Posts Tagged ‘energy’

Quantum Entanglement and Codependence

February 24, 2017

QE bodies.jpg“Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.” ~ Wiki

Instead of looking at the human body as shapes or organs or even cells, we can view the human body at the sub-atomic level.  Cells (all 50 trillion of them) are made of various molecules which in turn are constructed of atoms.  At the sub-atomic level, we are getting down to the nitty gritty!

The current theory of Quantum Entanglement implies we are connected to everything in the Universe!  I have a hard time getting my head around this.  It does offer a limited explanation for astrology, which focuses on our galaxy, with one exception.  Humans interpret the connective impact of the stars quantum entanglement with us. Humans are whack jobs! Even the astrological computer programs are designed by humans and may vary.  I think of the hurricane projection maps, all indicating a slightly different path.  One is usually way out in left field, and sometimes it is right.

Let’s get back to us.  I believe humans are fantastic creatures, conned out of their innate abilities by authorities.  The con job was run on us so we could “fit into society.”  This is a “society” determined by others in “authority” removing our innate abilities.  When somebody has a bunch of letters behind their name, like “PhD,” we give them authority because they are learned in one or more fields of philosophy in those fields.  That philosophy is determined by precedent and the precedent is determined by kings and priests going back millennia.

For example, we are told by various authorities, “love is a feeling or emotion produced by brain chemistry.”  I see love as a spectrum of energy, impacting us at the genetic level, producing the proteins that give us the feelings.  There are more feelings of love besides those associated with erotic love, where science seems to focus.

I look at love as a universal, omnipresent energy.  It is not limited to humans!  Yet, although many mammals exhibit the behaviors of love, we cannot think of primal man as a loving creature?  I do!  Our modern DNA is fogged by methyl groups created by imaginary fears: fears we were burdened with dating back at least 5000 years ago. This limits our perception and our innate abilities.

When we transmit an electric signal down copper wire it travels a little bit slower than the speed of light.  Split particles, one reacting to stimulation of the other simultaneously, are not burdened by the speed of light.  If love is energy, as all matter is standing waves of energy, then we might be dealing with instantaneous “speed” or the speed of love?  Copper wire is also matter but electricity slows down due to friction.  This isn’t quite right, but hopefully you get the idea.

The mammals and primal man went through a process or “dance” of dependency.  The infants were nourished from their mother’s breast.  Mother taught their cubs and kits to play as they played with each other.  The kits and cubs were groomed by their parents as their parents groomed each other.  These are behaviors of love.  Cubs and kits were fed by their parents until the youngsters learned to hunt and forage for themselves, becoming independent.  The kill saw shared with the family.  Counter dependent behavior was met by exclusion from the family or pack so they learned to hunt and forage or died.  As the kits and cubs grew into the family they learned interdependence, where although there was an Alpha, his or her presence was inclusive of all the others, rather than being separate.

Adult co-dependence is a learned stopping point in our development.  Women are told men must take care of them.  This is a false extension of protection: another behavior of love.  Relying on this, women do many things they really don’t want to do for various reasons and so do men.  Many times for the same reasons.  Co-dependence is essentially based in fear.  Women will have sex for physical, goal attainment, emotional and insecurity reasons.  So will men.  In my book (literally) the best reason it to transmit love energy.  All the other reasons pale!

Of course sexually intimate relationships are not the only co-dependent relationships.  In modern “society” we have co-dependent relationships with just about everything and everybody.  This is a failure of our culture.  As co-dependents, particularly with “authorities” we are unable to comfortably break this sick bond.  It is easier to get a divorce from a spouse and that can cost you the rest of your life!

What is important is our desire for unity, rather than security or pleasure.  This leads us to interdependence.  Here, at this point, we can ‘feel’ our inter-connectedness with everything: or at least all the stuff on this planet.  We don’t have to intellectually know it.  Primal man may have had no intellectual awareness of this connection, but simply felt it.  Until we become interdependent, growing through this co-dependency, we will never know what “miracles” await us.  This is a growth attained by, with, and through love.  We won’t need astrologers to tell us things about the future: we will know and act accordingly.  There are many other professions of today we will not need.  As I point out on my Facebook cover: “Once you fully know love, you will have access to everything you need to know.”

***

 

 

Sex: A Mechanism for Transmitting Love?

October 14, 2012

This is an opinion piece. Just because I believe it doesn’t mean it’s “true.” It’s origin is a long discussion on the Professional Sexologists’ discussion Linkedin site, started by an asexual sexual therapist.

It would almost appear that “Professional Sexologists” are addicted to the pleasure arising from sex and are attempting to enable the rest of the earth’s population to become addicted as well. However, since sex is a “normal “ animal function, we can’t be addicted to it. Therefore, there is no such thing as sex addiction and “I’m not one, because it doesn’t exist.”

Then, we have this asexual therapist defending her ground as others attempt to “cure” her, so that she, too, is enabled to derive pleasure from the sex act as they do. Well I’m an alcoholic with 28 years of sobriety, so please don’t offer me a drink!

In Dr. Cindy Meston’s study, “Why Humans Have Sex,” “expressing love” was #5 for women and “expressing affection” was #8 for men. Respondants listed more than one reason, as our reasons change from time-to-time, and #237 was “I wanted to give him AIDS,” but the bottom line was “it feels good.” Also near the bottom of the list at #227 was, “I wanted to see God,” so somebody is catching on.

There are some who say love is in us or from us. I agree, but do not limit love to human containment. Suppose love were also all around us like the earth’s magnetic field? Suppose we could let it in to augment what we already have and transmit it? Four hundred years ago, we knew that compass needles pointed to the North Star, but we had no knowledge of the Earth’s magnetic field. Same with love. We only have anecdotal and some scant empirical evidence of love’s power. (Science nor the establishment will fund research on love because there is no money in it and it might destroy the current economic system.)

Only from my own experience do I also believe that erotic love is the most powerful mechanism for transmitting love having the greatest positive impact on humans. (Note how I generalize.) But, SEX IS NOT THE ONLY WAY! We can transmit love with a smile. Usually a smile does not have the emotional energy of erotic love, so it takes more of them over a longer time period.

Consider Bernini’s “Ecstasy of St. Teresa.” It is one lousy example out of tens of thousands of human existence years and a current population of 7 billion. When I first saw a photo of it, I thought it was a joke Bernini played on the Church. That expression of ecstatic beauty is orgasmic! So, was St .Teresa a virgin having an asexual spiritual experience or was she a surrogate “church” for the priests of the day to consummate their marriage? I now believe the former.

We humans are a fantastic species, each of us unique, from our genetic make-up onward. One size does not fit all! The impact of love’s energy is different for each of us. Again in my opinion and believe system, love is good stuff.

The Sexual Paradigm and Love

April 10, 2012
(This is a paper I hope to present at the International Network for Sexual Ethics and Politics in Ghent, Belgium this August.)

DRAFT: 

The Sexual Paradigm and Love

Abstract:

                In 1974, Robert C. Solomon noted, “It is one of the dangers of conceptual analysis that the philosopher’s choice of paradigms betrays a personal bias, but it is an exceptional danger of sexual conceptual analysis that one’s choice of paradigms also betrays one’s private fantasies and obsessions”[1]  What Solomon did not recognize is the sexual paradigm under which we in Western civilization currently operate: pleasure and/or procreation: a political construct.   The paradigms to which he referred were but sub-sets of this one.  Further, it would seem that most researchers and others in the “sexual industry,” today look at sex with the blinders of this paradigm.  This paper suggests expanding the paradigm by including love and looking at both sex and love with a more objective view based on energy.  Energy divided by time is power.

            It is further suggested the power obtained by the individual through love is genetic in nature, however there is suffiecient anecdotal evidence to validate its existance regardless of its nature.

Body

              In Hindu mythology, the entire universe was created on the first orgasm of Shiva and Shakti, indicating this is a powerful experience.  In our current view of sex, we live with the paradigm sexual activity is only for pleasure and/or procreation.  The power of creation is ignored.  Eros, the god of love was originally “a primeval deity who embodied not only the force of erotic love but also the creative urge of ever-flowing nature, the firstborn Light for the coming into being and ordering of all things in the cosmos.”  Plato’s symposium changed that.

            Today, our grand sexual paradigm is that sex is either about pleasure or procreation or both.  Good scientists everywhere discuss, and even argue, over what brings the most pleasure to the greatest number of people, particularly women.  Since a lot of us are men, that is rather humorous on its face.  My research indicates women have much greater capacity for sexual pleasure than men, and we men are incapable of being in their bodies at a perceptive level.  All we can do is observe.  Further, most men limit orgasmic experience to the rush of endorphins accompanying ejaculation, believing, “that’s it.”

             Were I reading this, the first question I would ask, is what do 8000 year-old stories have to do with modern sexual politics?  The answer is, everything!  So, let us start with today’s paradigm, and then return to our history to see how we got here.

            There are many still suffering from Victorian prudery who would argue sexual pleasure is sinful… for everybody but themselves.  Throughout history, we oscillate on the pleasure question: pleasure is good or pleasure is bad.  This diverts us from looking at love as a part of the sex act.  Further, in the minds of the general public, and some scientists, the word “love” is specifically associated with the sex act, from which pleasure is derived.

             To understand how we might have arrived at  this sexual paradigm, I first would like to paraphrase three people.  First, Dr. Christopher Ryan who said, “Our cultivated ignorance (of sexuality) is devastating,” and “civilizations are based in greed.”[2]  Next, the founder of pseudo-psycho-sexual science, Dr. Sigmund Freud who exclaimed, “ Most of our neuroses are based in sex.”[3]  I don’t fully agree with much else they say, but they hit the mark with these statements.  Lastly, Napoleon Hill who said, “The combination of love, sex and romance can raise a man from mediocrity to the altitude of genius.”  Hill goes on to talk about “access to infinite intelligence,”[4] which I have discovered to be on an individual need to know basis.     

            During the hunter-gatherer phase of human development, before the advent of civilization, what did early man need to know?  Primarily where the food was and whether or not it was good to eat.  Where is the water?  Where can we find shelter?  How can we stay safe from animals that want to eat us?  If many had not answered these questions, we would not be here today.  I am less amazed by Australian aborigines ability to find water on their walkabouts than I once was.  They had a need to know and were directed to water.  Just before the Tsunami of 2004, native  villagers were heading for high ground while American and European tourists lolled on the beaches.  They, too, had a need to know.  Humans are fantastic creatures once we get out of our own way.

             To arrive at the conclusion that power, or “access to infinite intelligence” belongs in the paradigm, requires looking at both love and sex with a different set of glasses.  For the most part today we look at love as a feeling generated by brain chemistry.  This is a very narrow and anthropormorphic view of love.  There are many forms of love, mother love, brotherly love, etc., perhaps each generating their own version of brain chemistry.  Only erotic love has been studied by Fisher, et al[5].   Dr. Jenny Wade relates an example of this power in Transcendent Sex due to brotherly love.[6]  

            To understand how love can give us “access to infinite intelligence,” it is necessary to view love as energy.  It is suggested this energy has the power to modify our genetic code thereby creating the brain chemistry.  Where sexual desire is a function of the PVN in the hypothalamus, the effects of erotic love are more readily observed in the caudate nucleus and tegmentum.[7]  Further, orgasms based solely on sexual desire are observed to increase bloodflow in the right half of the brain[8],[9] whereas orgasms including love are observed in both halves of the brain.[10]

             Love has two attributes in common with energy: transmittal and transformation.  We may think of “transferring” love from one to the other, implying one’s feelings generated within the individual are for another.  However, we may be transmitting love through us to another.  

            The origin of this view comes from the story of Shiva, Parvatti and Kama.  Kama, god of love, was implored by the people of the Indus Valley, under attack by evil demons and spirits, to do something to get Shiva and Parvatti to have a son who would save them.  Kama shot Shiva with a arrow made from a flower as parvatti was walking by, and one result was Karttikeya, who save the people from the evil spirits and demons attacking them.  The other result was Shiva was angered at having his meditation interrupted so he hunted Kama, found him and focused the energy from his third eye on Kama.  Kama burst into flame leaving only a pile of ashes and this conditionless, boundryless, borderless love all about the world.  It is called ApAaga in Sanskrit, Agape in Greek and we call it unconditional love. 

            The next problem was how to model this, with the many forms of love.  I chose the visible light spectrum with Agapeas the light source.  This provides for the spectrum of the forms of love, our minds being the prism through which the light of love refracts. 

"Love's Prism" in Our Mind

 

            Since prisms blocked in various areas do not let all the light through, we are left with only a partial rainbow of colors.  I chose “chewing gum” to represent the memes and other blocks to this light.  They may also be thought of as the conditions we put on love. 
 

Love's Prism With "Chewing Gum" Blocking Energy

            As I was working with this, I noted the rainbow from this prism, in the position of the ancient symbol for man—the blade, was inverse to the position of the colors in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  If I inverted it to represent the early symbol for woman—the chalice, what would happen?  Do women see love differently than men? 

 

Female View of Love?

            The last part of this assumption is the energy of love has the power to impact and modify our genetic code.  We know in the fetal stage of development mutation (alteration of base pair) occurs, along with genes jumping from one chromosome to another and  recombination also occurs.  Genetic restructuring is now being performed on adults.  Why can not love be a genetic modifying agent?  This, of course, is simply speculation.  Anecdotal evidence form Enkidu’s transformation in The Epic of Gilgamesh, through the “Divine Enlightenment” of Tantra, to Napoleon Hill’s observations in 1937 would indicate the existence of this phenomenon.  It makes no difference if it is genetic modification or not.  It happens.

            Now we can look at adultery and other relationship forms with a different eye.  Did it occur during the hunter-gatherer age?  Probably, but not to the extent it did when women were diminished to economic commodities, belonging to their father.  Through out history thereafter women “belonged” to either father or husband having the status of chattel.  In many cultures today, women are still sold into marriage, or simply sold.

            What did the hunter-gatherer have that we don’t?  First, they were not laden with all the garbage ideas we have about sex, and were probably a lot happier with it than we are today.  Secondly, they did not have the barriers to love that we have today.  Thirdly, they probably had a lot more respect for everything, including their women.  We can see this respect today in indigenous peoples around the world.  But we call them “savages.”   They have nowhere near the desire we have for material things, although Western culture has tipped many toward greed.  Many cultures now practice polyandry, polygamy, omni-gamy, and possibly even circular monogamy.  I don’t know if the latter exists yet, but we humans are inventive. 

            Stephanie Coontz traced the history of marriage back to the beginnings of civilization and found it to be an economic institution.[11]  In the agrarian age, adjacent farmers could merge their fields through the marriage of the son of one to the daughter of the other.  These arranged marriages neglected the wishes of the children, as they have throughout history.  “Wishes” is a very weak word when primal forces are at work.  We know today women have the ability to smell a man’s MHC[12] and it is believed they can determine at least immuno-compatibility for the offspring.  We know not what other forces may be working as well.  We can certainly presume it would be very difficult for a woman to copulate with a man whose smell was offensive to her, even when he was freshly bathed.  Bathing itself, an unusual circumstance in those days.

            As villages grew into towns, and towns into cities, we had war.  Somebody had something somebody else wanted, so they amassed a force of men and took it.  “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy” is said to be coined by New York Senator William J. Marcey, referring to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828.  However, many tribal nations also live by this.  If we searched history for this phrase, we could probably find it, or something comprable, dating back thousands of years. 

            Men with “access to infinite intelligence” have a drawback for leaders.  They don’t believe the spin.  Spin is nothing new.  Brainwashing is nothing new.   Since not all marriages were arranged, men had a better opportunity of falling in love with a woman as their economic value was in its infancy.  This led to men applying the combination of love, sex and romance with amazing results for them.  They were not as likely to believe the exortations of the leaders of the day and resist military service.  Defense was one thing, but stealing from a nearby village was another.  This resistance had to be stopped!  Enter misogyny.

            If we put negative ideas about women in the heads of men, they will be more malleable and we can have more soldiers.  I use the word “soldier” loosely.  This also refers to “soldiers” of the fields, factories and other industries throughout history.   The myths about women began, and today, some women and a lot of men still believe them.   These are essentially conditions we put on love.

            Economics is about the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services from scarce resources.  Politics is about the control of those resources and the distribution of wealth created from those resources.  So, when we talk about the politics of sex, we should be looking at women as a resource, a valuable resource!  That is, a valuable resource to the individual man.  This is a resource that needs to be protected, rather than controlled.  By “protection” I do not mean legislated onto some pedestal, rather treated with far more respect than has been afforded them throughout the history of civilization.  However, with the power of love in a group of individuals, other resources are not as easily “controlled” by politics.  We now see this paradigm as a political construct.

            In order to “control” production of these resources: to have early farms and later industries grow larger, it was necessary to “control” the relationship between men and women.  As patriarchy grew, rules were laid down for women.  Daughters being chattel was but one of many.  Sexual myths were promulgated to divide us.  Women became “less than.”  Workers and soldiers were needed for farms and war.  Sons were valued over daughters to not only extend the patriarchy, but we are more easily manipulated into becoming soldiers and workers.  The war between the sexes began.

            A basic strategy of war is divide and conquer.  The current “war on women” is simply another battle in the war between the sexes, beginning at the dawn of civilization.  Most who wage this war today have no idea what they are doing or why.  After 10,000 years, it is just the way it is.  The tactics of this war are demonization, dismissal, denigration and deification.

            The early temples of Ishtar, Inanna and other goddesses were created to set some women apart as priestesses, implying they only, should be worshipped by men, while wives sat at home alone.  Divide and conquer.  This deification was carried over into the concept of motherhood to the extent during the Victorian era, wives were for procreation and mistresses were for pleasure.  An extreme result of this is the whore/Madonna complex underlying many relationships today in both genders.  It should be noted all women have essentially the same anatomical structures, but it appears cultural conditioning prevents both men and women from their full usage through love or pleasure.  The mind is both powerful and malleable.

            The myth of Lilith I knew nothing about until I started my research in this field a few years ago.  Yet, the “missionary position” was all I knew for most of my sexually active life.  It seems the purpose of that myth was to keep the male superior.  And Lilith, for wanting to get on top, was heavily demonized.  She was demonized in early Sumerian literature as a baby killer, but the Hebrew myth of the 13th Century had her consorting with demons, sleeping with men in their dreams to create more demons, and making Adam out to be a dummy.  He should have known the one on top does all the work.  Myths, like sea stories grow with the telling.  The most modern, Robert Graves’ version is probably the worst.

            We have dismissed women for centuries with, “Oh.  She’s just a woman.  What does she know?”   In the 19th Century, women who wished to enter the professional world were deemed hysterical and were given hysterectomies.   This of course removed anatomical structures that could be quite valuable to men.  But men have not considered women as a valuable resource for eons, except in rare cases.

            We continue to denigrate women, as is being done in the American Congress today with the media carrying the battle cry.  We neither recognize women as a resource nor the power of love to refine that resource for our benefit.  The paradigm of pleasure/procreation is still in gross operation to the detriment of men around the globe.

             We now can also see how the ancient stories of love, without the political construct of pleasure/procreation, can yield this power to men rendering the construct to a sick joke.  Neither procreation nor pleasure are “sick jokes.”  Rather it is the removal of love from the paradigm as a consideration.  Further, this removal may retard our evolutionary future.  It is the purpose of this paper for Sexologists everywhere to consider bringing love into the paradigm, showing the power of love to both genders.  “How ethical is this,” is a question only you may answer.


 

[1] Solomon, Robert C., Sexual Paradigms, J. Phil (11)336-345, 1974

[2]  Ryan, C., Jetha, C, Sex at Dawn, Harper Perennial, New York, NY, 2009

[3] The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay, W.W. Norton & Co., New York 1989

[4] Hill, N., Think and Grow Rich, Wilder Publications, LLC, Radford VA, 1937

[5] Why We Love, Fisher, H., Henry Holt & Co. (An Owl Book) New York, 2004

[6]  Wade, J., Transcendent Sex, Pocket Books, New York, NY, 2004

[7] Ibid. Fisher, Helen.

[8] Arnow, B.A., J.E. Desmond, L.L. Banner, G.H. Glover, A. Solomon, M.L. Polan, and S.W. Atlas. Brain activation and sexual arousal in healthy, heterosexual males, Brain 125:1014-23, 2002

[9] Janszky, J., A. Szucs, P. Halasz, C. Borbely, A. Hollo, P. Barsi, and Z. Mirnics, Orgasmic aura originates from the right hemisphere, Neurology 58:302-04. 2002.

[10] Ibid. Fisher, H.

[11] Coontz, S., Marriage, a History, Penguin Group (USA), 2006

[12] Meston, Cindy M., Buss, David M., Why Women Have Sex, Henry Holt and Co., New York, NY, 2009

Our Sexual Paradigm: Pleasure and/or Procreation

March 9, 2012

The human body is an amazing creation.  If we gathered all of the human biological scientists in the world in one place to tell us how it works, they would simply argue for 10 years.  But, thousands of years ago, somebody figured out why it works.  Essentially, the body is under control of the mind.  Control the mind and you control the body.

 For the last 5000 years, more or less, we have lived under the sexual paradigm of pleasure and/or procreation.  It is a political construct!  Under this construct, these are the only two aspects of sex.  This leaves us viewing women as either brood cows or pleasure palaces, either view implying male ownership.  Men are slowly learning that some women are smart, too.  We need new glasses.

 This is an easy political construct because both are obvious.  We are so focused on these aspects of human sex and sexuality we can see no other results.  There are many, most of which are “politically incorrect:” they belong to the occult.  Occult means, “beyond common knowledge.”  The knowledge is there, but needs to be applied differently to become common knowledge.  But this violates the political construct.  We have to think outside the box!

 From the occult, we hear a lot of ethereal words that make absolutely no sense to those of us who speak English.  We may grasp some vague understanding of what they are talking about, and we think we know, but are left flat later on.  Many of them use words to describe actual biological processes of which they know nothing in terms of biology.  I prefer hard science as a basis and do not mind using the word “idiopathic” rather than mysterious, mystical or spiritual.  They are all synonyms for, “Duh, I donno.”

 Political constructs are fabricated for purposes of diversion.  Tactics include deification, dismissal, and demonization.  Boy, are we easily diverted to pleasure!  The question arises, “What are we being diverted from?”  From Enkidu in The Epic of Gilgamesh, through early Tantra up to Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich, it would seem we are being diverted from our transformation.  Hill called it our “transmutation”.  In that it is probably genetic in nature, transmutation is a better word.

 There are other names both in our culture and others for this transmutation: growth of consciousness, awareness, intuition, Satori , evolving, awakening, etc.  This leads to enlightenment, Divine enlightenment, or as Hill put it, “access to infinite intelligence.”  Don’t worry.  This access is on a “need to know” and “ability to communicate” basis.  Communication implies both verbal and mechanical.  For example, if one of the top wealthy men Hill interviewed placed a buy order for a stock that went up, that is considered mechanical communication.  Or consider Ed Leedskalnin constructing a machine that would lift 14-ton blocks, without having the slightest idea (intellectually) of what he had done. Who cares? It worked.  (Coral Castle)

 That transformation may take place in a blinding flash or take years, even generations.  But, the secret ingredient is love, another aspect of sex we have been diverted from, by focusing on pleasure or procreation.  Erotic love is not the only way for this to occur, but let’s face it.  Erotic love is a lot easier and more intense focused on one woman than trying to love the other seven billion people on this planet. That would probably work… eventually.  It worked for Mother Theresa and Sister Teresa of Avila.

 In my article on Illustrated Sexual Anatomy I define sex as “the mental and/or physical stimulation of nerve endings, creating electrochemical energy, resulting in pleasurable sensations in the genitalia and other sexual responses.”  In the blog on Love: A Many Splendored Spectrum, I define love as energy and model it on the visible light spectrum.  My guess is the combination of these two energies tweaks or expresses genes, producing the transformation.   It is like electrical energy into microwave energy reacting with a raw potato, producing heat energy to transform the raw potato to a cooked potato.  It makes no difference whether the guess is right or wrong.  It is all about an “attitude” of love.  Then, something happens!

 This sounds great!  Why not expand the paradigm?  Guys, you may know from sad experience, many women have a built-in crap-meter.  They have the uncanny ability to know when you are just hitting on them or when you are really interested in them.  With our transformation, we get one too.  Ours works differently.  Ours works on used-car salesmen and politicians.   Now you see why it is a political construct.

 Anthropologists too look at our evolutionary history with eyes locked into the pleasure/procreation paradigm.  What would happen if they expanded the paradigm?  Would this explain the genetic shift in Neanderthal?  Would it explain how we entered into the Bronze and Iron ages other than by fortuitous accident? Perhaps we should take another look.  Then we can consider the future of evolution based on love.

Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com


%d bloggers like this: