Rather Than Mask In Vague Self Depreciating Ambiguities

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/#comment-112664 

I make definite statements rather than mask in vague self depreciating ambiguities. These of course can be ignored or engaged with and are not more or less that idea.

The belief that it is impossible to know anything becomes an inability to understand anything except support for vague self-depreciating ambiguities. This is exactly the cynical gullibility that gives power to 'experts' or ideologies. Cynical because self-depreciating and gullible because it simply wants to give over responsibility to someone or something else.

If you were - in fact - curious you could either follow up or reframe your statement.

Cellular health is fundamental to every  cellular function. If the intra cellular and extra or indeed inter-cellular communication is blocked, degraded, or breaks down the functions are lost within the muscle, the blood cell, the brain cell etc

I don't mean to invoke blame for self depreciation but to note that a lack of health and a lack of self appreciation are related. There is no real substitution for life lived - regardless what protocols or procedures are adopted - and after all such is the point of being healthy or supported in functional endeavour. Self-depreciation also operates psychologically as a basis from which to extend a lack of worth to others or invite them to join in a mutually self-reinforcing sense of lack.

If indeed you believe yourself unable to understand - this may be the central issue to look at before proceeding. Children learn by immersion and induction - as a relational willingness and persistent intent. Hence I invited you to be with or abide in what your mind cannot currently grasp or 'define and control' in its own terms, because understandings can then dawn on you in a relational way rather than being learned by rote as part of acquiring a structure of ideas ABOUT something that stuff information without necessarily making any real connection.

My sense is that we get in our own way by the nature of our focus - wanting to grasp and possess and control and be displayed in having become successful is not the basis for a relationship - and so will never induce more than a transient honeymoon effect - such as Ancel Keys on the cover or Time magazine. He was only 'famous' for the purpose of an agenda that cared nothing for him or for science, but only to establish a narrative belief from which to gain in power over captive revenue streams - otherwise known as people.

It might be worth identifying what the current or active scientific, medical and health paradigms are and have been - because they frame our thinking without being questioned - because they have the status of fact when they generally operate a narrative cover story over where we do not want to look. So in some sense they WORK as a cover story but at a cost. Thus the consequence of such a cost can itself be masked in another cover story - such as so called side effects being diagnosed as a disease, or of toxicity being defined as an infection.

Reading the recent coverage on Johnson's baby talc and cancer was  - I thought - a probably typical example of how no evil intent, but an established business, persisted in selling product despite possible serious adverse health consequence and yet internally sought to minimise the risks, but also minimising the risk to their business survival. Once they knew enough to know too much, they crossed a line of hiding the risks and knowingly concealing a danger to health and life in baby products. From there on the liabilities multiplied to moral culpability of intent.

It isn't the mistake that condemns us, but the hiding or concealment of it. Plausible deniability is a sort of legally defensible ability of being able to claim not to know. If - as eventually occurs, internal documents are forced to the view of a court action, it is then shown to have been a mask of deceit all along.

No one want to lose what they have - while what they cling to possessing is defined in GETTING from (unfelt) relationships. I feel the LOSS of relational communication is the key factor (on all levels) and that blame and hate in seemingly moral hatred enact the destruction of relational communication AS IF an ANSWER. As if health is the ability to persist in destructive non-relational 'getting' without consequence - or without true accounting for consequence.

I enjoy what I write so you don't have to. But perhaps cynicism cannot by definition accept or recognize - make sense of joy. Cynicism does not regard itself hateful but 'right' and delight in finding the 'wrongs' OUT THERE' or at least - somewhere else. Hence the endless search for causes that exonerate us of any implicit responsibility - because responsibility is not associated with awakening freedom to respond differently, but with blame, shame and penalty in pain and loss. Guilt EXPECTS punishment and effects defences that then bring it on as a self reinforcing or circular proof. You are not an idiot AH unless of course you insist. In which you embody the attributes and attract the results to your decision. I walk with you in freedom - which embraces 'not knowing' as a condition of curious receptivity - not of self-judgement that then 'shares on in like kind'.