|New Civilization News: Initiation|
Category: Natural Health & Healing
17 comments24 May 2005 @ 15:25 by swan : Isn't it true that our illnesses
open us up to new levels of ourselves that might have gone unnoticed. As a woman who has had initiations because of health concerns I know both the fear of what will happen next and the elation when things turn in a positive direction. Currently I am learning about myself through my gallbladder. My doctor told me in January that it needed to be removed. Being the type who doesn't like to give up parts of my body if at all possible because I believe there is a reason to have such parts, I told her I wanted to keep it around and see if I could heal it. Each time I have an attack, which has been kind of frequent the last week, I get in touch with another part of me and also a glympse into the spiritual realms, and loving presence I find there. I am still holding out for the healing. I am glad to hear you are healing and growing, Richard, keep holding positive thoughts.
25 May 2005 @ 09:06 by jazzolog : NCN's Tech Stuff
It is a test of patience when my dialup can't lift the site to allow a comment at my own Log and the page blanks out. So I write the comment again...and---bingo!---when I click the posting it is revealed the first comment printed after all. Then I'm no longer allowed to delete either one. So here I am trying to fill an otherwise duplicated time and space. Ah well, having aired that little grievance, on to my grateful reply to Swan~~~
25 May 2005 @ 09:17 by jazzolog : A Caution For Katelyn
I've not heard of a gallbladder healing before, so I am curious about the approach. My sister administers the public health program in her county of Western New York, and got a similar recommendation to have it out. She's not into spiritual healing for herself yet, despite problems a grandmother had had with hers, hoped for the best and put off the operation. It took a gallbladder attack that put her on all fours in her bathroom to get her into surgery. I too prefer to keep all my parts, and as a result still have tonsils and appendix and stuff like that. One of the things I learned about myself over the past year was a new level of Jazzy's stubborn folly.
25 May 2005 @ 12:44 by swan : I believe we can heal anything.
I was told that my uterus needed to be removed because it would never heal. My doctor was surprised when I returned for my physical and it had. Anything is possible, but I am not going to lead myself into harm out of stubborness either. Like you say our health issues are initiations and we never know what the purpose of the initiation is. Maybe this time my initiation is about letting it go or maybe it is about realizing my power to heal, who knows. I am giving myself a week and if I am still having problems I am going to tell the doctor to remove it ( it has been six months since I was diagnosed). With that said I will continue to try self healing because I feel like I am making progress. I have been thinking a lot lately about the meaning of self healing, and personal power and how healing can mean many different things. Self healing can mean, doing things that allow your body to heal itself and it can also mean allowing for surgery to be done so that your body can heal. I have been facing my fear of surgery as well. I read something yesterday about how many people are afraid of surgery and it is stronger in people who were left alone in hospitals as children when they were sick, which did happen to me when I was four years old. There is also the issue that doctors have a habit of opting for surgery without trying other things. Our health brings up a lot of things to consider, doesn't it? So I am well into the initiation.
25 May 2005 @ 15:26 by dempstress : I think of you as a complete zero....
....but only in PSA terms you understand!
Your essay above reminds me of something I noticed and tried to express soon after we first met here on NewCiv. Now it's something you're expressing yourself. I was taken, in your writings about the time of your diagnosis and operation, by how strange it all was to you, how shaken one is when a body that's always worked fine suddenly becomes unreliable. Life and living are no longer quite such givens and then, to cap it all at a time of uncertainty, your personal and bodily space is invaded, and instead of fighting that off you have to welcome and allow it.
You refer to the process an initiation. Well yes, joining any sort of group means gaining a different perspective. My health has often been unreliable, and in reading your earlier writings I was made aware of how differently I had come to view my body and my relationship to it. I realised that at some stage I moved away from seeing it as integral to 'me', and more as a variably reliable vehicle I'm currently using to get about with; no more 'me' than a car would be. (Mind you, given some blokes' relationships with their cars that might be a poor analogy.) It's a development which for me brings a wonderful sense of release, somehow removing a lot of the fear of illness and the parting of the ways which is bound to happen one day.
Swan talks of the possibilities of healing oneself, or allowing oneself to heal, and I do think the mind and body can do wonderful things together. But there's more to this journey than just fighting to stay where you are or indeed where you have always been.
It can be remarkably empowering, can't it?
25 May 2005 @ 15:35 by swan : I agree with you CD,
about there being more to the journey than just fighting to stay where you are. I think that is where the initiation comes in because we are forced to look at other possibilities, to look at what is blocking us that may be supporting the dis-ease, to face our fear and embrace it and find a new path, and without that component we are just experiencing poor health and not initiation. It can be very empowering.
Now why is Richard a complete Zero:-)?
25 May 2005 @ 20:05 by jazzolog : And Dempstress Is A Five Zero
A most happy birthday to one of the dearest souls ever to grace this humble site! A thanks to you, Caroline, for your always wonderful comments...and this one with so much from which to learn. Thanks also to Scotty for somehow getting you into this NCN thing! I always love what you have to say, Swan. Here of course what the Dempster means is that Richard is complete and there is zero to add. Now let's cut the cake!!
25 May 2005 @ 20:06 by vaxen : Well,
good luck, jazzolog, even though you may not be-lieve (will) in luck. 2012 in 7 years. That should encourage you if only to see whether or not all the yahoo about it comes to measure.
You keep mentioning your dial up connection as if it is not up to par? Are you familiar with your mtu, mss, rwin? There is a neat little program, free, which can speed things up if you don't know how to hack your registry. It is called 'easy mtu.'
I don't have the url, off hand, but type it into google, or teoma, or whatever search engine is your fav., and you should get a hit to the d/l page. There are a few others, too, that are of great benefit. Let me know, if you care to, whether or not you have done such and if it helps.
Good to see you writing again. I so love your style of 'journalism.' ;)
I'm getting 50 kbps which is OK for out here in the woods. (Hmmmm, 50 seems to be the magic number today.) As you know, Ming's tech can be a heavy load to lift sometimes. I hope Spring is glorious out around your cave this year, buddy!
You should be getting at least 26400 kbps jazzolog. No wonder you are so...
26400 isn't even 56K V90 standard or even close. 100,000 kbps is rather 'par' but even that is fairly impossible thanks to the telecommunications industries' flubbing.
Unless by 50 you mean something else? 50? Impossible...as that isn't really being connected at all. SO get easy mtu and try it, please. ;) G'Day fine sir.
26 May 2005 @ 15:00 by dempstress : No dear,
I think of you as being zero in terms of your PSA numbers, since this seems to be a good place to be. Complete as well of course, although a complete what I would not venture to suggest!
So what's supposed to be happening in 2012?
26 May 2005 @ 17:34 by jazzolog : The Compleat Misfit
Yes, I get it...but I just was adding a little Yankee humour, doncha know. As to 2012, Vax probably is referring to the Mayan mystery. [link] Welcome to your years of doddering, CD. And oh, that comment yesterday is wonderful...I'm still assimilating. Fuel for a whole new entry I think.
26 May 2005 @ 17:43 by jmarc : your tech problems
blame the CIA. LINK
feeding the paranoia, one post at a time, Jm signing off...
27 May 2005 @ 12:12 by jazzolog : Not Just My Tech Problem, jmarc
The site's been going up and down lately too...like earlier today. I've also received numerous complaints from the general public the outsider comment thing doesn't work much of the time. I've found that to be true. You type in the "secret word" and your comment just disappears. Infuriating to anyone who has taken the time to write something! Maybe the CIA's war game is to blame, but Ming does have his dilettante side...and this site's needs aren't high on his list of priorities.
27 May 2005 @ 17:26 by jmarc : i experienced problems
logging in this morning. \Seems ok now. Didn't mean to intimate that it was just you, but I'd just read that article and well, sychronicity, you know.
3 Jun 2005 @ 21:17 by vaxen : IOC:
"One of the things the intelligence community was accused of was a lack of imagination," said Dorothy Denning of the Naval Postgraduate School, an expert on Internet threats who was invited by the CIA to participate but declined. "You want to think about not just what you think may affect you but about scenarios that might seem unlikely."
I noticed that you mentioned Kbps, jazzolog, so that is pretty good seeing as how most of the countries 'rurals' get by on, at best, 26,400 bps and most on far less. In any case you might consider tweaking your 'internet settings' and easy mtu is a good place to start. The net, per se, uses an MTU of 576 whilst most, fresh install, untweaked, boxes in use by 'the citizenry' of our fair STATE are set for ethernet which is and MTU of 1500. MSS is MTU -40 then times that 4, 6, 8 for your RWIN or whatever your experimentation has deemed your par. 65000++ is sometimes a good bedrock, sometimes not...
Now that you are greatly amused and befuddled I'll bid thee 'Adieu.' Chin up, and all that, mate...
13 Dec 2005 @ 10:49 by jazzolog : Environment And Cancer
With all the toxic pollutants agriculture and industry showers upon us, some of which we inhale and digest, it is very tempting to blame them for disorders like cancer. Gina Kolata, who has been a very careful science reporter for The New York Times since 1987, tackles the issue in today's paper. She has written several books, including Clone: The Road to Dolly and the Path Ahead.
The New York Times
December 13, 2005
Environment and Cancer: The Links Are Elusive
By GINA KOLATA
When Mike Gallo learned he had cancer, a B cell lymphoma, two years ago, his friends and relatives told him that they knew how he got it.
His cancer, Dr. Gallo's friends said, was obviously caused by the dioxin that he had worked with for three decades in his laboratory. After all, the Environmental Protection Agency classifies dioxin as a probable human carcinogen. And among the cancers that it may increase the risk for, in high doses, is lymphoma.
Dr. Michael A. Gallo, director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences Center of Excellence at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., tells his well-meaning advisers that he does not think so.
"I say, 'No, I know my blood levels of dioxin,' " Dr. Gallo said, explaining that he measured them when he worked with the chemical. His levels, he said, are low. And there is no way to make a leap from such low levels of dioxin to his cancer.
Yet many of his friends and relatives remain convinced.
"That's the way people think," Dr. Gallo said. "If you get cancer, there has to be a reason."
And there may be a reason, he and other scientists say. But pinning cancer on trace levels of poisons in the environment or even in the workplace is turning out to be a vexing task. There has been recent progress in addressing the issue, but the answers that many people believe must be out there remain elusive.
"It's an area where there's certainly been a lot of heat and not a lot of light for some time," said Robert Hoover, director of the epidemiology and biostatistics program at the National Cancer Institute. For the most part, Dr. Hoover said, "we are down to speculations based on some data but without having the information we need."
Members of advocacy groups agree that there is much to learn, but they say the questions are too important to brush off by saying the research is difficult or the questions complex.
"Science is very specific," said Linda Gillick, a founder of Ocean of Love, a support group for children with cancer in Ocean County, N.J. "Sometimes you have to think outside the box."
Barbara Brenner, executive director of the Breast Cancer Action Coalition, an advocacy group in San Francisco, said that at the very least people should look for the least toxic alternative to chemicals in common use that may cause cancer.
Having had breast cancer twice, Ms. Brenner is impassioned by the cause. "I have a firsthand experience, and I would do anything - anything - to keep someone else from having that experience," she said.
Researchers, for their part, say they have not given up the quest. In their search for answers, they are trying a variety of methods. They are looking for reliable ways to detect environmental exposures and determine whether they are linked to cancer risk. They are studying the bewildering array of factors that can determine a chemical's effects on individual people. And they are looking at cancer statistics and asking whether there are blips in cancer rates that may point to an environmental cause.
The effort is important, Dr. Hoover said. While most scientists think that only a tiny fraction of cancers might be caused by low levels of environmental poisons, these are cancers that could, in theory, be avoided.
"All it takes is the political will to ban them or impose regulations to minimize exposure, and the cancers are gone," Dr. Hoover said.
The problem is to decide which chemicals might be causing cancer, and in whom.
Some scientists, like Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, see hints that environmental pollutants like pesticides, diesel exhaust in cities and workplaces and small particles in the air may instigate cancer.
But, Dr. Blair says, there is a huge problem in following up on these hints because scientists need to figure out who was exposed to what and when the exposure occurred. Asking people is not much help. Most people do not know what they were exposed to, and even if they think they know, they often are wrong, he said.
So Dr. Blair and his colleagues decided to try for the greatest possible rigor by focusing on one group, farmers, that is not only routinely exposed to pesticides that may increase cancer risk, but also keeps excellent records of exposure.
The effort, a collaboration involving the cancer institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency, began in 1993 and includes nearly every farmer and farmer's spouse in Iowa and North Carolina - 55,000 farmers and 35,000 spouses.
Investigators have been asking the farmers what pesticides and herbicides they used, when they used them and how much they used, and have been obtaining information on other risk factors like smoking. Then they use the medical records from tumor registries to determine who developed cancer and what type was developed.
"We're now just in the period of time where we can look at outcomes," Dr. Blair said. So far, the researchers have found a few associations, but nothing that is definitive.
"I would call it, at this stage, interesting leads," Dr. Blair said. "None are large enough for any regulatory agency to take action or to say they are a human carcinogen. They are leads." They include, for example, a slightly higher rate of lung cancer and leukemia in farmers who used the insecticide diazinon and a possible increase in prostate cancer among farmers who used methylbromide to fumigate the soil.
The investigators looked for an association between pesticides and herbicides and breast cancer, but they did not find one, Dr. Blair said, adding that one pesticide, atrazine, was under particular suspicion because it causes breast cancer in rats and has estrogenlike properties.
Even if the study finds that some chemicals have increased farmers' cancer rates, it remains unclear what that means for the general population, where exposures are usually much lower. Also unclear is whether those chemicals should be banned.
Dr. Blair noted that such decisions were difficult because they were, in part, political, balancing the costs of getting rid of the chemical against the benefits. But, he said, regulatory decisions require reliable scientific data. "You can only make a decision if you know something," he said.
So the studies continue. "We want to know what to worry about, so at least we can make rational decisions," Dr. Blair said.
Gerald N. Wogan, a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, takes a different approach. He, like most other scientists, worries that the public is overly concerned about cancer risks from the chemicals they are exposed to. But, he says, the question of how environmentally induced cancers arise is a puzzle that he would like to solve.
Dr. Wogan became interested in pollutants and cancer when he began studying the effects of aflatoxin, produced by mold on peanuts. The toxin caused liver cancer in rats and, Dr. Wogan and others showed, it also causes liver cancer in people. But exposure to aflatoxin was just part of the risk.
Dr. Wogan studied men in Shanghai who were eating foods with high doses of the toxic chemical. They ended up with four times the risk of liver cancer. Another cause of liver cancer, hepatitis B infections of the liver, increases the risk by a factor of seven.
Then Dr. Wogan noticed something that astonished him. The risk of liver cancer was increased 70 times in people who met both criteria; they ate contaminated foods and they were infected with hepatitis B.
"It was like a model system for the environmental causes of cancer," Dr. Wogan said.
The two cancer-causing agents were amplifying each other's effects. He went on to study the mechanisms of cancer causation and discovered that the more he looked at environmental pollutants the more complex and individualistic the biochemical pathways leading to cancer turned out to be.
"People differ very greatly in their response to chemical carcinogens," Dr. Wogan said. "Almost all chemicals, with relatively few exceptions, have to be converted from what they are into something more chemically active to be carcinogenic.
"If you encounter one of these compounds, most of it is converted to less toxic material that is excreted," he continued. "Only a tiny amount is converted to a form that could cause cancer. A small fraction of 1 percent gets converted. And people can differ enormously in their genetic ability to do these metabolic conversions."
Further complicating the issue is that a person's diet, or components of the diet, can increase the activity of enzymes that convert chemicals into carcinogens. And other dietary components can inactivate enzymes that detoxify chemicals.
The calculus grows so complex that it can be virtually impossible to predict what will happen in an individual person exposed to low levels of a possibly toxic chemical. For example, Dr. Wogan said, "The same food, broccoli, can affect both types of enzymes."
Added to this are the effects of chronic infections, like hepatitis B, in which the immune system releases chemicals that can magnify the effects of carcinogens.
In theory, Dr. Wogan said, there is hope for untangling the mess.
"If we knew how to identify exactly which factors or agents or dietary factors were responsible and if we were able to identify their effects in people, then, in principle, cancer is preventable," he said. But, he added: "It's so tough. It's so very tough to do."
In the meantime, he and others say they take comfort in cancer statistics that do not indicate a cancer epidemic. Rates of cancer have been steadily dropping for 50 years, if tobacco-related cancers are taken out of the equation, said Prof. Richard Peto, an epidemiologist and a biostatistician at Oxford University.
What appear as increases in cancers of the breast and prostate, Dr. Peto added, are in fact artifacts of increased screening. When healthy people are screened, the tests find not only cancers that would be deadly if untreated, but also a certain percentage of tumors that would never cause problems if let alone.
His analysis of cancer statistics leads Dr. Peto to this firm conclusion: "Pollution is not a major determinant of U.S. cancer rates."
Advocates for cancer patients, like Ms. Gillick, of Toms River, N.J., do not agree. They say they have heard it all - scientists' insistence that the risk of cancer from environmental chemicals is very low, that it is almost impossible to ascribe cancer in any individual to an environmental exposure, that most cancers are just a result of unlikely genetic draw or spurious mutation.
But Ms. Gillick and other advocates are not convinced.
Her son Michael, 26, was given a diagnosis of neuroblastoma when he was 3 months old. Ms. Gillick had never heard of that cancer, a pediatric cancer of the sympathetic nervous system. But she soon learned how devastating it could be.
Over the years, as Michael spent time in hospitals in New York and Philadelphia, she noticed something striking. Child after child in those cancer wards came from her town and surrounding Ocean County.
"You start talking to the other parents," Ms. Gillick said. " 'Why? How could that have happened?' "
She found what she thought was the answer: trace levels of industrial chemicals in the drinking water.
But the cancer institute and the E.P.A. investigated and said that they saw no particular danger in the water and that what looked like an increase in childhood cancer was just a statistical fluke.
Dr. Gallo was sent to talk to Toms River residents. Although Ms. Gillick said that she respected him and his views and that she found him likable, she did not like his message.
"Scientists," Ms. Gillick said. "They think it was random bad luck or whatever.
"We can't sit back and say, 'O.K., it happened.' If we could find the cause of a lot of these cancers, we wouldn't have to worry about the cure."
That is also the message of the Breast Cancer Action Coalition. "We think there is something going on, and we'd like to find out what it is," said Ms. Brenner, the executive director. "The scientists who say these kinds of environmental exposure are the smallest contributors, I'd like to know how they know that. If we haven't done the research, how can they say with assurance what is the contributor to anything?"
And, she adds, there are now so many chemicals in the environment that the task of figuring out what effects they might have is dizzying.
"Nobody can keep up," Ms. Brenner said. "And we don't know the health effects. I think it is not an irrational response to say our environment is making us sick."
That is not Dr. Gallo's view. Even though he had cancer, he is not blaming environmental exposures.
"If I were to take that tumor that came out of me and grind it up and run it through a mass spectrometer, I could find every persistent organic chemical I've ever been exposed to," he said. "Is that cause and effect? No, it's an association."
Still, he understands the concerns. "We, the scientific community, should take the blame for this," Dr. Gallo said. "Toxicologists, and I'm one of them, have perpetuated the idea that if 100 molecules are going to kill you, then one molecule is going to kill 1 percent of somebody. And that's the problem. We have a tremendous ability to analyze anything and everything, and the scientific community has said: 'Oh, by the way, we ran this chemical in rodents and found cancer. And therefore ... .' "
Dr. Gallo added that cancer was a complex disease. "There is a gene and environment interaction, and the environment is much broader than just chemicals," he said. "The challenge is to figure out what is the role of the gene and how does the lifestyle and environment overlay that gene."
And science, he said, is just not there yet.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
9 Apr 2006 @ 11:43 by jazzolog @188.8.131.52 : Lift Consciousness, Transcend Body
After the Initiation into the brush of death, one looks at teachings with a different eye.
I especially watch for useful lessons on Palm Sunday. Good Glory, here one is~~~
Sunday, April 9, 2006 -
"Jesus symbolizes our I AM identity. His going up to Jerusalem means our taking the last step in unfoldment preparatory to the final step, when the personality is entirely crucified and the Christ triumphs.
Jesus riding the ass into Jerusalem means the fulfillment of the time when the spiritual I AM within us takes control and lifts all the animal forces up to the spiritual plane of mastery, purity, and peace. When the I AM takes charge of the body a new order of things is inaugurated. The vitality is no longer wasted. Through high and pure ideals the whole consciousness is raised to a higher standard.
The hosannas of the rejoicing multitude and the spreading of their garments and branches of trees before Jesus, represent joyful obedience and homage that all the thoughts in one's consciousness give when an error state of mind is overcome. 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.' "
Quotation taken from page 189 of his book Keep A True Lent [link]
And from www.renaissanceunity.org this prayer~~~
In preparation for the resurrection, we release and surrender the past.
We embrace a new consciousness and a new way of being.
Your spirit makes a way in us for new life.
Thank You God.
17 Oct 2016 @ 17:47 by trio4d @184.108.40.206 : togel online hongkong
was very helpful and very useful
articles that you provide very helpful and nice to everyone thanks
Other entries in Natural Health & Healing
4 Nov 2015 @ 15:32: Witnessing and Calming Thought Storms
23 Sep 2015 @ 17:34: Om Ah Hum Mantra
2 Jun 2010 @ 19:59: Braco Healing
25 May 2010 @ 08:09: The Scent of Lilacs. . .
27 Apr 2008 @ 09:42: ENHANCING DIVINITY VIA CANDLES, INCENSE, FINE MUSIC
27 Mar 2008 @ 18:10: Aromatic Blessings Article - March 25 - 2008
27 Nov 2007 @ 09:22: Exposed! (to plastic)
6 Oct 2007 @ 18:14: The Impotence Pandemic
14 Aug 2007 @ 17:32: Notes from NGH 2007
9 Aug 2007 @ 20:45: Global StressOut Program - Update