Motto: I want to know how God created this world. – Albert Einstein, 1955
The world and time had the same beginning. The world was not created in time, but with time. – Saint Augustine
There is, understandably and justifiably, constructive criticism directly related to the complexity hypothesis. Yumeiho, Japanese manual therapy is not simple, it is very complicated, but it has a decisive argument: feeling, patience, details. They are presented in a scientific, complicated way, requiring patience.
We are missing something from this creation. What? An approach that takes us to Socrates and his famous statement: “The only certainty I have is that I know that I know nothing.” (“ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat” – a possible takeover of a Greek text or “scio me nihil scire, scio me nescire”)
Socrates’s paradox addresses a fundamental question through “Dialogues” (the dialogues written in his youth) which represent the testimonies of Platon, his most important student. This man, on the one hand, thinks he knows something, without knowing anything at the same time. Since Socrates denied that he possessed any knowledge, he tried to find someone wiser than himself among the politicians, poets, and craftsmen. In Plato’s dialogue “Meno”, Socrates confesses: “So I do not know what virtue is. Perhaps you knew it before you met me, but now you seem to be one who does not know it.” In this dialogue, Socrates intended to change the opinion of Menon, who stubbornly believed in his knowledge, a fact that Socrates could not help, but disapprove of.
Man’s capacity to know and understand is almost limitless. Capacity is limited individually. The solipsism, beyond pathological aspects, is natural despite genetic inheritance. The solipsism is: “an attitude or doctrine of the one who separates himself from the world and which reduces the whole reality to that of his ego, moment of Descartes’s Meditations, in which the philosopher questions all the common evidence, is the moment of solipsism. The term is equivalent to that of skepticism” (Plato, Dialoguri, Editura Antet Revolution, 2010). The Solipsism is a state of one who doubts everything and anything; the first moment of Descartes’s Meditations, in which the philosopher questions all common evidence, is the moment of solipsism. The term is equivalent to that of skepticism.
Even the man who considers himself unhappy seeks happiness in his own unhappiness. Consider all possible variations and we still arrive at ontological incomprehensibility. We know, we have our purpose in this life, we understand more sometimes, sometimes less, but we learn, adapt or click.
In Rupert Sheldrake’s book, Morphic Resonance, A New Science of Life, the author writes about the inheritance of form: “Hereditary differences between otherwise similar organisms depend on genetic differences, genetic differences depend on DNA, or its arrangement in chromosomes; and these differences lead to changes in protein structure or in the control of protein synthesis.
These fundamental discoveries, supported by a large body of detailed evidence, provide a satisfactory direct understanding of the inheritance of proteins and the characteristics that depend more or less directly on certain proteins, for example, cycling and inborn errors of metabolism. By contrast, hereditary differences in shape do not generally have a sufficiently clear relationship with changes in the structure or synthesis of particular proteins. However, such changes could influence morphogenesis in various ways through effects on metabolic enzymes, on enzymes that synthesize hormones, structural proteins, cell membrane proteins, etc. Many examples of such effects are already known. But admitting that various chemical changes lead to the alteration or distortion of the normal pattern of morphogenesis, what exactly determines the normal pattern of morphogenesis?” (Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance. A New Science of Life, Ariadnei’s Thread publishing house, 2006)
We look to the sky and wonder at such moments what is the best decision. What generated a deed, or more, the actions of a man. Why do we fight for justice so that we can put the whole destiny of a man in the balance, even if that person may be a madman or an innocent man?
A possible answer: “Humans are more than simple phenotypic characters summarized in the taxonomic category Homo Sapiens. We are conscious beings. Philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, and neuroscientists have different views on the nature of human consciousness. Many study it as a thing in itself” (John Hands, Cosmo Sapiens. The evolution of man from the origins of the universe, Humanitas publishing house)
We live between interrogations and findings, and this ontological posture brings us close to the truth, but not in its possession. We adjust along the way, we survive, we keep trying to be self-aware.
The description and definition of man is, in the first instance, a process of self-knowledge, of exploring one’s own self. Throughout human history some people, described as enlightened minds, have excelled in this exercise of introspection. Thus, many perspectives in this regard have been left to posterity. From the pre-socratic philosophy to the onto-phenomenological contemporaneity, man tried to discover and discern the universe in which he lives in order to ultimately reach the same result: the Self, an equivalent of the question “Who am I?” It’s like a game that swings between immanence and transcendence.
Finally, what is a human being? This question is answered by science and spirituality in two different, but complementary ways. History shows us that some people considered many other people to be in an existential condition that made them less human (slavery, racism, the status of women in certain religions, other special and abnormal situations). This leads us inexorably to the question of the distinction between the human being and the other beings on this planet (we are not talking here about beings on other planets whose existence we only speculate).
What is a human being? A human being can be or could be an existential conditional-optative. A human being can be free, she/he can have a limited number of options, or he can have an infinite number of options, which could be called free will. Is human being in the image and likeness of God? (that’s if many people are followers of the creationist theory). Man must have rights, and this process of understanding lasted thousands of years until the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” appeared, but also obligations that are not related to the so-called moral constraints, but to his fundamental nature. Is man controlled by his physical drives, or does he have the power to determine his own fatality? Is human being an outgrowth of the creator’s light or a consequence of chance? Is human being that mysterious power to discern between good and evil or beyond good and evil?
The absurd is a symptomatological picture of existence. Why? Where to? What/wich is the purpose? However, is the world we exist in a dystopia, a utopia, or bearable normalcy?
There are no definitive conclusions of our own existence, but there is, for sure, something still difficult to define and describe, which completely covers the territory of our knowledge, of our beliefs: the belief that we can adapt to the good of each without invading a person’s soul, but to embrace it with our presence, connecting with the source that gives us the option to be righteous or otherwise. The Self, the Light that perpetually guides our own being and Self-learning.
In Japanese culture there is a concept called “Ikigai”, that “something” that makes a human being offer all the possibilities of the Self to expand towards fulfillment, towards harmony with the essential source of all manifestation. This process of self-realization is what represents the path, the inner peace that designates the justice of all the structures of the human being. A well-known expression from the Romanian language refers to the fact of “having a backbone”. Obviously, this statement implies a proper meaning and a figurative meaning. In the figurative sense, man has a certain attitude, that of being a straight man or, in the proper sense, it signifies both the vertebral anatomical structure and a look forward with all the burdens of the past.
Yumeiho, Japanese manual therapy is a paradigm that has proven its effectiveness over time. Yumeiho stands for dedication, responsibility, empathy and efficiency. Yumeiho therapy represents a spectrum of difficult decisions to make, often spontaneous decisions. Yumeiho therapy means practice, assiduous study and devotion for the good of those who turn to such an alternative, often as a solution to add an extra good, sometimes decisive in the integral balance of the patient.
Lucian Dănilă, Yumeho Therapist 3rd degree
