Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Interesting site re: The Aether
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
I already wrote in another thread ("Luck?") about the confusion that may arise because the word "aether" has quite different meanings, depending on who uses it (physicists, mystics or others). But there is also something else and that is that Correa apparently tries to give his ideas and findings a scientific status. It's like he wants to convince a court of scientific judges - "I can prove this, you should accept it".
Many others have tried that, Reich is one example, but the verdict of the court is usually "Forget it, this is crackpot".
My question is, why would anyone wish to appear before that court? Do you need the approval of established science when you feel that something is true? Why do you see scientists as authorities? Why don't you have more trust in your own intuitions, feelings and perceptions?
There are many things that I know to be true, I know that the universe is alive, for instance.
If people like Correa and Reich believe that space is filled with a subtle and more or less alive something (aether, orgone, whatever) I can only say, yes, probably, that's how it feels, it makes sense. But I don't go to the priests and bishops of the church of science (because that is what - established - science is, a church, a belief system) and ask for their blessing. Why should I?
Many others have tried that, Reich is one example, but the verdict of the court is usually "Forget it, this is crackpot".
My question is, why would anyone wish to appear before that court? Do you need the approval of established science when you feel that something is true? Why do you see scientists as authorities? Why don't you have more trust in your own intuitions, feelings and perceptions?
There are many things that I know to be true, I know that the universe is alive, for instance.
If people like Correa and Reich believe that space is filled with a subtle and more or less alive something (aether, orgone, whatever) I can only say, yes, probably, that's how it feels, it makes sense. But I don't go to the priests and bishops of the church of science (because that is what - established - science is, a church, a belief system) and ask for their blessing. Why should I?
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 109
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>
But I don't go to the priests and bishops of the church of science (because that is what - established - science is, a church, a belief system) and ask for their blessing. Why should I?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
You and I a rebels at heart, but here are a few possible arguments against the above:
To fit in the "establishement".
To perpetuate the existence of that "church".
Not to be the "odd ball"
To be "social"
To avoid falling into some passive aggresive form of cynicism whereby the individual feels he's right and to hell with what everybody else thinks is the truth.
To spread a message that would be lost to all but for a few who came accross his ideas.
To provide a "venue" for spreading that word.
To please the "censors" and "gatekeepers" of that venue.
To acknowledge that science has "mass and momentum" in our present frame of reality and to defeat it we must fight it with its own weapons.
To transform science from within.
Because hermit caves are in short supply in our crowded world... (not to mention the fact that the U.S. flattened most the caves in the Pamir mountains... A whole section of hermit real state gone to dust...)
L
But I don't go to the priests and bishops of the church of science (because that is what - established - science is, a church, a belief system) and ask for their blessing. Why should I?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
You and I a rebels at heart, but here are a few possible arguments against the above:
To fit in the "establishement".
To perpetuate the existence of that "church".
Not to be the "odd ball"
To be "social"
To avoid falling into some passive aggresive form of cynicism whereby the individual feels he's right and to hell with what everybody else thinks is the truth.
To spread a message that would be lost to all but for a few who came accross his ideas.
To provide a "venue" for spreading that word.
To please the "censors" and "gatekeepers" of that venue.
To acknowledge that science has "mass and momentum" in our present frame of reality and to defeat it we must fight it with its own weapons.
To transform science from within.
Because hermit caves are in short supply in our crowded world... (not to mention the fact that the U.S. flattened most the caves in the Pamir mountains... A whole section of hermit real state gone to dust...)
L
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
A whole bunch of arguments, Luis!
I think that there is much value in the scientific method and not all scientists are dogmatic. I have met many wonderful open minds when I was a student.
But there were also closed minds, who didn't really seem to be interested in what is true or not.
To transform science from within - apart from closed minds, there is another problem. Science can only go so far. The requirements of the method create a boundary and what lies beyond that is not or difficult to access.
Is it possible to prove scientifically that the answers of the I Ching are random or not random, for instance? Maybe it's possible somewhere in the future, but I think that it would require a completely different perspective on probability and randomness. Not easy.
And then there are of course the felt, the experienced truths, the truths that are not of the thinking mind ..
I think that there is much value in the scientific method and not all scientists are dogmatic. I have met many wonderful open minds when I was a student.
But there were also closed minds, who didn't really seem to be interested in what is true or not.
To transform science from within - apart from closed minds, there is another problem. Science can only go so far. The requirements of the method create a boundary and what lies beyond that is not or difficult to access.
Is it possible to prove scientifically that the answers of the I Ching are random or not random, for instance? Maybe it's possible somewhere in the future, but I think that it would require a completely different perspective on probability and randomness. Not easy.
And then there are of course the felt, the experienced truths, the truths that are not of the thinking mind ..
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 109
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>
And then there are of course the felt, the experienced truths, the truths that are not of the thinking mind ..<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, a failed Nbr 5 from the top it is then, but with an open mind to spot changes in the fabric of our realities and adjust accordingly. Welcome home, brother!!
L. Descartes
And then there are of course the felt, the experienced truths, the truths that are not of the thinking mind ..<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, a failed Nbr 5 from the top it is then, but with an open mind to spot changes in the fabric of our realities and adjust accordingly. Welcome home, brother!!
L. Descartes
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
To hell with what everybody else - including Rene - thinks is the truth.
Mine is: "I smoke, therefore I'm still burning!"
M. Descartes
Mine is: "I smoke, therefore I'm still burning!"
M. Descartes