Restoration of the Biofield topic
-
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
I need you to elaborate and explain what you mean by this paragraph. Sentence by sentence. I'd like to be able to respond better and I'm simply having a hard time following you.
Sleep on it. Preferably three or more times. Part of your issue on the topic is that you're in a rush. Probably because a video on the internet spooked you. A video made by self identifying spook community affiliate.
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
We seem to trigger each other easily. I don't know if this is a language barrier thing?
At no point have you "triggered" me. But said something I could respond to, on a topic that may or may not sit beneath the topic that may or may not sit beneath endocrinology. Namely fluid balance/dynamics.
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
I speak Texan; you are British, right?
According to my legal documentation and immediate cultural imprint, yes. But not without humour.
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
Since you liked the music link
Mosey on down to one of the two music threads sometime and share the wealth.
-
@ThinPicking My "sleeping on it" is not going to clarify my confusion regarding how you are phrasing things. I'll wake up tomorrow just as confused as ever.
Restored sensitivity to everything was my initial state on incorporating bioenergetic ideas in to my behaviour. But I realised at some point, I could counter that sensitivity with sensitivity. It may relate to the topic of biofields. I don't actually know. We'd have to walk to find out.
I'll try to break this down so maybe you will understand the issue I'm having with this paragraph.
you said:
"Restored sensitivity to everything was my initial state on incorporating bioenergetic ideas in to my behaviour."
Are you saying that when you incorporated "bioenergetic ideas" you became hypersensitive to everything? What do you mean by "bioenergetic ideas"? What do you mean by "restored sensitivity"?you said:
"But I realised at some point, I could counter that sensitivity with sensitivity. It may relate to the topic of biofields."
Wha? "I could counter that sensitivity with sensitivity?" I'm at a loss, truly. Kindly rephrase.you said:
"It may relate to the topic of biofields. I don't actually know." What's "it"? Can you please define what you mean by "biofields".you said:
"We'd have to walk to find out." I'm at a loss. Kindly rephrase. What do you mean? -
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
My "sleeping on it" is not going to clarify my confusion regarding how you are phrasing things.
This is the nature of all conversation and literature. And more probably. We're reunderstanding things all the time. Which can be from a place of having not understood at all.
-
@ThinPicking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
At no point have you "triggered" me. But said something I could respond to, on a topic that may or may not sit beneath the topic that may or may not sit beneath endocrinology. Namely fluid balance/dynamics.
I simply cannot figure out what you are saying. I suspect it may be a linguistics thing. You are trying to focus on a "topic that may or may not sit beneath endocrinology"? Relating to "fluid balance/dynamics"? Is this a balance thing? Are you dizzy? There's something going with your health that you think is related to endocrinology?
I cannot respond unless I can understand what you are saying.
-
@ThinPicking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
@mostlylurking said in Restoration of the Biofield topic:
My "sleeping on it" is not going to clarify my confusion regarding how you are phrasing things.
This is the nature of all conversation and literature. And more probably. We're reunderstanding things all the time. Which can be from a place of having not understood at all.
You are speaking in riddles. It makes it impossible to converse with you.
-
I'm not but I'm also fine with you declaring it impossible to continue the conversation indefinitely.
-
@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.
