(review of Bergson)
" Bergson did, however, emphasize the importance of intuition over intellect, as he promoted the idea of two opposing currents: inert matter in conflict with organic life as the vital urge strives toward free creative action."

(from abstract of one of Dossey's lectures)
"Historically, illness and health have been viewed as "physical" issues: disease is due to malfunctioning atoms, molecules, cells, and tissues; health is due to their proper functioning. The mind and the body are seen as fundamentally separate. Dr. Dossey explores the flaw in this logic, presenting scientific evidence to show that not even common diseases can be understood without taking into account the manifestations of a patient's mental state, emotions, thoughts, attitudes, and perceived meanings. Consciousness does, in fact, occupy a significant place in the origins of health and illness. This model coheres with good science and substantiates humankind's persistent conviction that there is "something more" than the physical."


well...what can I say? Once, a few years ago, two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door and entreated me to hear them, and I spent 30 minutes in 'lively' debate. As you might guess, I questioned some basic premises they propounded..*grin*...even AFTER they read me relevant Scripture! So...they went away, promising to return! In a couple days, they returned, accompanied by a 'more experienced' elder, who proceeded to address my concerns by reading me MORE, (but in his opinion 'clearer' scripture! He/they simply could not relate to my position that they were **starting** with assumptions and premises that I did not accept, and thus our discussion was largely useless in so far as it could be expected to convince either side.
   The suggestion that I read more Bergson, or immerse myself in some Dossey, seems to me to be a VERY similar situation!


I DO realize that there are many ways to approach the issue of reality and it's possible modes, and MANY well written expositions of the various theories....Bergson and Dossey included. But this simply does not deal with the central point that I have tried to make in dozens of posts for several years: *most aspects of the theories and attitudes that I (semi)-respectfully debate in here require certain premises that are themselves a matter of opinion and speculation*


I understand, as Dossey notes, that patient attitude and mental state CAN affect aspects of the healing process....and I understand that certain personal experiences, such as you, Amos, and Little Hawk and Two Bears..etc...occasionally refer to cannot be denied or discounted...you DID experience something.
   It is even possible that *I*, someday, might have a comparable experience. None of this, however, addresses my concern about making unwarrented assumptions about the ultimate causality of any of all of these experiences.

Somewhere, I remarked that I do note, accept and appreciate the phenomena involved in Bio-feedback medical issues. Our mental state can help with certain conditions of our physical state....(even petting a cat or dog can help reduce stress and improve heart function). Where we differ is what we accept as the origin and driving force of such responses. We ALL know we have a 'brain', and that damage to it can alter what 'we' are....and almost all of us (me included) use words like 'mind' and 'soul' and 'spirit' at times. Those words are extremely useful in expressing human emotions, and such like phenomena, that reference to *brain function* can't match! This does not demonstrate, however, that it IS - ultimately - anything beyond extremely complex brain function...It 'might' be, but it still remains a belief, not a 'fact', in the formal use of the term. (Remember..I do consider that "having an experience" is a fact, but this does not necessarily constitute an explanation of its cause).

We must sorta accept that we (meaning both 'us' and humans in general) have VERY different deeply set tendencies towards what we accept as 'truth' 'reality' ..etc. And, as I stated and STILL assert, much of the debate often gets bogged down in linguistic confusion and "equivocation" over how to use some of the terms that are tossed about. When I refer to a 'valid' argument, it means something very narrow. When I discuss 'proof', I **mean** the definition used in formal application of the scientific method...etc.
   In many of the threads where many sides and individuals debate, the terms are often very loosely used and end up no more useful than several cooks debating whether a dish is "TOO salty" or "good"! If you like it that way, eat it that way...but if you're going to open restaurant or package a product commercially, you have to state the ingredients so that I can apply MY standards. (weak metaphor, I guess...but..)

once again...final disclaimer: None of this 'proves' that the stuff I don't accept doesn't exist, it merely notes the status of the claim: that is, belief. As long as I can describe possible alternative ultimate causes for a phenomenon that cannot, by definition, be tested objectively, then we are at an impass.

But all this sure hones our various thought processes about how to state our opinions, hmmmmmm?