Federica wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2026 4:19 pm Ashvin, you are completely missing the meaning of my post.
What Moore says could very well be completely false. Let me repeat, I happen to have no idea since I read nothing from him, and it plays no role to my point here anyway. The point is, you stated that conventional science would never take a look at these views and say "Oh wait, our standard view has been missing something. Our theories were incomplete". You literally put it in these terms here. You said it would NEVER happen that science would say, maybe something is missing.
So, first, you have mocked me for proposing that it could happen, and on top of that you have turned around my viewpoint as if it were a proof that I ignore or don't understand the phenomenological pipelines, being unable to work through them properly.
And - ironically enough - a few days later I happen to bump into a (probably) physicalist, recognized health scientist and professor - yeah, isn't it MEGA COOL that a physicalist says that?- and guess what, he and his community are literally saying,"This heart-is-not-a-pump idea is SO COOL!". They are saying what you mockingly stated conventional science would never say: "Oh wait, it turns out that none of our ideas in physics, chemistry, and so on, rooted in sensory observation and intellectual-mathematical analysis, can properly account for these properties of pendulums, water, motor nerves, blood flow, etc".
Alan Cohen wrote:This [the idea that the heart is not a pump but a vortex] is so cool, at several levels. The heart functions via vortex and vacuum, not just pump! 1. Another beautiful example of how our existing models are often far over-simplified, particularly in biology. 2. The beauty of spirals, all through our bodies! 3. These vortices contribute to electromagnetic fields in our bodies. The full implications are far from understood! 4. Natural selection leverages so many forces, principles, and processes in parallel to achieve astounding results!"
https://substack.com/@alancohen888903/n ... 1?r=1qj4a6
Now to me this looks like, by your unfair expressions, you have simply deserved to be taken down a peg by the facts. Notice, I didn't even search for this evidence that current science actually can flow with the (true or false it doesn't matter) idea of the vortex heart. So if I were you, I would just take it gracefully now, instead of harping on the phenomenological pipelines for the thousandth time. Simply recognize that your mocking and assuming attitude was probably not the best soul attitude and communication choice. Here you have such a great opportunity to come across as a mature spiritual scientist, if you only are able take it gracefully...
You are only digging the hole of misunderstanding deeper, Federica. First, it is simply disingenuous for you to suggest that your point had nothing to do with the accuracy of Moore's indications. You brought it up in reference to your previous suggestion that we (Cleric and myself) are 'missing something' about the focal plane dynamics of the heart and nerve systems. You obviously have a great deal of sympathy for these indications, as that has been the recurring focus of your posts on this forum over the last few months. You are desperately trying to show that I am wrong to say there is something missing in your orientation, that we are the ones failing to understand Steiner's lectures properly, and that the focal plane research is beginning to confirm his understanding. This is extremely obvious to everyone, so please don't pretend otherwise.
Secondly, the professor you are now referencing is an exact confirmation of what I stated. He is an example of someone who looked at these shaky indications of something vaguely spiritual in the functioning of the cardiovascular system and said, "Natural selection leverages so many forces, principles, and processes in parallel to achieve astounding results!". In other words, these indications were seamlessly fitted into his already established physicalist perspective and conceptual palette. That is exactly what I was pointing to in my previous comment, and why it is simply a failure to understand the inner dynamics when we imagine that these indications might suddenly jolt various scientists out of their slumber. That is literally like imagining that some combination of dream experiences will provide the dream character with an intuitive orientation to his waking state from which the dream imagery takes shape. Your whole AP approach banks on that possibility through 'sporadic flashes of intuition', but people like Cohen further illustrate why it will never happen.
On top of all of that, it is amazing to me that you don't even care whether Moore's indications are false, and you claim that it is irrelevant to your underlying point. That suggests your underlying point is simply to win an abstract argument for its own sake. It has nothing to do with helping people actually develop a healthy orientation to spiritual reality. Your agenda here is slowly turning against the very spirit of spiritual science. You are starting to take comfort in the fact that other people are quoting the same flawed indications you have quoted, adopting the same flawed orientation that you are falling into. It's sad, Federica, and I hope it is just a temporary phase you are going through.
Obviously, nothing that I write is helping the situation at this point, no matter how clearly and logically I state these things. Therefore, I will stop engaging you on this entire topic. It feels like, despite my best efforts, I am only fueling your misorientation at this point, because you so desperately want to 'prove me wrong', no matter what the cost to that orientation.