Reflexive Brain

 

The Reflexive Brain

 

In German New Medicine a distinction is made between a psychological conflict and a biological conflict.

What’s the difference you ask?

A psychological conflict involves the mind, a biological conflict involves the automatic or reflexive brain.

The mind ponders, the brain is reflexive. The mind is extrinsic, the brain intrinsic. The mind is acquired, the brain innate. The mind analyzes, the brain knows.

The mind says, “The stove is hot. It would probably be a good idea to pull my hand off of it.” The brain just reflexively pulls it off.” Think reflexive or automatic. No thought, no debate – just protection. The reflexive brain is all about survival, protection and insuring the integrity of its creation.

There is no thought with the reflexive brain, only inborn servitude. In the same way the reflexive or organic brain beats our heart and breathes our lungs it responds to an unanticipated trauma or shock with the same utility.

In the 1998 comedy release, There’s Something about Mary, Woogie (Chris Elliott) breaks out with progressively worsening hives every time he thinks of Mary (Cameron Diaz.) A visit to the dentist and our blood pressure elevates. Our mouth waters over a delicious looking dessert. Anyone who has ever experienced butterflies in the tummy, dry mouth, sweaty palms and heart racing upon arising for the big office presentation understands the validity of the Reflexive Brain and most have experienced these most rudimental illustrations. 

When an individual is confronted with an unanticipated trauma, shock, difficulty, dilemma or conundrum which they must overcome in order to insure their biological integrity or survival – yet the trauma or shock cannot, at least at that moment be resolved – nature intercedes and the reflexive brain takes over.

The reflexive brain is in place to take the “weight” of the shock off of the mind and shift it to the body. The “weight” is translated into a compensatory, emergency adaptation response that expresses on the organic or cellular level – what we call disease, that the body is able to run or process over time. This is nature’s way of satisfying Abraham Maslow’s need for self preservation as the translation from the reflexive brain to the body buys time for the possibility of a conflict resolution.

Pulmonary lung cancer provides us with an eloquent demonstration. We find the biological conflict centers around a ‘fear of mortality’ or ‘death fright’, e.g. a cancer diagnosis that is perceived as a death sentence.

From the perspective of the reflexive brain, a death fright is equated with being unable to breathe, GASP. Anyone who has ever received such news will recognize the GASP reflex. As the reflexive brain interprets the biological theme (GASP) of the event, simultaneously the shock impacts a very specific relay switch within the brain, in this case, the brainstem.

The moment the reflexive brain receives that impact, the information is immediately communicated to the corresponding target organ, in this case – the lung, which is placed on emergency stand-by; a total preoccupation with the shock is reflected with the cold hands, insomnia and loss of appetite of the stress response – all mirroring the individuals attempt at resolving the news.

Automatically, the alveolar cells of the lung (air sacs) which regulate breathing, begin to proliferate forming what medicine calls a tumor.

Yet, upon a slight movement of the kaleidoscope, an intelligent survival program emerges – the significance of the additional cells (tumor) serves to increase the available alveolar surface area, lung capacity in order to extract more oxygen to assist the individual through the death fright conflict-shock, thereby optimizing the individuals chance of survival. You see, the reflexive brain is not in fact flawed and fallible – rather it is in place to save our life.

Contrary to the accepted perspective, this multiplication of lung cells is not a pointless process but rather serves a very definite biological purpose. The tumor growth will be in direct correlation to the intensity and duration of the shock. The cellular mitosis will continue until the conflict-shock is resolved.

The reflexive brain is about how our biology interprets the trauma or shock vs. how the mind does. The reflexive brain is in place to insure the integrity of the species, while the mind is in place to ponder, contemplate and recall the fact that the reflexive brain actually insured our survival.

Understood in this new context, disease in essence serves the evolutionary purpose of protecting and preserving our biological integrity.

You may have to “sit” with that one for a bit as we have been taught that illness is random, haphazardly striking it’s victim(s) – we now have an understanding of how the reflexive brain serves nature.

This blog is an educational only blog. The information and services contained herein should not be construed as a diagnosis, treatment, prescription or cure for disease.Those seeking treatment for a specific disease should consult with their physician in order to determine the proper, correct and accepted treatment protocol before using anything that is disclosed on this page. Please visit our Legal page for more information.

The Reflexive Brain
Tagged on:                             

2 thoughts on “The Reflexive Brain

  • December 8, 2018 at 9:26 pm
    Permalink

    I can’t reconcile the notion that the reflexive brain is trying to preserve us when in fact the result is usually our demise when disease isn’t treated. How is that intelligent? When we breathe or do any other automatic, reflective behaviors, these further our lives, they don’t lead to a termination of our lives. Using this knowledge, a rational (and neurotic) person would try to destroy their reflexive brains in order to prevent disease.

    GNM isn’t logical because it says the purpose of the reflexive brain is to create disease to serve the evolutionary purpose of protecting and preserving our biological integrity. However, if the disease kills a person, then survival is not achieved and the person’s genes are not passed on, thus ending the evolutionary journey. Therefore, on an evolutionary basis, the GNM theory doesn’t make sense.

    The GNM theory may still be correct, but it doesn’t help to “serve the evolutionary purpose of protecting and preserving our biological integrity.” It may be that our species still needs many millions of years to develop an evolutionary switch to turn off the reflexive, automatic response of disease, before the disease fully kills us.

    Reply
    • mm
      December 9, 2018 at 8:36 am
      Permalink

      These are age-old biological programs that originated in the animal kingdom and must be understood within the context of our biology. They are initiated to assist our BIOLOGY in some way. Perhaps this is not very comforting when in pain and battling a disorder yet we have to understand that nature is looking at things in a slightly different light than that of our educated mind.

      Re: “However, if the disease kills a person, then survival is not achieved and the person’s genes are not passed on.” Yes, this is survival of the fittest.

      The result, today, ‘may’ be our demise under the present medical-pharmaceutical system and level of consciousness.

      What percentage of the worlds population (where statistics are kept) are under this very paradigm?

      What percentage of the worlds population understands the GNM to the point that they “own it” so to speak and can “live it.”.

      What percentage of the worlds population have clearly unearthed the biological conflict and all tracks – while then making all the connections conscious.

      What percentage of the worlds population truly have done the work to ‘release’ the conflict by understanding it in context and perspective.

      With a true understanding of GNM the majority of diseases need not reach the extremes and level of demise we observe under the present paradigm. In that standard, the treatment protocol as well as panic and fear inherent within the paradigm set into motion additional biological conflicts and a domino effect that critically muddles the outcome.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.