Naturally

Legitimacy is a term widely used in law, political science, philosophy, sociology and, ultimately, is about all the social sciences and humanities, why not also in spirituality?

As legitimacy is, generally, the ethic quality of law and justice, which stems from a consensus in the face of evidence, can we associate legitimacy, naturally, to the spiritual postures?

For example, when someone performs a particular function (of practitioner, of teacher, (of today’s much-popular) function of master, or president of an association – do that person have legitimacy to do so?

What is the factual work, evident, that these people have experienced – in the first person –, which gives them legitimacy to perform their roles?

Are there results obtained empirically – in a consistent way –, which confers them enough legitimacy so they put themselves in these various social functions?

They feel they have legitimacy to do so and they do it?

Or they don’t yet have legitimacy to do so, but they still do it?

What would be more naturally normal?

This is an adaptation of a google translation from the original text in Portuguese:
(any help on improvement of this translation is highly appreciated)

Legitimidade é um termo muito usado no direito, na ciência política, na filosofia, na sociologia e, no fundo, dis respeito a todas as ciências sociais e humanas, por que não também, na espiritualidade?

Sendo a legitimidade, genericamente, a qualidade ética do direito e da justiça, que deriva de um consenso face a evidências, como se pode associar a legitimidade, naturalmente, a posturas espirituais?

Por exemplo, quando alguém exerce uma determinada função (de praticante, de professor, (da hoje em dia muito divulgada) função de mestre, ou de presidente de uma associação – terá essa pessoa legitimidade para o fazer?

Qual é o trabalho factual, evidente, que estas pessoas vivenciaram - na primeira pessoa -, que lhes confere legitimidade para desempenharem as suas funções?

Existem resultados obtidos empiricamente – de forma consistente -, que lhes atribua a legitimidade suficiente para se colocarem nestes vários papéis sociais?

Sentem que têm legitimidade para o fazer e fazem-no?

Ou sentem que não têm ainda legitimidade para o fazer, mas ainda assim fazem-no?

O que seria mais naturalmente normal?

I’m almost sure that you’ve already heard e/or read about the placebo effect. This phenomenon is extensively and well described as well documented in Wikipedia, but take some seconds to read this part:

«In one common placebo procedure, a patient is given an inert pill, told that it may improve his/her condition, but not told that it is in fact inert. Such an intervention may cause the patient to believe the treatment will change his/her condition (…) A placebo described as a muscle relaxant will cause muscle relaxation and if described as the opposite, muscle tension. A placebo presented as a stimulant will have this effect on heart rhythm, and blood pressure, but when administered as a depressant, the opposite effect. The perceived consumption of caffeine has been reported to cause similar effects even when decaffeinated coffee is consumed, although a 2003 study found only limited support for this. Alcohol placebos can cause intoxication and sensorimotor impairment. Perceived ergogenic aids can increase endurance, speed and weight-lifting ability, leading to the question of whether placebos should be allowed in sport competition. Placebos can help smokers quit. Perceived allergens which are not truly allergenic can cause allergies. Interventions such as psychotherapy can have placebo effects. The effect has been observed in the transplantation of human embryonic neurons into the brains of those with advanced Parkinson’s disease.^»

So my reflection is very simple, and obvious, I think…

(I don’t have current numbers but) In 2005 the U.S. spent $95 billion on medical research (note that there are more than 3.000 companies that make medical research in the U.S.) and how many real studies where made to investigate this natural power of the body to heal without chemicals?

If the body responds positively, to a positive suggestion, why there isn’t more money, resources, human potential invested in expanding the natural and positive body responses?

Wouldn’t it be more naturally normal to seek out the natural power of self-healing of the human body, instead of the abnormally normalized procedures of producing chemical compounds to attack the diseases (which are sometimes side effects of other chemicals)?

This is to young people, future scientists: meditate about the placebo effect, investigate the bio responses of people submitted to placebos, act according to your inner nature and wisdom, don’t let yourself be infected by the negative side of money and most important of all: be loving to humanity.

New wise and loving scientists and researchers are needed.

If we are attentive to everyday language, can be very interesting to analyze what we verbalize.

Stay tuned.

I’ve bought a perfume on a website in December. By the midst of January as it didn’t arrived I’ve contacted the seller and asked about it. The seller immediately refunded my money. Meanwhile the perfume arrive two weeks after that. Consequently I’ve contacted the seller and repaid the perfume.

And the seller wrote: «It’s good to know there’s still honest people out there».

“Still”? What does this mean?

Is honesty becoming abnormal?

Is it rare to be honest?

Am I an abnormal by being honest?

Are these legitimate questions or am I becoming mentally ill?

Or maybe…

«Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.»

Click and listen…

Billy Joel – Honesty

Honesty is natural, dishonesty is counter nature.

But this is just my opinion – what’s yours?