Restoration of the Biofield topic
-
@mostlylurking
The biofield is legit. It is known by other names. It is not different from life force or chi. But the medical dogma is not compatible with it.
However, I don't think Dr. Robert Young can be a credible reference. He has made comments on Pat Timpone's show that strikes him as eccentric, saying things that even from a wholistic standpoint, goes on the deep end or to the left field.
He cites the horse as an example of why eating vegetables or plants as better for humans.
He says the ideal human urine pH is 8 and above.
He claims to have studied bioterrain theory under a late German bioterrain stalwart, but I can't even look up more detail on it.
-
@yerrag said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
@mostlylurking
The biofield is legit. It is known by other names. It is not different from life force or chi. But the medical dogma is not compatible with it.
Yes, on all points.
However, I don't think Dr. Robert Young can be a credible reference. He has made comments on Pat Timpone's show that strikes him as eccentric, saying things that even from a wholistic standpoint, goes on the deep end or to the left field.
I think Dr. Robert Young is a few decibels higher than a lot of us and probably a few degrees off the mark on some things. But at least he's talking about it.
He cites the horse as an example of why eating vegetables or plants as better for humans.
Yes, I agree with you.
He says the ideal human urine pH is 8 and above.
Yes, I agree with you.
He claims to have studied bioterrain theory under a late German bioterrain stalwart, but I can't even look up more detail on it.
Yes, he seems to be a bit of a nut. Sorry for even linking to him. Oops.
The term "biofield" seems to be the approved scientific technological term for it now. see here.
Biofield Science and Healing: An Emerging Frontier in Medicine
Biofield Science and Healing: An Emerging Frontier in Medicine (pdf download)
The point I'm trying to make here on the forum is that the biofield/aura/life force/chi is very real. It's a body part. But if people don't know they even have a "biofield" and that it can be "excercised" to be made stronger, it's a big problem because without this body part functioning, you are more vulnerable to emf and with it functioning your own body energy can be increased and can theoretically provide a protective buffer for modern emf pollution. EMF = radiation. I demonstrated the existence of my own biofield (to myself) by increasing my own body temperature when focusing on my biofield and doing some simple visualization exercises. It seemed to make a difference when I took my shoes off. This heated me up more than my 20 minute walk over steep hilly terrain.
I should add that I do take an optimized dose of prescription desiccated thyroid daily (10 years on this product) and I also take high dose thiamine hcl (for the past 4 years) and my diet is good and has been for over 10 years so my PUFA body load is low. I had already done these things to improve my oxidative metabolism (long term); I discerned surprising additional improvement in body temperature when I experimented with my body's energy field.
-
@yerrag said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
He claims to have studied bioterrain theory under a late German bioterrain stalwart, but I can't even look up more detail on it.
I think "bioterrain" equals "terrain" See here: https://bioenergetic.life/?q=terrain
also:
https://www.terraintheory.net/blogs/articles/the-germ-is-nothing-the-terrain-is-everything -
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
I think Dr. Robert Young is a few decibels higher than a lot of us and probably a few degrees off the mark on some things. But at least he's talking about it.
Yes, I agree with you.
Yes, I agree with you.
Yes, he seems to be a bit of a nut. Sorry for even linking to him. Oops.
How confusing.
-
@ThinPicking I'll try to explain:
- I posted the original post to this thread. I mentioned "biofield" and I also wrote about Dr. Robert Young.
- @yerrag responded that yes, the biofield is a real thing.
- @yerrag also said that Dr. Robert Young is not a credible source and listed reasons why.
- I responded to @yerrag and wrote a little about the biofield/aura/chi.
- I also wrote that I agree with @yerrag that Dr. Robert Young is not a good source and that I regret that I linked to his site.
- Note that I posted several times at the beginning of this thread and have provided multiple links to sources other than Dr. Robert Young in these posts. I could have and should have simply left Dr. Young out of the topic entirely for the sake of clarity.
Dr. Robert Young makes some good points on his blog and in his videos. However your own discernment abilities must be activated when reading/watching him. Simply opening up the top of one's head and pouring Dr. Young's (or anyone else's) ideas in unabated can be hazardous to one's own well being. Discernment abilities can be thought of as "intuition" or "spidey senses" which ties back into qualities of an activated biofield and why it is important to have one.
-
It's funny to me that you feel the need to explain discernment in all honesty.
While adopting wallace's linguo and the rest. Thank you for the comedy in it.
-
@ThinPicking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
It's funny to me that you feel the need to explain discernment in all honesty.
While adopting wallace's linguo and the rest. Thank you for the comedy in it.
What a perfect snark. Did that come to you spontaneously? Or did it take a few minutes to pull that one out of your ass?
-
Perfect.
-
@A-Former-User said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
@ThinPicking I'll try to explain:
- I posted the original post to this thread. I mentioned "biofield" and I also wrote about Dr. Robert Young.
- @yerrag responded that yes, the biofield is a real thing.
- @yerrag also said that Dr. Robert Young is not a credible source and listed reasons why.
- I responded to @yerrag and wrote a little about the biofield/aura/chi.
- I also wrote that I agree with @yerrag that Dr. Robert Young is not a good source and that I regret that I linked to his site.
- Note that I posted several times at the beginning of this thread and have provided multiple links to sources other than Dr. Robert Young in these posts. I could have and should have simply left Dr. Young out of the topic entirely for the sake of clarity.
Dr. Robert Young makes some good points on his blog and in his videos. However your own discernment abilities must be activated when reading/watching him. Simply opening up the top of one's head and pouring Dr. Young's (or anyone else's) ideas in unabated can be hazardous to one's own well being. Discernment abilities can be thought of as "intuition" or "spidey senses" which ties back into qualities of an activated biofield and why it is important to have one.
Ray has mentioned something similar to a biofield, although it is more about how health practitioners in the middle ages (I would associate the notable ones like Avicenna or Ibn Senna) approach healing in a way that isn't mechanistic. This aligns a lot with the thinking of Tom Cowan even, as he is influenced as much in his thinking by Rudolf Steiner. These names are outside the western approach to healing. Even in his book Mind and Tissue, which I only read halfway through, Ray talks as much about the 'active field' which is more compatible with the Eastern mind (Eastern as in Greek and Russian orthodoxy) which is less influenced by the materialistic philosophy of Descartes, which I gather puts forever into the Western educated mind a reductionistic approach to seeing things.
And this is clear when you waddle in between hospitals and alternative healers, and find experts talking over each other because of the philosophical divide.
