WHAT IS RAW WISDOM? Youtube video
By Nathan Bross Batalion, ND
(blue text = links)
"The crying of animals is but the creaking of machines"
Painting by Albert White http://albert-white-american-indian-art.com/
IN A SENTENCE:
Raw-Wisdom moves us from a mechanical to a life-centered vision of nature.
A Larger World-View Healing Perspective
In my life experience, like that of so many others, I have had some personal health challenges. As a naturopath I have seen the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health challenges of others. As an environmentalist, I try to become conscious of and be sensitive to the ailments of our entire planet. In the process I have learned that in order to gain an all-penetrating healing of the preceding, it is not enough to just change our diets and lifestyles a little or modify some political orientations and ways of recycling - without making far deeper changes within.
The deepest and most powerful of these inner healing changes, for me, is adopting a different inner worldview.
This refers to gaining a new understanding of the entirety of the world we live. In my opinion our culture's dominantly guiding worldview, the mathematical and mechanical , evidences huge gaps in understanding and that ultimately compromise, stand in the way, misguide, corrupt or impede the healing arts.
Explore the Internet far and wide and you will rarely if ever see the quantitative view depicted as an ill or corrupt perspective. To see the reasons for this forms a huge culural wake up call and shock.
This is why we derivatively have vast epidemics of chronic ailments that supposedly remain "incurable" when actually they can be healed once we are reguided by an entirely different worldview.
When a body becomes ill it falls apart. When an inner perspective is "ill," it too falls apart.
The vision is seen as corrupt because it has contradictions, is illusionary or lacks integrity. There is then an interaction between the two, namely that a corrupt understanding misleads us to become ill.
How is this possible if the mathematical view is presented as the most objective, precise and integral of all views (as we are taught)?
If that were true, the view could not be easliy corrupted. Yet it is. For example, in a review of 164 studies of aspartame, 83 out of 90 industry-independent studies found health and safety concerns (about 92% of the studies). By contrast 70 out of 70 of industry-sponsored scientific studies (100%) showed aspartame was safe to eat.
Why and how does greed too often manipulate and corrupt scientific consciousness?
Jeffrey Smith, in his Seeds of Deception video, brilliantly details how one company, Monsanto, led an undermining of supposedly "scientific data" to make the public believe that genetically-modified foods were ok to eat and were equivalent to any food on the market.
We can spill the beans on Monsanto deceptions to try to remedy this. But this only deals with the surface symptoms and not the deeper cause of our cultural problems.
According to the philosophy of Raw-Wisdom, the root deception is rather imbedded in our foundation worldview - the mathematical/mechanical. This is why patients in nursing homes who are fed math-designed chemicals often become life-less zombies primed for death. There is a reason why what is mathematics and what is the essence of consciousness and life actually clash.
Raw-Wisdom explains how what is 100% objective when designing machines (e.g. designing batteries or engines in a race car), is 100% not objective in understanding organic life and its consciousness.
This means that healing our worldview is a highest of priorities to best heal ourselves, each other and our whole environment or planet.
Beyond the Math-Based or Mechanical View
In conventional science, we are told nature is made up of matter and energy defined mathematically, to be reduced to elegant math formulas.
Is that where this story (or cultural fairy tale) of nature really ends?
Our educational system tells us little else. Every time a physics teacher writes a math formula (like x + y = z) on a blackboard it supposedly and magically depict nature's "true" essence. This reinforces that fable to yet another generation's consciousness.
Why should we now mistrust this? The philosophers of the 17th century so strongly believed that this was God's divine plan, not to be questioned, and that the proof was overwhelmingly obvious in how the planets cosmically orbited in a clock-like manner. That viewpoint also, on a near-at-hand scale, seemed best applied to the design and motion of dead objects (as with Galileo's experiments with rolling and falling objects). Machines, math-designed, further offered to progress or evolve us to ever better states.
Unexpected things, however, popped up along the way.
For example, if we take a slightly roasted almond and one that is raw the two will appear close to the same in a laboratory assay, or that which is reduced to just mathematics and/or measurements in accordance with this mechanical view. The two almonds will evidence, in other words, much the same calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and potassium, or chemically-defined elements. This is supposedly because that is what an almond "objectively" or "really" is in its essence, according to again the gospel of the mechanical worldview. Labels in supermarkets will list the chemically-defined ingredients of a food, including almonds, following this ideological stance.
Yet when each almond is put into the soil, one will clearly rot and the other will blossom into a most magnificent, nut-bearing tree. One becomes part of the earth's compost and the other may, over time, give birth to many surrounding trees. The difference is undeniably huge and dramatic.
Many philosophers who introduced the mechanical or/math-based view of nature tried to, nevertheless, deny there was such a thing as "life in nature" or a "ghost in the machine." Living things presented a gnawing problem or "anomaly" because they inconveniently violated the neatly predictable mechanical laws that were stated to be universally true and central to this view.
Yet plain evidence shows there is real life in nature just as there is real non-predictable motion. On the other hand we literally never find machines (things purely math-designed) anywhere in pristine nature, and for profound reasons.
How can what never anywhere occurs in pristine nature be the model for what always occurs in nature and throughout the universe? There is something blatantly wrong and contradictory with the view that also is so arrogantly promoted.
Worse yet, we wholesale recreate nature in this image (recreating even all the cells of our bodies as we take in chemicals on multiple fronts). This ideological model of nature also has made vast encroachments on living ecologies - replacing what is living with what is dead - as depicted in the above painting by Albert White. Raw-wisdom proposes that the mathematical view is really a belief system or ideology and one that is blatantly flawed and grossly misguiding us in relation to nature's depths.
When we look into the depths of ourselves, we find life, not mechanicality or the order of machines. Might our own depths mirror the real depths of nature? Wouldn't that make more sense?
Raw-wisdom points out eactly how math symbols point directly away from the essence of life and consciousness in nature (thus towards death in nature).Why We Need a Vision Shift to Overcome "Inconvenient" Problems
This creates a real death-delivering worldview (or what Dr Gabriel Cousens refers to as a "culture of death").
This is not something to take lightly. The philosophical reasons given are clear and cogent and the proof is "in the pudding," in our growing global extinction crisis.
A worldview shift can help us bring out the life principle (rather then the mechanical or death principle) out of all of nature. It can guide our personal healing in bringing life and consciousness back into the body. It takes a different knowledge than the chemical view or that of physics.
The influential math-based vision promised to lay bare nature's deepest secrets for control and progress. It delivered the Industrial Revolution to support this claim. Galileo, Descartes, Einstein (among others) where the greatest prophets for this view.
Since the middle of the 20th century, however, inconvenient problems have surfaced. These include:
- The invention and proliferation of atomic weapons that can destroy all of life on earth in an instant
- The spreading of chemical and genetically-engineered (GM) pollution that could threaten the same much more slowly and insipidly
- Growing actual extinctions and wholesale devastation of natural environments.
- Gobal warming on the horizon.
- Health pandemics spreading in our midst, manifesting cancer, arthritis, asthma, and diabetes epidemics quite out of control. This shouldn't be the case if our life and medical sciences offered a real masterful knowledge.
This all should make us suspect that our chief guiding vision is not what it claims to be. Note that math-designed chemical drugs are ever "side-effecting"? Something with an integrity of effect has no side-effects. The reason this occurs is because the underlying worldview also lacks integrity and is side-effecting. No drug company will tell you this.
Why The Mechancial View Appears To Be Winning In The Marketplace
There are those who subscribe to the mechanical view and the glories of the Industrial Revolution. They may not be greatly bothered by current environmental or health crises. In contrast, there are others who are disturbed and want a more compassionate direction to support the organic sustainability of life on Earth.
As problems have become more severe and evident, the former camp has been in not so much denial and resistance as Thomas Kuhn might call it, but rather what I refer to as "aggressive denial."
Gobal warming then is supposedly not real. Genetically-engineered products are supposedly the same as organic ones. Cancers are supposedly not chiefly caused by chemicals and thus more chemicals (chemotherapy) are used to treat cancers.
With this aggressive denial, the mechanical orientation (backed by a 400-year legacy) as well as sister economic forces appears to be winning out. We can see this clearly on a few major fronts:
- Chemically-Fertilized/Sprayed/Processed Crops: There is the undeniable fact is that while 100% of US agriculture was once organic and little more than a hundred years ago, now is dedicated to organics. Currently only about 2% of the total world farmland is organically tended worldwide. Overall pesticide use (for killing either herbs, insects and/or pathogens) has been ever on the rise, and more so with the 15-fold increase (between 1994 and 2005) in the use of Monsanto's Roundup. The level of residues of chemical pesticides left on produce has thus risen for several years, as was confirmed by the European Commission's Pesticides Residues Monitoring Program between 1996 and 2000. Our agricultural food is further chemically processed, and sometimes using still more questionable means (e.g. food irradiation).
- Genetically-Modified Foods: There has been a huge and lightning-quick growth in genetically-modified foods (as pointed out in my article 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods). Gregor Mendel introduced the philosophy of genetics in an attempt to reduce life's hereditary patterns to more mechanical, controllable or predictable statistical (math-based) analysis. Mendel's work survived in obscurity until the agricultural industry discovered its $-producing or commercial value in creating hybrids, and thereafter this mechanical view became also the scientifically prevalent view for what generates characteristics of biological life.
- Animal Factory Farming: Approximately 98% of hens are now raised in corporate factory farms and the majority of beef and dairy as well. Of course a factory is where production is mechanized and these farm-factories often exhibit inhumane practices, ecological and health hazards as well as a further chemicallizing of agriculture. They contribute also substantially to global warming.
- Chemically-Designed Pharmaceuticals: Ingesting pharmaceutical chemicals has skyrocketed. Since 2000 in the US, the percentage of individuals taking prescription chemical drugs has doubled to 14% of the total population. The percentage for those over age 65 is estimated to be three out of four! Almost 30% of seniors use 5 or more drugs in combination.
- Allopathy vs Naturopathy: Our guiding health professionals, allopathic physicians (about 750,000 active MDs in the US), licensed for prescribing pharmaceuticals have helped fuel the increasing intake of pharmaceuticals. Virtually all health conditions are attended to nowadays using chemically (math-designed) drugs, rather than focusing on natural approaches. Allopathic physicians outnumber naturopaths by more than a 100 to 1. There are approximately 5,000 naturopaths in the US who do not focus on chemical pharmaceuticals to effectively heal. Surveys show that allopathic doctors are among the most trusted of individuals in our culture. Their approach has won the most hearts and minds. By contrast, naturopaths are not even licensed or recognized as legitimate in most states in the US. Many natural therapies are outlawed and can only be practiced abroad. In the ideological battle to win allegiance, defenders of allopathy routinely refer to naturopaths as pseudo-scientists who believe in "vitalism" which is seen as grossly unscientific and where natural approaches supposedly represent then a danger to the public.
- Chemical industry: Worldwide chemical production has reached over 3 trillion dollars, what was negligible by comparison in the 1950's. In America alone, over a million people are employed in the chemical industry and as an integral part of the American economy (about 2% of GNP). The rippling effect of all of this, however, includes that our water, air, and earth are now seriously polluted. This has spread to affect not only surrounding ecologies but more intimately the interior of our bodies. What this implies is that there is a mirror pollution within, in our interior cells - and as reflective of a corrupt, non-integral worldview.
- Authoritative Voices and Influential Advertising: Lastly, the economic "advancement" or industrial/technological developments that encroach upon living nature, and as guided by chemists, genetic engineers, allopathic physicians, and some government officials, often is supported by well-intentioned arguments. A major cultural force in support has been corporate advertisements, especially by the pharmaceutical industry in support of their drugs with manipulative emotional appeals. Just between 1996 and 2000, spending by drug companies on TV ads has tripled.
We can ask, what spurred this overall "winning" tidal wave?
On the Ideological Front
Such a marketplace "winning" out for the time being actually makes perfect sense. It reflects the ever prevailing mindset or deep cultural acceptance of the same root vision of nature inherited from the 17th century. Thus if chemistry represents the "natural" order of nature then a supermarket which segregates foods to a special section marked "natural" (for items not chemically-tainted) and by implication informs its customers that these foods are somehow more "natural," then they are really ideologically out-of-step. Or the supermarket is following a "pseudo-scientific approach because chemistry supposedly represents the deepest and truest order of nature, or of what is purported to be "natural."
It would be better to say chemists are in the right, and taking pride in creating chemicals to create "better living through chemistry" and unlock nature's depth secrets.
The same perspective applies to modern medicine. Those aspiring to become physicians must take chemistry and physics pre-med courses. This lays the foundation for their future approaches. Afterwards it makes perfect sense to focus on pharmacology to engender their patients' well-being. The fact that 99% of physicians are allopathic (pharmaceutical-dispensing) then is a natural outcome. Again it reflects the near total dominance of this inherited and underlying way of seeing. Thus allopaths are quite definitely in alignment and naturopaths out of alignment or pseudo-scientific. This puts naturopaths on the defensive, and to prove the scientific basis for their therapies.
In The Absence Of Ideological Resistance
Ultimately environmental activists, naturopaths and others following "a road less travelled" are also schooled in the same root worldview!
Who hasn't taken at least one chemistry or physics course sometime in high school or college? We all know that certain chemicals are to be avoided as toxic and others are life-supportive like omega-3 fats. Thus we avoid some and accept others. We are not, however, taught to ever question the root worldview.
As a sign of this is we are taught there is "organic and inorganic chemistry." This implies chemistry offers the all-encompassing view of everything, of what is living and what is not (or of the roasted and non-roasted almond and of a rock).
Thus if a natural therapy works, even the naturopath tries to explain the approach in terms of chemistry, physics, or genetic expressions. Or an environmental organization may send a team of environmental scientists to a scene to assess the changes in chemical compositions. All of this reinforces the dominance of the underlying worldview.
While many voices question the exclusively mechanical view of nature, it is harder, if impossible, to find direct and cogent critiques of the underlying mathematical vision of nature. But the mechanical view is really derivative thereof and this has become a planetary ideology as countries around the world have tried to emulate the West's Industrial Revolution and its commerical "development."
This is reminiscent of how, during the medieval era, the truths of the Bible were considered infallible and thus the Roman Empire tried to tried to aggressively globalize that view with the invasion of its armies.
In the above context, there is a hugely critical need for insights to change our core, supposedly "infallible" vision.
This means we need to revisit and ask piercing questions. What if our core view exhibits blatant contradictions and undeniable anomalies that potentially shatter that view? What if it is a fiercely defended and imposed ideology that is not integrally true?
These are strong words. I back them up in the essay Moving Away From A Death-Centered Vision of Nature. There I explain why the math-centered view, again supposedly the most rational, universally objective and evidence-based, does not earn the right to those descriptives. It is rather a very powerfully "colored," biased, tunnel-visioning approach to nature.
As an ideology, the mathematical view harbors tremendously deep illusions. Here we might ask what really is an illusion. It can be defined as a "disintegration or breaking apart of the integrity of consciousness." Let me explain this a little more in depth. An illusionary position is upheld based on partial or narrow view thus forming a partializing bias. The illusion is usually a special type of bias and towards a surface appearance mistaken for something more. Thus a person can look wonderfully thin in a trick mirror, when a fuller perspective shows otherwise. Or the earth may appear to be at the center of the universe from a special or partial view, namely only from a self- or earth-centered view. If we were to imagine being in outer space and looking down at the earth or seeing the earth from many different perspectives, that earth-centered view is unveiled as an illusion.
Illusions simply violate the integrity of consciousness as a whole. This is why illusions evidence side-effects that are diminutized.
A worldview can also be fundamentally illusionary and very powerfully so.
It can appear to be universally true when actually its truths are grounded in a most limited, ideologically-forced perspective. Or the view may be true in some surface appearances but without true depth validity and integrity.
It has become my firm contention, after decades of exploring such issues, that despite obvious powers of modern technology, that a math-based vision of nature does not give us a full integral view but actually an illusionary and misguiding view that is at the root of roots, the taproot of our ecological crises and health pandemics.
Generally we are led to believe nature is made up of matter and energy defined mathematically and by a long lineage of physicists, including Einstein. Yet my own life experience has clearly shown me that this is not so in the raw (minus ideologically-imposed illusions thrust onto our senses). As the mathematical view tends to be "left-brain dominant," we need to transcend that one-sided inner perspective and in a way very similar to transcending the earth-centered perspective - to then again revolutionize our worldview.
A Brief Outline
The following is a brief outline of what is can imply:
- No Real Wall In Between - We can open our eyes and close our eyes, and open and close them again to experience our inner and outer worlds. We don't actually see a wall in between what is inner and outer - like a Berlin Wall of cement and blocks. Back in the 17th century the new math-based philosophy of nature was relegated to studying the outside world of matter and energy because the Church wanted to keep reigns on the inner experience of consciousness.
- Conscious Inner Experience As the Deeper Integral Reality - If there is but one world we live, what if our inner consciousness (which tends to be non-mechanical) represents nature's inner depth essence, and the mechanical the surface appearance? Since consciousness is not something physical or made up of separate parts (and we can put our hands around as being separate), can we guess that inner consciousness is something more "connective"?
- Defining Consciousness - Consciousness is here defined and seen as a "potentially universal relationship of connection in nature." When we are conscious of something we simply connect therewith. This implies that unconsciousness involves separation, as when a person who is senile doesn't notice, hear, smell, or taste something or thus does not connect to the world around them or within.
- Defining Mathematics - I have elsewhere illustrated that basic math symbols all tend to abstract how best to separate elements of consciousness, and universally so. Math symbols are thus the highest symbols for how to separate surface appearances within our consciousness. If we take the prior definitions seriously, this means that the symbols of mathematics guide us towards what is surface/separate, and in tunnel vision (as to focus is to separate an element of consciousness) and which is tends to create non-objectivity or a view of the whole.
- Partially True, Universally False - This means is that if we apply the mechanical view too deeply, we will disturb the essence of nature all around us, and within. We will disturb our life and consciousness and ultimately undermine life. This is why I call the mechanical/math-based view, moving us the most away from the connective essence of life, of consciousness - the death-centered vision. This is why nursing home patients fed multiple drugs will go into a stupor or exhibit Alzheimer's. While the mathematical view can be used to precision engineer a highway through a tropical rainforest, it also threatens to dismantle that living terrain and the very essence of life. This is why the creation of genetically-engineered organisms also threatens the very essence of life in nature.
- Deeper Corruptions - If the very essence of consciousness again forms a depth-interconnecting relationship in nature, then what a universally separative is progressively undermining the integrity of consciousness itself. This is why the most separative view, the mathematical, is ultimately consciousness corrupting and thus illusionary. The most evident surfacing of these deep corruptions is with the lure of money (a form of inner mathematization). Unfortunately the scientific method's marriage with the commercial heightens the same. Thus we do not objectively face the damage that is being done.
- The Dispute - Many scientists will try to dispute the above. Hasn't the modern orientation given us the most powerful of inventions - computers, jet planes, telephones, electric light bulbs, trains, autos, refrigerators, TVs and the like? But these inventions are mechanical, and again where the vision falls short is in understanding and protecting and nurturing what sustains life. Displacing that vision (which Raw-Wisdom offers tools for) then represents a disquieting step - one that can either be squelched or form the basis for a revolutionary and decisive breakthrough.
- Avoiding the Dispute - If we change but our outer (superficial) ways of relating to nature (via only green consumerism) without changing our core and root guiding beliefs about nature, we cannot fundamentally change our present course. If we ever continue to subscribe to the mechanical/math-based view of nature as being unquestionably true, we will continue to ever more threaten the sustainability of life on earth. Then our fate becomes like that of a bug drawn by consciousness-addictions to the scorching surface of an artificial light bulb - to its death.
- Recognizing the Dispute On the other hand, if we delegitimize the prior worldview and relegitimize a larger objectifying vision, this will profoundly and dramatically change everything.
Because the stakes are so enormously high - with the literal survival of life on earth hanging in the balance - we really need to dedicate much pondering or some sincere grappling with such deep and profound issues. If we gain thereby a more commanding grip on such ideological issues, with resulting increased sanity (for our current worldview is really more than just borderline insane), the impact will be evident in a major cultural paradigm shift or a true global mind change.
This begins the essential path of "raw-wisdom," a simple moving away from the dominant mechanical and towards a sustaining, consciousness-integral and life-centered vision of nature.