This course is about a rather peculiar fact. We live in a times where new discoveries and knowledge comes to us as a much faster rate than our technology to integrate it, to understand it can cope with. For example the Nasa has so much diversified knowledge bits in all its departments that it even their biggest computer cannot catalogue or synthetize it.
A similar thing is happening with the internet, especially with all open source projects, and social media – nobody can « get everything » that is happening on the internet – yet each of us can most probably find what she/he is looking for – the internet has made us virtually « all knowing or omniscient ».
But – halas! – most of the knowledge that is available to us via internet and other media is there to distract us from the real crucial questions of our times. This of course is done by design – the how and why you can learn listening to Noam Chomsky’s youtube « Manufacturing Consent ».
So the media are designed to keep us busy interested in hockey games, scandalous celebrities and bad presidents – so busy that we do not take the time to
… but if we do then we might learn that
We know the least about what affects you most.
The next approach comes from a dialogue from the book « The name of the Rose« :
William of Baskerville:
« But what is so alarming about laughter? »
Jorge de Burgos:
« Laughter kills fear, and without fear there can be no faith because without fear of the Devil, there is no more need of God. »
William of Baskerville:
« But you will not eliminate laughter by eliminating that book. »
Jorge de Burgos:
« No, to be sure, laughter will remain the common man’s recreation. But what will happen if, because of this book, learned men were to pronounce it admissible to laugh at everything? Can we laugh at God? The world would relapse into chaos! Therefore, I seal that which was not to be said. »
At the heart of our course is FEAR and it’s polar opposite LAUGHTER.
- Do you legally own your property?
- Do you know what a birthright is? Do you know your birthrights?
- Do you know the difference between « legal-illegal » versus « right and wrong »?
- What would you prefer and why: To be a « servant king » or a « king’s servant »
Please answer the questions and email them to your teacher.
How to do this course
As you have seen the whole course is divided up into small bites that i hope are easier to digest than thick volumes… Be mindful to take small bites and eat and digest each of them before you eat another one… What about « Digesting »? In this context it means, think it over for yourself… feel if it is relevant to you…
If it is relevant – what would be the best way to integrate it into your day to day life?
If you feel it is not relevant – just leave it.
Look into the past
This course is not about accumulating knowledge but about cultivating the wisdom to sort our knowledge and to put everyting in « our context »; so we can more and more rely mainly on our own authority instead of automatically taking for granted what others say, or the TV or Facebook, the internet…
Our minds have become lazy by abandoning responsibility for our own thinking and feeling. A good technique to develop our own judgment and overcome the laziness of our minds, is called “Look into the Past”. This technique is easily applicable to everything in our society, history or reality.
We will take the example of “Medicine” and we will look into it’s history. It is helpful to be as precise as possible and be attentive to details.
Here is how you can do it: read the questions and do not read the answers right away – read the question and find YOUR answer before you read the answer given – then go to the next question and do the same. This “socratic dialogue” is taken from Anastasia, book 8, p.56ff):
“What does “Medicine” represent today?”
“Hospitals, Pharmacies, Doctors and Nurses and thousands of illnesses”
“How was it 60 years ago?”
“There were fewer of all of them.”
“How many of them were there 100 or 200 years ago; let’s say in 1875?”
“Even fewer, we all know that modern medical science is only more or less 200 years old.”
“You see, you concluded yourself already that 200 years ago there were no hospitals; then who treated people back then?”
“Well some of the people in the villages, who know about herbal medicines, could help to cure; many people at that time knew about the healing qualities of herbs and could identify them.”
“What does someone do today if he has a scratch or a cut?”
“He spends time going to a pharmacy and spends money to buy disinfectant and a band aid, because he has forgotten that to put a plantain leaf would do the job right away.”
“Would that mean that the knowledge of the past was superior to that of today?”
“It would seem that way?”
“Now there is a doubt in your mind. It says something like: ‘How can knowledge be superior in the past when back then they did not have all that technology and science as we have today?’. It is important to confront that doubt: is this doubt coming from your incomplete or wrong reasoning or from something else?”
“Hm, I think my reasoning was correct; I feel the doubt comes from a conditioning that I have: that all that is new and modern is necessarily better than things that have been replaced by it.”
“OK, lets now look at the number of diseases; why are there more diseases today than a few hundred years ago?”
“Our medical sciences discover more and more diseases; and at the same time they heal less and less diseases; there are even diseases like the various flues that mutate in reaction to the efforts of modern medicine.”
“So what’s the conclusion?”
“Well modern medicine is less efficient than folk medicine was. That means we really should turn back to this storehouse of knowledge, to recover it, to restore it and to teach it – even in schools… oh my god… but that would lead to the collapse of almost all businesses involved in modern medicine.”
“What does that mean in regards to medicine?”
“It means that modern medicine is a self sustaining business for profit and much much less a healing profession based on the oath of Hippocrates1. Hospitals and pharmaceutical industries are thriving when we are ill and they would go out of business if we cured ourselves… But there are, however, some facts still in support of medicine as a science.”
“Well in medieval times there were epidemics that are completely eradicated from the face of the earth, like plague and small-pocks.”
“When exactly did these epidemics brake out? In what cultural or religious era or context?”
“Oh my god, yes, that was around the same time as the folk healers, especially women were persecuted by the holy inquisition as witches and burned on the stake”
When you have resolved an analysis, when you have proven a fact for yourself beyond doubt – then other conclusions will show up on their own – something like this:
“If the people of the past had the right knowledge to heal all, how did they acquire it?”
“Well there were no schools and most people could not read or write, so they had to be a oral tradition and they had to learn everything by trial and error… the latter seems improbable though, because the time involved in finding out about each plant what they are good and bad for? I don’t know.”
“How about animals?”
“Oh animals do not go to anyone for help,they all cure themselves. If they feel bad they go in the forest and find the plant for their ailment; then they eat it and that’s it”
“Who taught them?”
“Nobody, they simply know… what does that say about Man, the crown of creation, the image of God?… yes, He has endowed all beings with all knowledge they need right from the start of their creation!… but is it all lost?”
“All is preserved in every single Man. The access to this knowledge is extremely simple and at the same time not so simple. Man should be able to figure it out with his mind…”
Later in the book you will be able to figure it out yourself… patience my friend, patience…
The Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art — if they desire to learn it — without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
When i read this oath, i was flabbergasted – and still am: i don’t know of any practicioner who’s work would reflect this. As far as i know this oath is not taken anymore – and if it would, nobody of the medical profession would or could live up to it.
Ps: In a 1989 survey of 126 US medical schools, only three reported use of the original oath, while thirty-three used the Declaration of Geneva, sixty-seven used a modified Hippocratic Oath, four used the Oath of Maimonides, one used a covenant, eight used another oath, one used an unknown oath, and two did not use any kind of oath. Seven medical schools did not reply to the survey.(wikipedia)
Here the « Hall of Fame »