Alison
I agree with you. I know I am a neophyte in the Rogerian world, and have a
lot to learn. But I see nothing incorrect about referring to a physical
manifestation/response. If I am wrong, please give further explanation.
Rogers did write extensively about energy fields, and used rather esoteric
terms. But she also brought her ideas down to a physical level when she
repeatedly instructed Rogerian nurses to assist human beings in achieving
health. Energy affects matter. Matter is physical. Why can't we use the
term physical response? Why must we choose a more incomprehensible term,
so that Rogerian science remains an enigma to the general public, and many
other nurses as well?
Valerie Eschiti
Original Message:
-----------------
From: alison rushing
alison_r0022@...
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Discussion
<html><body>
<tt>
here i go again--being overly simplistic--just finished reading mccarthy's
'the field'--great book!!---but it just serves to reinforce my notion of
field manifestations---and i think cortisol is a physical manifestation
that occurs when mutual process occurs---that physical aspect of our field
which we call the human body manifests at multiple levels--which includes
the cellular level as well--i also think that manifestations occur to
provide balance---and cortisol levels shift to try to maintain balance an
dharmony---probably way too simple----<BR>
<BR>
alison<BR>
<BR>
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email