Ayn Rand's Philosophy - Parents inform yourselves

The danger I saw in Rand's books goes much further than I explored in my last entry. Rand created the philosophy of Objectivism. What is a Philosophy? It is nothing else but a worldview. Her philosophy base is “that reality exits independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic. The only moral and purpose of such a life is the pursuit of one's happiness. Respect for individual rights is important. Mind does not create reality – but discovers reality. Everything has an inescapable nature. We observe the world and form conclusions – like we do in science. Reason is the only way to gain knowledge about the world. The ideal economic system is the laissez faire capitalism, a system where men deal with one another, not as victims, executioners, masters or slaves, but as traders, by free voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man can obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as policemen that protect man's rights.”¹

Objectivism comes from 'being objective'. We encounter problem one in Rand's claim. Who can be objective? Is there any human being that can be objective? Don't we all have our own self-interests? Don't we all wear colored glasses through which we view the world? “To be objective someone has to be independent of the thing they are perceiving”² How is a human to be independent of humanity? Further Werner Heisenberg found in physics that the act of studying something changes its properties. “The study of culture, language or thinking is obviously more affected by the studier than particle physics is since it is the creature studying itself. According to David Hume, we cannot know anything about the external world since all we know is the statistical patterns of the past. You cannot know if the sun will rise tomorrow, simply because it has risen every day of your life so far...our perception of the external world is only a perception, not a means of gaining knowledge. Kierkegaard pointed out that the 'objective' is of no relevance, because humans are inherently subjective entities. They are particular individuals at particular times and places, with particular thoughts and values etc. A standpoint that is divorced from all this (truly objective) would be useless to humans because it has nothing to say about everything humans are.”³

Since individualism is one of Rand's promoted values, she contradicts herself even if it was possible to be objective as a human. Individualism and objectivity cannot go together.

The second problem I see has to do with her claim to reality. What is reality? Are reality only things I can touch and see, smell, taste and hear? If I can hear something another cannot hear (maybe because I have better hearing) is it then not anymore reality, because not everyone can hear it? It seems everyone would have to agree then on a certain reality. Such a reality and what constitutes that reality needs to be then learned. However, if it needs to be learned it does not constitute a true reality. A true reality would not have to be learned it would have to be recognized by everyone as reality.

Babies touch to learn about their environment. In the beginning, they touch things but they do not know what the object is until they are taught the name as well as what function it serves. Then reality as their parents see it starts to have meaning. A reality without meaning might as well be a dream. Let us say if there were a creature from another planet in this world that has never experienced the reality of this world, they would not know what to do with the things in our world, would not be able to identify their use. Hence experience is essential in order to understand, see and make sense of, or reason, in what we call reality. Only if we understand that reality can we claim we see facts and respond to the facts using logic. The facts are that, for example, someone came in and took the wallet out of my friend's pocketbook. Using logic, I can try to deduct what happened. Did that person greet me during this act and talk friendly? Did this person look about guiltily? Did they offer an explanation? Was it someone I knew? Was it a friend, or friend of my friend, who might have needed to retrieve something for her? All these things can give a clue, but unless I ask the direct question of my friend whether or not that person, friend or not had the permission to take that wallet, I will never know what happened. The same fact may still portray a different reality for different people depending on each of their values.

For example, Dagny in “Atlas Shrugged” valued the railroad tracks and the trains. Often Rand referred to it as a network, a backbone. The real facts were, there were metal tracks to many places on which trains went all throughout the country. The rest is value, the network, the backbone. Values are always subjective and cannot be easily discarded even while one is making observations.

If an other-planetary creature would see an avalanche coming from a mountain he would not be able to respond accordingly to how one would need to respond in such a situation. Since according to Rand intuition is nonexistent, he would have no inner motivation to respond. He most likely would not run and save himself. The fact is that a huge pile of snow is coming off the mountain. The next fact is that houses are buried below it. If the creature were lucky, he would have been spared. All he saw was a white wall coming down from a vertical thing we call mountain and then cover a few boxes, which we call houses. Seeing facts cannot stay just facts. If logic must and can be learned, then the conclusion for the creature would be: wall comes down; little houses below become flat, white wall covers them. If he did not learn what follows logically, his response would not be proper to what a human would expect. It still would take the experience of having been in a house before and interacted with people in those houses, to know that there are people in them. And still another experience that those people were most likely impacted and the experience that such a situation can actually cause injury or death and that these two outcomes were most likely not desired by those people. Another experience would have to have been that in such a case one would ordinarily take certain steps and actions. The situation would require us as moral beings to respond accordingly. As for example, sending in rescue crews to unbury the people trapped in their homes. Nevertheless, I suppose it depends what you define as moral. If you are a member of a selfish society your personal happiness, your highest goal, saving yourself, or not bothering with something so cumbersome and unhappy, might be the highest moral. Here is the influence of value again.

The other-planetary creature would never connect the dots, whether or not he is moral. Facts alone do not cut-it, logic can only go so far. The experience of pain of having someone you loved injured or die will have to give life to this logic and let in the emotions, which are so distrusted by Rand so that appropriate action can be taken. Hence, I believe that emotions (and experiences) give the motivation to act when we observe certain facts and give life to the logic with which we interpret the facts. It is through the feeling world that we know what produces happiness or sorrow. If we disregard feelings, how do we know when we are happy?

Rand claims that reason is the only way to gain knowledge about the world. To be able to reason requires a knowledge based on a set of experiences in order to draw conclusions. Even in the material world we need to have experienced what a thing does. Past experiences are the basis to judge present experiences and happenings we observe. We must internalize what we gather through our senses and respond through feelings to that what we experience, otherwise we might as well be robots.

Rand claims that mysticism and the supernatural is mindless mush, or something to that effect! There are several problems with that. Mysticism as well as what we call reality is based on experiences. Given, each has its own set of experiences, nonetheless they are experiences. Mystical experiences can not be experienced on the outside like in reality, but on the inside of a person. Dr. Newberg, a neuroscientist writes, “No two people perceive the world, or God, in the same way, because no two human brains begin with the same genetic code.” ⁴ The fact that each individual is created in such an intricate way, can only point to a vast intelligence, or God. Having such an individual experience makes it impossible for more than one person to notice the same mystical experiences and awareness. However, many others will have similar experiences and by communication and comparisons one will take the experience one had, lets say for example 'peace' and gather that most likely the other person had also an experience of peace by the described properties or sensations. Reason is not the only way to know things as Rand claims, there is an awareness which is based on a different set of experiences which will give us knowledge. That very awareness, if practiced with discipline can push through walls of lack of understanding through which reason cannot push.

The hopeful thing is that Neuroscience has started to prove that this awareness exists by monitoring and measuring the disciplines that cause changes in the brain of people who claim mystical experiences and awareness. Mystics have known a long time about this awareness and knowledge, but since we live in a world of materialism and reason, the mystical knowledge needs to be proven by the language of the materialistic world so that it can be understood. Dr. Andrew Newberg a renowned neuroscientist and therapist Mark Robert Waldman have recorded evidence from brain-scan studies, which has wide reaching implications.

Not only do various spiritual practices but also secular meditation, which are some of the disciplines to obtain that awareness, reduce stress, they slow down the aging process, increase feelings of security, compassion and love. Those very feelings are essential for a harmonious society and help people live empathetically. It is my notion that without the ability to have empathy we are merely selfish savages.⁵

The promotion of leaving feelings by the wayside as Rand's philosophy proposes would leave us blind to quite a few areas necessary for a happy life in the world. Let us now look at other objections.

A website which serves as study-guide for the “Anthem” http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/ has following objections to Rand’s Philosophy:

Self-interest can easily end up in monopolies “created by men who prize only money. Consequently, anti-trust law and increased Federal regulation in the US has altered the American understanding of capitalism, resulting in a more restricted system where self interest is checked by law.” ⁶ In Rand’s system, we would not have to worry about oppression by government, by about oppression by the wealthy and elite.

In addition, if my highest goal is happiness, and that which I pursue is not the happiness of another person but his or her unhappiness, we would enter a serious conflict. Physical force is forbidden in Objectivism, one of the good things in her philosophy, but then how do I get my happiness if the other person finds it intruding on their happiness? Do I accept half happiness? Alternatively, if the situation was reversed, will the other person accept half happiness? On the other hand, who is entitled to happiness...only people with money? Do you see the flaw?

Proof of an imperfect system is that Rand could not live by her own philosophy. “She jokingly called a group of her disciples the 'Collective’s, who headed the Objectivist movement during the mid-twentieth century. (The 'Collective' is something she writes against, as oppressive governments). Although her writings encouraged people to think for themselves, within the movement, her word was considered law, and disagreement tended to either be suppressed or cause schisms over the concept of ideological purity. Even her personal preferences in music were to be adopted by those within the movement, and her strong personality merely reinforced this manifestation of what some have accused to be a cult.”⁷

The other objection comes from feminism. Her female characters even though intelligent “take a place at the male heroes' side as their lovers and disciples.”⁸ The women are dominated. In the Fountainhead, Dominique Francon was raped but her reaction is one of joy. If Roak would have treated her in a kind way she would have loathed him, she claimed. That is abnormal, perverse, harmful, and unfit to read for young girls. By the way, violent sexual behavior (not necessarily rape) is also found in Atlas Shrugged. This re-enforces the female as weak (and non-thinking, not sure that is her intention) and an old pattern of male dominance, one which has even given way to sex slavery. In the end, as we can find with many cult leaders, is that she could not live up to her own ideology. The very things she rejected, God, the supernatural, would be the very things that might have enabled her to live up to high ideals of the human race. Why did her ideal not work? Objectivism embraces justice alone and disregards forgiveness and mercy. The problem is that no person (not even Rand) is perfect enough to put herself in judgment of another; hence, forgiveness and mercy are the only final options. As Rand claims that everything has an inescapable nature, then the inescapable nature of one human and the inescapable nature of another human could certainly have been a problem to each of them. That problem can only be solved by forgiveness and benevolence. Pure judgment would have had to eliminate or at least restrict one or the other thus forfeiting one or the other's happiness. Rand might have thought she was perfect and thought she lived by her philosophy; it was certainly her happiness she obtained. I am not so sure it was the happiness of her disciples. Hence, she too was/is in need of absolution and forgiveness from those around her, whether she abhorred the thought or not.

Reflections:

After reading both, this and the blog entry titled :"Insidious Onslaught" take a deep breath and reflect. Ask yourself following questions:

1. Are my children worth the time for me to read Rand's books if they are required in school?

2. What are the values I want to teach my children?

3. How, if at all do these books promote those values?

4. How  do these books hinder those values I want to teach?

5. Do I feel that these books are harmful to my child and do I need to talk to the teacher?

6. What in these books when I read them bothered me most or confused me most and how will those same passages impact my child?

7. Are these books worth reading for the sake of an open mind?

8. Does my child have a solid enough value system to be confronted with this philosophy?

9. Do I have enough time to help my child understand this philosophy in comparison to our own values?

1Http://www.atlassociety.org/what_is_objectivism (accessed 3/17/13)

2Http://moniyawlinguist.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-insider-vs-the-outsider-and-the-impossibility-of-the-objective-view/ (accessed 3/18/2013.)

3Http://moniyawlinguist.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-insider-vs/-the-outsider-and-the-impossibility-of-the-objective-view/

4Andrew Newberg, MD, and Mark Robert Waldman, God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist. (New York: Ballantine Books, 2010), pg.105.

5Andrew Newberg, MD, and Mark Robert Waldman, God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist. (New York: Ballantine Books, 2010), Cover, pg. 18.

6 http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/ (accessed 3/17/13)

7 http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/

8http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/

© 2013 Angelika Mitchell 

Insidious onslaught

Not long ago I was substitute teaching for a Language Arts teacher. The students, who were middle school age, were reading “The Anthem” by Ayn Rand. The Students hated this book and found it boring, so I decided to read it to make my own judgment. I found the problem to be much more than just boredom for the students. The author was promoting questionable values embedded in this novel.  Then, as I read more of her novels, I realized she promoted a whole philosophy which seems to aim to shut down sharing, giving and any of the compassionate attributes.

First, who is Ayn Rand, the author? Rand grew up in Russia and was educated in the Soviet Union. She studied History and Philosophy. She saw the Bolsheviks confiscate her father’s pharmacy during the Russian revolution. The Communist regime (which rose out of the Bolshevik revolution)  caused periods of near starvation for her family. She obviously suffered greatly from this tragedy so that she dedicated her whole live to write about evil governments and the evil of government function as taxation, regulation and social services to the poor and sick. She divided her whole world into makers and takers. The latter she also calls looters or leaches of Society. She declares taxing the wealthy (or Billionaires and Millionaires) to fund education for impoverished children as immoral. I am thinking that her writings were a great therapy for her losses. Her obsession might indicate that she might have suffered from PTSD. It represents a voice the Russians may have needed to hear at that particular time (1934 to 1957); it is a voice to help oppressed people to find themselves but lacking key elements. That voice is a wrong voice for the United States. We never experienced such kind of oppression and our frame of mind is different, in which we read this book. The only oppression that might occur will not come from the government but from the wealthy, the very people who fear oppression so much and manipulate government officials. The oppressions in this country exist but Rand's ideology cannot be successfully transplanted into a different country with a different outlook at a different age. This transplant may actually be quite harmful when used as previously stated. The problem is that we do not need more encouragement to selfishness in an already so penetratingly selfish society, not in the year 2013 in America!

“The Anthem”describes a society in which central government controls everyone. One young man, who was forced to become a street sweeper, stands out and defies the rules. He makes a discovery and by doing so he becomes a law breaker, because in their minds something only exists if all the people agree on it. He runs away, a girl follows him and they come to an abandoned house in which he finds for the first time the word 'I” in a book. Their highest goal becomes to create a new generation and society and develop their EGO. One of the most disturbing things about this book was that the ‘spiritual human’ never got mentioned or considered. Having children and furthering the intellect and ego was the primary focus. There was a sense of intense selfishness that spread across the language of the whole book. I had also a sense that there were certain current political values promoted by this teacher having her students read this book.

Sure enough, later on I was introduced through You Tube to“The Daily Take”, a channel that describes a new law proposed by Idaho Senator John Goedde, who chairs that State's Education committee. The Senator proposed that all students in order to graduate need to read Ayn Rand's book“Atlas shrugged.” The Senator explained that the book made his son a good Republican and gave him a sense of responsibility. Reading some of the rhetoric, I am not sure the bill will be able to be enforced. Yaron Brook, ARI's executive director said that it is not the job of lawmakers to dictate what high school students read, he does say, however, that “every student in America would benefit from reading Atlas Shrugged.” He goes on to claim that the book shows what is required to restore the ideals of the Founding Fathers. He says it is an American book: “a hymn to the ideals of individualism, capitalism and the free human mind.” So I decided to read “Atlas shrugged.”

I have not heard of Rand proclaiming herself as an atheist, but her writings certainly point to it.  And her worldview becomes obvious on the Ayn Rand Foundation's website. I think it shows the depth of anti-spiritual and anti-morality, that Republican leaders (or even teachers) would use the message of a book, which is clearly not a message for our country or age, as an abuse to find an insidious way to manipulate young people's minds into thinking a certain political way. After reading “Atlas Shrugged”, I felt a sense of hopelessness for our country. Any compassionate human being, whether Christian, other religious, or just a kind person would basically fall, according to the philosophy of this book, into taker, looter, incompetent slug, the weak and immoral, yes even evil.

Reading this book felt like I was being sucked into a black hole of an upside down value system, which eliminated any Christian values by its sheer language. Rand's constant searching for human perfection along with several claims that humans have to be forced into doing things, has some Hitlerism undertones. I substantiate this by the written words on page 93. We are told about the purity of the human in the character of Francis d'Anconia. Francis d’Anconia is portrayed as follows; “it was if the centuries had sifted the family's qualities through a fine mesh, had discarded the irrelevant, the inconsequential, the weak, and had let nothing through except pure talent, as if chance, for once, had achieved an entity devoid of the accidental.” Really!? Its chance creating humans? God doesn't do it perfectly enough? Where are our abilities coming from? This is not the first time she refuses to name God or a greater power as source of all things. Another time God is referred to as some “dark secret mysteries” (Pg.499) in the most demeaning way. One of the characters philosophized about man (pg. 131). “Man? What is man? He is a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur.” It makes it more troubling that Rand has no problem to use God in swear words. Rand makes up her own idea of a “Time-savings account of one's life where moments of time are stored in the pride of having been lived” (pg. 367) instead of acknowledging our accountability to all humans and foremost to God. A Billionaire says to another one (Pg. 149): “It is against the sin of forgiveness that I want to warn you.” Yet, Love and Forgiveness are the most important teachings of the Christian faith, teachings that are essential to our very survival.

While making money is a necessity, making money is considered a virtue in this novel, certainly not one I can find in the Bible. The question of what is important in life comes up several times. D'Anconia says to his friend (pg. 100): “Dagne, there's nothing of any importance in life -except your work. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that.” There are various monologs of her various characters in her books, which are long and tedious, as well as obviously intended to indoctrinate its readers. When society goes to hell in her novel and the few Billionaires who claim to be the only minds of this society pull out and create their own little secret haven in the mountains of Colorado, they claim to be the victims of a corrupt government and a demented mob. In that valley, “giving” is immoral. The word “giving” must never be used. Rand compares the Billionaires to Greek gods. She describes them in all their perfection in length. Obviously they see themselves as gods who justify in the end even murder to rescue their own all in the name of their perfection. As long as emotion is not involved anything they do is acceptable, including adultery. They all subscribe to following “sacred” oath: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.”

I read this book with Biblical passages in mind; after all, I am a pastor and chaplain. I wonder what would have happened to the world if Jesus had said: "I will never live for the sake of another man?" Let’s look in contrast at Christian values. You are first a Child of God, a Spiritual Being with many gifts. All our abilities, all our great work comes from that, not the other way around as Rand proclaims. Another character in her book states: (pg. 96) “When I die I hope to go to heaven, whatever the hell that is... and I want to be able to afford the price of admission.....I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all-that I was a man who made money.” She obviously never heard of, or read the parable of the man who builds barns to store up his wealth and was called a fool, being called away right then and there. Love, compassion and forgiveness are either a sin or at least a weakness in her opinion. She refers to God and the Saints as ghosts in heaven (pg. 1011). She even indicates that the rational mind is higher than God.

  If these kind of values are American it makes me wonder about this Senator, our teachers, and the students who become influenced by them. The book may teach individualism and capitalism but not a free human mind. The only value I see in this book is the message that people should never give up, work hard as well as take responsibility and use their brain! Indeed, we have too many couch potatoes all over our country. Also too much government is indeed a problem. However, I do not see that Rand’s book is the only one that can bring these problems to our awareness. A book much better suited might be“The Ultimate Gift” by Jim Stovall as I am sure there are other books as well.

In may opinion Rand's novel is dangerous to read for high school children. These young scholars are at an age of not having a fully formed or solid value system. I encourage parents to read Rand's books so that they become aware of the danger. Random teachers will use these books, because the Ayn Rand foundation will donate them freely. When I checked the Ayn Rand Foundation's web site, they have so many requests for the "Anthem" that they have to back order.
Her books seem to support a certain political value system at the moment even though they were never intended for such a purpose. (Antigovernment yes, but for the support of a particular party, no!) I urge all parents to be on guard before the insidiousness with which politicians and public education are trying to brainwash our children and youth and take a stand!

© 2013 Angelika Mitchell

Thoughts on Medicine

There is only one medical system accepted in the United States. This medical system has grown into an entity in which the bottom-line alone counts, causing many to either put their house on the market to pay for medical bills, hopefully find a competent holistic practitioner who will help improve their health for much less, or gamble that doing nothing will work. This often produces a very stressful and sometimes hopeless situation.

Just like our idea that we can educate everyone the same way (mass production...that stems from the mind frame of industrialization), we also think that everyone can be treated the same way if they are sick, regardless of age, culture, whether they are white, Asian or African American, south or north of the equator, female or male. (North of the equator water going down the drain will go clockwise, while south of the equator it will go counter clockwise). There are obviously influences that need to be considered in medicine and everything we do.

There is an enormous fear that pervades medicine in America that revolves around the threat of losing money. The bottom-line is definitely the cause of medicine having become so impersonal. If there is any threat of losing money the medical system will do everything in their power to protect their interests. By doing so, we have a monopoly as well as an oppressive system of healthcare in place which needs repair. There are several very effective healthcare systems in the world. The Homeopathic system, the Chinese system, the Auruyvedic system are only a couple of good examples. Queen Elizabeth of England for example uses a Homeopathic physician. The man is from India. I do not remember his name anymore, but he has traveled to the US as well as other places to give talks and classes to anyone who will listen.

Currently, a court can order a parent to take their underage son or daughter to a treatment center for cancer. That is definitely making it an oppressive system. What if these parents wish to find another system to deal with the disease? Considering how many misdiagnoses happen, hospital deaths, hospital generated infections, over-medication and other major problems who can fault a parent to look for all possibilities?

CNN brought to the airways a program on 25 Shocking Medical Mistakes. I will only mention a few of these here:

Treating the wrong patient for the wrong disease;

Wrong dosages in medication; tools forgotten and sewed up inside patients during surgery;

Toxic transplants, which cost patients who hoped to recover their lives;

An air bubble in blood after a central line was removed, again resulting in death of patient who should have been ready to go home and this does not include the many other fatal consequences.

In comparison, mistakes in other systems do not have as tragic outcomes. Obviously, patients die in every system. However, those systems are also less invasive and hence will do in most instances less harm. Up to now, people have been warned against using herbs for their flu or colds with the guise that they mask symptoms causing the lack of the antibiotics they need or possibility of death from lack of treatment. At the same time, we have people coming to emergency rooms who get prescriptions for which they cannot afford to pay. Several people have died because of that.

Would not Echinacea and Vitamin C at least give these patients some help and hopefully prevent the worst? Alternative methods have proven useful to me, as I do not have medical insurance. I have treated most any health problem (even serious ones) for decades now with homeopathic remedies, or if they were not available with herbs, reflexology and other means.

Are we really practicing better medicine? Since every medical system suffers under some incompetence (or shall we call it “quackery”), should we not humble ourselves and, open our eyes to other effective ways to treat illness, by remembering ‘to do no harm’. Can each system do everything? We fall short in quite a few areas! By devaluing other systems, our own system shows a great ignorance fueled by fear. This would be amusing if it was not so sad and led to a witch-hunt. Unless we come to that humility, it will be difficult to make progress in medicine. In medical science, we do make plenty of progress, however it is more and more often resulting in Frankenstein medicine methods; i.e. human guinea pigs. Yet we still cannot cure the common cold. Our medical system is obsessed with disease not with health and wellness. Otherwise, we would pay the doctors for keeping us well and deduct money from their salary if we get ill.

Now let me present a new direction of thought. In Christian thought, we will come across the term Imago Dei. Imago Dei means nothing less than that we as humans have a God spark within us, we are created in God's Image. If you are not a Christian, that may be difficult to wrap your mind around. Bear with me, if a Great Mind was at the source of all creation, (and even the big bang would have needed a thought and Will behind it), we would have a piece of that mind in us, for we all are God's creation. If that Greater Mind, as experienced by many as benevolence, true peace, love and God connectedness could be found and experienced again, disease would not exist. Remembering who we are gives us the power to heal ourselves.

So what is disease? I believe disease results from humanity shutting down their connectedness to the Greater Mind (God, Universal power). God or the Greater Mind created all that is. Hence, our innermost essence is benevolent creativity. By stalemating this benevolent creativity through fear, the bottom-line, and resulting oppressive tactics, we cause that piece of us which belongs to the Greater Mind to stagnate and go into hiding. Of course, we have oppressed that benevolent creative energy for hundreds of years in one way or another, this is not a recent phenomena. Hence, I believe for that reason disease is possible, since we have abandoned the wisdom of our benevolent creativity, illness has become just something we deal with, a normal occurrence. However, I am not sure it should be considered a normal occurrence.

There is good news, now there are some doctors who are doing research in the “Mind-Body connection”. They are in the process of proving that our mind and spirit, our thoughts and emotions have an enormous impact on our health and ability to heal.

This brings the discussion back to the beginning of this entry; different people need different medical treatments. What we need is an open mind to all the available possibilities and the humility to accept that our western medical system is not the only one that works in treating diseases.

Western/allopathic medicine separates itself feeling superior, while other medical systems could complement it and increase the base knowledge. Some doctors who are researching other options will hopefully change that in the coming years. In many ways, our medical system acts as religion did centuries ago, it engages in a witch-hunt against those who differ in opinion, practice and knowledge. The faiths do not want to come together to learn more about their creator and each other’s knowledge and  allopathic medicine does not want to engage in conversation with other medical systems. I leave you with the thought that contrary to this, we are made to be in one another’s company, learning and sharing information, caring and love. Contrary to what we are taught, there also is more than one way to do medicine!!!

Documentaries you might enjoy to watch (available on Netflix)

“Burzynski “(a successful cancer doctor who is enduring the witch hunt of the medical establishment)

“The Business of Being Born”

“Pregnant in America”

“The new medicine”

Open your mind:

Read up on various types of medicine and treatments. Read especially about things you think you already know enough about. You might be surprised what you might learn.


© 2013 Angelika Mitchell