Richard Lloyd Jones: The program is Thinking with Somebody Else's Head. We're coming to you from the International Society of Analytical Trilogy in São Paulo, Brazil. I'm Richard Lloyd Jones. We produce our programs to be at the highest level of psychological, philosophical, and theological knowledge available today.
You know, it strikes me sometimes as I'm producing our program that we are really stretching the paradigm, not only of what a radio program could be, but also what science itself is.
You see, we've segregated and compartmentalized knowledge so completely in our society that a specialist in one field has no idea what another specialist is talking about. That maybe makes a little sense in fields of profession, but for our actual lives, seems to me we need something more integral, something that explains the totality of experience. We work hard to do that every week, and we're blessed to have Dr.
Norberto Keppe's Science of Analytical Trilogy to help us do that. So this week, let's put Keppe's science into the spotlight. Modern science in crisis, this week on Thinking with Somebody Else's Head. We are on the Positive World Radio Network and in iTunes as well. You know, a listener wrote me this week that she's noticed a subtle and sometimes blatant resistance to the ideas emerging from our program with a number of her friends and acquaintances, particularly those with more exposure to and education in the traditional precepts of scientific education.
Well, I smiled as I read her email. I have experienced no small measure of that myself, and even outright hostility to Keppe's ideas, which is the basis of our show. Actually, you know, without Keppe's science, I would not even be able to do this program. While I may have some communication skills that give me the capacity to produce a show like this, I don't kid myself that I have anywhere near the intellectual heft to carry this show on my own merits.
No, this perspective we bring in these programs is totally possible because of the extraordinary fusion Keppe has accomplished of theology, philosophy, and science. Because of his psychotherapeutic discovery of inversion, Through this lens, we can investigate the inversions in all areas of human endeavor and write them again. Remarkable and constantly fascinating to me. Look, this is no small thing. Last week in my English class, I was considering with my students an issue raised in our program of a couple of weeks ago about the history of religious society.
There are a couple of parts in that first segment of that show that are very relevant. Where Cláudia Pacheco talks about the primary forces that built Europe and subsequently North and South America being religious ones, spiritual values and ethics, and how our modern attempts to remove that from particularly the bylaws of the European community are a monstrous act against history. That's an incredible lens to look at history through, and I'd like to bring that lens of analysis to the area of science today.
I've invited Keppe Motor co-inventor Cesar Soós to help me get a grips on what's wrong in science today. Science, as I can understand it, Cesar, seems to have taken a very, kind of a drastic turn somewhere in our history. Of course, this was a process. I'm sure it didn't happen overnight. But maybe you could start by helping us to understand what it was and when that turn, that transformation of science took place.
Give us some historical perspective.
Cesar Soós: It's interesting. I was reading a book on metaphysics of science another day, and the author Edwin Burt. He told that René Descartes, in 1619, the spirit of the truth, it appeared to be the spirit of truth, showed up in a dream. And this spirit told Descartes that he had been chosen by him, by this spirit of truth, to lay down the basis of knowledge for the years ahead.
And this was to be found in mathematics. And that was precisely what Descartes' contribution to the world, scientific world, was the mathematics. He was the first one who developed the mathematical functions.
Richard: And what's the significance, Cesar, of having a mathematization of the scientific view? He
Cesar: cannot be taken alone. After Descartes came Galileo. Who extended the discoveries of Descartes. These functions, mathematical functions.
And tried to apply them to reality. To physical reality. So by doing this. He like united two worlds. A mental world and a physical world. For example, for Galileo. As long as you know all the parameters. Involved in one phenomenon. You can mathematize this phenomenon and through the formula that connects these parameters you can predict the results of future experiments. Like for example if you want to study the trajectory of a ball.
If you kick a ball, the ball has a certain mass, has a certain size. All of these parameters put together in a formula give you conditions for you to predict where this ball will go after a kick depending on the force you give to it. Galileo was the first one who opened a road to mathematize the real phenomena we see.
Richard: Now, this sounds like a reasonable way to move.
Cesar: It sounds reasonable. The problem is that mathematics is just one language of nature. It's not the basis of nature. Nature is much, much, much more than mathematics. Mathematics, even though nature expresses itself in mathematical terms.
Richard: There are mathematical formula, etc., for the various shapes and forms of nature.
Cesar: Exactly. And quantum physics today shows that this mathematical approach is not an appropriate approach to study science.
Richard: So before we go to quantum physics, let me come back a bit to Descartes and Galileo and these scientists. I'm sure there are other scientists involved in that. What did they exclude when they mathematized or sensorialized science? They
Cesar: excluded other parameters of quality. They quantified science. So science began to be something quantifiable, sensorial. This was a very big hit against metaphysics, for example, against theology, which exposes values which are much superior than the physical world only.
And this helped build up a system of knowledge based on matter, based on senses.
Richard: What's the implication for us of this?
Cesar: The worst implication of that is the implications we see today. Materialism that took control over all kinds of knowledge. Our knowledge today, our science today is based on matter. Because matter is something that we can sense. We can mathematize, we can quantify, and that's the worst consequence.
Take us back
Richard: and see if you can explain in simple terms how science was different before Descartes and Galileo and this scientific revolution. How did it look? How did it appear to us?
Cesar: We can make a comparison, for example, in the case of Italy. Italy is a country well known for the arts. Scientists at that time, you can take the example of Leonardo da Vinci, he was a complete man.
He was a scientist, he was an artist. And at that time, art was connected to science. And so people had science more connected to reality itself. It was not too much based on thoughts, on ideas. And so Leonardo da Vinci was a universal man, very much ahead of his time. And many of his inventions was based on art, on his artistic intuition.
Richard: And Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who was not the scientist that da Vinci was, but many of these scientists pre-Renaissance and during the Renaissance had a very deep theological component to them, didn't they? Exactly. What I'm trying to get at here is what did we lose from that scientific view? I
Cesar: tell you this, Richard, art is more connected to intuition and mathematics is not.
Mathematics is something quantifiable and art is qualifiable. So if you take the example of Italy, for example, you came from Leonardo da Vinci to what Italy is today in scientific terms. Terms in scientific terms we have like a renowned scientist enrico fermi for example. This a big scientist of this 20th century. And what did enrico fermi did. He developed a nuclear reactor to to make atom power plants to make even the atom bomb.
You know the the consequences of detaching art from science led us to this, to not know exactly what kind of outcome we will have.
Richard: And also, I think, as well as the exclusion of art, we have the exclusion of the study of the being, the ontology that they would have studied in theological philosophical schools before this mathematization of science. And losing the study of the being also causes us to lose the study of ethics, of values, of qualities of being, of ways.
We should be of ways we should behave, ways we should treat other people.
Cesar: You know, Richard, there is another very good example. It's the example of Werner Heisenberg. He was a pianist before he decided to study physics. And when he was studying piano, he said, well, music has not so much that strength it had before. So now the road is open for physics.
And I will dedicate myself to physics. And he became the chief scientist of the Atom Bomb project in Nazi Germany. And look at where he went. It would have been better for him to become a pianist instead, you know. It means that a science without art leads us to consequences that cannot be always good.
Richard: Because it's separated from these more moral, ethical issues that would have been studied before the strictly mathematized part of science, right?
Cesar: Exactly, Richard. Mathematics gives a false idea that you are a god. You are a god-like being. And we are not. We are subjected to universal laws. And art is different. In art, you create. But if you do not create according to certain rules, pre-existing rules, then nobody likes it. But Cesar,
Richard: if we now look at science as an entity, it's very, very materialistic, very, very based on measurement, on what it can see, what it can evaluate.
If we reintroduce metaphysics to our science today, how will science change? What will we see as a difference in the way we study science, in what we study in science? Well
Cesar: metaphysics deals with the being and the being is much more than quantifiable qualities. The being especially is love. The being is reason. It's logic. It's everything that science encompasses and much more than that.
Intuition. Consciousness. So for example i can give you a simple example. If a country attacks another one. If you take a scientifical approach the other country will just respond striking back. This you can say is a scientific reason. In a superior level you have a philosophical reason that involves like different type of intelligence. You will consider if it's prudent or not counter-attack the country that attacked you first.
You will think well maybe this is not convenient because this cannot be good for the country for the people even though i am stronger than him. But in a metaphysical level it this involves love as well. And then the country which is attacked would think well what can i do in order to help my neighbor country for him to stop with this aggressive idea.
Because we live in the same planet. We must share the same place. The common place. As you can see there are three levels of reasoning. Three levels to respond to to an aggression, to respond to a certain cause. The effect can be scientific, very low level, philosophical, a medium level, and metaphysical level.
Richard: I remember during the escalation of the Vietnam War back in the late 60s, early 70s, when Robert McNamara was the Secretary of Defense in the United States, and he was very much basing his expansion of the war in Vietnam on mathematical terms.
If we have 50,000 troops there, we will get these results. So if we expand that to 75,000, we're going to have X results. He was mathematizing the results, trying to create results from a mathematized point of view. So I like what you're suggesting here of a more metaphysical approach, which would include these transcendental elements, universal elements of justice, goodness, love, as you suggested.
This is a different realm for science to work in, isn't it?
Cesar: Man cannot develop, Richard, a science to understand him if this science does not consider the superior elements he has. For example, how can you develop a science that does not consider intuition, does not consider consciousness, or if it considers, considers under the point of view of a physical reaction, of chemical reactions in your brains.
Take the example of Freud. Why Freud, Sigmund Freud, was not so successful as it should be? Because Freud based his theories on sex, on organic elements. The consequence of his theory that you should treat your sexual life in order to have happiness. This is senseless.
Richard: We're back in a moment with our continuing conversation on modern science in crisis, on Thinking with Somebody Else's Head on the Positive World Radio Network.
We're back in just a moment. This is Thinking with Somebody Else's Head back again on the Positive World Radio Network. Nice to have you with us. I'm Richard Lloyd Jones. We are continuing our conversation today with Keppe Motor co-inventor Cesar Soós, looking at modern science in crisis. Let's continue with our fascinating discussion with Cesar now. It seems to me then that this break, if we want to call it, from the more metaphysical world stripped us of the study of universals.
And if we enter this world of universals, which you and I have talked about a number of times in these podcasts, we're talking about something that already exists. And science, you talked about science being like, scientists being like gods or seeing themselves as gods if they can mathematize. If something is universal, if it's something that already exists, we have to see science as the study of something that is already, not the study of something that's developing through an evolutionary process.
This brings us then to this universal reality that we've talked about before. And science, it seems today, wants to avoid that acknowledgement of something pre-existing, something intelligent, something already there.
Cesar: Exactly. The very idea of evolutionism brought by Darwin and others, but before him, even from Aristotle, you know, this very idea is wrong because it is inserted in time and space. And time and space, they are inserted in a greater realm, in the transcendental realm.
For example, our paranormal capacities, they all happen outside time and space. So how can you develop a science or develop a theory with inferior parameters? Time and space, they are inferior parameters to develop a theory. The question of evolutionism is crystal clear. You cannot go anywhere and so the transcendence for example the study of the being lies outside time and space. If you the being is not in development in evolution you are what you are and this superior force that created the universe because the universe didn't come out of nothing.
This is logical to think like that. So this force made this outside time and space.
Richard: Now, the argument we hear from science today is that if it's going to fit into the scientific method that's been developed in the last three or four hundred years, if it's going to fit in a scientific method, it needs to be falsifiable. How can you falsify something that's preexistent and universal?
So science dismisses this completely.
Cesar: This idea comes from Karl Popper, isn't it? Karl Popper was an Austrian philosopher. He was very much influenced in the development of the scientific method. And he was even president of the Aristotelian Academy in England. If I'm not wrong, in 1959 or so. And this shows very clearly that he had an Aristotelian view. And Popper was very much led by this Aristotelian point of view to make his philosophy and he said that you can use one theory until you find it's not right.
For example you know that from your previous experiences that the sun has always risen up but you cannot say that the sun will rise up tomorrow because it didn't come. Yeah no you
Richard: haven't seen it yet. You haven't seen it but if tomorrow you wake up and you see the sun doesn't come up you can falsify your theory. So we are based on theories.
We live on theories that can be falsified. What are the limitations of this cesar.
Cesar: The limitations is that you attack all knowledge. There is no eternal theory. That's the point. And for a metaphysical approach laws are eternal. They are never falsifiable. So for example i believe the law gravity says the the things will come down. If I throw a pen this pen will come down to earth.
I do not expect to throw my pen tomorrow and the pen will rise up to the ceiling you see. And for popper this can't. It can happen. And so, if this can happen, no matter what theory you have in front of you, you must find a problem in this theory to falsify it.
Richard: It's worked for 10,000 years, but on the 10,001st year it may not work.
But this has implications not in a material sense as much. It does in that way, too. But very much in a soul sense, sort of inside the human being, because the human being is not a series of synapses in the brain and a series of organic processes. We are something much more than that. And so the science that is being studied in a materialistic sense really limits us in this study of the purpose of a human being, the essence of a human being, why we're here, What is our finality in our life in some way, right?
Cesar: This is very interesting because we are like in a trap, Richard. We create theories, and these theories, according to the scientific method of today, must be falsifiable if it is to be a scientific theory. So this means that all theories have to come from the human mind. So the idea of God is impossible for this kind of approach. So they ruled out theology, which is the basis of all knowledge.
So we are like in a trap. How can scientists propose a solution for our problem if they created a system that does not accept the solution?
Richard: This is a very interesting point. And the great Malachi Martin, who was one of the great exorcists, and here I'm going to bring in something rather strange in a more scientific discussion, perhaps, for some. Malachi Martin wrote a book about exorcism in which he outlined five cases of exorcism that had been well, well documented.
And each one of these exorcisms was founded on an essential dialectical point. In other words, it came down to a philosophy of life of the person involved. And the exorcist had to fight with this philosophy of life as Socrates did 2,500 years ago to try to show the illogicalness of it to return the person to sanity. And one of the key elements was this.
All mysteries can be resolved in natural explanations, natural in quotations, meaning rational, scientific, quantifiable. There is no relevance in anything that cannot be rationally understood and no truth beyond the rational. And a person who followed this philosophy of life had to be exorcised. Now, I don't want to enter so much the spiritual question in this regard, but it shows a certain insanity of following only a quantifiable point of view.
How would you help us to understand this better? Well,
Cesar: if you create the theories, you control the theories, right? And this is the standpoint of our science. We, scientists, must create the theories and test them. So, to be rational means to have control of all realm of study. And this is like to be a god in psychopathology. This is to be sick.
The more scientists believe they can control all knowledge, the sicker they are. We must as human beings perceive that we are connected to a reality which is much greater than us for the very fact that we didn't did not build up ourselves. You didn't say oh i want to be born so you are simply born and you don't know why but you were born.
So you are not the controller of your life. So you are dependent of something else you are. And not only of your parents, because your parents was also, they had origin before. And so before and before and before, there was a starting point.
Richard: Something, not a nothing, there was a something. Dr. Keppe says in his marvelous book, The New Physics, which we're going to try to make available to podcast listeners very soon, along with a workbook we've designed on this book, which is quite a complex book.
We're going to try to make this available by download very, very soon. So please keep listening and write me if you'd like more information about that, rich at richjonesvoice.com. Dr. Keppe says in this book, the time has come for humankind to learn how to deal with the most elevated elements of his personality, that is, with that which constitutes man's essential structure, called energy by physics and soul or substance by metaphysics.
Dr. Keppe is really trying to reintroduce this transcendental element back into the world of science today, with, I think, tremendous implications for us.
Cesar: Yes, like I told you before, we are in a trap, Richard. And, for example, the Nobel Prize winner for physics, Steven Weinberg, in 1979, he won the Nobel Prize. He made a statement lately saying that physics needs urgently to review all of its bases in order to go forward.
Because physics is defined as the relationship between matter and energy. The study of matter, energy and their interrelations. So, if they do not have a proper understanding of what energy is, matter and energy, they are in a trap. And so, how come physics, from the material standpoint, want to understand the transcendental realm if the transcendental realm is the cause of the physical world.
This is impossible.
Richard: Keppe says it this way in his book, The New Physics. He says the definitions of scientific phenomena are extremely restrictive because they focus only on what can be seen in the moment without searching for a cause or meaning. I believe that it's impossible to practice science without knowing the phenomena behind it. And these phenomena are found in philosophy and theology as well.
That's a beautiful statement, isn't it? It reconnects us to old wisdom that we exclude, thinking, oh, that's just superstition. This is for sure what happened in the scientific revolution. We want to cut people away from the superstition, from the dogma of the church, and have people rely on things that can be measurable, testable provable and not just based on blind faith. We're talking about years of judeo-christian philosophy and theology that contains a lot of wisdom.
If you just cut that out we're as you said we're swimming without a foundation. We don't have anything
Cesar: to stand on. When auguste conti that french philosopher that created the positivism he simply discarded the metaphysical knowledge saying that it was a kind of primitive knowledge. Like all the Judeo-Christian tradition was a kind of primitive knowledge. This is amazing. With which authority can a man come and say such a thing?
To put down thousands of years of knowledge accumulated by geniuses, let's say, saints, philosophers who came before him. And this is a statement that implicates a lot of responsibility. And what amazes me most it how come humanity follows such ideas. Because according to the the law of three states of Auguste Conte metaphysical knowledge was the first knowledge. The most primitive. Then it is replaced with time for the philosophical knowledge which is a second step.
And then the third step would be the positive knowledge, which is the sensorial knowledge, the knowledge based on senses, on experiments. And this third step would be the scientific, the positivistic.
Richard: The pinnacle, right?
Cesar: Yeah, the pinnacle, yes, right, in which we are in today. And so only what you can see, you feel, when you can test with your five senses is considered true knowledge.
But this is so limiting,
Richard: because it took scientists 25 years to tell us that global warming was probably, because they can never say definitely, was probably caused by human activity. But this is obvious to anybody with a brain. Just by looking, you don't need 25 years of research to tell you that. Science is very limited in this sense.
Cesar: But I think, Richard, there is another parameter in that, is the economic power.
There are today many economic powers that be in the world that wants to convey the studies. I am sure that there are many scientists who developed very important things for humanity but they give noble prizes mainly for the ones who are of interest for these powers today. You give a noble prize for physics who help electronic industries. Universities in the United States, they are all sponsored by big companies who have interest that the people, the geniuses, they hire to work for them.
So they only develop things of their interest. We do not develop things for the interest of humanity as a whole.
Richard: Thanks a lot, Cesar. Thinking with Somebody Else's Head is on the Positive World Radio Network and on iTunes.
There's a Wealth of material there for you to explore more, especially on this theme of science. Well, we've been talking about the more physical science so far, but Keppe's Analytical Trilogy is foundationally a psychological science.
His corrections to psychology, however, are no less significant.
Cláudia Bernhardt Pacheco brings her usual incisive analysis to looking at Keppe's inner science, the science of the psyche, as Thinking with Somebody Else's Head continues in just a moment. You are tuned in to Thinking with Somebody Else's on the Positive World Radio Network, originating from the International Society of Analytical Trilogy in São Paulo, Brazil.
Our email, joneshealing at gmail.com. You know, I love this topic of today, modern science in crisis, because it is our scientific worldview that underpins our technological philosophy on the planet. And without changing that, we only continue to destroy. I mean, if we're inverted, anything we undertake from that inverted stance only creates more chaos and confusion and destruction.
But I'd like to shift gears now. Dr. Cláudia Bernhardt Pacheco has joined me today, and I'd like to see if we can make a link somehow between this hard physical science we've been talking about with Cesar Soós and a study of the human being, who is, after all, the source of this inverted science. So, Cláudia, a listener wrote recently that he was interested in learning more about how his psychological problems reflected out into the larger society and how that process takes place.
What can you say to sort of launch us into this territory?
Cláudia Bernhardt Pacheco: I think, Richard, that this question that your listener made is very important. And I remember a client that I was attending today, And she went to the doctor to check how was her syndrome going. She has a near problem. It's a syndrome when the person starts to get depth. But with analysis, the syndrome not only stopped developing, but it regressed.
So the doctors told her, now you are a healthy person. You don't need anymore to take any medicines now. You don't even have to come back here, only if you start again with the symptoms, then you get back to me. But if not, take back your normal life, you are a healthy woman. And she said this morning she woke up with a heavy heart, like a heavy feeling, and she was anxious and as if she was expecting something different from the doctor.
She was a kind of expecting the doctor to tell her she was not okay, she had to continue with her worries and that the syndrome was developing. So the most difficult aspect in this woman's analysis is for her to understand or to even suspect that she has an inner life that she's not aware of. That consciously she states, I want to be healthy, I want to be happy, I want to raise my child, I want to be a healthy woman.
This is what she thinks rationally, consciously. But deep down, there is an inversion and that Keppe discovered. And this inversion is present in all of us. And it's like a drive, an impulse that take us, lead us to the opposite most of the time of what we think. So if I think I want to be happy, deep down I have an inverted impulse that destroys my happiness that is against, is suspicious, is afraid of life and happiness.
Richard: This is very interesting because this is not something that we're conscious of in our mind. We don't wake up in the morning and go, let's see, how can I destroy the planet in my life today? It's not like that. It's not, Richard. And so Keppe has discovered something really hidden in the human being.
Cláudia: Really, really hidden. I'll give another example. Another patient, she's in a severe depressive state.
And she's struggling with many practical aspects of her life. She's a psychotherapist, by the way. And she's a Christian, by the way. Now she's in a state that she lost her health. She lost her money. She's plenty of debts. And she came to me saying, what can I do? I'm going to the psychiatrist. I'm taking pills. I'm going to the doctor. And all of them say it's emotional.
You don't have anything that would justify your syndromes. And she's weak, and she vomits every day, and she feels pain, and she feels insecure. She has panic attacks. And she says, but I want to get better. I accept life. I love God. I want money. I find money as a good thing, a necessary thing. Money is something that comes from God, is a gift.
And then I tell her, look, you are a psychotherapist. The psychopathology or the science is meant to show that we have a split inner self. We think in one way. We are rational human beings. We know what is the best for us. We know what is good for life and for ourselves. We know everything I get from life is good. But deep down, there is this split.
Schizophrenia comes from the schizoid attitude, which is split, division. And all of us have this split, this division inside of ourselves. And this can be more serious, less serious, have more symptoms in one direction or another, but all of us have this division.
Richard: This is the great thing that Keppe has discovered then, Cláudia, this, what you're calling now a split, a division.
Cláudia: Yes, a split between reason, consciousness, thought, and our emotional life. Split between feeling and thinking. And you know, Johns, this is not something instinctive, natural. This is coming from our inverted will. This is a metaphysical problem. Because we want the best consciously. Even criminals, they say they want the best for their children. Even criminals, they don't admit they are criminals. So consciously, they always justify what they do.
Some of them kill people thinking that they are doing the best for society. They have a rational, intellectual explanation for that. But deep down, there is this inverted emotional life that we do not allow to be conscious. So we can many times feel that if we diminish the censorship. We can. And I do see many of your listeners starting to admit, even openly to you, that they have sometimes sexual perverse habits or drug addictions, or some are kleptomaniac, some are addicted to aggression, and they don't know why they do that.
They want to be different, consciously, but deep down this gives them tremendous pleasure, and this pleasure they can't give up.
Richard: Even though they know rashly that it's wrong, They have some inner drive to have this. Keppe says it this way, Cláudia. He says, the cause of all difficulties we suffer resides in the principal conduct of envy, which leads mankind to live in an inverted manner and which now must be rapidly conscientized to prevent the terrible destruction of our civilization today.
How did Keppe get to this? How did he arrive at this place?
Cláudia: Well, he always dealt with neurotic, psychotic, or organic ill patients. And he attended thousands of them in the hospital of the University of São Paulo, in his private clinic, in the United States, in Europe, in Brazil. So during all these years of practice, Keppe got a lot of experience coming from science.
It's experimental. So what he noticed in his patients, and he was always having as a basis, because all science has a philosophical basis, has a philosophy behind it. And Keppe had these important studies in metaphysics and even theological studies. But he based most of his theories in science, but science with the right philosophy behind it. So through the metaphysical. Principles. He understood that human beings are, by origin, good, beautiful, and truthful.
By origin or by nature. There is not such a thing as a being which is not good. Evil is the absence of good. Sickness is the absence of health. Pain is the absence of well-being.
Richard: Or the destruction of those things.
Cláudia: Or destruction. So what is wrong in us then? If there are no instincts of death, as Freud said, so what would be wrong in us?
So Keppe discovered that there is one thing that is really wrong in us, and this is our will. Our will has a flaw in it. We wish, we desire evil things for us and for other people, but we censor this consciousness. So generally a psychotic person or a neurotic one, he stops everything that is good, or he attacks everything and everybody that is good for them.
They fight with their parents, with their teachers, with their husbands, wives, children. They destroy what they like the most, and so they destroy their health. They don't want to study. They don't want to develop. They stop working. So the problem with the sick person is not that they reject what is not good. It's not that they are rejecting what is an addiction or a bad behavior.
A sick person is that one who rejects, who destroys something that is good. But
Richard: Cláudia, this inverted will is not just in the psychotics, right?
Cláudia: Right. It's present in
Richard: all of us in our psychogenetics. This is the thing I've noticed, I think, is that people have the tendency to think that, well, I'm pretty normal. I don't have those kind of things that you're talking about.
And the really crazy ones are the ones in power or the people who run corporations or those other people out there. But what Kepley has discovered is that this sickness is inside every human being, and this is what we need to see.
Cláudia: Yeah, this is verifiable in science, in experimentation. Children are born with that. Melanie Klein spoke about the psychotic nucleus of the baby since they are born.
A baby manifests hate, paranoia, insecurity, even sometimes against their mother, mostly against their mother. As she said, the feeding breast of the mother. And she developed a beautiful, wonderful work about envy and gratitude. She wrote a book about that and saying that small babies, they already manifest envy towards the breast of the mother, the goodness of the mother. They are paranoid because they depend on the good of their mother.
So, since we are small babies, we understand that goodness comes from other sources than from ourselves. We depend on goodness. We depend on our parents. We depend on the breast of the mother. We depend on life. We depend on God. We depend on anything or everything that is good, energy, life, that is coming from other sources than ourselves.
Richard: Now, you said we're born with this even as babies, but what does this say about our good, beautiful, and truthful essence then?
Cláudia: Yes, our good, beautiful, and truthful essence, like, it has a flaw in it. It has a decay, which is this inverted will, this envy, this suspicion towards life, towards God, towards what is good. And this, Keppe calls universal envy. It's not only towards our parents, it's not only towards the breast of the mother, it's not only towards one person. It has very little to do with the envy of penis as some Freudians believe, but it is a general, an universal envy which is towards every good, beautiful and truthful thing or life or God.
Because we, in front of this infinite beauty, goodness, and truth, we feel so insecure, we feel so like a grain of sand. So, to accept, to resonate with life, and to be good, beautiful, and truthful as we were created, we must see this opposition, this suspicion, this retraction. Like it's we are we do not resonate with life anymore as we did before, and this is our inversion, inversion in the will. And it's caused by this theomania or this envy, universal envy, this opposition in admitting that we are dependent on this infinite creator and infinite love, beauty and truth, which has nothing to do with our choices.
Richard: Perfect place for a break.
We're back in just a moment. This is Thinking with Somebody Else's Head, broadcasting the discoveries of psychoanalyst and social scientist Dr. Norberto Keppe every week on the Positive World Radio Network and in iTunes. I'm Richard Lloyd Jones. Dr. Cláudia Bernhardt-Prosheko, my guest today. What you've been talking about is really beautiful, Cláudia.
And I want to see now if we can make a link between this inner split, as you call it, in the human being. Let's see how this is manifested in society at large. How would you see this split now in society?
Cláudia: For instance, Jones, we think that we are stronger than nature. And Americans have this idea that they have to dominate to conquer nature and not to resonate with nature, to live in accordance with life.
We want to build life according to our deliriums, to our ideas, to our theories, to our choices that are most of the time linked to our narcissistic thoughts, egotistic thoughts, theomaniac thoughts. I want to control life, the facts of life, to control them and to make them serve me and my own interests. And I don't want to perceive that if I want to get the best of life and the best of myself, I need to resonate with all this huge, powerful universal laws, natural laws.
Keppe
Richard: says in one of his new books, original sin was the consequence of man's desire to be useless and to also make useless everything that exists. Thus, man rejects this paradise for which he was created, polluting the air, seas, and earth, destroying the forests, rivers, and animals, trying however he can to eliminate any trace of divine creation.
Cláudia: Do you see the competition?
Richard: Yes, I do. Richard,
Cláudia: do you see that man competes with God? Yes. He wants to be even bigger than God. Right. And this is found in the most important psychopathologists in history. The German psychopathologists, some of the Austrian, they discovered that megalomania and arrogance were present in the severe cases of paranoia, schizophrenia, or the sick people. Now, Keppe, in his clinical experience, noticed that megalomania, as he calls it, theomania, is present in all human beings.
So, what is wrong in us? This psychogenetic flaw in our will, this flaw in the will, distortion. This is what religious people call original sin, which is present in all of us. We compete with God. And if we don't want to see this theomania, this competition, we don't get back to who we really are. We are divine creatures. And by denying our creator, denying the first source of who we are, the life in itself, we are denying our own essence.
Richard: Yeah, there's no way out of that.
Cláudia: No way. So it's like a child that is so envious, so competitive against his father or his mother that he wants to do everything in the opposite, to be different, to compete in a bad sense. We don't identify with God. We don't want to be like him, to think like him, to behave like him, using the maximum, the most of our essence.
But because of this envy and this competition, we want to be different. We want to be totally against. So if my father is this way, I want to be the opposite. I want to be my way. And what is this my way? This my way is destruction. Because we cannot be another being than who we are.
Richard: But Cláudia, how do we treat this then?
We have these problems inside us. We see them reflected in the society. What do we do? What are you doing to help us treat this?
Cláudia: Jones, the first thing, humanity, common people, neurotic normal people, as we say, because all of us are neurotic, you know. So we, as people, the more conscious ones. Should understand that there is a science. The science is psycho-socio pathology.
The science that study the inner man and its effect on society and nature. There is a science, a modern science, which is the most important science. And this science should be taught. This science should be known. This science should be understood by every human being. Because our mind is the best motor, the best generator of energy, the best healer, the best everything in ourselves.
But we don't know how to deal with this. We have this saying, understand yourself or you're going to be destroyed by your inner life, which is not known. Everything that you don't know inside of you will destroy you, will destroy us, will destroy our planet. So there is this science, and we need fast to teach people about that. People need to understand, people need to study in order to help themselves and to reverse this inverted way humanity is following, which is leading us to self-annihilation.
We need people that will become agents of transformation to help to save humanity and the planet. Because now we discovered technical means to destroy the planet very fast. We are destroying the planet with all these technical devices and the pseudo-agriculture, the pseudo-medical sciences, the pseudo-physics, the pseudo... All pseudo, because they are leading to an inverted intention, and people are not aware. So every scientist has the obligation, the duty to know himself in order to see his true intentions when he creates a theory or a legislative representative.
He must understand his pathology in order to understand his true deep intentions when he creates laws for the people. A president of a country should do analysis and know what are the hidden intentions he has when he decides things in the name of the people, when he declares a war against another country in the name of his people. It's an obligation for us to know ourselves, to know our errors, our bad intentions, which are all unconscientized, most of them.
Richard: Thanks a lot, Cláudia. You know, I wonder if that day will ever come when politicians and leaders do analysis. I hope to see that in my lifetime, let me tell you. I think I would pay for that. We've been considering modern science in crisis today for these numerous psychosocial reasons we've discussed. And I want to just leave us with a bit of hope.
There is hope. Cesar Soós is back. And I just want him to consider with us the good news of the Keppe motor, because this has real prospects for changing our technological philosophy on the planet. Cesar, I'd like to begin with the Secretary of Energy. Physicist Stephen Chu was speaking that the world's energy and environment problems would require Nobel-level breakthroughs in three areas.
He said electric batteries, solar power and the development of new crops that can be turned into fuel. And I felt as I read this that he doesn't know about the capimotor. He's missing something. He's very linked to the material level of things. This
Cesar: kind of thinking belongs to the mainstream right of technology. All technology in this planet is based on material combustibles, on material sources of energy.
So if you think of getting electricity, you think about the hydroelectric to get energy from levels of water, right? Or you think about nuclear power plants or you think about coal or there are many other forms, but all of them require a primary source, material primary source. And because of this thinking, we are destroying our planet, you see. So people are attached to this kind of thing, to this frame of thinking, because they do not see a solution for that.
They do not have another point of view. Dr. Cappi says that energy creates matter, not the other way around.
Richard: Good. Let's go into that in a minute, but let me continue on your thought, because I think you're saying it very well. I remember an interview that you and I participated in with a man from National Public Radio in Florida. And he was, at the beginning of his show, he was praising the situation in Brazil, where you and I live, where they're using biocombustibles now that are better for the environment, mainly sugarcane, which is creating a new type of biofuel, which is better for the environment.
But what they didn't say, what they don't know, is that the planting of sugarcane absolutely destroys the ecosystem of the soil. It makes it like a desert. It just completely takes the nutrients out, doesn't it?
Cesar: Yes, everybody knows that any kind of monoculture, all monocultures, they sterilize the lands. So sugarcane plantation requires huge areas. Imagine to feed all the cars with sugarcane, with alcohol.
We would need to turn most, a big part of our territory here, Brazil, which is a very like a fertile country, would have to become a country to produce alcohol for cars. And this is everything we don't need. No. One thing is to have the lands appropriate for production of food. Other thing is to have the same lands for production of alcohol for cars.
Sure.
Richard: And the main point I think you want to make and that I want to make is that we can't continue to get energy only from material. This is the inverted idea in science, isn't
Cesar: it? Exactly, Richard. We keep thinking that energy comes from material primary sources. This is the problem. And how do
Richard: we break that thinking? Because that is entrenched, it's sort of ingrained in everyone's mind.
And of course, from the physics world, as we see Stephen Chu having that attitude as well, to everybody. Everybody thinks that we get energy from the food, we get, you know, things come from material sources. How do we begin to break that thinking? First
Cesar: of all, we have to accept the idea that electromagnetism is not a primary source of energy like physics believes.
Physics believes the electromagnetic sources forces they comes from electrons, from material particles. So in fact dr Cappi in his book the new physics derived from a disinverted metaphysics, he gives us a different view of that. He says the energy of the vacuum creates the electromagnetism. So for dr Cappi the electromagnetism is not a primary source but is a secondary source. And this changes completely the way we make technology.
This changes completely the way we can use energy. Because think of this, Richard. You need batteries to create energy, electricity. This is what we believe now. In the old view, yes. Yeah, in the old view. But in our new view, we take electricity out from space, from empty space. What do you think about that?
Richard: Well, one thing, I guess it's not empty anymore, is it?
No,
Cesar: exactly. The empty space is full of energy, is energy. Once you can harness this energy, you have the entire infinite cosmos for you. It's a huge fuel deposit, fuel source, yes.
Richard: You said it one time, you said we don't have an energy crisis at all. We have infinite amounts of energy in the universe. Let me quote from Dr. Keppe's book, maybe as a way of focusing us in on this idea, Cesar.
He said, in his book, The New Physics, Dr. Keppe says, Planets, stars, comets, and galaxies move inside an almost absolute energy which determines all existence, and which ancient scholars called ether, a kind of fluid found in the vacuum of space. Therefore, we must disinvert our notion and see that energetic forces are extremely powerful, maintaining everything that exists. What
is
Cesar: he talking about here?
This is extremely interesting. Behind this thought, Richard, imagine if we think like the scientists today, the vacuum being an empty space, all matter will have an end. So our cosmos is doomed to an end, which they call a thermal or thermic death, because the all matter is losing energy in the form of heat, is losing movement and heat, and until it will get a certain point everything will be dead.
This is one of the theories they believe. Because they believe the vacuum cannot, nothing can come out of the vacuum.
Richard: Yeah, right. And everything is non-renewable, right? If we use it up, we
Cesar: use it up and it's gone. So this has cosmological implications. Once you... You accept to the point of view that the vacuum is full of energy and also on top of that you accept that this energy is also organized form of energy because our material world is organized.
The planets, they are organized. They are harmonic in cosmos. They are all in their situations. They are all harmonic, one in relation to the other. So it means this energy has in itself the order. So you have to accept that the basis of the cosmos is order, is harmony is beauty and so this gives a completely new approach for science. Very
Richard: exciting isn't it?
The Keppe Motor is at KepiMotor.com there's more on our site too HealingThroughConsciousness.com This is Richard Lloyd Jones, you've been listening to Thinking with Somebody Else's Head, back next week
