Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00215)

Hi Mic,

When a person, such as yourself, has a philosophic and transcendental 
turn of mind, it is difficult, perhaps, to imagine that there could 
be a mind that accepts as real only the gross material evidence 
palpably provided before it by chance. And yet, the latter is 
literally the characteristic that dominates our current cycle of 
evolution. The arid intellect is supposed by many to be the height of 
development available for the species. 

This may seem a tragedy and a betrayal, until we consider the fact of 
evolution, of continual revolving and "recycling" of life that 
surrounds and permeates all we are or know. The mind that can 
comprise the material, the materialist, and the transendent, at least 
in some of its manifestations, can see the value, as well as the 
limits, of each. Certainly, if one spent all one's consciousness on 
immaterial reality, one would be in need of charity or more from 
one's fellow man. And if one confined one's store of consciousness, 
or imagination and intuition, which may be somewhat the same thing, 
to one pre-historic (what a word!) tooth, some sort of material 
success may result, but what a universe of possibilities would be 
missed. 

Nevertheless, we, the humanity walking around on the earth this very 
day, are the children of the age in which we live. If we revolve our 
periscope a bit, say 180 degrees, we can sometimes see that the 
opposite ends of the spectrum (sunrise and sunset?) are both 
essential, in their right time and place. Each has something to 
contribute, each dominates and controls its own true realm, and each 
gives way to the other, according to the appropriate rhythm of 
nature. 

Belief is a tricky concept. If one is a "true believer," any amount 
of silly predictions may spout from one's lips, backed by one's 
slightly dazed or intoxicated dreamy gaze. But if the scientist 
didn't believe that there was such a thing as science, where would he 
be?

It seems that the occultist has the best chance of extracting some of 
the "truth" (that ever-changing and elusive creature) from the 
evidence, especially if he open wide his mind to admit all 
possibilities, and then carefully sift and measure them, using his 
own experience, knowledge, wisdom, that gained by his own trials and 
errors and successes, using his own intuition and imagination, 
staying close to the path of what we call, for lack of a better term, 
virtue, in his own life, dedicating what he discovers to the general 
welfare of all. Science has done regular miracles in the past century 
or two, or three, or whatever, and will continue to do so as long as 
this amazing cycle of exploration continues. Anyone who likes can be 
a scientist, even a seer or a mystic. And vice versa, if the truth 
(that word again!) be known.

All the best,
Adelasie

On 22 Aug 2002 at 23:56, Mic Forster wrote:

> There is much talk from scientist and materialists
> alike that claims made by those who do not necessarily
> adhere to orthodox are merely psuedoscientific claims.
> There is also much talk that the sciences that get
> published in, say, Nature or Science are true sciences
> and do not dabble into psuedoscience. Palaeontology is
> one such branch of science that is published in such
> "prestigious" publications. Generations of children
> have grown up reading dinosaur books, looking at
> wonderful illustrations of animals long extinct, and,
> these days, watching how they move and interact with
> one another on programs such as "Walking with Beasts".
> We are led to believe that these are hard core
> scientific facts, the ecology and behaviour of these
> animals is completely known, with only trivial gaps,
> and there is no reason to question otherwise. But what
> most people don't know is that often prehistoric
> animals, in particular, are completely reconstructed,
> behaviour, appearance, ecology and all, from a single
> tooth, metatarsal or claw. For example, a single tooth
> was excavated from a dig in south-east queensland. The
> tooth has now been designated to belong to Tingamarra
> (genus Chulpsia). This tooth "appeared" to represent
> others from the condylarths and its subsequent
> reconstruction of the entire animal was based on
> knowledge from other fossils of this group. From a
> single tooth, which could have been a genetic anamoly,
> an entire prehistoric animal was reconstructed. 
> 
> When, I implore those scientific dogmatists, are we
> meant to believe science? 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>