Being a Woman

As a young adult, my (boy)friends used to call me a feminazi. There are probably definitions on the internet, but what it meant in my circle was a rigid (if not aggressive) feminist. I was on a quest—no, a mission—to have equal rights and experiences as men. Equality means the same, right? Woman=Man? I wanted to be taken seriously but felt like all guys could see was my anatomy. So, I downplayed my feminine characteristics (note the large plaid flannel). In fact, I went so far as wanting to be treated as one of the boys. I wanted to hang out with them in the kitchen or around the truck—those exclusive meeting places of the fraternity of boys. What did they do there? They rolled their own cigarettes and drank. They talked shit and challenged each other. Equal? Heck, I can drink this whole bottle of tequila! They spit and worked things out by wrestling or with their fists. Hey, I could do that, too. Walk alone at night? Sure. Adventure! It wasn’t until I decided to have a baby that I realized something: I’m a girl. Boys and girls are not the same, but that doesn’t mean girls are the weaker sex. We can still work together for equal rights. For this, I am grateful to the feminist movement. Because I’m a woman, I will always advocate for women—just not to the detriment of men.

In The Spirit of Intimacy, Sobonfu Some says, “Being a woman does not mean you have nothing to do with masculine energy. Similarly, being a man does not mean you have nothing to do with the feminine. Vaginas and penises are not the only things that define our sexual nature. Our lives are influenced by the presence within us of both feminine and masculine energies. It is important that these energies maintain harmony within us.” She goes on to describe annual rituals in which the women go off together to dance their projective manliness and the men go off to dance their feminine receptiveness. Sobonfu says, “You will notice in many villages in Africa, during the days women are all together, men are all together also. This is not a sexist practice. It’s just that for some reason there’s a feeling that a clear sense of otherness is essential to a harmonious coming together with your mate.”

I am a woman. It’s taking me awhile to figure out what this means to me. To value and refine my intuition. To learn to be assertive without being (or feeling like) a bitch. To love my womanly body. To recognize the importance of being the matron, the priestess of the home. To envision the healthy heritage I want to pass on to my family and my extended family. To find support and camaraderie in my girlfriends.

So sisters, what does being a woman mean to you?

Is health care a right?

In the 21st century, Charles Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory is king.

“[Darwin] concluded 150 years ago that living organisms are perpetually embroiled in a “struggle for existence.” For Darwin, struggle and violence are not only a part of animal (human) nature, but the principal “forces” behind evolutionary advancement. In the final chapter of The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote of an inevitable “struggle for life” and that evolution was driven by “the war of nature, from famine and death.” Couple that with Darwin’s notion that evolution is random and you have a world, as poetically described by Tennyson that can be characterized as “red in tooth and claw,” a series of meaningless, bloody battles for survival.” Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief

Darwin characterizes survival as a struggle, a competition. What if Darwin’s theory was wrong (or incomplete)? The first time I encountered this point of view was when I first discovered Waldorf education. I had been so indoctrinated in Darwin’s theory that I literally felt struck that Waldorf does not teach it in the elementary grades. It almost seemed heretical! But as I learned more about it, I found that Waldorf had a completely different approach to science—a phenomenological approach. The child becomes the scientist and observes phenomena with his or her own senses. Waldorf education opened the door to how I think about things and made me realize how I accept things that I have not truly thought about.

In the past few years, I’ve also encountered a few great scientists who point out how species work in cooperation—one scratching the back of the other, so to speak. It began with Darwin’s predecessor, Jean-Babtiste Lamarck. He developed the first cohesive theory of evolution in 1800. Unlike Darwin, Lamarck’s theory included the idea that organisms survive through cooperation with their environment and other organisms therein.

“But today’s understanding of cooperation in nature goes much deeper than the easily observable ones. “Biologists are becoming increasingly aware that animals have coevolved, and continue to coexist, with diverse assemblages of microorganisms that are required for normal health and development,” according to a recent article in Science called “We Get By With A Little Help From Our (Little) Friends.” [Ruby, et al, 2004] The study of these relationships is now a rapidly growing field called “Systems Biology.”” Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief

“These brief descriptions can lead us from a traditional notion of separate biological organisms to the conception of an ecological organism, of which the biological organisms are a part. Each species -- bloodroot, giraffe or bison -- appears as a unique member of a habitat or landscape, like tissues or organs within an organism. In turn, we can study habitats and landscapes as dynamic members of larger ecosystems and bioregions. Finally, we are led to the concept of the whole earth as an organism.” Craig Holdrege, Where do organisms end?

This may seem like a tangent, but bear with my wild mind.

A couple months ago, my sister and I got into a heated debate about whether or not universal health care is a good idea. My sister thinks it is wrong that some people cannot afford health insurance and may even die for lack of care. I, true to my nature, was being provocative and playing the devil’s advocate. Wu-ah-ah-ah-aah!!! It helps me think through both sides of an issue. Considering my new relationship with theories (as such), you might think it funny that I started thinking about Darwin’s survival of the fittest again. It got all entwined with destiny and whether or not we are all meant to live. It was all tangled and messy and came out sounding callous.

Industrialized nations oppose the survival of the fittest theory with health care systems that take care of the masses, not just the strongest. We take the doctors’ prescriptions while continuing with our unhealthy behaviors. People have to want to live and heal and be healthy. It’s not something a doctor can prescribe. So, the masses survive, but not necessarily well. Does entitlement to health care breed apathy? Do we abnegate responsibility, giving it away to “the specialists”? Should we be working towards universal health care? Does this form of health care truly help people to survive—and well?

The words "health care" started tap dancing in my head. Health. Care. Indigenous people had a medicine man or woman who cared for and tended their people, because it was best for the survival of the species. When we are born, life is our birthright. Everything wants to live and be well, and we need the loving care of our families and medicine men and women to do that. We work in cooperation. As we grow, however, the fruit of our birthright is responsibility. Each person must refine their intuition, listen to their body and connect with their vitality. By all means, go to the health specialist when necessary. Learn to communicate with your doctor. Know your rights. Take the steps to prevent illness. But, most importantly find out what it means to you to live well. Become a specialist of you.

Head in the Clouds

What is health?

Even though science has not yet given us definitive proof on whether or not viruses are the cause or by-product of disease, I think we can all agree that disease exists. But if we want to know what health is, we need to know what disease is. If disease is the toxic terrain off of which microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and parasites) feed, then health would be the detoxification of the terrain and support of beneficial organisms. However, if microorganisms are the cause of disease, health would seem to be the absence of those microorganisms.

We have the Romans to thank for improving sanitation practices and making our cities more habitable. We have toilets, toilet paper and running water. And, as Grandma Barbara says, “If you can’t be good, at least be sanitary.” We’re clean. So why are we still getting sick?

Incidences of allergies and autoimmune disorders are on the rise. Ironically, by declaring a war on germs, we may just be declaring a war on ourselves. When we go so far as to use antibacterial soap, immunizations and antibiotics, we are killing communities of beneficial microbes, as well as unwanted germs. In 1989 David P. Strachan published an article in the British Medical Journal entitled “Hay fever, hygiene and household size.” In the long-term study, Strachan studied nearly 20,000 children. He observed them from birth until they were 23 and found a striking correlation between larger families and the absence of allergic hypersensitivity (atopic disease).

“Over the past century declining family size, improvements in household amenities, and higher standards of personal cleanliness have reduced the opportunities for cross infection in young families. This may have resulted in more widespread clinical expression of atopic disease, emerging earlier in wealthier people, as seems to have occurred in hay fever.” Strachan D P (1989) Hay fever, hygiene and household size. BMJ 299: 1259-1260 [PubMed]

Strachan’s research has been widely studied and has become known as the hygiene hypothesis. Studies have been done in Europe on the absence of allergies in rural farming communities. Like Bechamp’s cellular theory, the hygiene hypothesis also looks to the physiological terrain. When our body ecology has not been exposed to various microorganisms in the environment, it isn’t being exposed to the world. It isn’t being educated about what works with it and what works against it. When the boundary between self and environment is lacking, allergic hypersensitivity or autoimmune diseases occur. The body senses that it is under attack. Conversely, when the body has been discriminately exposed to microorganisms in its natural environment, it knows better how to deal with them.

While we should not abandon basic hygiene practices and awareness of illness around us, perhaps it is not the absence of microorganisms that constitutes health. Perhaps health is a strong and educated terrain in which microorganisms and our organism are in balance. We only become aware of our bodily processes when something is out of balance, uneasy, or dis-eased. But our body primarily acquires this education without our awareness. This requires a degree of trust—trust in our vitality and our interconnectedness with the world. It also requires that we listen to our bodies so that we are aware when we are becoming imbalanced and can take action.

Eye of the Needle Art

Have you ever heard of sculptor Willard Wigan? His medium: sand and dust. You've got to check out this YouTube video. Poor Alice!

Willard also has an interesting biography. Check out his website, for more information.

What's your favorite piece? Mine's the owl.

For some reason, the comments are not being displayed below. But if you click on the title, Eye of the Needle Art, it'll take you to this post. You can comment there. I'd love to hear what you think....

The Biology of Belief

The Biology Of Belief: Unleashing The Power Of Consciousness, Matter And Miracles by Bruce H. Lipton

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
Some teachers can just kill your interest in science. They can make it so impossibly abstract that you can’t find any relation to it. Perhaps that is what put me off as I began to read Bruce Lipton’s The Biology of Belief—not that he wasn’t giving a context and showing a relationship to science—quite the opposite. He reminded me of someone receiving an award for the first time and thanking everyone! He was unbridled, unguarded—unintelligent? No! That I was offput by his enthusiasm, is really a reflection on me, not him. We are subtly taught to look cool, to appear unaffected, because if we are moved by something, we might be moved into the unknown. This illusion of control seems solid, but it is death for an organism. It is static, whereas life is responsive, adaptive—dynamic. And so is Bruce Lipton. I appreciate that he loves science and is so enthusiastic about it, while acknowledging that science is the continuing exploration of theories. He adheres to objectivity, one of the main tenets of scientific research, but you can definitely see the twinkle in the eye behind the lens!

After Lipton has given us a picture of his academic journey and his unfolding interests, questions and discoveries, he gives a very thorough explanation of the workings of the cell. His writing is well thought-out and organized. He provides extensive end notes as well as referencing other chapters in the book. He really ties everything together and gives great metaphorical examples for laypeople like me so that we can begin to understand the complex machinations, not only of the cell, but of how it is related to quantum physics and what he calls Systems Biology. Lipton believes that the Neo-Darwinian adherence to the theory of survival of the fittest characterizes life in competition, whereas at the cellular level, there is complex communication and collaboration—strength in numbers. The world is not our enemy; it is our belief that it is that causes disease. Beliefs are our subconscious programming. Conversely, if we believe in our vitality, it will flourish.

While we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction in our planet’s history, our fate is not sealed. While the segue was a little abrupt, I believe that the implication is that our consciousness can change the future and that we must start with ourselves and our children. I thought, “This is great! I can’t wait to hear his ideas on how to do this!” Lipton explains how we have two minds: the subconscious mind for processing vast amounts of information in the present moment (including habits and beliefs) and the conscious mind that has the ability to learn from the past and plan the future. He states how difficult it is to change subconsciously acquired habits and beliefs. Don’t we all know that! So, how do we do it? How do we change our subconscious programming? Unfortunately, Bruce Lipton is not a psychologist. It is not in the last chapter or the Epilogue—but after that—in the Addendum, that the reader is merely referred to someone who is a psychologist and practices something called PSYCH-K. The “K” stands for kinesiology, the science of human movement. The website referred to was not very revealing, and the one book on it was not well-reviewed, saying it had little substance and appeared to be a promotional ploy to get people to go to the author’s expensive workshops. Though The Biology of Belief was a very good book (so deliciously over my head that it deserves a second read) and so well-referenced throughout—it leaves me shocked that it led to this singular reference on the application of his ideas. But I sense that Bruce Lipton is a seeker, and perhaps his continuing research and collaboration will prove ever more fruitful. He does have an audio cd coming out in October 2008 entitled, Spontaneous Evolution. I’ll have to check that out.


View all my reviews.

What is disease?

So far we know that viruses are bundles of genome encased in a protein sheath. Although they do not appear to be alive or self-directed, scientists don’t have a conclusive answer. However, almost any scientist or doctor you talk with will tell you that they’re not alive. They will also tell you that they are infectious agents that attack living organisms. This is the pathogenic model for medicine that has gone largely unquestioned since its inception in the late 1800s.

Like many endeavors, from discoveries to inventions to works of art, much depends on what came before. The idea of microorganisms dates as far back as written history goes, but it was all wrapped up in God’s will, evil spirits, and curses. After the Middle Ages, humankind started focusing on intellectual pursuits.

"When Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) revolutionized physics with his studies of optics and gravity, he perceived the universe as an immense mechanical construct, a giant clockwork that scientists could probe by analyzing various parts. He inaugurated a new scientific methodology, known as reductionism. According to the assumptions underlying this approach, insights gained by studying bits and pieces of nature could be fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to eventually explain the workings of the cosmos." David Suzuki, Tree: A Life Story

As scientific methods and instruments became more and more precise, scientists were able to isolate smaller and smaller particles in controlled environments.

In 1898 the first virus was discovered by Martinus Beijerinck. While Beijerinck studied botanical microbiology in the Netherlands, two scientists in France were studying microbiology in relation to animals. They were Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp. They were working to discover the cause of disease occurring in silkworms in France. And, although they were contemporaries, the fire of belief and the politics of discovery between these two was palpable. The way in which they experimented, interpreted, and assembled their data was vastly different.

Through Antoine Bechamp’s silkworm experiments, he found that animals carry microorganisms in them all the time, microorganisms that symbiotically assist in the metabolism of their host. He noticed that in systems that changed from healthy to diseased, those microorganisms become pleomorphic, or mutate. He called his theory the cellular disease theory, or pleomorphism. Bechamp ascertained that, only when a biological system becomes imbalanced does disease occur. Viruses, which work to catabolically break down or scavenge toxic waste, have a medium in which to do their work. They de-toxify the dead cellular matter. It is only when disease is widespread that viruses become widespread. Thus, he contended, disease comes first.

Louis Pasteur, on the other hand, saw microorganisms as the cause of the silkworm disease. Not only that, but he asserted that each microorganism was a specific disease, arising from the external environment. He believed that these specific diseases, like the one affecting the silkworms, as well as diseases like rabies or influenza, attack healthy cells and weaken or destroy them. Pasteur called his idea the the germ theory of disease.

Pasteur’s ideas were not all well-received, and his success was controversial. Even the famous nurse, Florence Nightingale, published a critique of the theory.

“The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions.” Florence Nightingale, 1860 (Excerpted from The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur by R.B. Pearson)

There are numerous books written both in favor of and oppostition to the germ theory. Perhaps it was because his father was a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars that he found favor and support.

“In 1863, Emperor Napoleon III asked Pasteur to assist France in combating various “diseases” of wine that often caused exported French wine to go bad before it reached its destination.” (Excerpted from http://www.answers.com/topic/louis-pasteur)

Perhaps that is why, with his alliance, Pasteur’s germ theory prevailed over Bechamp’s cellular disease theory. Whatever the case may be, his theory became the basis for modern medicine, along with the advent of immunizations and hygienic practices.

The fallout from the germ and subsequent immunization theories is that modern medicine is pathological and curative-based. It looks toward disease and not toward health. You might argue that immunizations are preventative, but their efficacy is also yet to be proven. When my daughter was six, she was out of school for a good portion of the year. She had an incessant, hacking cough that made her stomach spasm and dry heave. It was loud and painful. My husband and I felt powerless to help our little girl. We decided to take her to the emergency room. The doctor diagnosed her with whooping cough. My daughter had one more series of shots left in her childhood immunizations, but my husband and I had made the choice to discontinue them. We didn’t have internet at the time (weird, huh?), and even though we have a great library system, there wasn’t much literature on immunizations. I remember reading What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization by Jamie Murphy. I told the doctor that she didn’t have the last of the series, and she said that she should be covered. However, she said that she, herself, had acquired whooping cough as an adult, even though she was fully immunized against it. She said the vaccine didn’t have a high success rate. To add insult to injury, there was nothing they could do for my daughter. I think I might have made her up an herbal preparation from the immunization book that I read.

I didn’t make a big deal about the fact that our family had chosen not to finish immunizing our daughter. But when her doctor realized she hadn’t completed her series, he wanted to schedule an appointment. He was livid at me when I told him our decision. He angrily pressed me with questions. Although I didn’t feel very self-confident, I told him that I wasn’t convinced of their effectiveness. I told him I believed I could support our immune system through diet and herbs. I told him that I didn’t like the side effects of the vaccines or the ingredients in them (such as MSG, animal material, aluminum salts, formaldehyde, and mercury). He told me that they don’t have thimerosol (a mercury-based preservative) in vaccines anymore. I later found out that this wasn’t entirely true. They phased it out in 2001. This means that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t make most childhood vaccinations with mercury anymore. The ones that do contain it, have “acceptable” amounts. And there were still some mercury containing vaccines in doctor’s offices and warehouses across the country.

Needless to say, we don’t go to the doctor very often anymore. I came to realize what a big industry it was, embroiled in bureaucracy and dogmatism. The whole system is not bad. Sometimes surgery is necessary. And there are wonderful individual doctors, who truly believe in what they do and genuinely want to help people. Unfortunately, they are kept too inhumanely busy to do much research. Research is what’s needed. Doctors are scientists, too. And scientific theory must be continually reexamined, renewed. Life is constantly changing. Maybe there are new ways of seeing. New questions arise. Previously discredited theories or indigenous wisdom can be looked at anew. Perhaps Antoine Bechamp’s theory that cells change, that a bacteria could mutate to become a virus, as a response to a diseased, biological ecology, should be revisited. Some scientists are reexamining old paradigms.

Here is a video of an amazing microscope called the Ergonom. You can see living tissue through high resolution lenses without dye or altering the medium. You can see mutating microorganisms just as Bechamp proposed.

“…as scientists investigated the parts of living organisms, they found the parts themselves were made up of parts—molecules—which were in turn assemblages of atoms, which were ultimately made up of quarks, the (so far) irreducible structures of all matter. At the quark level, there was nothing to distinguish life from nonlife.” David Suzuki, Tree: A Life Story

“Recent advances in genome science have revealed an additional mechanism of cooperation among species. Living organisms, it turns out, actually integrate their cellular communities by sharing their genes. It had been thought that genes are passed on only to the progeny of an individual organism through reproduction. Now scientists realize that genes are shared not only among individual members of a species, but also among members of different species. The sharing of genetic information via gene transfer speeds up evolution since organisms can acquire “learned” experiences from other organisms. [Nitz, et al, 2003] Given this sharing of genes, organisms can no longer be seen as disconnected entities; there is no wall between species. Daniel Drell, manager of the Department of Energy’s microbial genome program told Science in (2001 294:1634): “…we can no longer comfortably say what is a species anymore.” [Pennisi 2001] Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief

Isn’t that incredible?! New models of our world are constantly being born. New inspiration is realized.

“All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The public is increasingly embracing naturopathic medicine. But we must be ever vigilant. We must always reexamine theories and not take them as ultimate truth. That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

“Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.” Thich Nhat Hanh (excerpted from Dharma Gaia ed. Allan Hunt Badiner)

Cultivate critical thinking, but do not abandon your heart.

What does my heart say? I am alive!