Sherr? (My ex) had ? couple of problems of a medic?l nature. Her hypoglycemia h?d been miss-diagno?ed and she had been given ?assive cortisone shots that I believe had contributed t? t?e cancer that resulted in the p?rtial mastectomy. I got h?r off caffiene and through the power ?f LOVE she was healed in two years. Women are not treated as men are when ?t c?mes t? medical treatment; as well as ever? other aspect of misogyny in society. My studies of wholistics and hermetics we?e becoming quite ext?nsive and al?hemy founded and continues the ?eal sc?ence. I a? going to quote two a?thors from quite different sid?s of the fence.
These books are recent but representative ?f the stud?es I was eng?ged ?n ?s well a? giving the reader an insight to th? continuing problem of censorship and supposed 'expertise' that prevents a great deal of tr?th. David Depew and Bruce Weber of MIT wr?te 'Dar?inism Evolving' in 1995 and it says on pag?s 492 & 493:
“They also made it harder for the scient?fic worldview to ?e received with equanimity ?y other s?urces of cultu?e. Indeed, sin?e the reducing ?mpulse under?ines fairly ?uge tra?ts of e?perience, peopl? li?e Wallace, who feel deeply about protecting phenomena they regard as existentially important, frequently conclud? that they have no alternative except t? embrace spiritualism, and sometimes even to attack the scientific worldview itself, ?f that i? t?e only way t? p?otect important spheres of experience that h?ve been ejected fr?m science's confin?ng Eden.
In response, scientist? and philosophers who feel st?ongly ?bout the liberat?ng p?tential of a spare, m?terialistic worldview ?egan to patrol the borderlands bet?een t?e high-grade knowledge scientists have ?f natural sy?tems and t?e low-grade opinions th?t ?n t?e ?iew of science's most ardent defenders, dominate othe? spher?s of culture and lead back toward the ?uperstitious and aut?oritarian w?rld of yester-year. 'Demarcating' scien?e fr?m other, le?s cognitivel? worthw?ile forms of understanding was already a major feature of Darwin's world. A line beyond which the Newtonian {Newton was ? Rosicrucian who a?hieved th? status of an alchemist per Haeffner'? 'Dictionary ?f Alchemy') paradigm could not apply w?s drawn ?t the bound?ry between physics and biology. We have seen ho? h?sitant Da?win was t? cross th?t line and wh?t happened w?en h? did. T?entieth-century p?ople are sometimes ?rone to congratul?te themselves for being ab?ve these quaint V?ctorian battles. They may have less ?eason to do so, however, than t?ey think, for the fact is that throughout our own century, the same sort of battles with e?otional ov?rtones no less charged, ha?e been w?ged at the contested line w?ere biol?gy meets psychology, ?nd more gene?ally ?here t?e natural scien?es confront t?e human sc?ences. Dualisms between spirit and ?atter, and even between the mind and body, may have been pushed to the margins ?f respecta?le intellectual discourse. But method?logical dual?sms between what is covered by laws and what is to be 'hermene?tically appropriated' ar? still v?ry much at the c?nter ?f our cult?ral, o? rat?er 'two cultural', lif?. Cognitive psycholog?sts and neurophysiologists are e?en now bu?y reducing mind- state? to brain-states, w?ile interpretive o? humanistic psychol?gists are proclaiming how meaningless the w?rld would ?e if mind is nothing but brain. Interpreti?e anthropologists are fill?d with horror at what would disappear from the world if the rich cultural practices that seem to g?ve me?ning to ?ur lives were to b? sho?n to b? little more than extremely sophisti?ated ?alculations on the pa?t of self-interested gen?s. Conflicts ?f t?is so?t would ?ave giv?n Darwin stomachaches almost as bad as the one? he endu?ed ?ver earlier dema?cation controversies."
These author? u?e th? term hermeneuts mu?h as th? early 20th Century supposed scientists ridiculed the q?antum ph?sicists b? calling them 'atom-my?ticists'. Hermeneuts is ? new epithet f?r alchemists such as myself ?ho OBSERVE and try to fit ALL the facts together ?nd don't eject anyt?ing 'from s?ience's ?onfining Eden'. This quote continues t? rais? the spectr? of the 'Bible Narrati?e' and Bish?p Ussher whose late nineteenth century p?oponent was Wilberforce.
"The rhetorical pattern ?f these battles i? still depressingly similar, in fact, to Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce. Hermeneuts ?idicule scientists like Hamilton, Dawkins, and Wilson when they suggest t?at nothing wa? eve? kn?wn about social cooperation unt?l biologists di?covered kin ?election. Reductionists ?n turn criticize hermeneuts, now transformed la?gely into 'culturists', fo? bringing back ghosts and gods, just a? their nineteenth-century pred?cessors were taxed with be?ng 'vitalists' every time they said som?thing about t?e complexity of dev?lopment. Humanists ?dentify scientists with an outdated materialistic reductionism. Scientists insist that hermeneutical intentionality ?s little ?ore than di?guised religion.
Perhaps, a way out of this fruitless dialectic b?tween th? 'two cultures', can ?e found if each party could give up at lea?t one ?f its cherished preconceptions. It would ?e a good thing, fo? example, if heir? of the Enlighten?ent {Credited to Bacon, Shakespeare, Jons?n and ot?ers wit? an alchemical background.} wo?ld stop th?nking that if cultural pheno?ena are n?t r?duced to so?e ?ort of me?hanism, religious authoritarianis? will i?mediately flood into the brea?h. They should also stop assuming that nothing ?s re?lly ?nown about human beings until the spi?it of redu?tionism gets to work. Students of the human sc?ences have, after all, be?n learn?ng things alongside scientists e?er s?nce modernit? began. Among othe? things they have learned that humans are individuated ?s persons ?ithin t?e bond? of cultur?s and cultural roles, they are bound together with ?thers in wa?s no less meaningful and valuabl? than th? ways p?omoted by strongly dualistic religions. By the same token, it would be helpful if advocates ?f the interpretive disciplines would. ab?ndon ? tac?t assumpti?n sometimes found among them that nature is ?o constituted that it ?an never acc?mmodate the rich and meaningful cultural phenomena humanists are dedicated to protecting, and t?at therefore cultural 'ought never' t? be allowed to slip co?fortably into nat?ralism. Human?sts seem t? have internalized this belief from thei? ?eductionist enemies, whose commitm?nt to materialism is generally inseparable from their resolve to show up large ?arts ?f culture, especially religion, a? illusions. The?e opponents, we may ?afely ?ay, tak? in each other's laundry."
I wonder if these a?thors and their reductivist buddies are aware that all hu?anists are not without the ability to incorporate ha?d physi?al scien?e to ?n even h?gher factual degree t?an they d?. Th? quantum p?ysicists like Wign?r (Nobel laureate), Schrödinger and Heisenberg think that humanistic richness i? robbed ?y reductionist unspir?tual th?nking. The global ?eifying t?rust of mater?alism (Dr. Boddy of U ?f T, anthropology) i? hopefully, in due course, going t? return t? a global deifying thrust of spiritualism. The only REALITY is NATURE and it assuredl? ?ncludes ALL observable facts not just the 'Toilet Philosophy'.
If I may b? allo?ed to quot? someon? who tries to keep an 'open mind' and use WHATEVER WORKS even if ?t isn't 'modernity'. I choose to quote ? wh?listic doctor by th? name of Zoltan Rona who h?s ?is M.D. ?nd M. S?. He edited the 'En?yclopedia of Natural Healing' in 1997 whic? ?ays ?n pages 33 and 34:
“It i? mislead?ng to call the n?tural health movement ‘alternative medi?ine’ as is ?ften done. Natural Medi?ine is considered the f?under of contemporary Western medicine. What w? now call mode?n medicine is actually an aberration, the re?ult of social ch?nge ?t the dawn of industrialization ?n the eighteenth century."
He continues t? discuss one ?f the greatest alchemists of all time whose books I found contain th? key to ?nderstanding how to m?ke the Philosop?er's Stone. He d?es not ?dentify Paracelsus ?s ?n alchemist due to ?ultural bia? against alchemy that ha? led t? many of them being burned at the stak?. He says ?n pag?s 34 & 35:
"PARACELSUS (1493-1541)
At th? close of the Middle Age?, Paracelsus dared t? challenge the orthodox medicine of his da?, which, like today, had abandoned the teaching? of Hip?ocrates {Another alchemist.} ?nd be?ome ?ogged down ?n superstitious, dogmatic p?actices. With th? dramatic successes he achieved through observation and deduction to discover nature's latent he?ling powers, Paracels?s revolutionized med?cine for centuries.
Born T?eophrastus Bomb?stus von H?henheim {He used some other names in conjunction with th?se such a? Phill?pus Aure?lus.} ?n Switzerland, this courageous g?nius had t?e early opportunity to accompany h?s father, ? physician, on his rounds. He learned the value of observation and bec?me ?cquainted with he?bs ?nd medicinal plants. In his university years, Pa?acelsus appreciated the critical spir?t whic? reigned ?n Ferrara, Italy, com?ared to the close-mindedness ?n universities in other Eu?opean cities. He was n?t content t? li?it him?elf to academic knowledge. He l?arned what ?e could practically from professionals ?nd any?ne els? who had something to teach h?m ?bout how to use the l?tent forces in nat?re. Du? to his healing successes, notably in treating the plague, he began to gather a large following.
After returning to Basle, Switzerland, P?racelsus s?ved the leg of t?e rich printer F?obenius from amputation ?y applying his knowledge of nature's ?nner ?ealing power. P?racelsus became Basle's off?cial physician and was offered a professorship at the Un?versity of Basle. He soon ?an into trouble with the a?thorities due to ?is blatant criticism of modern medicin?. In a dramatic gesture Paracelsus burned t?e boo?s of the medical authorities. Within several months he wa? forced t? flee the university and found himself wand?ring penniless. . For the next eight years ?e lived with friends 'and wor?ed ?n hi? m?nuscripts. T?e publication ?f DIE GROSSE WUNDANTZNEY in 1536 rest?red ?is re?utation, and his fortun? turned once more. Paracel?us became ?ealthy and was sought after ?y noblemen and royalty."
His actions against th? ‘sins and demons’ ?rigins ?f disease and illness mirror the free medicine ?nd knowledge of the Gn?stic Cathars a coupl? of centuries earlier that led to their genocide in ? crus?de that wa? won ?y th? new ?ead of the Dominican Order of the Catholi?s. Man, Myth, and Magic promotes t?e MYTH that ?lchemy w?s dominated by hermits ?n p?rsuit of wealth and gold f?om lead. They sa? that Paracelsus was poor and proof th?t no Philosopher's Stone was ever created and that alchemists wer? greedy failures. This author ?ays 'Paracel?us became wealthy' but that assuredly was not h?s purpose and when h? died h? had onl? one speci?l goblet t? give to someone ?ho he knew understood it? value. Continuing t? q?ote Mr. Rona:
"Paracelsus attacked the dogmatic beli?f of modern doctors that the h?man body ?s cont?olled exclusively by the star? and the planets. He insisted upon the right to discover latent powers of nat?re b? daring to use his faculties ?f observation and imag?nation. He stressed the ?ealing pow?r of nature, and raged against modern m?thods, s?ch as wound treatment that prevented natural drainag? of bodily fluids.
One of Paracelsus's most imp?rtant medical discoverie? concerned the treatment ?f syphilis. He mainta?ned that syphilis could be treated with carefully measured doses of poison mercu?y compounds taken internally. This contradict?d all medical opinion of t?e day, but he was proven right. Paracelsus was the first to sho? that, if given in small dose?, t?e c?use of ?n illness also cures ?t. Thi? discovery ?as an antici?ation of the mode?n practic? of homeopathy. In the summe? of 1534, Paracelsus cured m?ny people in the plagu?-infested town of Stertzing by applying the sa?e principle."
At the time of the Plague t?e Flagellants were ?art of the Catholic hierarc?y; t?ey w?re burning Jewish people in cities across Europe. Men, wom?n and children w?re surrounded in their neighborhoods ?nd burned. The genocide in Rwanda that was initiated by the ?atred' fostered b? the Roman Catholic Church' acco?ding to the J?ly 2000 report released by the Organiz?tion of African Unity is l?ttle different than the holocaust. T?e Cath?lic fostered anti-Semitism that ?as politically ?seful to H?tler (or Mississip?i S?nator John Stennis of th? House Un-American Activities Committee) who wa? a Catholic and never ex-communicated; h?s be?n used throughout ?ecent hi?tory to em?ower the Empire-build?rs from the Holy R?man Emperor Constantine t? this very day. Y?s, I ?now the Pope ?as me?kly apologized, but the behavior continues. The 'War on Women' founded in the 'orig?nal sin' of St. Augustine and formalized at th? Counc?l of Carthage in 397 A.D. has f?r reaching influence across sociological norms ?n the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic complex. Th?s we can ?ee this author correctly uses t?e word courageous when ?eferring to Paracelsus.
About the Author
Author of Diverse Druids
World-Mysteries.com has many of ?y books
Columnist in The ES Press Magazine
Robert B?uce Baird
| Next > |
|---|