Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:3) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/seo-redirection/seo-redirection.php on line 11

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:3) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/seo-redirection/seo-redirection.php on line 11

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:3) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 62


Share This

peer-review-suppression Peer-review

I just heard from my friend Lorna Green, PhD (who is a vital contributor for us at Healing Talks on the topic of what is consciousness in the scheme of things). Lorna informed me that her article on near-death experiences (with impeccable arguments supporting her view of consciousness) was rejected by an academic peer-reviewed publication. This refers to The Journal of Consciousness Studies edited by Anthony Freeman.

Mr. Freeman, the editor, wrote back with the comment that all her paper was doing was offering a heart-felt plea for personal points of view, something not acceptable to a most high-standing, peer-reviewed academic journal. I would comment that what they are really looking for something in the more sterile, 17th-century tradition of science as applied to the study of consciousness – or a much more meaningless, left-brain, math-measurement-based/mechanical approach, which by its very nature (in my opinion) cannot at all truly fathom what is consciousness!

I told her the same, and to thus keep the spirit; that the “peer reviewed game” was not authentically objective. It is a suppressive veil of illusions.

For in the biological-living arts (where objectivity is grounded in looking at alive-connected wholes, not the dead, unconscious, mechanically separate-parts) peer review is based on a long tradition of enforcing this so-called “scientific” perspective.

Science here is really meant to refer to mechanical science. We see this in most vividly in the medical/psychiatric professions.

As a prelude, pre-med students are  taught principles of chemistry and physics to prepare them to become agents for dispensing chemical/pharmaceutical products and radiation/surgical procedures. They are prepared to strip their minds of deeper wisdom. This maintains, with on-going peer pressure and peer review – the marriage to commercial interests that represent the very anti-thesis of what generates objectivity

What this really guarantees is a sure-fire failure of conventional medicine when dealing with depth-chronic ailments. As a result, illnesses like diabetes and cancer – and other consciousness-depleting illnesses – are now increasingly pandemic.


How did all mess start? How did a peer-enforced or collective loss of objectivity begin?

“Peer review” as we know has its roots in European culture beginning about four centuries ago. It was meant to support the new Continental vision of nature that claimed stake to higher truth, knowledge and objectivity about the natural world. We find the more exact historical details on the website of the Royal Society, founded 350 years ago and as the oldest or modern scientific society. The site states the following:

The origins of the Royal Society lie in an ‘invisible college’ of natural philosophers who began meeting in the mid-1640s to discuss the ideas of Francis Bacon. Engraving by George Vertue of Gresham College, from John Ward’s Lives of the Professors of Gresham College (1740) Its official foundation date is 28 November 1660, when a group of 12 met at Gresham College after a lecture by Christopher Wren, then the Gresham Professor of Astronomy, and decided to found ‘a College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematicall Experimentall Learning’. This group included Wren himself, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, Sir Robert Moray, and William, Viscount Brouncker. The Society was to meet weekly to witness experiments and discuss what we would now call scientific topics. The first Curator of Experiments was Robert Hooke. It was Moray who first told the King, Charles II, of this venture and secured his approval and encouragement. At first apparently nameless, the name The Royal Society first appears in print in 1661, and in the second Royal Charter of 1663 the Society is referred to as ‘The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge’. It was also in 1663 that the Society acquired its motto “Nullius in Verba” This means “trust no one person’s word.”

The assumption then was  simple, that Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Newton had discovered the true view of nature, the math-bound vision and via their joint mathematical/mechanical approaches – effected in laboratory where tools of measurement were coalesced  (the temple/mosque/church of that math-bound worldview), we arrive at  “the” objective and liberating view of nature.

Other approaches effected in other places could not be trusted. This was the only view allowed.

Thus a society of “advanced” (mechanical-vision exploring, experimenting, observing, and thinking) men could exclusively be trusted to be objective.  Their work had to be submitted to peer review of like-minded men. This was in contradistinction to trusting the prior, lower-consciousness, emotive views  based on blind faith (trusting the prophesy or revelation of a revered person such as a pope, cardinal, biblical prophet, fortuneteller, etc).

This is how the concept of peer review originated, as an adjunct to the emergence of the 17th century’s new and exciting mechanical, math-based vision of nature – the trigger, the inner catapult for the Industrial Revolution.

The fallacy of this approach lies the common partiality toward a superficially-true/depth-false or illusionary worldview. The objectivity thus becomes illusionary itself. Math symbols abstract how to separate all elements of consciousness. This is the penultimate left-brain orientation to nature, which by its very nature is what most (not least) biases awareness.  This is why for example money, which is math-based, so incomparably corrupts the integrity of consciousness to all depths. More seriously the 17th century vision, which required peer review to buttress it, is  actually and intrinsically anti-consciousness. This is why it has failed for centuries to integrate any meaningful understanding of consciousness  – and why it has extremely non-sustainable and polluting impacts for conscious life. It very powerfully undermines the core of life (in a marriage with commerce) in the healing arts.  That is why we  can’t help but have growing chronic and depth-illness epidemics – including autism, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer, and so on – which are each different forms of consciousness-diseases supported in their growth by the ideologies of modern, peer-reviewed and peer-pressure created forms of allopathic medicine.

Its awesome to look at this bigger historical picture of how we got lost and remain lost. Nothing happens by accident.

In this same light, a peer-reviewing committee also rejected my presentation proposal for the last ASSC conference in Canada. This is because I was promoting a non-mechanical understanding of consciousness that directly threatens their game….again the 350-year-old, Royal Society born-type Grand-Clock Universe vision… the intellectual foundations of the modern polluted, non-sustainable and ill Industrial Age ..or which has been devastating-toward-near-extinction a large part of life and consciousness on our planet.

Those who perpetuate this tradition are promoting to conquer consciousness in the same way we make a better mechanical race car in the lab or a better bulldozer to raise a rain forest for cattle ranches. Their form of “peer review” is a critical part of maintaining the overall loss of objectivity.

So my dear and wise friend Lorna, don’t lose spirit.

Take it has an honor that your deeper-to-core thinking was rejected.

About the Author

- Sign Up For Our Newsletter. Get Free Tips and Advice on Natural Living and More. Sign Up Today @ http://www.healingtalks.com/newsletter

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Free Newsletter

All Rights Reserved