Are we just energy? Electric and bioplasmic beings?

Science & Spirituality--not either/or but both/and?

To continue with the discussion of our selves (read as beyond the corporeal, the body) as energy, as electricity, the premise of the biofield anatomy and which lays the foundation/need for biofield tuning—

After delving further into Eileen Day McKusick’s book, Biofield Tuning, I have been thinking more and more about the intangible “energy” that influences us/we allow to guide us, even if we can’t quantify it, even if we don’t talk about it, and even when science doesn’t give it due credit and diligence, in how it influences us in daily interactions.

We often talk about this elusive presence in many different ways; we refer to it as “a feeling,” as vibes, as “the energy of the room,” as the atmosphere or ambiance, the dynamic, the mood, whatever.

But, for all of these, we are referring to the intangible forces, emotions, energy that we feel. Is it electricity that we pick up? Others’ vibrations? I think it’s beyond bodies, for sure.

I understand that for many this sounds woo woo, yet again. But then I sit with how often we do rely on this or ‘feel' or sense something…either in a meeting, an encounter with a friend where they seem not quite right, an interview that ‘felt off’, or meeting someone new and how much stake we put in first impressions. I think we do this not only because we are judgmental people, though that is also probably true. But I think it’s largely because many of us rely on our intuition and how we feel in order to help us navigate through life.

We may call it our intuition, but many of us do strongly rely on this.

These ‘feelings of emotions’ are so strong that we even attribute animals as being able to recognize them, to pick up on this energy/emotions. Eileen points out that, even with dogs, we attribute that they can “sense fear.” She uses other examples to point to similar phenomenon in plants, so then—how much more so for human beings who supposedly have this elevated consciousness and intellect?

The more I read and sit with Eileen’s theory, the more it makes sense.

Furthermore, though I am not (yet) a Biofield Tuning practioner, nor a scientist, and limited in these areas, I *am* a rhetorician and educator, one who teaches and strives to be a critical thinker. These identity markers push me to think more deeply about word meanings and associations, and the limitations of our thinking, the potential for grave misunderstandings and misinterpretations between others, in discussions. Thinking about word meanings/rhetoric is what I do—taking a step back to ask us to take stock of what this means—what are we accepting as the meaning of this word? Are we stepping back to interrogate the prisons that we willingly lock ourselves in, ideologically speaking, without making sure we’re all on the same page and have a collective understanding of what this or that means?

Eileen presents a very compelling argument for why we often misunderstand the meaning and the vital role of energy and electricity in our bodies, aura, world and even in our universe. A lot of this stems from the limitations of scientists pre-determined categories, rejecting that which they did not immediately understand or could not make sense of with the role of electricity/energy, plasma and aether, and how it makes up our existence—bodies and beyond. Better, I guess, to focus on what theories or hypotheses could be proven—liquids, gases, solids, gravity.

She points out how this breakdown also occurs because we treat science as entirely separated from anything that we have determined “spiritual” or “religious” or faith-oriented. If you cannot quantify, prove, with “hard evidence” or empirical data, then scientists will often reject it and relegate it to the spiritual or religious realm. Spiritual practices and alternative or holistic medicines, nonwestern cultures may allow for greater discussion of such matters as energy and souls and aura, but obviously aren’t esteemed in the same regard because of the skepticism in which scientists regard the unproveable theories, those that fail to pony up and deliver the proof. And let’s be real, we live in a society that has influenced us to also regard non-science fields with a great deal of skepticism, especially if we are/striving to be rational and logical and analytically minded.

I commend those though—like Eileen—who recognize when a premise like energy and electricity exists in both realms—science and spirituality or religion or cultural teachings, and who then further identifies the flaws in only following the old categorical breakdowns, as though they have nothing to learn from one another. She recognized the limitations as have been previously drawn/sanctioned out. It is not easy to do, and it is brave. Indeed, it takes a thinker/a higher level of thought process and engagement to consider beyond what has been already presented, and it takes more research and work to make her case, drawing from many fields.

But it’s so important for presenting new ideas. Perhaps this is an apt definition of critical thinking.

As a rhetorician, and someone who both teaches and is compelled by arguments that show a deeper, more nuanced level of thinking, that explore connections and interrelatedness, and consider audience biases, she makes a compelling case. And she certainly has done her homework.

Are we simply energy? Is this what we call the soul or spirit? Which—even scientists who reject any life being the beyond, cannot account for that we weigh less after death than right before?

After my mother died, a friend of mine said to me—I’m glad you used the present tense when talking about her. She still exists. Because you cannot get rid of energy.

If energy is all that we are, it’s both relieving for some, who fear death and yet also perhaps scary and/or intimidating, how are we carrying and healing our energy? How do we vibrate? And if there IS something(s) that we can do to change our vibrancy or frequency, is that empowering or rather, does it require additional responsibility and accountability from us? Demanding that we are not simply victims of our circumstances?

Hmm.