Occult Chemistry - Science?

Interesting and surprising to say the least!
The quantum physicist John Hagelin's work on this topic comes directly to mind.
http://www.hagelin.org/about.html
Some may find it "new agey" but I think it's worth looking into.
We once thought the world was flat so why not have an opened mind.
Cheers

Modern science talks of hidden dimensions and it may be possible that clairvoyants can see into these other worlds. I have just read the article on the Esoteric Science website and found it very convincing. I don't know enough about quantum physics to know whether it is right or not but I think there must be some truth in it. If anyone knows a quantum physicist it would be interesting to hear what they have to say about it!

That makes two of us.

In a recent radio interview Professor Jim Al-Khalili suggested, “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you quite clearly don't”.
David, definately an intriguing post. My question is, why is there such a widespread desire to fill encyclopedic voids with myths that only restrict our political agency?
Also, if you feel your grip slipping here's a link to interesting article-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/15/endarkenment

The scepticim of conventional science is almost certainly holding back scientific advancement. If this esoteric science turns out to right, scientists are going to look like a bunch of idiots for ignoring it for over a century. It is no wonder they don't want to investigate it properly!!!

The idea behind a scientific approach is to remain constantly sceptical.
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763

Marcus, interesting points. Politics is surely a social phenomenon that operates between many differing ideologies and is never resolved into a truth. In a typical democratic system the most popular party gets to make the decisions for up to five years at a time, with the public having little say. So the obvious attraction of Esoterism is to place the human being back into the centre, having some direct control over their own reality. The equations of Quantum Physics yield results that reflect our apparent reality, but the wider implications, that the observer can effect the result, are problematic to say the least. I agree with Dawkins & Colquhoun that organised religion can be harmful, but I don't think we're at a point yet in Science where we have all the answers. Maybe we will soon.

I'd prefer to have the freedom to examine all the forms of socially constructed 'truth' and make up my own mind. Let's discuss this further, but I feel we need someone more versed in Quantum theory to dissect the original article.
So, should religion and the state be further separated? Would we be better ruled by an elite team of Scientists? Will this ever happen when centre-right parties such as Bush/Blair rise to power by appealing to the Christian vote ?

miichale talbot and david bohm are both interesting reads in connection to this kind of thing .

Let us not forget, quantum physics needed to occur for C. W. Leadbeater & Annie Besant's interesting thoughts to be interpreted this way. It is the re-reading that is of importance. We are applying new knowledge to old suppositions and imposing a pattern of similarity. But it would have also been possible to highlight the discrepancies.

What is the effect of our configuration on our configuration? Or, what colour are our rose tinted glasses, and what do they blind us too?
When gazing upon the atomical order we would do well to remember that we too are constituted in that series–we ourselves are atoms. Hence the observer must effect the result (we could think of the input a crowd has on a football match–the observers are complicit in the outcome, they are integral to the game, they are 'players'). This brings to the fore that which was previously in the background–the observer. Thus, to believe in the neutrality of observation is a way of avoiding the complicit nature of our beings. quantum theory has only highlighted what those that seek to contest their present have already understood–their is no neutral position. The idea of a neutral position is not neutral, but unengaged, unreflexive and consequently indecisive.

It is not a case of religion versus science, but ideas of political agency versus counter ideas of political agency. Both religion and science can be invoked to close down particular forms of agency. Neither disciplines are ends in themsleves, only means to an end. Indeed the history of both camps is littered with examples that our testament to this fact. Therefore it is the power to manipulate and dictate the frontier of autonomy that requires investigating–what are its motives, at what price etc. That critical action is the politics I wish to envoke.

Surely quantum mechanics is just modern terminology for what Leadbeater and Besant knew a hundred years ago? This is a prime example of science playing catch up to esoteric knowledge. There is another article on the original website www.esotericscience.org/article2a.htm that identifies further instances (this time on a macroscopic level) of esoteric knowledge preceding scientific knowledge by thousands of years.

PART ONE.

the possibility of Science being just one belief system among the many, that operates like any other religion? Feel free to prove me wrong."
I think this is a most apt sentence and one that i certainly concur with. Marcus also makes a most valid point in highlighting the role of our selves in our own apparent observation of the world. Personally I am of the opinion that as there can only ever be interpretation – we need to (quite rightly as Marcus has pointed out) acknowledge the phenomena of our own selves before we take the step further to attribute a given meaning to the existentiality of a given act.

PART TWO.

However I would also like to say this, in pointing out that there can only ever be interpretation – this is not to say that there is some free for all semantic orgy – and we can make whatever we want for ourselves (despite this still sometimes being the case) rather in acknowledging the role of our selves within the process of interpretation – I believe we are fulfilling the natural capacity of the most appropriate way to discerning events around us and more importantly within us. Plainly put – It seems part of Being to acknowledge our own Be-ing, in order to know Being.

PART THREE.

Science is of course an interesting paradigm, it is for me nothing more than another conjecture – however one cannot deny its degree of success against the backdrop of verifying given paradigms against each other. This verification procedure is indeed key – for interestingly although I believe the Human Existential Project – namely the Human experience is bound to interpreting events within the realm of symbol and archetypes – we seemingly must choose to undertake this within a given paradigm itself. Science is the paradigm of our age, and it seems to be doing better than any other before – to the extent that it is seems to be even confirming the appearance of the everyday acts in Existence.

PART FOUR.

Science being the paradigm of the day is unique for it chooses to verify itself through a degree of critique which is nothing other than the extent of its own parameters – rather convenient – it chooses to how to criticise even itself – but surely cannot accomplish this completely, for it can only aim to undertake this within the same format it may have already failed to show itself through. Interestingly then it seems to me that it can only point to its own limitation. Which is still a knowledge of sorts – yet nonetheless far from Absolute and least of all worthy to use as a foundation criticise to criticise other paradigms and worldviews.

PART FIVE.

Nonetheless due to the social matrix and value-laden texture of our modern epistemology – other conjectures – be it Religion – Spirituality – Literature etc. are verified by the verification principles of Science. So Science can criticise itself, and it may criticise others. But others may not criticise Science – for Science has exclusive ownership over the truth - because it proves reality – conveniently through parameters it chooses to make the meanings and interpretations of, and then measure itself against.
How it chooses to criticises itself is rather fortunate within the context of its own fate, for whether it criticises itself, or praises itself, because the paradigm of critique has arisen from within its own parameters – it will ultimately serve to facilitate its own aims.

PART SIX.

All conjecture are linked to our perspectives and aims, what we discover is a result of what we questioned – what we questioned is a result of what we deem most important to pursue. In short the Hermeneutic Principle – (although my own perspective I would recommend Truth and Method by H.Gadamer, as a useful book to engage in the topic of interpretation within the Existential phenomena that is the World of Experience etc around us). Whether we are correct in being able to choose the most important question for the right moment remains to be seen, for thereafter comes a new moment which may beg a new question. So we seem bound to the values we choose to endorse, which texture the subsequent questions that we choose to interpret the World through.

PART SEVEN.

This brief offering of mine must draw to a close, though I would like to offer two conclusions to hopefully maintain the debate:

1: given our particular value(s), if a belief system works for us, we hold onto it, whatever it may be. If it serves the collection of symbolic and semantics we possess, we hold onto it. When something stops working we move on.

2: a man loses his keys – he is seen wandering by his wife in one particular area of a field where he seems to think he may have lost his keys. He keeps going over the same spot – but to no avail. His wife asks him – “if you have yet to find your keys why do you keep looking in the same spot?” He responds - “well...because the light is shining brightest here.”
This is for me Science.

dear administrators: apologies for the several parts- i attempted to post the whole piece - but was unable - as although it was below 1000words - it seemed to encounter difficulty.

David H–
The article you linked to makes relations between the history of esoteric knowledge and quantum theory either distinctly hypothetical – “appears to meet these criteria” or simply asserts unqualified assumptions e.g. suggesting Leadbeater and Besant had well founded knowledge, rather than merely a propositional belief. This is further exasperated by a desire to find pattern rather than difference. The result is a post-rational forcing––of a particular understanding of our present, onto a particular understanding of the past––that helps perpetuates these myths.

Indeed the number of absurd assumptions on the site is quite incredible, but what is disturbing is the message these beliefs promote. It ridicules the collected and shared approach knowledge always needs and suggest isolated genius’ can bypass the social. So I'll ask again–why is there such a widespread desire to fill encyclopaedic voids with myths that only restrict our political agency?

arfan rai–
I'll employ a much more common variant of ‘brief’, and ask–with regard to “conclusion 1:” (see PART SEVEN above)–why does this proposition have; such a neutral and consensual understanding of systems, cleave to notions of mechanical and linear progress, negate the manipulations imposed by a multiplicity of interests?

Hello Marcus.
You referred to the collected and shared approach of social knowledge, and as society has taught me to say hello, I would like to say Hello.
I like your point and in part i do agree. However perhaps you have misconstrued my point - more than likely due to myself being either too wordy or interestingly the multiplicity of our own given respective backgrounds – for interestingly that was your point in an earlier comment– we cannot avoid the social phenomena that has made us.
My aim was not to support a common understanding of Systems - far from it – for example my observations of the East have often led me to the contention that the East are Content without Form, whereas the West seem to be Form without Content.

In this I mean that the East often lack the systematic thought, that perhaps you are referring to – notably the linear, perhaps even a somewhat Aristotelian understanding of Logic. So in acknowledging that in part the East often shy away from systematic/categorical thought I would like to support your point, and confirm that I do not hold an idea of systematic thought – with regards to a linear understanding. However, I would now like to reinforce what I meant – whatever the belief, the narrative one may possess, it almost always seems to be interpreted through symbolic language. Be it independently or socially, we seem inextricably bound to interpreting our interpretation of the Existence through symbols.

These symbols in turn, not necessarily having to adhere to Science, or linear thought, or even the path of Aristotelian logic, exist holistically within a narrative (note I have deliberately chosen to avoid the usage of System for the sake of our debate, though I hope nonetheless you understand my point). I would not necessarily equate a holistic phenomena of thought to a type of systematic thought which has its origin in type to linear, or mechanical theorem/processes – rather systematic thought, religious narratives, poetry, perhaps even an silver back gorilla painting – all of these when interpreted are undertaken so through a Unity of Thought. There is a Unification that allows us to comprehend what is occurring, or even not occurring. Affirming or Negating may occur within the same context.

My point is that we cannot interpret existence outside of symbols, and these symbols in turn (by virtue of our background, existence) are given and accepted within a holistic narrative. Although we are finite creatures, if we did not synthetically assume the Unity of Existence (of course cannot absolutely confirm this) we would find it very difficult to make any form of progress.

So I hope this makes my understanding of systems clearer for you, or more appropriately Narratives. Either way there is a type of Unity of Thought – interpreting the Multiplicity of Existence.

can we just talk about football or something.

cheers.

yes. as much as i love guiness, at a local watering hole last night i wasted five pints of precious time looking up at the screen of yesterdays game. i shouldve kept my gaze down.

haha : )

May i suggest Fritjof Capra's book "The tao of physics"?. It certainly has some very interesting points refering to these matters. Even though somewhat outdated (1975) it points out some interesting parallels between quantum physics and oriental philosophy.
Or maybe it doesn't...

I have written three books explaining the observations of Besant and Leadbeater published in their book "Occult Chemistry." As a scientific issue, this was solved in 1980. Perhaps you should speak to a few Theosophists. Visit my website.

For many of us, the Theosophists are indeed the true light of the ages. Especially in these modern times where we " see" in the dawning of the intellect the personality desperately trying to free itself from the clutch of death. In the words of the theosophists " A belief is nothing more than a statement of ignorance. Either " one " knows or " one " does not know. Even though I am not a theosophist , I am certain that Mr Leadbeater and Ms Besant have struck a chord and it is up to those of us whom are interested to pursue this line of investigation until this so called and derided "assumed fiction" becomes the fact that it is.
We insist in new bottles Gentleman, but the wine is still the same old wine. Let us refrain from being impressed with the new bottles "Quantum","Linear","Existential" etc,etc.
The facts are Gentleman,that the theosophists have proven time and time again that they know what they are talking about.