Subject: Not Just a 3-D World, but a Multidimensional Reality. (fwd)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 132726 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 13:59:33 -0400
From: "John D. Evans"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Not Just a 3-D World, but a Multidimensional Reality.
Dear Guru and Friends,
There seems to be a continuing discussion on EMFguru's list about the
"reality" of what each of us believes, and in particular, about what we
feel about EMFs and their effects. It is my opinion that we all believe in
trying to do something creative about what we should do in relation to
EMFs. Perhaps our language gets in the way of achieving consensus.
First, "beliefs" are internal "happenings" that occur inside living,
breathing, human organisms. Those beliefs are not words, but feelings --
subjective reactions to our experiences. To express our feelings we must
translate them into actions and/or words or other signs and symbols (art,
pictures, music, etc.). BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE PROBABLY THE MOST POWERFUL
INTELLECTUAL FORCES WE HAVE. Even what we refer to as "objectivity" is
"subjective." We can only define "objectivity" as "whatever I say it is;
whatever YOU say it is; or, whatever, WE, collectively (if we can agree),
SAY it is."
We must remember that our language is only a rough, metaphorical
interpretation of our feelings, knowledge, etc. For example, "two plus two
equals four" is not a TRUE statement, but it is a VALID statement. It is a
valid statement and is "true" only within the field of mathematics; in
"reality" two plus two never equals what we mean by four. Try mixing two
liters of peas with two liters of fine sand; you will not get four liters.
Or, if you mix two liters of water with two liters of alcohol, you still do
not get four liters of the mixture.
Aha, you say, you're not mixing the "same" or "similar" elements. OK,
let's try mixing two liters of water with two liters of water. Do we get
four? Mathematically, yes. [Valid, but not true.] In "reality," how do we
know what we mean by two liters? Do we ignore the effect of surface tension
when we measure the levels? And how can we be sure that we have emptied
ALL of the water from one receptacle into the other? Perhaps some of the
water has evaporated during the pouring process; and how much water still
clings to the original container(s)? What differences would it make if the
water were cold or hot? Etc., etc., etc.? As much as we like to think it
is so, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A MECHANISTIC WORLD. We live in an ever changing,
non-additive, multidirectional, multidimensional, flux of reality. In our
use of language we TRY to give our reality some stability and predictability.
How can we ever really know all about EMFs? We can't. Yet, we do
know/believe that human organisms are being affected negatively by exposure
to many different kinds and intensities of EMFs. Do we need to
"understand" the mechanisms? NO! We NEED TO TAKE ACTION, right now, to
protect ourselves from EMFs, just as we learned by experience
(epidemiologically?) to protect ourselves from being burned by fire. It is
our duty, I believe, to show people that many epidemiological findings tell
us that EMFs can be very dangerous. Our warnings must take place even as
we attempt to "prove" the dangers through other "scientific" studies -- in
vitro and in vivo. If a bridge looks to be dangerous, we do not wait to
stop people crossing it until it falls down, nor until we can "prove"
(mechanistically/scientifically) it is unsafe.
We cannot even easily define what happens when we think. Many major theses
have been formulated in the attempt. However, ask a child what happens
when s/he thinks. You may get a "Charlie Brown" answer: "When I think, I
put my hand over my mouth and talk to my head." What are WE (collectively)
telling our heads? We must, in my opinion, be more child-like (not
childish) in our approach to reality. If we believe EMFs hurt us, we must
use prudent avoidance to protect ourselves and force "mega-bucks"
corporations to prove the safety of their electronic devices. WE MUST TRY
TO CONVEY OUR FEELINGS (BELIEFS) TO OUR NATIONS' DECISION MAKERS.
Before I close, I will give you at least one more example as to how
difficult it is for us to express in language certain "basic" concepts.
First, where inside you dwells that part of you you call "I" or "me"? Is
there "really" a (capital) "I" behind your "eye" that does the seeing when
you say, "I see."? In trying to say where their "I" or "me" is, some will
point to their head, others to their heart, and some to their "gut." Where
IS our "center of being?" I like the early Plains Indian's definition.
They suggest that if one stands in an open plain, one's center of being is
that point of intersection in each of us where a line drawn straight up and
down through our upright body crosses a line that goes out straight in
front and back of us, and a line that goes straight out to the left and
right of each of us. This is a very "fluid" concept, as it allows each of
us to relate in our own way to time and/or space and/or matter. Never can
we remain in the "same place" in space/time/matter, as we and the universe
are forever moving. I like to go a step beyond the Plains Indians' concept
and imagine the intersection (center of my being) is made up of planes
rather than of lines. [Necessity is NOT the mother of invention; the
mother of invention is learning about other people's inventions and then
building on those other inventions.]
And we cannot readily define what we mean by "time," "space," or "matter"
(for that matter) without accepting the fact that these concepts are human
constructs that are built into our basic human assumptions and are thus
undefinable. The only way we can define any one of the above is by using
the other two assumptions in the definition. For example, "Matter" is
something we experience in "space" through "time." You will find that
these concepts are very closely related to three other undefinable terms,
"order," "structure," and "relation." Every language has its own set of
similar undefinable terms.
It is my opinion that we must forge on, using our basic human assumptions
and beliefs (not necessarily scientific proofs) to make safety decisions
about EMFs and other environmental pollutants NOW.
EXCELSIOR!
John
********************************************
* John D. Evans, PhD
* Retired Professor/Counsellor
* E-mail: jdevans@sympatico.ca
* 8 Monroe Court
* Wellington, ON K0K 3L0 Canada
* Phone: 613-399-5089
*
* The heart of educationis is
* the education of the heart!
*********************************************
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html