”, “Q is for Quantum”, and others), and Heinz Pagels (“The Cosmic Code”), plus other books specifically intended to explain quantum physics to the lay person. (There were a handful of books I studied based on modern physics, but applying them in different ways. They were very influential, and therefore need to be mentioned, here. These books included Evan Walker’s “Physics of Consciousness” and Arnold Mindell’s “Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology”).
From there, I wanted to get to the source, so I began studying the writings of the fathers of quantum physics – Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg, Einstein, Schrodinger, as well as other big names in physics, like Feynman, Penrose, and Hawking. This is where I spend most of my time currently. (I have attempted to pursue the mathematics of quantum physics, but such studies do not lend themselves to self-study as easily. There is always the possibility I will formally study the requisite math, at some point.)
I strive to accurately represent the actual findings of quantum physics and the intent of the authors, where I borrow from them. Where I extend the findings of QP to other areas, like psychology, meditation, Chinese medicine, etc., I will make it known that such ideas are my own.
I invite critique of my writings by true professionals in the field. I can only ever learn more to further my understanding.
Top of Page
Health Through Accurate Perception
A running theme of my posts related to achieving maximum health has to do with the state and focus of the mind. In a recent post, I spoke to the importance of sincerity, or being honest with oneself (The Therapeutic Power of Sincerity), and in one of my first posts I spoke about the importance of paying attention (The One Rule). When you combine these two general ideas – honesty and paying attention – and mix in a related term caring, I think you have the all the makings for the ideal vehicle to perfect health.
This is nothing new. This is, exactly, as far as I’ve seen, what the core of many philosophies and religions point to. Look, investigate, focus, pay attention, be very honest with what you see/find, and care about wanting the truth. That’s it. That’s all you need, to succeed in health or anything else.
Sounds way too easy, but I challenge anyone to practice this for even one day. How often are we not even paying attention? How long can we maintain focus on any one thing to really investigate it? How often are we truly honest with ourselves, and how often do we accept little lies, or little deviations from truth? And, perhaps most importantly, do we really care about getting to the truth, or do we accept approximations at every turn? I dare anyone to try not accepting ‘close enough’ in investigation into the nature of any one thing.
This is one of the greatest secrets that everyone knows (that is, no one would really argue with), yet, still, somehow, goes unknown, unacknowledged. Most of a person’s life and world is not real. Again, there is little argument to this. Rarely, very rarely, do we actually know, for sure, any single aspect of our life. We accept loose approximations.
We make hundreds, if not thousands, of assumptions a day. We base decisions on these assumptions; we pretend they are real. And, when reality asserts itself, and our assumptions turn out to be false, we suffer. We suffer because we forgot we were relying on an approximation, a statistical probability (something was “likely” to happen), an assumption, we confuse reality for that creation of ours, and when reality happens it shocks us, it traumatizes us a little.
We expected something to happen and it doesn’t. We acted as if something was true, and it turns out it wasn’t. It’s as if we were leaning on these things, then when we needed them, they were pulled out from under us, sending us crashing to the ground in a “rude awakening”.
Importantly, we suffer not for making assumptions, but for confusing them with reality. Where we maintain full awareness that we don’t really know something for sure (most commonly occurring in something, like an event, that is less “likely”), we don’t take it too hard when it turns out it was false. When we rely more heavily on an assumption (when it’s more “likely”), we’re a little more shaken up.
It’s when we simply mistake our belief for reality, where it really hits hard. A lot of the time we are not, and never were, fully conscious of the fact that we mistook a false belief for reality. That’s when it gets dangerous. When you don’t even see it coming. When you had no idea. You become dependent, you not only lean, but sit on a false assumption, only to fall on your butt when it’s revealed to be false.
There is another way misunderstanding, or false awareness, causes suffering. It can simply block connection to reality, which acts as the source of who you are. Being blocked from it is tantamount to being cut off from your deepest source of health, happiness, and energy. As an example, think of someone who suffered some emotional trauma as child, that left them feeling worthless. Not only will that false belief likely cause poor choices in their life, leading to health issues, but the belief, itself, actively cuts off that person from a potential well-spring of happiness and well-being.
This is the source of all suffering, the origin of all disease – false beliefs, mistaken, un-investigated beliefs about ourselves and the world.
This is worth mentioning because this acceptance of non-truths, this lack of desire to truly want to know what’s real, what is actually real, seems to be extremely common, standard, in fact. One of the best examples I can think of is science. Science is generally understood to be a pursuit of truth. That is its very definition, the pursuit of truth. And, yet, the vast majority of science openly, knowingly accepts approximations as “good enough”.
I am speaking, specifically, of physics, arguably the hardest of the “hard” sciences. The known and accepted truth of modern physics can be found in quantum mechanics. Meaning, everything that happens, happens according to the laws of quantum mechanics – Everything. It is the way the world is (to the best of our understanding, at this point).
Yet, what many of us accept as “true”, such as,
- causality (one thing directly causing another and, importantly, allowing for the ability to accurately predict the outcome of actions),
- the existence of “things”, parts, or pieces (of anything being separate from anything else, and of the world being composed of these little parts),
- objectivity (the thought that there is something “out there” separate from any observer, and the ability to separate observer from that which they observe),
- the one-way flow of time,
- the rule that things can’t just simply appear out of nowhere and disappear into nothingness (the “law” of conservation of matter), and
- the idea that two things separated by space can’t affect each other instantaneously (somehow communicating at faster than the speed of light, which is “impossible”)
fail in quantum physics (Bohr, 1987; Bohm, 1951; Heisenberg, 1958; Feynman, 1985; Gribbin, 1998). These things aren’t true. Scientists have been forced to “renounce” classical causality (Bohr, 1987) and admit that the idea of isolating any “thing” from its given context is impossible; there’s no such thing as “things”.
Quantum physics incorporates the theory of quantum electrodynamics (or QED), which has been called the “most accurate scientific theory ever developed” (Gribbin, 1998, p. 4), and that’s no no small statement. QED has generated predictions that match experiments done in labs more closely than any other theory, and quantum physics has explained more observed phenomena than any other. It came into existence by its very ability to explain observed phenomenon that classical physics could not. It’s the best, most accurate set of theories we have. And it denies all the above truths most accept as accurate.
I’ll let physicists say it. David Bohm (1917-1992), quantum physicist, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, and formerly Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of London, has said this:
“In the last analysis all processes are, of course, quantum-mechanical in nature, but there are many processes involving relatively large objects and, therefore, a great many quanta, where a precise description down to a quantum level of accuracy is not essential because the interesting features of the system do not depend critically on the transfer of a few quanta more or less. Such processes can most conveniently be described in terms of classical theory alone.” (Bohm, 1951, p. 165)
“The entire universe must, on a very accurate level, be regarded as a single indivisible unit in which separate parts appear as idealizations permissable only on a classical level of accuracy of description. This means that the view of the world as being analogous to a huge machine, the predominant view from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, is now shown to be only approximately correct. The underlying structure of matter, however, is not mechanical.” (Bohm, 1951, p. 167) (Emphasis added)
Niels Bohr (1885-1962), another physicist and father of quantum mechanics, also winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1922, has said:
“In both cases [the theory of relativity and quantum theory], we are concerned with the recognition of physical laws which lie outside the domain of our ordinary experience and which present difficulties to our accustomed forms of perception. We learn that these forms of perception are idealizations, the suitability of which for reducing our ordinary sense impressions to order depends upon the practically infinite velocity of light and upon the smallness of the quantum of action.” (Bohr, 1987, p. 5)
“.. the limits imposed upon the application of these concepts [of classical physics] are naturally determined by the extent to which we may, in our account of the phenomena, disregard the element which is foreign to classical theories and symbolized by the quantum of action.” (Bohr, 1987, p. 16)
And Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), for whom the “Uncertainty Principle” of quantum physics was named, also a Nobel Prize winner (1932) for his work on quantum mechanics has said:
“In quantum theory the physicists had to learn rather early that the terms of classical physics describe nature only inaccurately, that their application is limited by the quantum laws and that one therefore should be cautious in their use.” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 116-7)
What I’d like to emphasize in the above is the typical way of seeing things, referred to above as “classical theory”, the idea of individual “things”, the idea of these things causally affecting one another, is only an approximation (or idealization, that is typically “disregarded”), not the way things actually are.
The general idea when considering both quantum mechanics (QM) and classical physics (CP) (or the way most people think of the world), is that QM is more accurate (a more successful theory), but appears as if it isn’t (counters what most would accept as normal; has been, in fact, referred to as “absurd” and “irrational”) and can be treated as if it isn’t, in typical day-to-day activities. This is because in all the millions of events occurring on the QM level (atoms, molecules, and smaller) the weirdness of that world is effectively lost. We don’t see it with our eyes and typical attentiveness. For all intents and purposes, or said another way, for all usefulness in living your day-to-day life, the classical way of seeing the world works just fine. (A good example of this is the fact that atoms comprising any solid object, like a table, are mostly, by a large degree, empty space, and, yet, appear very solid; you can’t push through a solid piece of wood despite the fact that it’s mostly empty space.)
But classical physics, the typical way of seeing the world, is wrong. We know this. Scientists know this. We can get away with pretending the world is made up of different pieces, and they all interact in a predictable way, or at least we can try to, but, as is my main point, this is ultimately inaccurate, and we pay for falling for these delusions through suffering, disease, and death (death is actually required by these false beliefs).
In my last post about sincerity I talk about being sincere in all you do as being the most powerful thing you can do for your health. That’s because, if you pay attention, and if you care enough to not accept approximations, you will see the truth (“Seek and you shall find”). If you pay close enough attention, you will see through the veil of illusion we all accept as reality.
This is exactly what is being stated with quantum physics. Classical physics gives us usable approximations; we can land on the moon with classical physics. It’s good enough. But if you look more closely, literally, if you look not just at the book on the table, but if you investigate to deeper depths, to the depths of molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles, if you look that closely, then you see the truth, the truth of quantum physics.
Yogis and Taoists, as well as practitioners of many other traditions, look closely through meditation. Physicists look closely through repeated experiments and investigation. Either way you get the same message – The world is not as it appears. The “world”, as most think of it, is an illusion, an approximation. If you confuse the false for the real, you suffer. That is, in fact, the source of all suffering. See through the illusion, see the truth, and all suffering ends. You are “liberated” from the binds of the false. You awake, are awakened, to reality. This is health. This is why I go on and on (and will continue to do so).
It’s simple – just pay attention. But actually pay attention. And care about what you see. Don’t accept something if it isn’t right. Don’t stop at “good enough” or “well, it’s what everyone else sees/thinks”. The Emperor is naked. There’s no need to call it out, but avoid falling for the lie. Don’t allow yourself to be deceived. Question whether you should go leaping off the cliff just because the crowd is doing so – Look, and see it looming just ahead. Look. Just because everyone else is rushing towards it, does not mean you have to follow suit. Look. You will see. And when you do, you will automatically slow down. All you have to do is look and see, and your basic instincts will kick in. You don’t have to try or “do” anything. You don’t have to “know” “what to do”. It all happens automatically. That’s how you are designed. Just look. And care. And persevere in looking and caring.
Difficult? Most definitely. Almost impossible. But this is exactly where Chinese medicine comes in. Helping you “see” is what medicine is, at its deepest level. At the surface level, where most medicine is practiced (Eastern or Western), the damage done from actions based on not seeing, or simple deterioration of the physical through not being in contact with the real (the source), is fixed. “Symptoms” are indications you are “off” in a big way. You’re so far off, your body is actually failing. (It’s not designed to – It’s happening because something is wrong.)
Making a symptom go away is part of medicine, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg, which should now, after having read a couple of these posts, be obvious. Once the overt symptom is gone, it must be investigated as to how and why it came about. For example, what lifestyle choices led to it? And on a deeper level, what basic beliefs led to those choices, that led to those actions, that resulted in the body failing or taking damage. If this is not addressed the healing is incomplete. The medicine has not been administered correctly.
Symptoms grab attention, so one can pay attention, so that one can look and see. Hopefully, one, then, cares enough to pursue, to pursue through simple pain alleviation to get to the source, the root of the issue. If not, the body will eventually get to a place, again, where attention is called. Then, once again, one is drawn to look, and, hopefully, see and care.
In the case where one is paying attention and caring, one may still suffer from being a little lost or confused. Perhaps that inner instinct isn’t felt. That is also due to obstruction. It is a main sign of obstruction and is ‘treatable’. For example, one of the main signs an exercise regimen is ‘right’ or proper is that it leads to spontaneous insight into life (see the section on exercise on my main website). Such insight is a basic mechanism of health. That insight is that instinct being experienced consciously. If you’re not experiencing it, that is, by definition, a sign of less than perfect health. Thus, it can be treated.
Pay attention. Look. Eventually you will see. Don’t accept illusion, approximations, “close enough”, or what everyone else sees. Search for and question basic assumptions. Seek truth. Act truth. Speak truth.
It is not easy, but there is nothing more worth doing.
Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Bohr, N. (1987). Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature: The Philosophical Writings of Neils Bohr, Vol. I. Woodridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.
Feynman, R. (1985). QED [Quantum Electrodynamics]: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gribbin, J. (1998). Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Top of Page