"is It Adequate To Understand The World Scientifically?

[NorthenSun]

 

What makes you decide this is a part of our very nature? Did our nature make a sudden change 10,000 years ago, meaning that it was not part of our nature for most of our 1.8 million years?

 

 

Before I read your post I was thinking about what happened in recent history to cause this sudden surge in human activity. If we have existed as a species for thousands of years and our hominid ancestors for several million, then we are clearly living in unique and unprecedented times. And the changes occurring in just the last 200 years are astounding when compared to the millenniums which have proceeded our present age. Indeed, we are living in a privileged position in human history.

 

So did our human nature change in the recent past? No, you are correct, as a species we had already evolved enough intelligence long before this time, as evidenced by the artifacts from the previous era of the cave man. What the discovery of agriculture led to was a natural environmental advantage for humans: the capability to more effectively reproduce ourselves. In addition, agriculture allowed some humans the opportunity to spend much less time on the task of merely surviving. With more humans, and more available time, the creative part of human nature was able to garner more attention. You assert we have not used our newly found free time wisely. Perhaps.

 

So indeed we may be as the yeast in the sugar solution petri dish, exploding in number to fill every usable space. Thomas Malthus warned us that the outcome of this experiment would probably not be to our liking. But is man solely a part of nature with no hope of escaping this fate, or is there something in our kit bag of mental abilities which could save us from catastrophe? Has our technology doomed us with no glimmer of salvation?

 

A few years ago the BBC conducted a reenactment of the life of primitive man using some volunteers. One of the subjects made a chair to sit on, but the experimenters made him take it apart because it was not considered an authentic behavior. Although not pleased with the request, for the sake of the study the person complied. But even after the collapse of civilization, I do not think we will be able give up Science and return to sitting on the floor. The Garden of Eden is closed. But perhaps the fruit from the tree of knowledge has turned out to contain a parting gift from God after all. I suggest it is the ability to use our intellect (reason, science, logic) to save ourselves from an otherwise inevitable destiny of excessive procreative collapse, metaphorically speaking of course. (How do you get them back on the farm after they have seen Paris?)

[chefranden]

Before I read your post I was thinking about what happened in recent history to cause this sudden surge in human activity. If we have existed as a species for thousands of years and our hominid ancestors for several million, then we are clearly living in unique and unprecedented times. And the changes occurring in just the last 200 years are astounding when compared to the millenniums which have proceeded our present age. Indeed, we are living in a privileged position in human history.

 

I would agree that it is unique, but privileged, I’m not so sure. By luck of birth we are in a privileged portion of the unique age. However, I doubt that the 3 billion people trying to scrap by on $2 a day feel all that privileged.

 

 

So did our human nature change in the recent past? No, you are correct, as a species we had already evolved enough intelligence long before this time, as evidenced by the artifacts from the previous era of the cave man. What the discovery of agriculture led to was a natural environmental advantage for humans: the capability to more effectively reproduce ourselves. In addition, agriculture allowed some humans the opportunity to spend much less time on the task of merely surviving. With more humans, and more available time, the creative part of human nature was able to garner more attention. You assert we have not used our newly found free time wisely. Perhaps.

 

The “free time” belongs to a privileged few at the expense of the unending toil and/or misery of the many. I think that totalitarian agriculture allowed the few to enslave the many, by taking away free access to food. Have you ever heard of an unemployed beaver? No, a beaver knows where the food is and other beavers don’t lock it up. In fact you really don’t know that life is better for you or not. You accept it at face value, even though you know by experience many ways that our culture lies to you. Do not suppose that the lies stop at the border of religion.

 

From here. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

 

So indeed we may be as the yeast in the sugar solution petri dish, exploding in number to fill every usable space. Thomas Malthus warned us that the outcome of this experiment would probably not be to our liking. But is man solely a part of nature with no hope of escaping this fate, or is there something in our kit bag of mental abilities which could save us from catastrophe? Has our technology doomed us with no glimmer of salvation?

 

I don’t know how to put this powerfully enough, so I’ll just ask: Why do you suppose that nature is something that should be escaped from? I hear many young people being all excited about getting outside of their skins, by being up loaded. To me that says that we hate organic existence so much that we wish to escape into the inorganic. However, even if up-loading people happens, they will not have escaped nature which includes the inorganic.

 

Human intelligence may well prove to be a fatal flaw, one of the experiments of Mother Nature gone awry. I am of the opinion that our technology has doomed us. We are smart enough to make it, but we are not smart enough to let go of it. I hope I am wrong, even though I’m a negative old fart.

 

 

…(How do you get them back on the farm after they have seen Paris?)

 

This is what I mean when I say we are not smart enough. We are civilization junkies, and we are not about to give up the smack. I include myself.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Hmm,

 

I'd "give up the smack" -- I've done it before.

 

I don't blame others for not wanting to though.

 

I still don't see why science is all-bad. Knowledge is power; it is just as great a liberator as it is an enslaver, depending on how you apply it.

[NorthenSun]

The “free time” belongs to a privileged few at the expense of the unending toil and/or misery of the many. I think that totalitarian agriculture allowed the few to enslave the many, by taking away free access to food. Have you ever heard of an unemployed beaver?

So which is it? Are the masses working away or are they jobless? Or maybe they are all like the French young people, working diligently at rioting in order to maintain their status as jobless and unemployable.

 

 

I don’t know how to put this powerfully enough, so I’ll just ask: Why do you suppose that nature is something that should be escaped from? I hear many young people being all excited about getting outside of their skins, by being up loaded. To me that says that we hate organic existence so much that we wish to escape into the inorganic. However, even if up-loading people happens, they will not have escaped nature which includes the inorganic.

 

I have no desire to escape from nature. You miss my point. If humans are simply another animal and merely a part of nature, then we will function like the other animals. Our population will grow until it is limited by some factor: lack of food and resources, pollution, disease, or deadly conflict. There is no reason to worry about what will happen to our species because nature will take its course just as it does with all the other species. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we all die.

 

I would agree that we are part nature, but our expanded mental capacity places us in an exceptional position. We can alter our environment to an extent well beyond any other species. That human history and our current status indicate we have driven ourselves up to the edge of an environmental cliff does not mean we necessarily have to continue on over the cliff. Science can suggest several options for reducing the population, such as forced sterilization after one or two children. But our collective political will determine whether or not we can take the necessary actions. The way to get back to a “free food” world is to have a vastly reduced population. Your negativity suggests you believe we will get there through environmental disaster rather than some rational plan of action. Maybe so, but I think it is wrong to blame ‘Science” for choosing an irrational path.

 

 

Human intelligence may well prove to be a fatal flaw, one of the experiments of Mother Nature gone awry. I am of the opinion that our technology has doomed us. We are smart enough to make it, but we are not smart enough to let go of it. I hope I am wrong,

 

Me too. I have a grand niece on the way, Maybe she will be a smartie.

[chefranden]

Hmm,

 

I'd "give up the smack" -- I've done it before.

 

I don't blame others for not wanting to though.

 

I still don't see why science is all-bad. Knowledge is power; it is just as great a liberator as it is an enslaver, depending on how you apply it.

 

Where has it been a great liberator?

 

Liberated from what?

 

Question all assumptions of truth, what ever their source.

[chefranden]

So which is it? Are the masses working away or are they jobless? Or maybe they are all like the French young people, working diligently at rioting in order to maintain their status as jobless and unemployable.

 

Sometimes I take too many shortcuts in my writing. I should have made two paragraphs.

 

"The “free time” belongs to a privileged few at the expense of the unending toil and/or misery of the many. I think that totalitarian agriculture allowed the few to enslave the many, by taking away free access to food."

 

In this culture you have no natrual right to food. With the ongoing privatization of water you may soon have no natural right to water. You must labor for the owners of the food in order to get a portion of it. If the owners of the food do not need your labor, too bad for you. You may be a very well kept slave, or you may be one that must live on $2/day or less, or you may be unemployed and forced to scavenge for your living down at the dump, or dumpster. Which ever it is you have been trained to be realatively content with your lot, or to consider it your fault if the food guys don't have any work for you.

 

"Have you ever heard of an unemployed beaver? No, a beaver knows where the food is and other beavers don’t lock it up. In fact you really don’t know that life is better for you or not. You accept it at face value, even though you know by experience many ways that our culture lies to you. Do not suppose that the lies stop at the border of religion."

 

Why do you not think it odd that you must be employed in order to eat? Where did you learn that? I not talking about not working. All animals work at getting their food. I'm talking about doing something for someone else in order to be allowed access to food. In spite of what you have been taught that is not the same thing. If you are lucky may get as much as 50% of what you produced back as your living. Because of economies of scale this luck will make you very comfortable and you will tend to side with the owners. You may even feel greatful to the owners that they let you have so much of your own labor. At least half of people alive today must get by on a return of 1% or less of their labor, if they are lucky enough to be employed.

 

 

I have no desire to escape from nature. You miss my point. If humans are simply another animal and merely a part of nature, then we will function like the other animals. Our population will grow until it is limited by some factor: lack of food and resources, pollution, disease, or deadly conflict. There is no reason to worry about what will happen to our species because nature will take its course just as it does with all the other species. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we all die.

 

I see. I did miss it.

 

From an intellectual/rational perspective you are correct. It doesn't make any difference to Mother Nature if we survive as a species or not. However, humans tend to care about thier fate. I will be sad when my dog dies. The universe will not be sad.

 

But there is reason to worry. Our physical structure as beings in the world requires it. It is one of the things that we do. Once we are gone then so to is human angst. This seems to be the usual reason for suicide. My reason for compassion is in me not out there on the otherside of my skin. I must have compassion for the same reason I must pee. When I can no longer pee, I will have no reason to worry.

 

I would agree that we are part nature, but our expanded mental capacity places us in an exceptional position. We can alter our environment to an extent well beyond any other species. That human history and our current status indicate we have driven ourselves up to the edge of an environmental cliff does not mean we necessarily have to continue on over the cliff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science can suggest several options for reducing the population, such as forced sterilization after one or two children. But our collective political will determine whether or not we can take the necessary actions. The way to get back to a “free food” world is to have a vastly reduced population. Your negativity suggests you believe we will get there through environmental disaster rather than some rational plan of action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe so, but I think it is wrong to blame ‘Science” for choosing an irrational path.

 

You are correct we don't have to go over the edge, unless we already have. Our relationship to the edge is not yet clear and probably won't be until we are smashed to a bloody pulp at the bottom. We are like the guy that jumped off the Sear's Tower and was over heard as he passed the 10th floor, "well so far so good."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes my negativity is pointing towards natural disaster as the probable solution or outcome. But that is because I don't see very many people waking up. That doesn't mean they are not of course. It could very well be my negativity is from lack of knowledge rather than from knowledge. I'm willing to be enlightened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not blaming Science for choosing an irrational path. My heresy is much worse than that! I'm saying science is an irrational path. Why? Because it ignores a large portion of how humans relate to the world. Most of our relationship to the world is sensual, but more and more we are trying live via ignoring that, because it does not make scientific sense.

 

Consider the implications of this: "Your negativity suggests you believe we will get there through environmental disaster rather than some rational plan of action."

This is what Mother Culture expects us to think: "rational/consciousness is superior to unconscious nature." Notice that I didn't say irrational/unconscious nature. Because, irrational is a pejorative in this culture. We suppose that unconscious = something bad like irrational/ignorant/stupid/unknowing/... But I'm not so sure. Example. You cannot explain consciously how to grow an arm, but I'm realitively confident that you unconsciously did it at least twice. That suggests to me that the unconscious is more intelligent than the conscious. Now of course conscious/intelligence may figure out how to grow an arm and actually do it. But the point is that unconscious/intelligence beat conscious/intelligence to the arm millions of years ago. In addition Mother Nature's unconscious/intelligence supplied your conscious/intelligence. I think we are missing something.

[jjacksonRIAB]

 

Where has it been a great liberator?

 

Liberated from what?

 

Question all assumptions of truth, what ever their source.

 

That is the approach of science. I feel compelled to ask: what "assumptions" you have found in your travels?

 

I will agree that some scientists are dogmatic and our concept of truth is becoming increasingly abstract. I question our use of abstraction because at times I feel it takes us too far from the truth in the interest of simplification. I can't prove it though; it's just a "feeling".

[NorthenSun]

[/i] This is what Mother Culture expects us to think: "rational/consciousness is superior to unconscious nature." Notice that I didn't say irrational/unconscious nature. Because, irrational is a pejorative in this culture. We suppose that unconscious = something bad like irrational/ignorant/stupid/unknowing/... But I'm not so sure. Example. You cannot explain consciously how to grow an arm, but I'm realitively confident that you unconsciously did it at least twice. That suggests to me that the unconscious is more intelligent than the conscious. Now of course conscious/intelligence may figure out how to grow an arm and actually do it. But the point is that unconscious/intelligence beat conscious/intelligence to the arm millions of years ago.

 

Fetal development of arms or other body parts is not driven by a brain related mental process. The complex instruction set contained within the DNA interacts with the environment of the cell and of the womb to create the body’s structures. At some stage the nervous system becomes sufficiently advanced to initiate its regulatory functions, but I don’t think the brain functions, either consciously or unconsciously, to control any development of body morphology. In other words, the unconscious mind plays no role in assembling the human infant, and no credit can be assigned for doing a good or a bad job. If this was not true, then one could say something like: “ The reason the child was born with a cleft palate was due to its subconscious mind willing its face to assume this appearance”. I think it is misleading to connect the action of Mother Nature with the term: unconscious intelligence.

 

Also I would not ascribe superiority to either part of the mind, conscious or unconscious, but rather the necessity of working together. Take the case of Terry Schiavo, who was diagnosed by most doctors as not having any conscious brain activity for years. Lets ignore any pronouncements to the contrary by the likes of such oddballs as Senator Frist, and presume that this was indeed a true diagnosis, and also that she never would have recovered. Terry’s subconscious mind was certainly still active to some extent, her heart beat and her lungs breathed. She remained “alive” for a long time. But did her subconscious mind serve her in any way that would allow her existence to be classified as being ‘superior’ to that of conscious people? My answer would be no. (Being compared to a vegetable is not a positive compliment.)

 

In like manner the mind and body work together. The injured boxer in the movie “Million Dollar Baby” still had her mental faculties, both the conscious and unconscious mind. Her problem was with her body over which she had lost conscious control. Some would contend that because she still had her full mental ability, she had every reason to continue living. After his accident, Christopher Reeve accomplished more than many able bodied people. But most of his effort was devoted to finding some technology which would reconnect his conscious mind with his body. So I think there must be some sympathy and understanding for the boxer and her loss, and subsequent wish to end a life that no longer seemed tenable. So I will grant you that the feeling, sensual portion of the mind, and the body that enables it, are very much a part of explaining what it means to be human. But not the only part.

 

You are correct, we cannot cut off the senses from our understanding of the mind and reality, but neither can we ignore the conscious/rational/memory portion. Would you consider yourself to have a great sex life if every morning your wife told you that the two of you had great sex last night, but you never have any recollections other than getting into bed and going to sleep?

 

In addition Mother Nature's unconscious/intelligence supplied your conscious/intelligence.

So?

I found a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk and I picked it up and put it in my pocket. Since no reality TV people appeared from behind the bushes, I am fairly certain that I was able to take my conscious action because of the unconscious action of another person. Who came out better on the deal?

[NorthenSun]

I'm not blaming Science for choosing an irrational path. My heresy is much worse than that! I'm saying science is an irrational path.

 

Perhaps, at times:

 

Jon Stewart, The Daily Show - What Are We Doing To Pigs?

 

"Sure, we could eat it in moderation, but wouldn’t it be easier to just rearrange a mammal’s cellular structure?"

[chefranden]

Fetal development of arms or other body parts is not driven by a brain related mental process. The complex instruction set contained within the DNA interacts with the environment of the cell and of the womb to create the body’s structures. At some stage the nervous system becomes sufficiently advanced to initiate its regulatory functions, but I don’t think the brain functions, either consciously or unconsciously, to control any development of body morphology. In other words, the unconscious mind plays no role in assembling the human infant, and no credit can be assigned for doing a good or a bad job. If this was not true, then one could say something like: “ The reason the child was born with a cleft palate was due to its subconscious mind willing its face to assume this appearance”. I think it is misleading to connect the action of Mother Nature with the term: unconscious intelligence.

 

I'm sorry I have obviously lead you astray. It is entirely my fault for using a common term in a slightly different way without defining it.

 

 

Most of the functions of a human brain are unconscious. All the functions of a rock are unconscious. The processes of evolution are unconscious. The universe at large is unconscious. I feel somewhat justified in calling our dear Mom unconscious. Out of the Great Unconscious of Mother Nature came lots of stuff including us and including consciousness. When I say that you unconsciously grew arms I'm writing metaphorically as I must do because that is the way humans think. I could just as well have written that I'm relatively confident that you unconsciously grew a brain, or toe nails. In fact you still unconsciously grow toe nails. But I don't mean that one of the unconscious functions of the brain is to grow toe nails or arms.

 

It may have been more precise to write that the universe unconsciously knows how to grow arms and consciousness. A conscious function is not needed to store, retrieve, and use information to make something. I think, since we takers rely so heavily on conscious thinking, that we ought to know and take into account the fact that consciousness is a sub-function of unconsciousness not the other way around. We have at least given up the Great Consciousness in the sky that is aware of every bird, hair, and atom, but we continue to act as if the little consciousness on the ground is a sufficient replacement. That is why I feel confident enough to write that our attempt to deal with the universe from a completely rational base is irrational.

 

Also I would not ascribe superiority to either part of the mind, conscious or unconscious, but rather the necessity of working together. Take the case of Terry Schiavo, who was diagnosed by most doctors as not having any conscious brain activity for years. Lets ignore any pronouncements to the contrary by the likes of such oddballs as Senator Frist, and presume that this was indeed a true diagnosis, and also that she never would have recovered. Terry’s subconscious mind was certainly still active to some extent, her heart beat and her lungs breathed. She remained “alive” for a long time. But did her subconscious mind serve her in any way that would allow her existence to be classified as being ‘superior’ to that of conscious people? My answer would be no. (Being compared to a vegetable is not a positive compliment.)

 

Unless you are a vegetable.

 

I, on the other hand, ascribe superiority to the unconscious. My unconscious runs everything including my conscious. I am conscious of some things, but even if I can use that to scientifically work out how my unconsciousness produces consciousness I will never be able to consciously produce my consciousness. If I had to consciously run my digestion I'm pretty sure I'd starve. As great as I think my consciousness is, the SOB doesn't even work for 8 hrs out of every 24. (Well alright 20 out of 24 for me.)

 

Expanding the stupid idea of consciously running my own digestion, I come to the suspicion that it is just as stupid to try to run the world consciously. The conscious didn't evolve to run complex systems, which means it is folly to try to make it do so. Cluster bombs and atom bombs seem evidence of the folly to me. Science is one of the means by which we are making the attempt to consciously run the world.

 

...So I will grant you that the feeling, sensual portion of the mind, and the body that enables it, are very much a part of explaining what it means to be human. But not the only part.

 

Without the body there is no mind, without the mind there can still be a body. Which then would be more basic? Which would be the ground of human being?

 

You are correct, we cannot cut off the senses from our understanding of the mind and reality, but neither can we ignore the conscious/rational/memory portion. Would you consider yourself to have a great sex life if every morning your wife told you that the two of you had great sex last night, but you never have any recollections other than getting into bed and going to sleep?

 

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the conscious/rational/memory portion. I'm suggesting that giving primacy to the conscious/rational/memory portion is a mistake.

 

So?

 

I found a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk and I picked it up and put it in my pocket. Since no reality TV people appeared from behind the bushes, I am fairly certain that I was able to take my conscious action because of the unconscious action of another person. Who came out better on the deal?

 

I've explained the so above. It means that consciousness is a sub-function of unconsciousness.

[NorthenSun]

I'm sorry I have obviously lead you astray. It is entirely my fault for using a common term in a slightly different way without defining it.

 

The language does not have enough separate terms to describe every nuance of thought, and this results in the same term being used in multiple ways. Equivocation as to meaning of consciousness can lead to obfuscation, unintended or deliberate. (For example: I could say that conscious action is usually better for humans than unconsciousness. It is often said that a person acted unconsciously, thoughtlessly, and ended up hurting another person. They should have been more conscious, more thoughtful, as to the effects of their action on the other person. However I know this is not the context you are choosing for these words.)

 

Let me explain. You declare a rock and many of the items in the universe as being unconscious. You also describe the digestive system as operating in an unconscious manner. These are really quite different forms of unconsciousness. The rock never does anything because it has no form of sensation. But the case of living organisms is very different, because there is a stimulus and response mechanism. I will use the term Awareness for this stimulus/response mechanism. The Awareness of organisms allows them to adapt to and even modify their environment. Awareness, as I am using the term, is an attribute of living organisms but not of the inanimate. A rock, and the grand universe do not have Awareness. A rock and the digestive system do not have consciousness, but the digestive system has some degree of Awareness while rock has none. The digestive system receives nerve signal information and responses.

 

I am also saying that Awareness has many levels, degrees, or modes. Take the cockroach, whose main activities would include reproduction, finding food, and protecting itself. When the roach is caught out in the open and it senses that my foot is approaching, there must be some Awareness of danger which is activated in the nervous system, and the roach attempts to get away by running. But is roach also aware of every movement of its legs, or is there a lower level of motion Awareness (that of each leg being coordinated for movement) that occurs somewhat automatically? I would say that indeed the roach is concentrating on finding a safe place to hide rather than having to think about each leg’s operation. The lack of cognizance by the roach as to how it moves, or digests its food for that matter, does not prevent it from completing its tasks of finding food, procreating, and defending itself. The lowly roach operates with many levels of Awareness.

 

Where does consciousness fit? For this discussion I would say that it is a mode of Awareness, a complex and special mode, for certain. A key idea here is that consciousness is not unique to humans. My dog has consciousness as well as all mammals, birds, and reptiles. Do the cockroach, and other insects have consciousness, probably not, but it is only a matter of degree as to what amount of Awareness a species must obtain in order to label it as having consciousness. I will assert that the beaver is making a conscious action when building a dam. It is wide awake and fully cognizant of what it is doing. Successful completion will occur even though it has no recognition of the activity of its digestive system or its heart beating, or any other lower levels of Awareness which are functioning. The beaver is consciously altering its environment to promote its survival. The beaver’s lack of consciousness of its bodily functions does not mean it has a false view of reality. Neither is the case for humans.

 

 

When my son broke his arm, I took him to the clinic. Did the doctor fully understand all the details of how the body is able to re-grow the bone and repair the breakage? No, but that didn’t stop him from putting on the cast which resulted in the bones healing up and the arm regaining its proper function. That living organisms operate with many levels of Awareness, many of which are unrecognized by the higher level of conscious Awareness, does not diminish or invalidate the functioning of the conscious mind.

 

‘The scientist does not have an accurate world view because he is not aware of how his lunch is moving through his intestines.’ ‘The musician’s song was false because he was not aware of the action of his liver to decompose his martini from last night.’ Neither of these statements makes much sense to me.

 

 

...Without the body there is no mind, without the mind there can still be a body. Which then would be more basic? Which would be the ground of human being?

I disagree, the animal body and mind evolved together. There is no need for a mass of nervous system tissue if there is no increasing level of Awareness to function with. The eyes moved to the front of the body because the resulting improved mental visual Awareness promoted survival of the species. Humans are a synthesis of body and mental activity. Life is so much more than the inanimate world. The statues in Madame Tussaud's wax musem, while lifelike, are not human.

 

Science is one of the means by which we are making the attempt to consciously run the world.

 

That is why I feel confident enough to write that our attempt to deal with the universe from a completely rational base is irrational.

 

Give me a list of unconscious actions I can take to save the world.

 

Ok, I'll make it easier, give me a list of non-rational actions, and you have be more specific than "Stop doing Science."

[Karl-777]

To answer the question posed in this thread topic, I would say that it is important to understand the world Scientifically. Is understanding in the physical Sciences alone adequate? For some it is, for me it is not.

 

After reading through the thoughts of members in this very interesting thread, I decided to post this, from one of my favorite intellects.

 

The title of this brief essay is ‘On the Nature of the Primordial Field’, by the late Physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma (1935-1997).

 

The description of the Primordial Field is imaginary but that is precisely why it is correct. The best instrument for the exploration of this question is the human mind.

 

The representation of reality within our conscious persona is constructed out of the myriad chemical reactions to the sensory stimuli of "external reality". On this basis the sensory image is living and we could speculate the external reality was non-living unless we knew the self-evident proposition that all reality was alive.

 

Nothing could exist unless the organizing force were more powerful than destructive & dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the organizing force as transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the constructive energy.

 

The most profound manifestation of the creative force in material form are the thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are modifiers in the direction and application of Force. We arrive at the idea that the primordial field is a field of pure Force.

 

The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the force isotropys.

On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery.

 

Nevertheless that architecture forms a basis for the positing and asking of questions. A dialogue of questions and answers, the field of a design for Physics. As long as we remain rational, 'it' remains rational.

 

The primordial field has all known properties. We understand its force nature through experiments with charged capacitors, magnets, and gravity. In every case, a distortion of the primordial field results in an unbalanced force.

 

Apparently the primordial field has certain mechanical characterizations which allow for the propagation of 'waves'. Mechanical characteristics mandate the possibilities of discrete 'particles'. Both characteristics exist simultaneously. The measuring instrument asks the question, the Universe provides the answer.

 

Consequently, in the Universe of the primordial field the Nature or origin of the field is unknown being beyond the conception of the minds which are examining it.

 

The human mind or body is a materialization of an implied tendency in the body of space. Consequently man can never know his source because only in the downstream of time is the material manifestation formed.

 

Can the material manifestation form more subtle connections than itself? Can you have more subtle thoughts than you can think? The plenum of existence is formed within the limitations of the human mind.

 

The existence of the primordial field can be proved by the manifestation of unbalanced forces through distortion of its normally isotropic condition, i.e. by electricity, magnetism or gravity. That the primordial field has certain mechanical characteristics can be shown by the apparent propagation of waves and the existence of discrete particles.

 

Mathematics is a facet of the Nature of the intelligent primordial field. The mathematics we presently use is derived from the counting of integers. This is OK when counting marbles or money. What is the Nature of the integer? Is an integer exactly the result of a number or are properties of counting being ignored like the higher order precessional modes of rotation, i.e. nutation, ..., ..., etc.

 

Every experiment which is done qualifies and quantifies the primordial field in some aspect.

If you want chaos you get chaos. For those of us who govern our thoughts with logic we get logic. Actually logic and chaos are the extrema of what we know as thought.

 

For those of us who consider ourselves sophisticated we amuse ourselves with a pastime called Science. This the application of logic (the self-defining reasoning process in Nature), to Nature. This self-examination in itself has the limitation of the manifest in attempting to describe the un-manifest.

 

A final thought. The primordial field is responsible for the inertia of material objects. Without rotation the manifested inertial mass is isotropic, as is the primordial field. With rotation anisotropy is established firstly in the existence of directions for the inertia experiment, i.e. axial motion or motion in the plane of rotation. Apparently there is a connection, (through time), between the manifest material object and the primordial field. Consequently, rotation of a material object introduces spatial anisotropy of inertial mass measurements into the spatial region surrounding the rotating object.

 

It is suggestive that magnetism, a phenomena of spatial anisotropy, could be introduced into a normally non-magnetic material, i.e. brass, through the influence of a field of spatial inertia anisotropy. Certain recent experiments of Monstein have borne this out.

 

Although as a field it is no more primary than electricity, magnetism, or gravity, the spatial inertial anisotropy created by a rotating object is called the OD field.

 

Bruce DePalma

More thoughts of Dr. DePalma can be read at the website dedicated to his memory at:

http://depalma.pair.com/

 

Matter is Energy in bondage. We have seen the interaction of these, as well as the transformation of these. Questions such as this arise…what is the Life Energy observed in a Kirlian photograph? How could this be measured? How did it arise?, etc.

Yes, and the practical application of it comes from mediums other than science.

 

I don't disagree that power-hungry people use science for their own applications into warfare. I DO disagree that blaming science is the answer. It seems more like a monolithic scapegoat than an actual problem.

 

You need to focus on the actions of people who abuse science rather than on the concept itself.

I concur. The GMF thing is certainly chilling. The current unholy alliance between the statists and their corporate cronies is a very dangerous situation. Control and profit are two driving factors.

 

The disappearance of the family farm will leave everyone at the mercy of the giant food producers, who will put anything on the market and field questions later. Of course, much of the packaged shit that is on the shelves in the stores does not even qualify as food, with the result of the populace becoming ill, and who are then turned over to the drug companies, for still more profit, in relieving the “symptoms” in their dying bodies.

 

The statists are also pandering to the profit and control-mongering religionist prelates, who continue to cultivate the wretched ignorance that is characteristic in the medieval fundie mentality of the sheeple, but whose votes and support are necessary to keep them in power. Of course, with the continuous brainwashing applied by the religionist hierocracy, these types are easily duped.

 

As it stands at the moment, the consolidation of power must include the elimination of the middle class, via things such as the bankruptcy bill, union-busting, etc. so that eventually only a select few will be able to afford a higher education and have knowledge of anything of importance, which will essentially result in another “dark ages”.

 

Science should be for the benefit of all mankind, but is tragically also used in such abominations as biological warfare, chemical weaponry, depleted uranium munitions and a host of other evil things. The Earth is destroyed by greedy companies who think of nothing but their own profit, and of course, dividends for the same crowd… the voting “base” (see F911) of stockholders.

 

Sadly, true Spiritual/Vibratory Unity with Nature and the Universe has been for the most part lost and replaced by the unholy trinity of statism-religionism-corporatism, where honor, decency and accountability are virtually non-existent.

 

K

[chefranden]

I haven't had time to answer you guys today.

 

Tomorrow.

[NorthenSun]

 

On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery.

 

 

I do not think that one can take apart, or deconstruct, the brain in order to find the mind. Nor do I think the mind is some kind of force disturbance or energy field variation. This is because the mind appears to be a complex assembly of mental agents. The mind is created by an interconnectedness of the neurons and their interactions. One cannot find mind in a single neuron of even a few, instead a large number is needed to cause mental functioning to take place. Understanding the operation of individual neurons is important, but this by itself will never provide an explanation of how the mind works.

 

A somewhat similar analogy is the compound water. While it is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, these two elements have much different properties from water. And a single molecule or a few will not provide the rich variety of structures found in snowflakes, icicles, a frozen skating pond, a swimming pool, an ocean, or the vast array of cloud formations. These structures can only be derived when a large number of water molecules interact. The full complexity of water can only be appreciated by the constructs created by a large number of water molecules. Knowledge of the properties hydrogen, oxygen, and individual H20 molecules is certainly valuable, but it cannot provide a complete understanding of water.

 

My point is that I do not believe the physicist’s approach of looking at smaller and smaller portions of space and time, such as examining the makeup of protons, will be very productive in understanding the mind. The mind is a complex construct which functions in a manner which is greater that the sum of it parts.

[chefranden]

The language does not have enough separate terms to describe every nuance of thought, and this results in the same term being used in multiple ways. Equivocation as to meaning of consciousness can lead to obfuscation, unintended or deliberate.

 

Yes, but I was trying to denote the meaning of unconsciousness, not consciousness.

 

Unconsciousness: that state which is not conscious for what ever reason. This state includes more than the collapse of conscious function. Thus a rock is unconscious.

 

Let me explain. You declare a rock and many of the items in the universe as being unconscious. You also describe the digestive system as operating in an unconscious manner. These are really quite different forms of unconsciousness. The rock never does anything because it has no form of sensation. But the case of living organisms is very different, because there is a stimulus and response mechanism.

 

This is a good example of our hubris. The less a thing is like us the less important it is, and therefore the more it can be disregarded. Thus we can rip open the bowels of the earth to extract what ever chemical we wish to isolate with a clean conscious. Because the earth has no senses, we suppose that no harm is done. Yet it is quite clear that much harm is done. This attitude is directed at all things up to and including human life. Human existence can be rubbed out almost as easily as rock existence if it is not enough like us.

 

I will use the term Awareness for this stimulus/response mechanism…

 

I don’t have an argument with any thing that follows here, except for the underlying assumption that Awareness/Consciousness is superior to an unconscious rock. Consciousness is a sub-function of the unconscious. Awareness is a sub-function of unconsciousness. If evolution is the case this must be true. The unconscious rock is the ground of being of your consciousness and the awareness of a cockroach.

 

Just like a whirlpool cannot exist without the water flowing through it, you (including your consciousness and awareness) cannot exist and do not exist without the “cold dead insensate unconscious” matter of the universe flowing through you. Cold dead insensate unconscious matter is your ground of being. Without it and its proper order there is no you. Matter and its order predates you. Which came first, matter or consciousness is an important question to sort out.

 

Christians say consciousness came first, which is why it must rule. Why do you think consciousness must rule?

 

Edit: forgot some stuff.

 

The scientist does not have an accurate world view because he is not aware of how his lunch is moving through his intestines.’ ‘The musician’s song was false because he was not aware of the action of his liver to decompose his martini from last night.’ Neither of these statements makes much sense to me.

 

 

 

”Without the body there is no mind”I disagree, the animal body and mind evolved together. There is no need for a mass of nervous system tissue if there is no increasing level of Awareness to function with. The eyes moved to the front of the body because the resulting improved mental visual Awareness promoted survival of the species. Humans are a synthesis of body and mental activity. Life is so much more than the inanimate world. The statues in Madame Tussaud's wax musem, while lifelike, are not human.

 

Sorry your disagreement is not clear. Are you saying that mind exists outside/separate of a body? Is it the case that even though body and mind “evolved together” they could have evolved separately? Is it the case that having though “evolved together” body and mind are now separable?

 

 

Give me a list of unconscious actions I can take to save the world.

 

Ok, I'll make it easier, give me a list of non-rational actions, and you have be more specific than "Stop doing Science."

 

I don’t think that I have yet said “Stop doing Science”. Though that may be a good place to start.

 

A few such acts that would be considered “non-rational” but which I would consider rational: Dismantle the nuclear arsenal, bury the fissionable material as deeply as possible. Turn all motor vehicles into tool sheds or planters. Dismantle centralized governments in favor of villages. Grow and produce your own food locally – stop getting your grapes from Chile. Let Chileans grow food for themselves rather than grapes to pay off World Bank loans. Stop chemical research, we already know enough compounds to poison ourselves and life many times over. Stop progress* which is a nice way of saying lets make living things dead. Stop agribusiness in favor of small organic farms. Stop mining. Stop eating oil. Stop medical research; use the resources to give people basic medical services instead of finding new ways to save the affluent from our affluence. Stop using antibiotics in favor of healthy immune systems.

 

*We suppose that the Clovis Point was used for so long because the people using it were stupid compared to us. Maybe it was because they understood the wisdom of no progress.

[pitchu]

Bear with me, this will get somewhere.

 

Like many gentiles, I assumed the Jewish Sabbath to be a Day of Denial: a day in which you (if you're an observant Jew) must refrain from doing the bulk of activities which make you feel like you're living a normal life. It seemed like a day wherein you had to eschew engaging in everything which you assumed to be automatically "there" and a part of the accepted flow of life. I thought it was silly and self-abnegating.

 

Since I've been married to a Sabbath-observant Jew for about 20 years, I've come to understand it quite differently. Jews refer to it as The Day of Delights. Through the week leading up to the Sabbath, the observant one is to think about and be on the lookout for little things to bring to that day... they may be of many kinds: special treats to eat, new games to play with the children, unique approaches to making love with your spouse (sex is mandated on the Sabbath), and so on. The fact that anything requiring labor, electricity (the kindling of a fire), or the starting of a new enterprise, etc., are exempt from Sabbath activities means that all social focus must be on that which is immediately personally interactive, and designed for nothing more than bringing pleasure/joy to oneself and others.

 

This tradition has existed for thousands of years, whereas public use of flying machines has been around for about what -- ? 70?

 

If Peak Oil brings about the destruction of a billion or more human lives, that will be an unspeakable horror. If those who remain must, of necessity, incorporate the ideals of Sabbath into human inter-connectedness, that, to me, will not be going backward -- it will be recapturing that which was let go in favor of the all-consuming pervasiveness of scientific progress.

 

I'm a humanist. As such, I couldn't possibly strive six days a week on projects that undermine and/or destroy human life and the earth humans live on, yet celebrate, on the seventh day, that which I'm otherwise engaged in annihilating. I think the Sabbath concept puts these mutually exclusive life-modes in stark relief and unmasks the myths of "Better Living Through Chemistry" and "GE Brings Good Things to Life" and other such slogans.

 

The direness predicted by some as the consequence of incrementally divesting ourselves of alleged progress and stopping its further entrenchment may be miscalculating what humans truly consider the best parts of being alive... even if a lifetime doesn't last as long.

[chefranden]

Karl,

 

In order to try to understand your post better I went looking for the Mystical Kemet and found this paragraph written by Karl at Witchvox

 

If this isn't yours ignore the quesions.

 

Actually, the first question that needs to be asked is, "where did matter come from in the first place?" The "Big Bang" Energy Event had to have a Cause. To quote the late Physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma: "Nothing could exist unless the Organizing Force were more powerful than destructive and dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the Organizing Force as Transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the Constructive Energy" [from On the Nature of the Primordial Field, 1997 (capital emphasis mine)]. In other words, things just don't pop into existence or blow up by themselves, and then get organized by themselves. My conjecture is that Divine Energy of the Intelligent Primordial Field was transformed into physical matter (matter is Energy in bondage) in that Event, thus Creating Time/Physical Plane. I also view the God Essence as the Divine Spirit from Which the Thoughtforms (the complete DNA code, etc) or Creation Come. The Divine Sun/Son Child "Makes" all matter except Hydrogen, and the Goddess Essence Animates (Brings Forth Life in) what is Created and Made, including the Planet Earth, and everything on it.

 

High Priests of Cosmology aside, I think that there is good reason to hold that the big bang never happened. If that is the case and some version of the steady state universe exists then what would be the need to know where matter came from?

 

Why couldn't the "Organizing Force" be a property of matter? If it is transendent is it a force directed towards the creation of humans as the/a high point of creation?

[chefranden]

If Peak Oil brings about the destruction of a billion or more human lives, that will be an unspeakable horror. If those who remain must, of necessity, incorporate the ideals of Sabbath into human inter-connectedness, that, to me, will not be going backward -- it will be recapturing that which was let go in favor of the all-consuming pervasiveness of scientific progress.

 

What ever the trigger of environmental collapse, we will be dang lucky if it is only a billion! Our sweet Mother culls every herd. We have mostly managed to avoid her culling for the last 500 years give or take since we set out to conquer Nature with Science. We are therefore in a state something like a forest that has had no fire for the last 50 or so years. When we finally light up there will be a heck of a lot of heat.

 

I'm a humanist. As such, I couldn't possibly strive six days a week on projects that undermine and/or destroy human life and the earth humans live on, yet celebrate, on the seventh day, that which I'm otherwise engaged in annihilating. I think the Sabbath concept puts these mutually exclusive life-modes in stark relief and unmasks the myths of "Better Living Through Chemistry" and "GE Brings Good Things to Life" and other such slogans.

 

You've got it. These are the myths we live by. Christianity lost its most dangerous myth statis some time in the middle of the 18th century. What story do we live by is the right question, most of us don't know the answer. (yes that inculdes me.)

 

The direness predicted by some as the consequence of incrementally divesting ourselves of alleged progress and stopping its further entrenchment may be miscalculating what humans truly consider the best parts of being alive... even if a lifetime doesn't last as long.

 

You have more hope and faith than I. I don't think that incremental divestiture is probable, possible Not enough people want to be the first to take their hand out of the cookie jar. I don't act like it myself.

 

I like civilization. I know how to be civilized. I don't know how to be uncivilized. I'm aware that my like for civilization is something like a smokers like of tobbaco. It is just easier to keep smoking.

[pitchu]

 

 

You have more hope and faith than I. I don't think that incremental divestiture is probable, possible

 

Not enough people yet know that they must. It's amazing how many people will do what they must when they must.

 

Not enough people want to be the first to take their hand out of the cookie jar.

I don't act like it myself.

 

Hubby and I have our hands about halfway out of the cookie jar. Over time we've stockpiled non-perishible food, medical supplies, herbal specifics, heirloom seeds, respirator masks, et al, like crazy. Aside from our regular garden, we have a huge potential gardening area, gravity-feed spring water, seven acres of woods for heat, several inverters, a geiger counter, short wave radios, crank flashlights, lots of tents and supplies for refugee relatives, etc. Currently we've ordered plans for a home-made windmill, since solar panels aren't recommended for our overcast part of the world, and plans for a 'still, with which we'll be able to make fuel alcohol from the scabrous apples in our orchard. Several people in our community are preparing in similar ways.

 

I like civilization. Me, too. I know how to be civilized. I'm excellent at it. I'm hoping it'll last long enough for there to still be audiences for the up-coming (possible) London opening of a musical I've been collaborating on. If not, I'll sing the songs by Coleman lantern to my refugee grandchildren. I don't know how to be uncivilized. We're practicing. I'm aware that my like for civilization is something like a smokers like of tobbaco. It is just easier to keep smoking.

 

It's even easier when you grow, cure and store your own tobacco, like me. Excellent barter item, too.

[Amethyst]

What ever the trigger of environmental collapse, we will be dang lucky if it is only a billion! Our sweet Mother culls every herd. We have mostly managed to avoid her culling for the last 500 years give or take since we set out to conquer Nature with Science. We are therefore in a state something like a forest that has had no fire for the last 50 or so years. When we finally light up there will be a heck of a lot of heat.

 

Good point. I have a feeling, call it bullshit if you want to, but I think that something is going to happen within our lifetimes that will cull the herd. I don't think oil will be the primary cause of it, but you never know. And given the current state of the American govt, I don't think it will be pretty, even if Bush isn't in power when it happens.

 

Hubby and I have our hands about halfway out of the cookie jar. Over time we've stockpiled non-perishible food, medical supplies, herbal specifics, heirloom seeds, respirator masks, et al, like crazy. Aside from our regular garden, we have a huge potential gardening area, gravity-feed spring water, seven acres of woods for heat, several inverters, a geiger counter, short wave radios, crank flashlights, lots of tents and supplies for refugee relatives, etc. Currently we've ordered plans for a home-made windmill, since solar panels aren't recommended for our overcast part of the world, and plans for a 'still, with which we'll be able to make fuel alcohol from the scabrous apples in our orchard. Several people in our community are preparing in similar ways.

 

You know, I've seen more and more websites where people are preparing for something, be it Avian flu or WWIII or what have you. I think it underscores the fact that very few people trust the government, and even if they are religious, they do not blindly trust their god(s) anymore.

 

While I'm not a survivalist, I do think that keeping a well-stocked pantry and medicine cabinet is a very smart idea. A lot of Americans barely have more than three days of food in their homes and rely on fast food way too much. I wish I could live off the grid, but apartment living makes that next to impossible.

[Karl-777]

….. In order to try to understand your post better I went looking for the Mystical Kemet and found this paragraph written by Karl at Witchvox….If this isn't yours ignore the questions.

It is, and thank you.

 

High Priests of Cosmology aside, I think that there is good reason to hold that the big bang never happened. If that is the case and some version of the steady state universe exists then what would be the need to know where matter came from?....

I can not say with certainty by what means matter came into existence. (we were not there) I do think it is important to be in Vibratory Sympathy with Nature, and the Principles which Govern Existence.

 

….Why couldn't the "Organizing Force" be a property of matter?....

I think The “Organizing Force” certainly could be a property of physical matter. (Immanence)

…..If it is transendent is it a force directed towards the creation of humans as the/a high point of creation?

I think that Creation is a Guided Process, brought about by the Universal Higher Power (“Organizing Force”) (Transcendence). How about Energetically Vivified Evolvement? (E.V.E.)

 

….I don’t think that I have yet said “Stop doing Science”. Though that may be a good place to start.

 

A few such acts that would be considered “non-rational” but which I would consider rational: Dismantle the nuclear arsenal, bury the fissionable material as deeply as possible. Turn all motor vehicles into tool sheds or planters. Dismantle centralized governments in favor of villages. Grow and produce your own food locally – stop getting your grapes from Chile. Let Chileans grow food for themselves rather than grapes to pay off World Bank loans. Stop chemical research, we already know enough compounds to poison ourselves and life many times over. Stop progress* which is a nice way of saying lets make living things dead. Stop agribusiness in favor of small organic farms. Stop mining. Stop eating oil. Stop medical research; use the resources to give people basic medical services instead of finding new ways to save the affluent from our affluence. Stop using antibiotics in favor of healthy immune systems.

Dismantling the nuclear arsenal would certainly make humanity safer. I have no problem with nuclear power, however. After all, the sun is nuclear. Hopefully someday we can move to fusion. Of course, this will take continuing Scientific Research. The thought of Dubya having control of “the button” is horrifying.

 

If we built cars that burn hydrogen, we would end up with water vapor as the by-product. As long as there is any oil in the ground, that won’t happen though. We also need to make use of wind energy technology. There are places where it gets damn cold in the winter with the howling wind. We could be making electricity there, though.

 

All-organic farms would be the best, but not all land is arable. They have tried to do farming in the Amazon, by cutting down the Rainforest. This destruction is the result of Scientific ignorance, as that soil can not support agriculture. The result is that all of those trees are not breathing in all of that CO2 from the atmosphere and giving us back oxygen, etc. Further global warming could also destabilize methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor, further exacerbating the problem, with serious consequences. Ever watch the film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’?

 

 

Everybody yaps about not having enough water, even though 7/10 of the Earth’s surface is covered by it. Desalination facilities could be manufactured. We can build a fucking pipeline all the way across Alaska for the damned oil, but building desalination facilities in Africa to pipe water to drought-stricken areas or reclaim desert areas is ignored.

 

Mining abuses have certainly been flagrant. Again, the neo-cons could care less about putting the environment back the way they found it, or taking care of waste by-products during production. You are right, we are addicted to technology. I need my stainless steel cookware. We have to mine the materials to make the gallium arsenide we use to make LEDs in our computers, the lead for our car batteries, the copper for wiring, the yttrium to make industrial production laser crystals with, platinum for catalysts, etc. The Earth Organism will have Her revenge for environmental abuses. It won’t be pretty.

 

As far as medical research goes, I think that a lot could be accomplished by stem cell research. We all know what has happened with that. People are sick because of their diets and weak immune systems from abyssmal nutrition. Kids are super-wired form all the refined white sugar they consume, and then we “need” some drugs to calm them down. There are plenty of Natural remedies out there. Of course, there isn’t much money to be made from those. There has even been talk of limiting nutritional supplements such as vitamins. Why? Because they know that if people are healthy, they won’t need all those drugs and doctors, and the profit system will suffer. And we can’t have that, now can we?

 

… If Peak Oil brings about the destruction of a billion or more human lives, that will be an unspeakable horror….

…as would an engineered pandemic, to rid the world of “useless eaters” or for “population control”….

… If those who remain must, of necessity, incorporate the ideals of Sabbath into human inter-connectedness, that, to me, will not be going backward -- it will be recapturing that which was let go in favor of the all-consuming pervasiveness of scientific progress.

Thanks for sharing this.

 

Greed, the desire for domination and control, statism and hate-based fundamentalist religionism are the greatest enemies of the human species at present. Modern man has yet to attain to the level of what were IMO some of the greatest of ancient civilizations, the Egyptians, the Minoans and the Greeks. Although they were obviously not as technologically advanced as we, virtually everyone had the dignity of being a respected and productive member of society. These days, people kowtow to the corporatist god of profit and everything else be damned, and if it means slave labor, sweat shops and destruction of the environment, so be it.

 

The Gnosis the ancients possessed was evident in their architecture and their use of Sacred Geometry in building proportions, etc. Nowadays people just slap up a strip mall. IMO, the mindless destruction of the Library of Alexandria by insane religionists, and the resulting loss of Knowledge, set the human race back 1,000 years. Fundamentalist religionist dementia, which has no conception or clue as to Esoteric Gnosis, ruled in the dark ages, and we are in danger of sliding into that abyss once more.

 

We must fully recapture the Unity with and respect for Nature, the Scientific Wisdom of the Ancients, the Meanings of the Mysteries and the simple Spirituality you so eloquently referred to. In those days, those things were one.

 

K