Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00447)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, gregory <gregory@z...> wrote:


> While admiring Pedro's commitment, claims about "Occult Chemistry" 
being 
> "vindicated" have been long made and never substantiated (they go 
back to 
> Jinarajadasa's time). 
> A search through the standard reference sources on scientific 
literature 
> (e.g. "Science Citation Index") discloses very few scholarly, 
> peer-reviewed papers on the subject - all of them 
dismishing "Occult 
> Chemistry" as nonsense.
> The claims ("a book is about to be published...') are either 
fantasy - or 
> can we have the references to scholarly, peer-reviewed papers 
which 
> vindicate "Occult Chemistry"?
> By the way, the claims about the influence of Leadbeater on 
Kandinsky and 
> Mondrian are generally wildly magnified. There was some influence 
but it 
> had nothing to do with either artist accepting Leadbeater's 
clairvoyant 
> claims.
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett



Regarding Occult Chemistry, what I did write was:

"His joint work with Annie Besant on Occult Chemistry has received
renewed attention recently and is due to feature in a biography of 
the
Nobel Prize for Chemistry of 1922 (Anston). Information has surfaced
that Anston used at that time as a name for a newly discovered
chemical element the same name previously attributed to it by
Leabeater, without giving the due credit for it."

If I can read what is written above, I don't find the 
word "vindication" in it. One cannot supply peer-reviewed articles 
of a book not yet published.

A plate from the book THOUGHT FORMS by Besant and Leadbeater was 
reproduced in the first few pages of the catalogue for the 
exhibition on Modern Art in Chicago, which took place in 1986. I did 
not say anywhere in my posting that Kandinsky and others accepted 
the validity of Leadbeater's clairvoyance.


Pedro