Viktor Frankl & Sigmund Freud; The Loser Won

An unfortunate turn of events allowed Sigmund Freud to prevail in "psychoanalytic" circles. Freud basically viewed man as all-animalistic. He could not distinguish clearly the difference between man and animal. Yes, of course, man was "higher" than animal but only by implication he had higher functional faculties of thought and intelligence. But in essence he remained animalistic at the core.

Contrast that with the psychology of Victor Frankl who claimed that the basic motivation that drives man is meaningfulness in life, rather than mere lustful yearnings, as Freud would have you believe is the essence of man. While Frankl deems man with lofty intentions, Freud deems man as a clever dog, with no redeeming values.

Never mind that both these theorists did not pin down the actual spiritual components and differences that distinguish man and animal, as does Chassidus, especially that of the classical "Tanya" (by the first Lubavitcher Rebbe). And never mind that significant differences exist between Jew and Gentile regarding their atomic, spiritual components. But at least Frankl made well his case by raising mankind beyond the animalistic, by describing his essence as one that craves meaning in life.

There are practical implications in their differing views too. With regard to religion, for example, Freud would have you think of its practice as some sort of illness. Frankl, of course, would not.

Much like we regret the prevalence of Pasteur's theory of illness versus that of Beauchamp's throughout the last century to guide medical research, and therefore today's "mainstream" medicine stands bereft of cures for most, if not all, chronic degenerative disease, and why so little emphasis is given to the value of good food, so too psychiatry and psychology today suffer from the prevalence of Freudian perspective, when in fact his view relegates man and animal to the same qualitative scale, and therefore most of current psychology cannot formulate a means to self-actualize one's needs, at least to the extent that Frankl's perspective would have allowed.

(By the way, here's an revealing story related to Dr. Victor Frankl, one of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.)

Conventional Medicine Rejects the Main Cause of Disease

The last post spoke of "The Main Cause of Disease", as per our sages.

A major problem with "conventional" medical outlook today is, it looks at symptoms and "attacks" the symptoms as if symptoms were the disease - instead of determining the root of the problem.

If a person has a cancerous tumor, for example, which is a symptom, they seek to treat the tumor, as if the tumor itself were the disease, when in fact the tumor is not the real problem. The real problem is why the body became so toxic that it lost its ability to regenerate normal growth. Normally, the body, when relatively healthy, attacks and destroys wayward growth.

Perhaps a more common situation, more clearly explains the present rut. Suppose a person goes to the doctor suffering from a cold, with a congested nose. The doctor says, "Oh, you have nasal congestion, let me prescribe for you an anti-histamine." But dear reader, the congestion is a symptom, not the problem. The body, in trying to excrete waste products or toxic substances, sometimes tryies to remove these through the mucous membranes. That's why it's congested. So if congestion is the body's way of taking care of itself, why then should we interfere with this symptomatic healing process? It's best to leave it alone. Certainly not to consider it an ailment that needs treatment.

Similarly, if someone has a cough. That's the body's way of trying to eject an offensive irritant. Should we then take cough syrup to cover up this symptom, or should we try and help the body remove the irritant? But today's doctors look at coughs, congestion - or tumors, as if these symptoms are the problem - when in fact they are only reactions to the real problem. Today's conventional medicine has it all backwards. Which is, by the way, why most tumors regrow despite prior conventional therapy (especially if the patient sticks with his original, poor diet).

Imagine you have outside your house a rat problem. What would you do? You can go outside and put down traps or take a pellet gun and shoot them. Will that solve your problem? Of course not! You can keep shooting them, but they'll keep showing up, despite their losses. Why? Because you haven't corrected the root of the problem; You haven't cleaned up the garbage they come to rummage in! But were you to clean up the mess outside the house, you'll not see rats anymore.

This is how "modern, conventional" medicine tackles disease today. They look for symptoms and "shoot at them", instead of seeking the root of the problem. If a patient has high blood pressure, they give drugs to lower the pressure. If the patient develops high blood sugar, they prescribe insulin. If the patient develops arthritis, they offer pain killers. Then if patients show blockage of their cardiac arteries, they quickly jump to perform surgical bypass.

People fall for this approach without realizing that - that which created the hypertension, diabetes, arthritis and atherosclerosis - still remains in the body, and still causes problems. The patient, internally, with the additional toxicity of the medicines, is only getting worse, not better. (Assuming the patient remains on the bad diet that brought him to his sorry state in the first place.)

Never once, during all these doctor visits of our hypothetical patient, did the doctor seek to determine what brought on the disease. Never once did the doctor ask his patient what he eats. Never did the doctor, in fact, make the connection of the disease with what the person eats because, according to his mindset, nutrition has nothing to do with disease.

I can show you many letters from doctors who wrote me in response to a question of mine regarding nutritional therapy, saying nutrition has nothing to do with sickness. Well if not, what then causes most disease? Most of these doctors really don't know. They "know" nutrition has nothing to do with disease, that they "know". But what, in fact, causes disease - this they admit they don't know. Frankly it's to be expected because in all their years at medical school, doctors never once took (or can take - because it's not offered) a basic course in nutrition. They are too proud, so they scoff at news of alternative therapies that actually work. That's why you have the following absurd situation: When a patient develops cancer, for example, they prescribe chemotherapy, and then, during the treatment period, they tell their patients they can continue eating what they've been eating until now.

Recently I saw a cancer patient in his house, a few weeks before he passed away, drinking black coffee while conversing with a friend. At the time he could barely walk a straight line, was pale, weak and sickly. Another member of the community, with "multiple sclerosis", claims to be treated by the "best doctors" in the "very best hospital" (maybe he meant ornate), taking an injection (of a "special medicine") every day for the past 3 or 4 years. What's the outcome of this "great treatment"? The results are open for all to see: This poor guinea pig went from walking with a tingle in his leg, to an unsteady gait, to walking with crutches, then with a wheeled walker, and now you barely see him because he probably can hardly get up. Had he taken no medicine at all, he'd have been better off for sure.

The problem is - people still cannot make the logical connection between disease and food intake; They do not yet realize their chronic degenerative disease directly relates to what they put into their body. It's so simple, yet so elusive. Why? Because our medical establishment steered this culture and conspired against it in the last 100 years to break that natural, logical connection.

Is it any wonder doctors' offices and pharmacies are constantly flooded with clientele? Is it any wonder cancer and other degenerative diseases are on the rise? Is it any wonder no cures yet exist for these, only "treatments" that last a lifetime? Is it any wonder more jobs are filled doing cancer "research" than there are cancer patients? Is it any wonder those who discover or provide curative therapies are legislatively hounded and forced out of practice, or out of the country? Is it any wonder government colludes with these big money-makers who lavish heavy bribes? Is it any wonder "charities" keep raking in billions for cancer, yet kindheartedness to people goes unheeded? Is it any wonder anything other than poisoning (=chemotherapy), burning (=radiation) and mutilation (=surgery) is illegal therapy against cancer in the USA today?