Ancestry Syndrome

reply to post by liveandlearn

"Inherited Memories" v/s "Genetic Memories"

Recognizing our "inherited memories" can lead us to better health, self-discovery, personal growth and truth. On the other hand, accepting the false idea of "genetic memory" and "genetically inherited traits" leads directly to truly horrific Eugenics Policies.

Unfortunately, many journalists and New Age guru-types wrongly use the words "inherited" and "genetic" interchangeably, as when writing about Schützenberger's Ancestry Syndrome. BIG mistake. Please bear with me - this is not just semantics. "Inherited Memories" and "Genetic Memories" are very different ideas; the mechanisms involved are totally different; and most importantly, the implications are absolute polar opposites.

In simple terms, "inherited" does NOT mean "genetic." Everything genetic IS inherited but everything that can be inherited is NOT genetic. "Inheritance" in general involves various mechanisms including both genetics and epigenetics. However, genetic inheritance relies exclusively on DNA (genes), while epigenetic inheritance involves other mechanisms that over-ride gene expression aka genetic inheritance (for good or ill).

The take home message here is that you're stuck with your genes, but you CAN change your epigenetic inheritance and also, maybe over-ride your genes' expressions. True, there is no scientific evidence showing we can change our genes' expressions by force of will, however, science does prove that epigenetic change is not permanent even when it's inherited, and does show we can "fix" the bad effects.

Unfortunately, just saying "inherited memories" are "genetic memories" is dangerous because genetic stuff is permanent - the Eugenics Movement is alive and well, and committed to "culling defectives" from the human gene pool. Their rationale is that some people just have bad genes that pre-dispose them to bad traits and so, are not "worthy." The new science of epigenetics is quite wonderful because it proves that inherited negative traits are NOT genetic or permanent, and can be "fixed."




…I do have personal experience with medically verifiable cell memories, and inherited memories, but am loath to talk about them here unless this genetic-epigenetic issue is cleared up to my satisfaction.

soficrow
reply to post by liveandlearn

 

"Inherited Memories" v/s "Genetic Memories"

Recognizing our "inherited memories" can lead us to better health, self-discovery, personal growth and truth. On the other hand, accepting the false idea of "genetic memory" and "genetically inherited traits" leads directly to truly horrific Eugenics Policies.

Unfortunately, many journalists and New Age guru-types wrongly use the words "inherited" and "genetic" interchangeably, as when writing about Schützenberger's Ancestry Syndrome. BIG mistake. Please bear with me - this is not just semantics. "Inherited Memories" and "Genetic Memories" are very different ideas; the mechanisms involved are totally different; and most importantly, the implications are absolute polar opposites.

In simple terms, "inherited" does NOT mean "genetic." Everything genetic IS inherited but everything that can be inherited is NOT genetic. "Inheritance" in general involves various mechanisms including both genetics and epigenetics. However, genetic inheritance relies exclusively on DNA (genes), while epigenetic inheritance involves other mechanisms that over-ride gene expression aka genetic inheritance (for good or ill).

The take home message here is that you're stuck with your genes, but you CAN change your epigenetic inheritance and also, maybe over-ride your genes' expressions. True, there is no scientific evidence showing we can change our genes' expressions by force of will, however, science does prove that epigenetic change is not permanent even when it's inherited, and does show we can "fix" the bad effects.

Unfortunately, just saying "inherited memories" are "genetic memories" is dangerous because genetic stuff is permanent - the Eugenics Movement is alive and well, and committed to "culling defectives" from the human gene pool. Their rationale is that some people just have bad genes that pre-dispose them to bad traits and so, are not "worthy." The new science of epigenetics is quite wonderful because it proves that inherited negative traits are NOT genetic or permanent, and can be "fixed."




…I do have personal experience with medically verifiable cell memories, and inherited memories, but am loath to talk about them here unless this genetic-epigenetic issue is cleared up to my satisfaction.

Now wouldn't that have been easier to say in the beginning? I could never have explained it so clearly.

However, your attacks on me has literally drained me and I do not have the energy or the desire to continue with this thread. To bad. I think, had it stayed on topic, everyone would have benefited from an honest discussion.

reply to post by liveandlearn


I'm sorry you feel that I attacked you. I do not feel or believe I did, but do know I questioned one of your ideas. As far as my "saying that in the beginning" - a good part of the collaborative process involves "working things out" to get to better clarity (if not truth). ...From my own experiences I know that the process can often be quite painful.

Your work and contributions here are of notably high quality. Thank you. I do think this is a great topic and good thread - hopefully you might come back to it someday.

Take care, sofi


PS. I apologize for using the word "ignorance." I personally do not think ignorance is an inherently bad thing - I see it as a transient state, easily remedied with more information. But I now recognize the word is "loaded" for some people. Next time the word comes to my mind I will substitute "unawareness" or something in its place (on the advice of a friend - unfortunately I didn't come to that wisdom by myself - another argument for collaboration).

calstorm
Very interesting. I would give anything to know about my family history, but I don't have any information and no one to ask.

My mother is getting ready to retire and looking to start her second career as someone who gets people started on genealogy, because most people feel as you do, where do I start?

Most people start with a concept they want to figure out in their heritage. Uncle bob told me that we had a great great great Aunt that was a member of the Sioux nation.

So while following that line, you find other stuff out.

But if you have no knowledge, and no one to ask, I can find out where you can start.

If Mormons wanted to take over the world, they could, because they collect information on everybody.

reply to post by nixie_nox

...If Mormons wanted to take over the world, they could, because they collect information on everybody.

Interesting reference. Did you know Mormons are known for following Eugenics principles?

...The other threat to sound eugenics is from the "very effective" Women's Relief Society, which "now doles out money [and other forms of support] to many morons and feeble minded and other defectives, and tolerates in this way the production of defective children. This, he argues, is unsound from the standpoint of Mormon theory, and he cites in support of this claim Apostle Parley P. Pratt, who is quoted as saying "the law of God would not suffer the idiot, the confirmed irreclaimable drunkard, the man of hereditary disease or of vicious habits, to possess or retain a wife." (Key to the Science of Theology, 1855, p. 167) He urges the Relief Society to make aid conditional on an assurance that there will be no reproduction, "by segregation, sterilization or approved contraception." He praises Utah for having an institution in which< sterilization of some of its inmates is authorized, but laments that the number of those treated is so small.

...III: Genetics and Mormonism

But I wanted to raise the spectre of our eugenic past for several reasons. First, our past is still with us, and although the eugenics of the past, through advances in science and terminological transformations has become the genetics of the present...

There is a third reason for wanting to discuss eugenics and genetics in this scientifically advanced and technology-heavy society. The United States, unlike practically any other developed nation, does not regulate reproductive technologies. ...

...it is up to us as individuals, as progenitors and as citizens, to educate ourselves and to think about eugenics and genetics; to figure out what the relevance of the new genetics is to our lives and the lives of our families, and what the social implications might be for ourselves and our fellow citizens.

a reply to: soficrow.

So glad you have kept responding to this thread. Will look into your comments but on brief perusal I cannot disagree.