Belief in the Yellow Emperor

[Guest guest]

Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:32:28 -0700, " Matt Bauer " <acu.guy wrote:

 

>>… Why did the Zhou elite chose to use a supposedly 3,000 year dead

ancient leader as the spokesman for their radically new medical system

based on a radically new worldview?

…

>> The vast majority of the greatest minds in China for at least the last

2,000 years also believed that " myth " . Are we to be embarrassed by these

thinkers also?

 

Unschuld, " HD NJ SuWen " , p 1

" Voices refuting authorship by the legendary Huang Di in prehistoric times

have been heard in China for centuries, and to this day there is a

discrepancy between views held by historians of Chinese medicine in and

outside of China, on the one hand, and by authors writing for the general

public, on the other. "

 

I see it as a cultural difference, a legitimate one. In their historical,

cultural context, Chinese acceptance of mythic history is legitimate, i.e.

consistent and integral to the worldview. At a deep level, cultures rest on

myths, on shared belief systems. (Unschuld also made this point, in

passing, during the 2003 workshop - and that even modern science rests of

such foundations.) So my point is not to judge the mythic framework within

Chinese culture, but to point out that in my culture (USA, the " West " ),

history is held up to the standards of science (e.g. the art that Unschuld

practices). Chinese residents here, when voicing those beliefs are

reflecting their roots. Westerns often accept such beliefs on the mistaken

assumption that our views of history are the same. They're not. When

confronted with the " evidence " , one should let go of that myth, as, in our

system, it is considered a falsehood. Educated and rationally capable

Chinese should also be able to understand and, in some sense, accept it,

although they may chose to maintain their native beliefs.

 

>>> … Either (1) virtually all Chinese of the Han era and most Chinese

since have made the granddaddy of all errors by believing in a childish

myth that had no basis in fact, or (2) those shifty Zhou elite pulled of

the granddaddy of all con jobs in that they knew the Yellow Emperor never

existed but decided to lie about it, or (3) there actually is something to

all these stories nearly one fourth of the world's population have believed

for these past 2,000 plus years.

 

The language expressing your options is somewhat polarizing. I would cast

each of them in a different light.

 

Preface: Myth can be understood as a fundamental feature, a power of human

intentionality. Human identity and motivation wells up out of creating and

living out a story-line (i.e. Greek word 'mythos') for ourselves. In case

your not familiar with, say, the writings of Carl Jung, or Joseph Campbell,

there is in Western thought a fairly established understanding of this, and

how it functions in the lives of even the most hard-nosed scientific type.

Perhaps, to use the work 'mythos' would be better than 'myth' or 'mythic',

as 'mythos' refers to the context of cultural history and cultural

anthropology, whereas the other, more familiar terms carry pejorative

meanings in common usage. On reflection, it was probably ill-advised of me

to use the term 'mythic belief' without making clear that the usage is not

necessarily pejorative.

 

Without going on too far, some examples: My memory of J. F. Kennedy is to

some extent mythic; others regard Ronald Reagan similarly. Consider the

difference between historical reality, whatever it may in different

contexts, and the power in the images of, say, Moses, Jesus Christ, Julius

Caesar, Joan of Arc, George Washington, FDR, etc. Or Hippocrates and

Aesclepius. (And I was about the add HuangDi.)

 

In our field, Jeffery Yuen has given lectures on the mythic aspect on the

patient's side as well as on the physician's side, and regardless of which

medicine is involved.

 

So (recasting), (1) virtually all Chinese of the Han era and most Chinese

since have invoked the HuangDi as an inspirational symbol of their cultural

heritage, and (2) [paraphrasing Unschuld and Lewis, neither of whom, I

believe, intended pejorative meaning] the Zhou elite transformed HuangDi

into an historical exemplar for their own sense of wisdom and authority,

and (3) there certainly is something to all these stories [mythoi - plural

of mythos] nearly one fourth of the world's population have believed for

these past 2,000 plus years.

 

But in 21th century western culture, with its mythos of scientific history,

we, while allowing ourselves to understand, even respect those phenomena,

cannot allow ourselves to represent ourselves and our field of

practice/study, according to professional and academic norms, in such

terms. This is my strong belief, which may differ from others', and we may

certainly discuss the matter further.

 

As to the fact that we can't be certain to have found or understood all the

evidence, granted. My educated guess, is that, given now ca. 40 years of

intensive scholarship, and that newly discovered tomb relics add depth and

precision rather than revolutionizing the consensus interpretations, the

picture is in rather good focus. I base this partially on my prior

experience in the field of music history, and the way evidence and

interpretation developed and evolved in this field over a period of some

200 years.

 

Also, just read in today's New York Times, science section, on recently

published findings in Israel of artifacts from the turn of the 6th century

B.C. containing apparently text recognized as also appearing in the " Book

of Numbers " (part of the Pentateuch, or Torah), and scholarly/historical

speculation resembling that surrounding the MWD and Neijing - i.e.

fragments which appear early, and later in fully developed texts. As in

Chinese, and Greek literary history, the fundamental portions of the

Bible/Torah appear to have been composed (in the full form we known them

now) somewhere in, probably on the near side of the 1st millennium B.C.,

with fragments appearing somewhat earlier. The " myth " of the

Pentateuch/Torah as having been written down 5000 or so years ago closely

parallels the Chinese situation.

 

>>… the prospect that there was no golden era in Chinese culture raises

just as many difficult to answer questions as does the idea that such an

age existed. Until supporters of the myth hypothesis can offer credible

answers to these questions, I think we should hold our water and not get

ahead of ourselves.

 

BTW, Matt's reference to a " golden era in Chinese culture " - c.f. for

example Carl Jung on this, widely shared trans cultural notion. Many

cultures have the golden age notion in their mythos. This may be an

inherent feature of human cultures, especially as they evolve into

literate, rational eras.

 

So, I'm not sure if I'm supporting the " myth hypothesis " or not, in Matt's

sense. On the one hand, the question of what " credible answers " might be is

fascinating. On the other hand, I certainly hope this doesn't become a

" pissing match " .

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

 

I strongly disagree that our western world is void of myths and relies on

science alone in its perceptions of the world. Science is still subjective

and will always be flawed to a degree because it can never go back and

experience the real world in those times.

 

The west is just as much engulfed by myths as the Chinese are. Perhaps the

Chinese less so as communism has pretty much eradicated the majority of

ancient Chinese culture. The nearest thing you'll get to Chinese culture

today is watching the Chinese television network's propaganda channel

broadcasted to the world. Having spent 6 months in Beijing, I didn't see

hardly any culture left, just the old one of money, money, money. Therefore,

I believe that myths play a greater part in the west today, look at

Christmas and Easter, national holidays, etc.

 

Alot of sayings, cultural beliefs and customs originated in Europe hundreds

if not thousands of years ago. We're so engrossed in our lives it's

difficult to separate and analyses them, but they are there. Thus, I

disagree that we have a scientific perspective. History is written by the

winners of wars and by strong political/religious foundations, history

itself is a myth.

 

I believe that it's better to take the accounts of history with a pinch of

salt (now where did that saying come from) and follow your own intuition.

 

Kind regards

 

Attilio D'Alberto

<http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com

 

 

[]

29 September 2004 08:58

Chinese Medicine

Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor

 

 

I see it as a cultural difference, a legitimate one. In their historical,

cultural context, Chinese acceptance of mythic history is legitimate, i.e.

consistent and integral to the worldview. At a deep level, cultures rest on

myths, on shared belief systems. (Unschuld also made this point, in

passing, during the 2003 workshop - and that even modern science rests of

such foundations.) So my point is not to judge the mythic framework within

Chinese culture, but to point out that in my culture (USA, the " West " ),

history is held up to the standards of science (e.g. the art that Unschuld

practices). Chinese residents here, when voicing those beliefs are

reflecting their roots. Westerns often accept such beliefs on the mistaken

assumption that our views of history are the same. They're not. When

confronted with the " evidence " , one should let go of that myth, as, in our

system, it is considered a falsehood. Educated and rationally capable

Chinese should also be able to understand and, in some sense, accept it,

although they may chose to maintain their native beliefs.

 

But in 21th century western culture, with its mythos of scientific history,

we, while allowing ourselves to understand, even respect those phenomena,

cannot allow ourselves to represent ourselves and our field of

practice/study, according to professional and academic norms, in such

terms. This is my strong belief, which may differ from others', and we may

certainly discuss the matter further.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

To be able to believe and be pragmatic and never dogmatic. That's China

and Korea and Vietnam at village level, where healing began.

 

We have in some sense taken on the mantle of this vague system and labeled

it

TCM, and find ourselves at odds with it, with our Western cerebrum and bone,

which hardly ever believes in anything, without being dogmatic and

authoritarian,

and vulgarly adoptive.

 

When the Chinese adopt WM into their healing philosophies, they are taking

on Western attribute to do so, and more or less failing.

 

Whereby the tragedy.

 

When the Westerners adopt TCM into their healing philosophies, they are

taking

on Eastern attributes to do so, and more or less succeeding.

 

Whereby the comedy.

 

Of terrors.

 

Dr. Holmes Keikobad

MB BS DPH Ret. DIP AC NCCAOM LIC AC CO & AZ

www.acu-free.com - 15 CEUS by video.

NCCAOM reviewed. Approved in CA & most states.

[Guest guest]

Hi Attilio,

>

>Science is still subjective and will always be flawed to a degree

>because it can never go back and experience the real world in those

>times.

 

I very much agree. Historical documents, I believe, can be viewed in

two different ways. The first way is to try to " figure out " what

someone was thinking two thousands years ago. As you said, this is

impossible. Anything that is " inferred " cannot be confirmed. As a

result, any inference must be subjective and probably more a

reflection of the observer (the historian) than the observed (the

document and the document's author). The truth is, I cannot figure out

why my son did something yesterday - much less why someone said

something thousands of years ago. Heck, I cannot figure out why I do

things in my own life. :-)

 

The second way, and the one that I feel is very useful, is to use an

historical document as " confirmation " of observations that one

observes in " today " . For example:

 

> Having spent 6 months in Beijing, I didn't see hardly any culture

>left, just the old one of money, money, money.

 

I have observed the same. So when the Neijing relates in the very

first paragraphs its most important advice:

 

" Next, some people were good at preserving health to the level of a

Sage. They lived quietly and comfortable in the natural environment of

the universe, they follow the rule of the eight winds (different winds

from all directions) and could avoid being hurt by them. They

regulated their eating, drinking and daily life in a moderate style

when lived together with common people. Their temperments were stable

adn calm without indignation and fluctuation of mood. .. They never

did excessive physical labour or engaged in any excessive deliberation

to cause worry, but always kept their mind in a cheerful mood adn

contented with their own circumstances. It was precisely because of

these facts, thay could cultivate themselves to have strong bodies,

and kept their spirit from dissipating, and thus their lives could be

lasted to one hundred years old. [Wu, Wu translation].

 

The Neijing suggests that people thousands of years ago faced the same

life issues that they face today, e.g. " desire for more " or as you put

it " money, money, money " . The words of the Neijing in the above quoted

paragraph may be as meaningful today as they were thousands of years

ago. Given that this advice appears in the first chapter of the

Neijing, it may be surmised that it is considered relatively important

by the authors of the text. An issue that every student of Chinese

Medince should consider.

>

> I believe that it's better to take the accounts of history with a

>pinch of > salt (now where did that saying come from) and follow your

>own intuition.

 

I very much agree. History " changes " to often to be considered nothing

more than a " reflection " of the times. However, I do enjoy reading

history, if for no other reason than to observe how much " times have

not changed " . :-)

 

Thanks very much for sharing your observations.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

 

 

 

I don't see our exchanges as a pissing contest at all. I greatly appreciate your

thoughts and feel you make excellent points that reflect a certain position very

well. I believe well reasoned and heartfelt arguments can be very constructive

and I offer my thoughts with full respect. I once shared my feelings in this

regard with Unschuld (whom I tend to disagree with on some points) by sharing

with him the story of Chuang Tzu and his best friend, Hui Tzu, the great

promoter of the Logic school of thought. The two of them were looking at a

school of fish sunning themselves in a pond and Chuang Tzu said:

 

" Look at how happy those fish are. "

 

To which Hui Tzu replied:

 

" You are not a fish. How can you know how they feel? "

 

Chuang Tzu then retorted:

 

" And you are not me. How do you know I don't know how they feel? "

 

At this, they both had a good laugh and went on their way.

 

 

 

Unschuld was, of course, aware of this story but lamented that such respectful,

friendly arguments are not the norm. I only aspire to having these types of

exchanges although I may not always seem to convey that in my often hurried

replies to this list. Now, let's get down to it:

 

 

 

The major difference of opinion I have with the scholars you cite has to do with

what I have been taught from the Taoist oral tradition I study regarding the

influence prehistoric life had on the development of Chinese culture. My

teacher, Hui-Ching Ni, has published over forty books in English including his

translations of the essential Taoist classics of Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, and the

I-Ching. While none of his books specifically deals with his tradition's

accounting of history, in many of his books, he offers bits of such oral history

when he seeks to make some points. Although it took me many years to appreciate,

a very important element of his tradition's accounting of the ancient past is

the concept that his prehistoric ancestors were profoundly inspired by nature

over tens of thousands of years (if not much longer), and that those

inspirations were passed down and eventually formed the basis of the concepts of

Tao, yin/yang, qi, wu-hsing, etc.

 

 

 

Modern science tells us that completely modern humans, Homo sapiens-sapiens,

have been the only upright walking mammal on this earth for at least 30,000

years and that they first appeared 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only

use the most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means that people every bit

as smart as you and me or even Einstein, have been living on this earth for

30,000 years. My teacher's tradition states that these beings were highly

intelligent and that they learned some crucial information about life and

humankind's place in the big scheme of things and that they passed this

information down to successive generations. Leaders such as the Yellow Emperor,

Sheng Nong, or even Fu-His were not the originators of this essential knowledge,

they became famous because they were the individuals credited with transmitting

the very ancient insights into the modern civilized era.

 

 

 

The manner in which I have studied the concepts of Tao, yin/yang, qi, etc.,

leave me feeling deep in my soul, that these concepts offer incredibly profound

portals to the deepest mysteries of the Universe. When I hear Unschuld speak of

the Zhou elite or other scholars discuss the Han era influences behind the

formal concepts of Tao, yin/yang, qi, etc., I do not see this reflecting the

profound level I have come to see in these concepts. This leads me to believe

that the people of the Zhou or Han era did not have the depth to come up with

these concepts but that they were, at best, putting a modern stamp on much more

ancient concepts - just like the legends state. None of these scholars give any

credit to the tens of thousands of years of learning the ancestors of the Zhou

or Han era people may have contributed to Chinese culture. The long line of

Hunter-Gatherers who lived, laughed and raised their children are completely

ignored as though they made no contributions whatsoever to the Han era culture

while my teacher's tradition stresses that the contributions of the pre-settled

age was paramount to what came to be more formalized during the Han era.

 

 

 

Now, I don't blame historians for not giving any credit to the prehistoric era -

they can't. Their rules of scholarship won't allow them to give credit when no

hard proof of such influences exists even if they were inclined to. The only

information we have on the mindset of people in this long era is from oral

traditions such as my teacher's. That is why I so often contend that we need to

consider oral history as well as scholarly history to have a better chance to

piece together a fuller story of the roots of Chinese culture and, in turn,

Chinese medicine history.

 

 

 

For whatever reasons, Western culture seems to have made a conscious effort to

sever its ties to the pre-settled era, while Eastern culture has traditionally

heaped the most praise on their ancestors of this era. Look at the cave

paintings in France and Spain from 20,000-30,000 years ago. Do we really want to

think that such inspired artists left us no useful insights other than how to

carve some stone tools? Studying my teacher's tradition has opened my eyes to

the possibility that our very ancient ancestors' tens of thousands of years on

this planet were not in vain nor forgotten and that they left us more than tool

making technology. They left us profound insights about the very essence of

nature but these lessons are bound-up, in one culture at least, in the confusing

symbolic concepts of Tao, yin/yang, & qi to name a few.

 

 

 

My thoughts above don't even scratch the surface of my understanding of these

issues. I hope in the future to find ways to get my fuller thoughts out for

scrutiny within the profession. Thanks for your consideration to read this far -

Matt Bauer

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:58 AM

Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor

 

 

translate this message, copy and paste it into this web link page,

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Id' like to bounce some thoughts off your comments,

Matt.

 

--- Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:

> 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only use the

> most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means

> that people every bit as smart as you and me or even

> Einstein, have been living on this earth for 30,000

> years.

 

This is a point I wish most of us would get our faces

rubbed in more often - it is pure presumption to

entertain the thought that WE, in our shiny modern

mess, have discovered something intrinsically

different that our uncountable grandmothers and

grandfathers just weren't able to get.

So we've got some precisely machined metal stuff and

hubris. So what.

 

> When I hear Unschuld

 

Unrelated to what you were saying:

I deeply respect Unschuld. I also believe that he is

a scholar of the highest degree and not, by any means,

a sage or an enlightened being. His linearity is

apparent in his works, most clearly in his (very

western) obsession with finding the Truth, the Facts

and the one single way that things happened.

My double and triple apologies to Mr. Unschuld since

I have read some of his works and there is, without

exception, a thread of respect, love and admiration

running through them all.

 

> they were inclined to. The only information we have

> on the mindset of people in this long era is from

> oral traditions such as my teacher's.

 

I disagree, the scholars are trying to be scientific

about something which can't be known - except through

the lessons and understandings passed down through

time. No book I've ever read contains the essence of a

technique, idea or experience. Oral tradition is the

root, foundation, base and pillar of human society.

Direct transmission is the only way. Books are

beautiful things, and they are unflexible THINGS and

do not begin to compare with a living, breathing g-d

standing before you.

 

The Tao De Ching clearly states that inflexibility

belongs to the realm of the dead whilst suppleness

belongs to the realm of the living.

 

> Now, I don't blame historians for not giving any

> credit to the prehistoric era - they can't. Their

> rules of scholarship won't allow them to give credit

> when no hard proof of such influences exists even if

> they were inclined to

 

I don't blame them - I place full responsibility on

them to give credit where it is due. Simply because

they misunderstand something is no reason the rest of

us must also misunderstand! There is no reason other

than simple materialism to pretend that " scholarly "

history is in any way superior or more real than oral

history.

 

> For whatever reasons, Western culture seems to have

> made a conscious effort to sever its ties to the

> pre-settled era,

 

Somewhere, somehow, western culture's wood element

(growth) was overnourished and its earth element

(nourishment, support) was depleted. And this

spiralled out of control, as we all know it tends to.

Not only is westenr culture arrogant, overbearing and

unable to respect boundaries, but it consumes and

bankrupts every land it comes in contact with. Is this

not exactly Wood invading Earth?

 

> really want to think that such inspired artists left

> us no useful insights other than how to carve some

> stone tools?

 

In modern western culture, art is not valued - tools

are. One can't mention the skill of the art, since it

is irrelevant. On the other hand, their tools tell us

much more about who they are, since we all know that

art is useless whereas engineering is a sign of

intelligence. However, their tools are crudely formed

(from rocks, of all things), and these 'people', if we

can even call them that, are obviously only worth

study in the light of the word PRIMITIVE.

 

I propose that we bury our insolent self-love and

replace the term " Primitives " with " Fundamentals " .

Perhaps then we will have a more realistic idea of

where we actually stand.

 

Unfortunately I do feel a kind of rage when

considering this situation. A short tale:

 

Many traditions will take their children early one

morning to watch the sunrise. They will explain to

their children that this sun they are watching is just

now being born from the water, or the horizon, and

that there has never been a sun before like it, and

there never will be again. That this sun is new, and

that we should take care of it since, in one short

day, it will wither, age and finally be extinguished

on the opposite horizon.

 

A modern person will usually have trouble realising

how factually accurate this story is, and on how many

levels. Because, obviously we're not crazy maniacs

burning our time and home away because we think

everything is static and lasts forever...which happens

to be what a Liver-overgrowth person would think, but

anyway.

What kind of fool thinks it's the same sun every day?

 

If you understand this story, then that's very good

for you. My teacher said once, " work, and do something

healthy for your future " .

 

> this planet were not in vain nor forgotten and that

> they left us more than tool making technology. They

> left us profound insights about the very essence of

> nature but these lessons are bound-up, in one

> culture at least, in the confusing symbolic concepts

> of Tao, yin/yang, & qi to name a few.

 

Question - what's confusing about it other than that

modern people are trying to achieve Direct

Transmission through literature?

 

I must finish with one of the most beautiful verses I

have ever read from the page of a book hahahaha:

 

Not dependent on the written word,

Transmission apart from the scriptures;

Directly pointing at one’s heart,

Seeing one’s nature, becoming Buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Matt:

> > really want to think that such inspired artists

> left

> > us no useful insights other than how to carve some

> > stone tools?

 

Hugo:

> In modern western culture, art is not valued -

> tools are. One can't mention the skill of the art,

> since it is irrelevant.

 

In Canada we just got a new twenty dollar bill

printed and there's a short quote on it by Gabrielle

Roy:

" Could we ever know each other in the slightest

without the arts? "

 

 

See you my friends,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

_____

 

Hugo Ramiro [subincor]

Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:08 AM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor

 

 

 

 

Id' like to bounce some thoughts off your comments,

Matt.

 

--- Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:

> 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only use the

> most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means

> that people every bit as smart as you and me or even

> Einstein, have been living on this earth for 30,000

> years.

 

[Jason]

 

I really have a hard time believing this one, but I guess it is all in how

you define intelligence. If you are talking about hunting buffalo, maybe

yes, but clearly (from our standards) our cognitive function is much better

than our predecessors, esp 30,000 years ago. To compare such people to

Einstein is silly, IMO..

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

This is a point I wish most of us would get our faces

rubbed in more often - it is pure presumption to

entertain the thought that WE, in our shiny modern

mess, have discovered something intrinsically

different that our uncountable grandmothers and

grandfathers just weren't able to get.

So we've got some precisely machined metal stuff and

hubris. So what.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

 

I went through the archives and found your original message in which

you state that:

 

Chris: " So my point is not to judge the mythic framework within

Chinese culture, but to point out that in my culture (USA,

the " West " ), history is held up to the standards of science (e.g.

the art that Unschuld practices). Chinese residents here, when

voicing those beliefs are reflecting their roots. Westerns often

accept such beliefs on the mistaken assumption that our views of

history are the same. They're not. When confronted with

the " evidence " , one should let go of that myth, as, in our system,

it is considered a falsehood " .

 

This is the section i was referring to in my previous post. Our

western culture is hardly scientific at all. History is not at all

held up to the vigours of science. This is completely untrue.

History is a political progaganda tool used by bias people to twist

our preceptions of the present.

 

Attilio

[Guest guest]

<attiliodalberto wrote:

> Our

western culture is hardly scientific at all. History is not at all

held up to the vigours of science. This is completely untrue.

History is a political progaganda tool used by bias people to twist

our preceptions of the present.

 

Attilio<

I agree and would add that all so called science is culturaly biased

 

Doc

*********************************************

" Euro-centric " Science " proves itself based on it's own methods and paradigm and

then criticizes other non European (read non white!) systems for not being able

to prove themselves by the methods and criteria it has created. TCM is often

ridiculed for not being able to pass through the testing that White Euro-centric

Science has set as the only “valid” standard. Hundreds of millions of cases of

successful treatment with TCM are dismissed as anecdotal. "

 

****************************************************************

Traditionally in every tribal society, medicine sprang from and was the property

of the tribe and the people as a whole.

In the middle ages, the church based medical establishment deliberately and

methodically substituted a patriarchal, hierarchical medical paradigm.

It is my goal with the projects i've been helping to set up around the world

to begin to return medicine to the hands of the people from which it sprang. -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- escreveu:

 

--- Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:

> 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only use the

> most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means

> that people every bit as smart as you and me or even

> Einstein, have been living on this earth for 30,000

> years.

 

[Jason]

 

>I really have a hard time believing this one, but I guess it is

>all in how

>you define intelligence. If you are talking about hunting

>buffalo, maybe

>yes, but clearly (from our standards) our cognitive function is

>much better

>than our predecessors, esp 30,000 years ago. To compare such

>people to

>Einstein is silly, IMO..

 

Einstein had an advantage. A contemporary scientist(don't

remember whom right now- maybe it was Einstein even!), said that

he only discovered what he did because he was sitting on the

shoulders of the giants who preceded him, who left their

knowledge as heritage for later generations. Now, 30.000 years

ago, the neurons probably where there(Neanderthals had a brain

BIGGER than ours!), but the knowledge of registering and passing

down information down the years wasn't that developed, so...Even

Einstein wouldn't do much as far as equations go, by himself in a

cave, watching the stars and dreaming of time and space.

 

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

* marcos [ishk18]

 

 

Einstein had an advantage. A contemporary scientist(don't

remember whom right now- maybe it was Einstein even!), said that

he only discovered what he did because he was sitting on the

shoulders of the giants who preceded him, who left their

knowledge as heritage for later generations. Now, 30.000 years

ago, the neurons probably where there(Neanderthals had a brain

BIGGER than ours!), but the knowledge of registering and passing

down information down the years wasn't that developed, so...Even

Einstein wouldn't do much as far as equations go, by himself in a

cave, watching the stars and dreaming of time and space.

 

Marcos

 

[Jason]

 

Again I think this is a far stretch that I guess none of us will know the

real answer to, all that I know is that 'people' didn't even figure out how

to grow their own food until around 10,000 years ago. So, you may say that

the brain is the same, but surely individually or as a society they did not

show any signs that they are superior to us. Think about how poor their

language skills were. Yes we walk on the society and people of the past, but

as we age (as a race) we know that we not only gain past knowledge through

books etc, but also through a direct genetic (or super-conscious)

transmission that improves our ability to learn and think. This, i.e., is

evidenced in artists etc that never have training but somehow 'know hot to

draw' - I have never seen a caveman's painting that looks anything but. When

a caveman is looking at a round stone and not even knowing how to use this

as a wheel, I ask what gives you the impression that they have the same

cognitive skills? I have no doubt that if a 30,000 was transported into our

society at age 1 that he would have major cognitive hurdles in keeping up

with the average modern man. But this is all speculation.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

marcos [ishk18]

Sunday, October 03, 2004 11:09 PM

Chinese Medicine

RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor

 

 

 

--- escreveu:

 

--- Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:

> 150,000-200,000 years ago. Even if we only use the

> most conservative 30,000 year time-frame, it means

> that people every bit as smart as you and me or even

> Einstein, have been living on this earth for 30,000

> years.

 

[Jason]

 

>I really have a hard time believing this one, but I guess it is

>all in how

>you define intelligence. If you are talking about hunting

>buffalo, maybe

>yes, but clearly (from our standards) our cognitive function is

>much better

>than our predecessors, esp 30,000 years ago. To compare such

>people to

>Einstein is silly, IMO..

 

Einstein had an advantage. A contemporary scientist(don't

remember whom right now- maybe it was Einstein even!), said that

he only discovered what he did because he was sitting on the

shoulders of the giants who preceded him, who left their

knowledge as heritage for later generations. Now, 30.000 years

ago, the neurons probably where there(Neanderthals had a brain

BIGGER than ours!), but the knowledge of registering and passing

down information down the years wasn't that developed, so...Even

Einstein wouldn't do much as far as equations go, by himself in a

cave, watching the stars and dreaming of time and space.

 

[Jason]

 

Further thoughts. One may want to separate society from the individual in

such a hypothetical exercise, but this is IMO impossible. For example, one

born into such a primitive society is not only hard-wired for survival, but

also from day 1 MUST survive or else that is it. The average life-span some

say is about 18 years old. A very limited part of the brain is stimulated

and therefore a limited intelligence. Parts of the brain that we use have

never even been developed because they had yet to have the chance. Our

ancestors have already stimulated parts of the brain and then pass these

traits on to us. Kids today can learn much faster that 100 years ago. One

cannot argue that the size of the brain means increased cognitive fx. One

can also look at our society and see that the most intelligent people are

not the runners, jumper athletes, but the guys sitting in the corners with

their pocket protectors. Even if an Einstein was randomly born in that era,

he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion before he would have a chance

to pass on his genes. Therefore the brawny alpha males are the one's

passing on their genes not the artists and Einsteins. This idea of yours

seems to be a hard sell to me.

 

 

 

-JAson

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

---

wrote:

> [Jason]

> Kids today can learn much faster

> that 100 years ago.

 

Where's your proof for this statement??? I'm sure

many teachers would say that there is a degradation

in, at the least, attention span!!!

 

> One

> cannot argue that the size of the brain means

> increased cognitive fx.

 

This part is unclear; I'm not sure what you are

saying. Simple size is not enough though, and a more

reliable indicator of intelligence / experience is how

convoluted, or wrinkly, the brain is.

 

> can also look at our society and see that the most

> intelligent people are

> not the runners, jumper athletes, but the guys

> sitting in the corners with

> their pocket protectors.

 

Man, I totally disagree with you. That is so western

to put intellect at the top. Some acquaintances of

mine from Taiwan describe to me how EQ is so much more

important than IQ. Point is there are cultural values

involved. Furthermore I know plenty of sharp,

_clear-minded_ athletes, and plenty of

over-intellectualised and emotionally confused

pocket-protector guys.

It's not a simple equation.

 

> Even if an Einstein was

> randomly born in that era,

> he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion before

> he would have a chance

> to pass on his genes.

 

How smart of him to be eaten by a mountain lion.

 

> Therefore the brawny alpha

> males are the one's

> passing on their genes not the artists and

> Einsteins.

 

Ever seen the cave paintings in france? Those were

artists. If the alpha males were passing their genes

on, and no one else, then we'd only have alpha males

now.

 

Too linear, my man, that was too linear.

 

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason, me again

 

> Again I think this is a far stretch that I guess

> none of us will know the real answer to,

 

Probably, although I think we're going a bit too far

back in time and missing the point. Initially the

point had somethign to do with how different are we

from our ancestors, not only 30 000 yrs ago, but 5 000

and 10 000 as well.

 

> show any signs that they are superior to us.

 

Not superior. Significantly different or

significantly similar. You're changing the argument.

 

> as we age (as a race) we know that we not only gain

> past knowledge through

> books etc, but also through a direct genetic (or

> super-conscious)

> transmission that improves our ability to learn and

> think.

 

True. Question is how much of that is simple the load

of knowledge, and how much is actual change in the

hardware.

 

> draw' - I have never seen a caveman's painting that

> looks anything but.

 

You need to look at more then, and with an artist's

eye, to boot.

 

> a caveman is looking at a round stone and not even

> knowing how to use this

> as a wheel, I ask what gives you the impression that

> they have the same

> cognitive skills?

 

The invention of the wheel was earthshattering, just

as was the first set of people who started making

marks with meaning. What have _you_ done that is

comparable?!? Does that mean you're inferior?

 

> was transported into our

> society at age 1 that he would have major cognitive

> hurdles in keeping up

> with the average modern man.

 

Reverse is true as well. You mentiond something about

Einstein getting eaten. So far this is all rhetoric

though and the only point I wish to make is that we

must do our best to not be caught up in the " arrogance

of the present " . Too often we have a diminished view

of our ancestors in this society. For example, people

think of darkages peasants as being dirty and

whatever, when all historical record indicates that

liked to be clean, just like us. And again, my point

is: *what is it that makes us think low things of our

forbears?*

 

> But this is all speculation.

 

Yup.

 

 

See you,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

The quality of teachers has declined. I once saw a 3

Stooges short where the Stooges had to pass themselves

off as teachers, and they made more sense in a

30-minute short feature than the 4 years of high

school I had to endure.

ADD is now being seen as a result of breakfast

cereals (extruded grains) that many kids eat, that

didn't exist 100 years ago. When grain is extruded and

rammed through the intense heating/stretching/cooling

process it's put through,

the original protein structure of the grains are torn

apart and mutated. Stay away from extruded grains. Eat

oatmeal with plenty of butter from pasture-fed cows.

Thanks-

John Garbarini

--- Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

 

> ---

> wrote:

> > [Jason]

> > Kids today can learn much faster

> > that 100 years ago.

>

> Where's your proof for this statement??? I'm sure

> many teachers would say that there is a degradation

> in, at the least, attention span!!!

>

> > One

> > cannot argue that the size of the brain means

> > increased cognitive fx.

>

> This part is unclear; I'm not sure what you are

> saying. Simple size is not enough though, and a more

> reliable indicator of intelligence / experience is

> how

> convoluted, or wrinkly, the brain is.

>

> > can also look at our society and see that the most

> > intelligent people are

> > not the runners, jumper athletes, but the guys

> > sitting in the corners with

> > their pocket protectors.

>

> Man, I totally disagree with you. That is so

> western

> to put intellect at the top. Some acquaintances of

> mine from Taiwan describe to me how EQ is so much

> more

> important than IQ. Point is there are cultural

> values

> involved. Furthermore I know plenty of sharp,

> _clear-minded_ athletes, and plenty of

> over-intellectualised and emotionally confused

> pocket-protector guys.

> It's not a simple equation.

>

> > Even if an Einstein was

> > randomly born in that era,

> > he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion

> before

> > he would have a chance

> > to pass on his genes.

>

> How smart of him to be eaten by a mountain lion.

>

> > Therefore the brawny alpha

> > males are the one's

> > passing on their genes not the artists and

> > Einsteins.

>

> Ever seen the cave paintings in france? Those were

> artists. If the alpha males were passing their genes

> on, and no one else, then we'd only have alpha males

> now.

>

> Too linear, my man, that was too linear.

>

> Hugo

[Guest guest]

Hi Hugo,

 

> the only point I wish to make is that we

> must do our best to not be caught up in the " arrogance

> of the present " . Too often we have a diminished view

> of our ancestors in this society. For example, people

> think of darkages peasants as being dirty and

> whatever, when all historical record indicates that

> liked to be clean, just like us. And again, my point

> is: *what is it that makes us think low things of our

> forbears?*

>

 

The way I look at it is this:

 

Our ancient ancestors answers intuited that everything in the universe

is made up of the same " stuff " called qi and qi could be energy or

matter. Thousands of years later Einstein intuited the same thing.

 

In the same manner our ancestors intuited that Yin/Yang waves and Qi

(they are the same) are constantly changing and extend infinitely in

all directions (the Dao). Thousands of years later, Quantum Theory

speaks of the universe of energy/matter in the same manner.

 

And neither our ancient ancestors or current scientists can make heads

or tales of what it all means:

 

 

" The Dao that can be said is not the everlasting Dao " . [The Dao De Jing].

 

" Anyone who says that they can contemplate quantum mechanics without

becoming dizzy has not understood the concept in the least. " [Niels

Bohr, In Science]

 

Everything seems to be changing, yet it all seems to stay the same.

 

" The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the

opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. "

[Niels Bohr]

 

 

" How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope

of making progress. " [Niels Bohr]

 

And I guess that this may be the toughest part of life to accept. :-)

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

And the relevance to TCM of these posts is .....?

 

 

Chinese Medicine , John Garbarini

<johnlg_2000> wrote:

>

> The quality of teachers has declined. I once saw a 3

> Stooges short where the Stooges had to pass themselves

> off as teachers, and they made more sense in a

> 30-minute short feature than the 4 years of high

> school I had to endure.

> ADD is now being seen as a result of breakfast

> cereals (extruded grains) that many kids eat, that

> didn't exist 100 years ago. When grain is extruded and

> rammed through the intense heating/stretching/cooling

> process it's put through,

> the original protein structure of the grains are torn

> apart and mutated. Stay away from extruded grains. Eat

> oatmeal with plenty of butter from pasture-fed cows.

> Thanks-

> John Garbarini

> --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor> wrote:

>

> > --- <@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > [Jason]

> > > Kids today can learn much faster

> > > that 100 years ago.

> >

> > Where's your proof for this statement??? I'm sure

> > many teachers would say that there is a degradation

> > in, at the least, attention span!!!

> >

> > > One

> > > cannot argue that the size of the brain means

> > > increased cognitive fx.

> >

> > This part is unclear; I'm not sure what you are

> > saying. Simple size is not enough though, and a more

> > reliable indicator of intelligence / experience is

> > how

> > convoluted, or wrinkly, the brain is.

> >

> > > can also look at our society and see that the most

> > > intelligent people are

> > > not the runners, jumper athletes, but the guys

> > > sitting in the corners with

> > > their pocket protectors.

> >

> > Man, I totally disagree with you. That is so

> > western

> > to put intellect at the top. Some acquaintances of

> > mine from Taiwan describe to me how EQ is so much

> > more

> > important than IQ. Point is there are cultural

> > values

> > involved. Furthermore I know plenty of sharp,

> > _clear-minded_ athletes, and plenty of

> > over-intellectualised and emotionally confused

> > pocket-protector guys.

> > It's not a simple equation.

> >

> > > Even if an Einstein was

> > > randomly born in that era,

> > > he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion

> > before

> > > he would have a chance

> > > to pass on his genes.

> >

> > How smart of him to be eaten by a mountain lion.

> >

> > > Therefore the brawny alpha

> > > males are the one's

> > > passing on their genes not the artists and

> > > Einsteins.

> >

> > Ever seen the cave paintings in france? Those were

> > artists. If the alpha males were passing their genes

> > on, and no one else, then we'd only have alpha males

> > now.

> >

> > Too linear, my man, that was too linear.

> >

> > Hugo

[Guest guest]

--- escreveu:

 

* marcos [ishk18]

>>Einstein had an advantage. A contemporary scientist(don't

>>remember whom right now- maybe it was Einstein even!), said

that

>>he only discovered what he did because he was sitting on the

>>shoulders of the giants who preceded him, who left their

>>knowledge as heritage for later generations. Now, 30.000 years

>>ago, the neurons probably where there(Neanderthals had a brain

>>BIGGER than ours!), but the knowledge of registering and

passing

>>down information down the years wasn't that developed,

so...Even

>>Einstein wouldn't do much as far as equations go, by himself in

>>a cave, watching the stars and dreaming of time and space.

>>

>>Marcos

 

[Jason]

>(...) Yes we walk on the society and people of the past, but

>as we age (as a race) we know that we not only gain past

>knowledge through books etc, but also through a direct genetic

(or super-conscious)transmission that improves our ability to

>learn and think.

 

Hi Jason, interesting, but what is this 'direct genetic

transmission', do you mean that acquired abilities are stored

genetically somehow and become part of the genetic makeup of

humankind?

 

> This, i.e., is evidenced in artists etc that never have

>training but somehow 'know hot to draw' - I have never seen a

>caveman's painting that looks anything but. When

>a caveman is looking at a round stone and not even knowing how

>to use this as a wheel, I ask what gives you the impression that

>they have the same cognitive skills? I have no doubt that if a

>30,000 was transported into our society at age 1 that he would

>have major cognitive hurdles in keeping up with the average

>modern man. But this is all speculation.

>

>-Jason

 

The caveman saw a round stone and probably rolled it down the

hill for fun, but to put an axle through its center and a pole to

pull it and make it 'the real thing', requires 'a quantum leap',

I would say, in imagination.

We can look at it the other way around; many people TODAY look at

a remote control full of little buttons and don't have the

remotest idea of how to operate it, untill they read the

instruction booklet or someone explains it to them!

Okay, maybe the wheel is not as simple as the remote control, for

this happens to people who have been exposed to other controls,

and so know something of controls, but we really cannot say that

a Neanderthal or even a Cro-Magnon of some 30.000 years ago

transported to this age at age 1 would or would not develop in a

perfectly normal(as we see it) way.

In that I agree with you that it is speculation.

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

--- escreveu:

>

>Further thoughts. One may want to separate society from the

>individual in such a hypothetical exercise, but this is IMO

>impossible. For example, one born into such a primitive society

>is not only hard-wired for survival, but also from day 1 MUST

>survive or else that is it. The average life-span some

>say is about 18 years old. A very limited part of the brain is

>stimulated and therefore a limited intelligence. Parts of the

>brain that we use have never even been developed because they

>had yet to have the chance. Ourn ancestors have already

>stimulated parts of the brain and then pass these traits on to

>us. Kids today can learn much faster that 100 years ago. One

>cannot argue that the size of the brain means increased

>cognitive fx. One can also look at our society and see that the

>most intelligent people are not the runners, jumper athletes,

>but the guys sitting in the corners with their pocket

>protectors. Even if an Einstein was randomly born in that era,

>he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion before he would

>have a chance to pass on his genes. Therefore the brawny alpha

>males are the one's passing on their genes not the artists and

>Einsteins. This idea of yours seems to be a hard sell to me.

>

>-JAson

 

Aha! Now we get to the meat:-D

My idea is o.k. and so is yours,and the fact that Neanderthals of

more than 30.000 years ago had a bigger brain than we have today.

And that Einstein-of-the-caves wouldn't have a high survival

rating. But, as you pointed out, they needed to survive. in

societies with more survival skills, principally agricultural

ones, they started to have more leisure! And food stored for the

winter, and so could 'look to higher things', and discovered a

lot of interesting and useful things as the centuries rolled

along, and continue to do so today, and that has hardly anything

to do with 'genetic enhacement'. Its just that; one thing leads

to the other, and here we are, in the internet/hip age, trying to

discover the secrets of a (at least)2.400 year old knowledge

called TCM.

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your comments Hugo, I repeat what I said in my

presentation; am glad to be here at this forum, and agree with

you and learn from you!

 

--- Hugo Ramiro <subincor escreveu:

 

 

---

wrote:

> [Jason]

> Kids today can learn much faster

> that 100 years ago.

 

Where's your proof for this statement??? I'm sure

many teachers would say that there is a degradation

in, at the least, attention span!!!

 

> One

> cannot argue that the size of the brain means

> increased cognitive fx.

 

This part is unclear; I'm not sure what you are

saying. Simple size is not enough though, and a more

reliable indicator of intelligence / experience is how

convoluted, or wrinkly, the brain is.

 

> can also look at our society and see that the most

> intelligent people are

> not the runners, jumper athletes, but the guys

> sitting in the corners with

> their pocket protectors.

 

Man, I totally disagree with you. That is so western

to put intellect at the top. Some acquaintances of

mine from Taiwan describe to me how EQ is so much more

important than IQ. Point is there are cultural values

involved. Furthermore I know plenty of sharp,

_clear-minded_ athletes, and plenty of

over-intellectualised and emotionally confused

pocket-protector guys.

It's not a simple equation.

 

> Even if an Einstein was

> randomly born in that era,

> he would probably be eaten by a mountain lion before

> he would have a chance

> to pass on his genes.

 

How smart of him to be eaten by a mountain lion.

 

> Therefore the brawny alpha

> males are the one's

> passing on their genes not the artists and

> Einsteins.

 

Ever seen the cave paintings in france? Those were

artists. If the alpha males were passing their genes

on, and no one else, then we'd only have alpha males

now.

 

Too linear, my man, that was too linear.

 

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

An article in Science News last month reported a study which showed that

ADD and ADHD children placed in natural outdoor environments for several

hours a day -- not just urban " parks " , but with real greenery - improved

significantly in a short time, with less distractibility and better

capacity to focus for longer periods. The study was controlled for

specific activities which might be done only outside and vice versa,

indicating that it was the effect of the outdoors itself. Nowadays,

children spend most of their school days inside, very often in buildings

with no windows and no natural light. Foliage in view, forget it. Other

studies I have seen showed that artificial lighting has a negative effect

on these children's ability to function effectively (and their teachers as

well), and that at least some regular exercise during the day improves

children's mental function and learning (but gym class and recess are no

longer regular parts of the school day for many children). Add up all

these various aspects of modern life (and these are only a few) and the

cumulative impact is significant. And most of these changes have occurred

in the last century and a half or so. While it is true that there is some

evidence to suggest that computer learning and games have elevated many

children's test scores, it does not address other forms of intelligence or

functioning. Anyone who believes that a child who sits indoors in a chair

all day staring at a computer screen in a room lit with artificial lighting

and no windows and snacking on junk food is getting a well-rounded

education has a strange idea of education, in my view.

 

Pat

 

 

The quality of teachers has declined. I once saw a 3

Stooges short where the Stooges had to pass themselves

off as teachers, and they made more sense in a

30-minute short feature than the 4 years of high

school I had to endure.

ADD is now being seen as a result of breakfast

cereals (extruded grains) that many kids eat, that

didn't exist 100 years ago. When grain is extruded and

rammed through the intense heating/stretching/cooling

process it's put through,

the original protein structure of the grains are torn

apart and mutated. Stay away from extruded grains. Eat

oatmeal with plenty of butter from pasture-fed cows.

Thanks-

John Garbarini

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information; please advise the sender immediately by reply email

and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Although

this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other

defect that may affect any computer system into which it is received and opened,

it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no

responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or

damage arising in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================

[Guest guest]

Hi Pat,

 

> Nowadays, children spend most of their school days inside, very

>often in buildings with no windows and no natural light. Foliage in

>view, forget it. Other studies I have seen showed that artificial

>lighting has a negative effect on these children's ability to

function >effectively (and their teachers as well), and that at

least some >regular exercise during the day improves children's

mental function >and learning (but gym class and recess are no longer

regular parts of >the school day for many children). Add up all

these various aspects >of modern life (and these are only a few) and

the cumulative impact is >significant.

 

At my age (53) I am not sure there is an " advantage " to one way of

life vs. another. Hunting for food or browsing the Internet. I guess

we are all " spending time " doing something, learning something,

earning something.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Doubtless so. However, my point is that limiting the environment to a

closed, artificial cocoon where only a limited range of intelligence and

skills is developed is not always healthy for growing children; hence, ADD

and ADHD (although I am not saying this is the only cause of same).

 

Pat

 

 

Hi Pat,

 

> Nowadays, children spend most of their school days inside, very

>often in buildings with no windows and no natural light. Foliage in

>view, forget it. Other studies I have seen showed that artificial

>lighting has a negative effect on these children's ability to

function >effectively (and their teachers as well), and that at

least some >regular exercise during the day improves children's

mental function >and learning (but gym class and recess are no longer

regular parts of >the school day for many children). Add up all

these various aspects >of modern life (and these are only a few) and

the cumulative impact is >significant.

 

At my age (53) I am not sure there is an " advantage " to one way of

life vs. another. Hunting for food or browsing the Internet. I guess

we are all " spending time " doing something, learning something,

earning something.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi Pat,

Chinese Medicine , " Pat Ethridge "

<pat.ethridge@c...> wrote:

>

> Doubtless so. However, my point is that limiting the environment to a

> closed, artificial cocoon where only a limited range of intelligence and

> skills is developed is not always healthy for growing children;

hence, ADD

> and ADHD (although I am not saying this is the only cause of same).

>

> Pat

>

I so much agree. I think that children are suppose to be running

around, exploring, learning, taking it all in. It is part of our

" heritage " as human beings to " re-visit " our Earth and understand it.

When children are harnessed into school chairs or kept in small rooms

(to study textbooks, to browse the internet, to watch TV), it will, I

believe, trigger a natural urge to " get out " , run around and explore.

What it called ADD (I think) is just being naturally bored with a very

artifial and uninteresting environment. Let children play and have fun

- there is plenty of time to learn to multiply numbers. :-)

 

Regards,

Rich