I said last time I would explore some of the references I discovered over the years that lend support to Johnann Grander’s work, and I will at some point, but I find myself drawn in this moment to reflect generally on what I’ve termed a feminine science. For me this notion is not about the physical gender of its practitioners; nor is this series intended to suggest that everything feminine is good and everything masculine is bad. But one without the other leads to pathology. This is what I wish to explore.
When I worked with Grander® Technology, it was not uncommon to be told something like this: “I already know there is nothing to investigate, because what you’re telling me violates the laws of physics.” There are many, many, many problems with such a statement from my perspective, but I would like to summarize them as concisely as possible in a way that will help us explore this concept of a feminine science. My summary would be as follows: our science has marginalized life.
Somehow we’ve created a system of thought in which Life itself just doesn’t fit. There’s something in the concoction of concepts to which we adhere that is labeled as “life”, that comes into the picture relatively late, but by then it is this watered-down intellectual gruel—a head-scratching phenomena defined by six or seven attributes that are all “explained” by the law-abiding dynamics of the utterly lifeless blips, blaps and squiggles that are “real.” As much as I’m fascinated by what the blips, blaps and squiggles have been shown to do in certain circumstances, I’m not at all of the opinion that this is a balanced view of the universe in which we find ourselves.
One can make a career out of perhaps the most fundamental of modern sciences—physics—and never once connect the work that is done to Life. Yes, I’ve chosen to capitalize Life at this point, because the Life I am speaking about—Life in its wholeness, on its own terms—must be distinguished from the loosely bound superposition of concepts to which it has been reduced by modern thought. Life is not a bag of tricks. That aside, my statement stands regardless of one’s stance on the value of Life. One can make a career in physics without mentioning life in any of its forms. To me, this is not only absurd, it is a pathology with destructive consequences.
I’m not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so let me say that I agree with every fiber of my being that there is a place for quantification and analysis of phenomena. Let’s suppose that such is the virtuous expression of a masculine science. Johann Grander performed thousands of experiments, and while I wasn’t in the room, I believe he was a very careful, astute, and methodical observer of his inputs, outputs and controls. In the grand scheme, it’s not a bad thing to be able to calculate how much force a reinforced concrete slab can carry before it fails. It’s not a bad thing to understand how much thrust a jet engine can produce, or how to keep airplanes in controlled flight. It’s not a bad thing to understand how particular metabolic pathways in organisms are affected by disease. But it’s a bad thing to elevate these technical successes at the expense of our awareness that everything we do is rooted in Life.
This is where the masculine tendency goes too far, in my mind, and becomes pathological. This analytical tendency of human thought must be balanced by the virtue of feminine science, which is a receptivity to, awareness of, and appreciation for the reality of Life itself. In the most profound form of which I am aware, this receptivity is nothing short of a wholehearted relationship with Life itself, through which human consciousness becomes a vehicle for insight, intuitive discovery, and direct contact with the wholeness of Life. In a simpler form, it is simply the acknowledgement of context, of the bigger picture in which our analytical efforts take place.
To be clear: what’s absent from our science today is the feminine aspect of human consciousness. Modern scientific thought is closely related to, and the product of, our fragmented human consciousness. It is my opinion that we have quite literally abandoned a portion of our own being in the processes that have led us to the position we find ourselves today. It is not that every specific scientist has done this, or that all human beings who are scientists fit a certain mold. That is patently false. We’re all in this collective vantage we’ve fabricated together, and many have made astonishing breakthroughs via moments of receptivity and insight, but we see the pathology in the fact that they’re not allowed to discuss this inherently personal element of their work. We see the pathology in the fact that it’s “not scientific” to do so.
I want to close this post by returning to the notion that Johann Grander’s technology violates the laws of physics. Really what is conveyed by this statement is that his work is nonsensical when placed into the context and vocabulary of the modern scientific paradigm. This is because he has started with an appreciation for Life, and acted upon his insights into the relationships that form the heart of the natural world. It doesn’t matter that he can’t predict how individual electrons will behave when isolated from all other particles and blown to bits in magnetized tubes. The quintessential experiments of modern science are profoundly interesting, but they are the study of tigers in cages, of cells not only dead, but dyed, of elements stolen from their natural domain and forced to perform on our sterilized stages. Such experiments can only yield a partial understanding; they can never recover the whole. The sad, but simple truth is we don’t even know what we’re looking at in these dazzling displays.
The inability of a profoundly simply technology like Johann Grander’s to be perceived without threat, much less appreciated at a basic level by a great many people, shows the extent to which the predominate mindset in which we live and work has been insulated from the feminine element of human consciousness. And this has occurred to our great loss as a world community. Certainly there have been gains, but the costs are more profound than I think we generally realize.
(I’d like to note that I’ve focused on Johann Grander’s work because I’m personally familiar with it, and because I think it is a profound example of what is possible. In my life it has served as an intriguing reference point in thinking about these topics, and has provided a vehicle for encountering different viewpoints and perspectives. The aim here is not commercial. If you want to refute the notion that all crows are black, it’s probably good to have a white one on your shoulder.)
Embracing Forever 
So I found this link on white crows –
“https://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/whitecrows.htm.” I put it in quotes because the link is not my own words. 😂 actually, I don’t know why I put it in quotes. I’m being awkward in your comment section because I agree with you, or because I don’t know what I want to write, but I’m trusting my blabbing, like a brook.
I don’t know Grander’s work, but when what is studied is the dead thing, the isolated thing, we can’t really see it clearly, nor in relationship. Looking forward to reading more about water and your personal experiences here. I was given the shamanic name by my teacher “Sees Through Water.” I have no idea if one day I will understand why I was given this name, but I have an affinity for water, and maybe water has an affinity for me 🙂
I want to hear more about how Grander’s water cylinder works. It’s interesting to me that he was so attentive to the life of water. Water is not just H2O as we were taught. It’s polarity is fascinating as well as it’s shape-shifting. Please go on…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Ka,
To be continued! Thanks for reading. That’s a beautiful name you were given, too. Thank you for sharing that here… The more I learn the more I realize that life is “built on water” in so many ways… It’s as if water is the macroscopic template, and it just gets built-out by complexity that, at its root, comes back to some fundamental latent potential already there in water. I’ll get to it at some point here, but I went to a water-focused scientific conference in Vermont once, and met this biologist from Purdue named D. James Morre. For all the things I’ve said about modern science in these articles, he and his wife were nearly the opposite. They were open-minded and curious, and even took a Grander Technology device to their lab, played around with it, and found some really interesting results. Anyway, he and his wife had just done research showing that natural, recurring rhythms in water–a periodically cycling variation in redox potential–had been “life-hacked” by a copper-doped protein, which affected the duration of the cycle. The result was that exactly sixty cycles of this modified, but naturally occurring oscillation in water produces a steady time-counting mechanism that could be at the root of the body clock.
Actually! Wow! I just searched for that work and found a much more recent paper by D.J. Morre entitled “Synchronous Oscillations Intrinsic to Water: Applications to Cellular Time Keeping and Water Treatment.” There you will find he has done experiments showing that these oscillations in water synchronize between adjacent water samples not in the same beakers! These are his words, Changes in redox potential sufficient to catalyze NADH oxidation were used to monitor synchronous water oscillations that appear to extend indefinitely over great distances in contiguous bodies of either still or flowing water. Adjacent out-of-phase water samples contained in thin plastic cuvettes auto-synchronize in a matter of seconds when placed side by side. Potential applications from water treatment along with opportunity related to human health are anticipated to derive from a better understanding of how water synchrony is generated and maintained, and to be aided by methodological advances in measurement and analysis. I can’t help but think his inspiration to look at this type of experimentation may have come from the work he did with Grander Technology, though of course I cannot be certain.
So very exciting!
Peace
Michael
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow! Michael, that’s pretty incredible. The synchronizIng of these adjacent water samples in separate beakers reminds me of the concept of entrainment in music, and if there is a frequency which the water can “hear” such a metaphor for translating frequency or oscillation, perhaps. It implies a shared matrix of some sort, some medium of conducting? I don’t know engineering… These ideas are exciting. It seems like I’d have to be in the labs and see the results myself to get the full effects, as that’s how hard it is for me to believe even if I am intrigued and relatively open. Maybe one day! For now, I’d have a lot more to learn…copper-doped protein… hmm.. interesting, conduction? We are taking about energy here within the cells, animating and rejuvenating implications…and the body clock as water has memory and can keep time!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Ka,
Yes, I think there is an entrainment aspect to this. Just like music…
I think the mechanism by which cations change the natural oscillatory cycle in water that I described in the above comment is perhaps unknown. But there is a really interesting statement in Dr. Morre’s paper, which states Period lengths of the oscillations of an aqueous solution were in direct proportion to the ionic radius of the cation and independent of the concentration. The ionic radius is how “big” the cation is, I believe–meaning its the distance from the nucleus to the outermost electron shell. What really struck me though is the statement that the ability of a given species of cation to modify the natural oscillatory period of this particular cycle in water is independent of concentration. That speaks to some sort of collective ordering effect.
At any rate, yes, water does some amazing things within organisms…
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I do not have the educational background to sufficiently (and in some cases remotely understand this paper nor the specifics of spin of electrons inside of cations), I am excited by the implications of this discovery, taken from Morre’s 2015 paper, “Our findings suggest that water molecules communicate with each other via very low frequency electromagnetic fields and that these fields also appear to be generated by the energetics of the synchronous ortho to para interconversions of the nuclear spin pairs of the water hydrogens.” Also, I was into this particular video recently about the documentary testing of the memory of water. https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0. Here a Nobel prize laureate, Luc Montagnier, researches without too much support from the scientific community (at least the establishment) and yet he has made enough friends to have some fun researching what is truly compelling, and can move us all forward. It’s easy for me to be open-minded, I’m not a member of the scientific community; it’s truly out of my depth. (Another water pun!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Michael. I too am enjoying this exploration of the feminine science of water. Clearly, the feminine energies are needed more in our modern world. We have put far too much emphasis on the masculine approach at great cost to ourselves and the planet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Brad! Glad you’re enjoying and appreciate the feedback as always. The thing is it’s nothing too crazy that we’re after here. Just an appreciation for other gifts and perspectives. A fuller conversation, if you will, which I think would lead to very exciting places for all of us…
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed Michael. Just like I used to consider science and faith two distinct and very separate views, but have noticed some bridging that space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DeAnn and I really enjoyed this installment in particular. This is because the style of prose and tone through which you choose to express your own frustrations with the institution of science is more closely aligned with my own style. The institution of science is a powerfully influential force within our culture, and with that powerful influence comes a responsibility. If that institution is abusing its own power by being irresponsible, then that behavior needs to be brought to the forefront. Not that this will change anything, but sometimes it just feels good to call a spade a spade.
I am also fascinated by the findings of D.J. Moore. And I most certainly concur that these naturally occurring oscillation in water produces a steady time-counting mechanism that could be very well be at the root of the body clock.
Looking forward to more…
Peace,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Lee and DeAnn,
There’s a certain gratification to calling a spade a spade, for sure, but I don’t wish to be divisive either. To your point, though, there’s a responsibility that comes with being a popular representative of the scientific endeavor, which very obviously does shape conditions in our society.
The other day, before starting this series, I listened to a talk (on Youtube) given by Dr. Vladimir Voeikov to the Royal Society of Medicine in London, as part of a series of talks given relatively recently on the latest water research and the subject of homeopathy. In this talk Dr. Voeikov lamented the fact that despite numerous experimental results that directly contravene the hypothesis that biomolecules only interact through the physical “lock-and-key” mechanisms–an idea proposed in the 1890s by Emil Fischer, and not meant at the time to be viewed as the exclusive means of interaction–it is still taught in the university level textbooks today that all biomolecular interactions are due to this mechanism. I have not sat in those courses, so I cannot argue the point one way or the other, but I think his point is plain enough. There are some other effects observed for which this lock-and-key approach, however complex it becomes, just doesn’t explain the data. (A little research shows the mechanism has become more complex through incorporation of “induced fit” mechanisms that involve thermodynamic analysis of how the two molecules interact, but this is a refinement to the basic concept.)
One would hope students are being taught the fuller picture, and that is where the responsibility comes in I think. It’s not that great discoveries haven’t been made, it’s that important leaves are not being overturned. There’s good stuff there, too…
Michael
LikeLike
Oh we have lost so much because of the fierce clinging to the masculine model, and the mistrust of anything else. It is yet another manifestation of the patriarchy, which I’m trusting/expecting/hoping (?) to be slowly dismantled until we can come back to the deep centre where all aspects of Life are acknowledged and known to be sacred. The Feminine principle contains such a wealth of knowledge and power and support and above all truth. May we all open to receive it.
I’m so enjoying this series.
Alison
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wholeheartedly agree, Alison. I, too, hope that past patterns will be dismantled and replaced by an appreciation for the full spectrum of who we are as beings, and what Nature is in wholeness. I couldn’t agree more that an appreciation for the sacred is part of this. We’ve lost appreciation for, and connection with, the sacred in this patriarchal approach, and it’s a profound loss. Bringing the masculine and feminine back into balance will enable the release of the true and full power of who we are, and resolve many issues that plague us today I think… This is to me of the utmost importance, and it doesn’t require that we understand in advance where it will lead us, for the reintegration of the feminine brings with it an innate trust in what is so…
Peace,
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen to this.
A
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if the reason Life isn’t included is because of the hreductionism of science, even in quantum physics (as it stands without Bohm’s input). Sheldrake was talking with another scientist on a YouTube video within the last few days. And they both agreed that the ancients were interested in “flow”. It seems that the modern world has lost whole and “flow.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Elliott,
Yes, wholeness and flow are difficult things to study–if by flow you mean almost like a phase change, something like entering a state of higher order. I’ve not read or seen much of Sheldrake but will check him out. At any rate, I think Life is excluded for a number of reasons and that could probably be an essay or book in itself. Yes, I think reductionism places wholeness itself beyond the field of study–for me that seems to be true. But then there are all the issues like our desire to have “control” over nature, our “separation” from nature, the apparent existence of our egoic “selves”, and the patriarchal approaches to organizing society that simply are inequitable when it comes to acknowledging and respecting the feminine dynamic of being. This idea of Life being truly real confounds all of these notions in which we’ve been so deeply invested…
Peace
Michael
LikeLike