Sacred Science - ctd
A famous example (perhaps) of the technologies available to those who conform to the Laws of Nature might well be the Brazen Heads as created by such luminaries as Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus?
These, to us mysterious objects, which well testified to and described by observers at the time. May well be the results of science that cannot be understood and cannot work unless the "moral" Laws of Nature are also being applied?
Of course this might seem to be ludicrous to the purely materialistic, but as Einstein pointed out, most new ideas do seem ludicrous at first (which may not be such a bad thing).
The great blocks of stone at Baalbeck - so large no modern land crane could move them, yet moved they were long ago - might perhaps have been worked upon by practitioners of science who were living according to those "moral" Laws of Nature?
It might well be an interesting undertaking to examine some of the mysteries of the ancient world, in light of this form of science being described?
But - whilst doing so restraining the urge to form a theory. Doing what Goethe suggested and allowing the participation/observation to proceed before any easy (and limiting/blinkering) conclusions are reached.
Something else worth examining would be those enigma`s of contemporary science where experiments are difficult to repeat - for example the apparent success of Cold Fusion (Fleischmann, et al), and the widely reported case of a model shop owner having an accidentally amputated finger regrow after applying some of the powder (dubbed Fairy Dust by the media) developed in the labs of the University of Detroit.
Science, it was assumed near the end of the nineteenth century, had discovered all the major Laws of Nature; then along came Relativity and Quantum Physics.
The same situation, where it is assumed all the major Laws of Nature have been discovered, seems to exist now.
But I would suggest there are many more to discover - ones we already know of but call Morality and perhaps more. The question is how might these Laws be discerned to the satisfaction of Science?
Well perhaps one place to start is by carrying out the examinations as mentioned above? And of course (considering his work led me in this direction) by trying out such methods, applying these postulated Laws of Nature, to get Viktor Schauberger`s machines working.
It might be worth noting that in Alchemy (from which much if not most modern Chemistry - and other sciences - originates) the state of mind of the Alchemical practitioner was considered to be a central part of the practice. Viktor Schauberger himself studied The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus. In fact until relatively recently science was regarded as a Moral Art - with the "Enlightenment" this view was mostly forgotten, apart from some who still carried that Holistic "flame", Goethe being a prime example.
Perhaps like so much else they got right, the Alchemists intuitively were aware of Laws of Nature that (so far at least) contemporary science has not perceived?
It will be interesting to find out?
Saturday 28 May 2011
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Sacred Science
Sacred Science
It seems to me that the science that Viktor Schauberger (for instance) was discovering and developing was a science of the sacred, a science that acknowledged the sacred and a science that was in harmony with the sacred.
The old view that no good comes from that which is stolen - is thus one of the Laws of Nature, in the same way that (for instance) Boyles Law is,
TBC
Those who have described such Laws (like "do not steal") are thus doing no differently than someone putting up a sign which says "Beware of the Drop" by a cliff edge.
The notion that certain technologies will only work when those things which are considered Moral (Laws of Nature such as indicated in the Eightfold Path or the Ten Commandments) are being adhered to, perhaps seems absurd to most scientists? However the notion that the Newtonian description of how Space/Time operates was incomplete probably seemed absurd to most scientists, that is until Einstein and Planck came along.
Viktor Schauberger himself regarded morality as a vital factor in technology, and he drew on the work of Goethe to show how this might work.
Perhaps, like those scientists at the end of the 19th century who thought all major questions had been answered and it was now just a matter of tying up the loose ends, contemporary science may itself discover that it has barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn?
Addendum: The Nazi`s got one thing right - Viktor Schauberger`s work was worth backing. However the methods they imposed on him (use of slave labour) and the purposes they intended for the results of his work, were so contrary to the Laws of Nature (Laws such as thou shalt not covet another - eg do not seek to own another, and of course "thou shalt not kill") that there was no possibility his work would produce results for them.
It seems to me that the science that Viktor Schauberger (for instance) was discovering and developing was a science of the sacred, a science that acknowledged the sacred and a science that was in harmony with the sacred.
The old view that no good comes from that which is stolen - is thus one of the Laws of Nature, in the same way that (for instance) Boyles Law is,
TBC
Those who have described such Laws (like "do not steal") are thus doing no differently than someone putting up a sign which says "Beware of the Drop" by a cliff edge.
The notion that certain technologies will only work when those things which are considered Moral (Laws of Nature such as indicated in the Eightfold Path or the Ten Commandments) are being adhered to, perhaps seems absurd to most scientists? However the notion that the Newtonian description of how Space/Time operates was incomplete probably seemed absurd to most scientists, that is until Einstein and Planck came along.
Viktor Schauberger himself regarded morality as a vital factor in technology, and he drew on the work of Goethe to show how this might work.
Perhaps, like those scientists at the end of the 19th century who thought all major questions had been answered and it was now just a matter of tying up the loose ends, contemporary science may itself discover that it has barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn?
Addendum: The Nazi`s got one thing right - Viktor Schauberger`s work was worth backing. However the methods they imposed on him (use of slave labour) and the purposes they intended for the results of his work, were so contrary to the Laws of Nature (Laws such as thou shalt not covet another - eg do not seek to own another, and of course "thou shalt not kill") that there was no possibility his work would produce results for them.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Intuitionism
Intuitionism
A form or school of mathematics -
Intuitionism rejects Infinite Sets - for various reasons -
For this reason I find an affinity with Intuitionism,
Their approach seems more readily to chime with that of Buckminster Fuller and other explorers of the actual world (see previous Post).*
And how can a Mathematical System (Method) which is based on/derived from the use of Infinite Sets - which do not exist, and indeed cannot exist - have any relationship to that which does exist and can exist?
Is it any wonder that all extrapolations (theories) made using Infinities based Math end up with an End? Based as this Math is on something that cannot/does not exist, it seems inevitable it will always produce an outcome that also does not exist, or to put it within the terms of reference of that Math, - the End of the Universe. This Infinities Derived/Based Math proving not the end of the Universe, but rather the End (or non-existence) of itself.
Of course Math based on the actual - however contradictory and surprising that is & might be - could well take much longer to develop and may indeed never be fully explored - but perhaps show that there is no End? Naturally.
* One possible place to begin might by using Buckminster Fuller`s math to study Viktor Schauberger`s inventions - perhaps it might be quite revealing?
A form or school of mathematics -
Intuitionism rejects Infinite Sets - for various reasons -
For this reason I find an affinity with Intuitionism,
Their approach seems more readily to chime with that of Buckminster Fuller and other explorers of the actual world (see previous Post).*
And how can a Mathematical System (Method) which is based on/derived from the use of Infinite Sets - which do not exist, and indeed cannot exist - have any relationship to that which does exist and can exist?
Is it any wonder that all extrapolations (theories) made using Infinities based Math end up with an End? Based as this Math is on something that cannot/does not exist, it seems inevitable it will always produce an outcome that also does not exist, or to put it within the terms of reference of that Math, - the End of the Universe. This Infinities Derived/Based Math proving not the end of the Universe, but rather the End (or non-existence) of itself.
Of course Math based on the actual - however contradictory and surprising that is & might be - could well take much longer to develop and may indeed never be fully explored - but perhaps show that there is no End? Naturally.
* One possible place to begin might by using Buckminster Fuller`s math to study Viktor Schauberger`s inventions - perhaps it might be quite revealing?
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Mathematical Modelling
Mathematical Modelling
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
This is of course true
In the strictly limited terms
Of the pure maths world
In the daily world of this
No two things are really the same
So to add and make a 2
We need to insert a category
between the the things
and the numbers we use
This might seem a trivial point
A case of nitpicking
Or just being "difficult"?
But perhaps a math
With no extra concepts
Like categories to count with
Might be quite practical?
And even
Like the world itself
Rather beautiful?
Where the concept "category"
Is now regarded as the reality
It`s existence as concept
No longer noticed
The math based on concept
Seeks to create it`s own reality
Blind to itself
It knows not
That this is what it`s doing
Shaping a world
Where it isn`t based on concept
But is this a world
Where life can live in?
A math without concept
Is this the world
Gaudi`s Cathedral "explore`s"?
Were Fuller`s dome`s
A form from that world?
Did Schauberger show us
How it worked?*
But without the familiar concepts
It seems easier to ignore?
Surely in a world
With so many
Many individuals
With searching minds
And numerical skills
A few could give
This math a go?
Explore our world
With a math non-conceptual?
If you can`t be lost
If you have no destination?
Then exploring without concepts
Might seem not so daunting?
And
Practice a playful math
While prepared to withhold
from the grandeur of theorising?
(Linguistically speaking the word theory derives from Theo, like the word theology. That may or may not be worth bearing in mind? Or perhaps ignore the desire to believe one might know the "mind of God" and simply . . . . . . well as suggested above and indeed as practised by some? A method that might not suit many, especially perhaps those motivated by good grades [read Persig`s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an exploration of that - and perhaps as a primer for a math without concept?])
* Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller both occasionally lectured to groups of engineers and scientists. During these lectures the audience was held spellbound and found themselves in agreement with what they were hearing. Yet afterwards those same audiences could hardly remember anything they had heard. Perhaps this illustrates how for those used to working via Concepts a method without Concept is at one level easy to understand but at another so apparently contrary to how things "should be done" that although it might seem better it is easier to ignore. Apart from waiting for exceptional or unusual individuals like Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller to appear (and for people like Persig to explore) how is this approach to be continued or explored?
Intuitionism (the School of Maths) which I only came across yesterday (17th May 2011 - I`m adding this in) by accident (too early to say if it was more serendipity than accident) seems to . . . . . well I`ll put it in the next Post
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
This is of course true
In the strictly limited terms
Of the pure maths world
In the daily world of this
No two things are really the same
So to add and make a 2
We need to insert a category
between the the things
and the numbers we use
This might seem a trivial point
A case of nitpicking
Or just being "difficult"?
But perhaps a math
With no extra concepts
Like categories to count with
Might be quite practical?
And even
Like the world itself
Rather beautiful?
Where the concept "category"
Is now regarded as the reality
It`s existence as concept
No longer noticed
The math based on concept
Seeks to create it`s own reality
Blind to itself
It knows not
That this is what it`s doing
Shaping a world
Where it isn`t based on concept
But is this a world
Where life can live in?
A math without concept
Is this the world
Gaudi`s Cathedral "explore`s"?
Were Fuller`s dome`s
A form from that world?
Did Schauberger show us
How it worked?*
But without the familiar concepts
It seems easier to ignore?
Surely in a world
With so many
Many individuals
With searching minds
And numerical skills
A few could give
This math a go?
Explore our world
With a math non-conceptual?
If you can`t be lost
If you have no destination?
Then exploring without concepts
Might seem not so daunting?
And
Practice a playful math
While prepared to withhold
from the grandeur of theorising?
(Linguistically speaking the word theory derives from Theo, like the word theology. That may or may not be worth bearing in mind? Or perhaps ignore the desire to believe one might know the "mind of God" and simply . . . . . . well as suggested above and indeed as practised by some? A method that might not suit many, especially perhaps those motivated by good grades [read Persig`s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an exploration of that - and perhaps as a primer for a math without concept?])
* Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller both occasionally lectured to groups of engineers and scientists. During these lectures the audience was held spellbound and found themselves in agreement with what they were hearing. Yet afterwards those same audiences could hardly remember anything they had heard. Perhaps this illustrates how for those used to working via Concepts a method without Concept is at one level easy to understand but at another so apparently contrary to how things "should be done" that although it might seem better it is easier to ignore. Apart from waiting for exceptional or unusual individuals like Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller to appear (and for people like Persig to explore) how is this approach to be continued or explored?
Intuitionism (the School of Maths) which I only came across yesterday (17th May 2011 - I`m adding this in) by accident (too early to say if it was more serendipity than accident) seems to . . . . . well I`ll put it in the next Post
Saturday 7 May 2011
Victor Schauberger - Cold Fusion and other technologies
Victor Schauberger - Cold Fusion and other technologies
Victor Schauberger the Austrian Inventor* who developed such practical things as Water Flumes for transporting logs and copper tools for farming and horticulture (see - here ) which for some as yet undiscovered reason have been shown to increase the productivity of the land and reduce pests such as slugs:
Had many fascinating and practical ideas based on his experience and insights -
For instance he spoke of the cold fusion which produces helium from hydrogen as a natural process which could be used as a non destructive (non polluting) source of energy.
Whether Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons the Cold Fusion experimenters who momentarily found cold fusion was working, knew of Victor Schauberger I do not know. But as Schauberger made his comments many years before those experiments (he died in 1956) perhaps researchers in the field might benefit from studying his work? Could well be a lead worth following!
Two good introductions to his work are below - though only brief mention is made of fusion. There are more technical books on his work available.
To add a personal comment - It seems to me somehow cruel to split atoms - to kill them.
Water
Victor Schauberger (VS) - had a moment of insight when (as he described it) his consciousness entered/merged with that of water - and during this experience the water "told him" how it needed to move, it told him what made it happiest and healthiest.
From that experience most (maybe all) his later work and inventions - from his highly successful log flume on - came (aided by serendipitous events along the way).
What does not seem to be discussed by those interested in Schauberger`s work is the method he used to enter the water`s consciousness.
Possibly for this age when water will apparently be more important than oil (so the pundits and experts say) fittingly perhaps as this is supposed to be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius (something most of those experts/pundits are not interested in and who would probably deride :-) the Water Bearer.
How to become "one with water" as VS did - and learn from Water? Learn, as VS did, not just by observation (though that is important), but by "participation".
Working not just with theory but from the actual experience from which theory is derived. It`s an interesting question and quite possibly a useful avenue for exploration. The story of Newton`s experience with the apple might well be another example of that same "participation"?
In Australia the increasing problem of salts in the topsoil is probably a result of processes VS described - and crucially - provided practical solutions for.
Anyone with an interest in improving the health and vitality of rivers (Anglers and Angling Societies for instance) would gain much from reading Alick Bartholomew`s book.
* Post war many condemned Schauberger for having worked for the Nazi`s. However he did this under threat of his life and unlike the rocket engineers who went on to help build the Moon rockets, he never produced anything to assist the Nazi war effort - if anything he simply tied up resources. Schauberger himself hinted at the possibility that certain scientific advances and technical creations would only work when there was sufficient goodness to allow them to do so.#
"Only people who love it should care for the forest. Those who view the forest merely as an object of speculation do it and all other living creatures great harm" (Victor Schauberger - quoted on p167 of Hidden Nature). It gives an indication of VS`s perspective - love being the crucial ingredient that is so often overlooked by science that cannot appreciate things it cannot measure. And actually, you might say, rather good careers advice - do what you love, with love, and as a consequence nature will respond.
# Working WITH nature perhaps meaning a different approach is required than controlling nature/bending her to will? Maybe working with nature requires the same approach as working with any living thing, love, empathy and so forth? Especially a living thing much larger than any human, nature "herself" that is.
Victor Schauberger the Austrian Inventor* who developed such practical things as Water Flumes for transporting logs and copper tools for farming and horticulture (see - here ) which for some as yet undiscovered reason have been shown to increase the productivity of the land and reduce pests such as slugs:
Had many fascinating and practical ideas based on his experience and insights -
For instance he spoke of the cold fusion which produces helium from hydrogen as a natural process which could be used as a non destructive (non polluting) source of energy.
Whether Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons the Cold Fusion experimenters who momentarily found cold fusion was working, knew of Victor Schauberger I do not know. But as Schauberger made his comments many years before those experiments (he died in 1956) perhaps researchers in the field might benefit from studying his work? Could well be a lead worth following!
Two good introductions to his work are below - though only brief mention is made of fusion. There are more technical books on his work available.
To add a personal comment - It seems to me somehow cruel to split atoms - to kill them.
Water
Victor Schauberger (VS) - had a moment of insight when (as he described it) his consciousness entered/merged with that of water - and during this experience the water "told him" how it needed to move, it told him what made it happiest and healthiest.
From that experience most (maybe all) his later work and inventions - from his highly successful log flume on - came (aided by serendipitous events along the way).
What does not seem to be discussed by those interested in Schauberger`s work is the method he used to enter the water`s consciousness.
Possibly for this age when water will apparently be more important than oil (so the pundits and experts say) fittingly perhaps as this is supposed to be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius (something most of those experts/pundits are not interested in and who would probably deride :-) the Water Bearer.
How to become "one with water" as VS did - and learn from Water? Learn, as VS did, not just by observation (though that is important), but by "participation".
Working not just with theory but from the actual experience from which theory is derived. It`s an interesting question and quite possibly a useful avenue for exploration. The story of Newton`s experience with the apple might well be another example of that same "participation"?
In Australia the increasing problem of salts in the topsoil is probably a result of processes VS described - and crucially - provided practical solutions for.
Anyone with an interest in improving the health and vitality of rivers (Anglers and Angling Societies for instance) would gain much from reading Alick Bartholomew`s book.
* Post war many condemned Schauberger for having worked for the Nazi`s. However he did this under threat of his life and unlike the rocket engineers who went on to help build the Moon rockets, he never produced anything to assist the Nazi war effort - if anything he simply tied up resources. Schauberger himself hinted at the possibility that certain scientific advances and technical creations would only work when there was sufficient goodness to allow them to do so.#
"Only people who love it should care for the forest. Those who view the forest merely as an object of speculation do it and all other living creatures great harm" (Victor Schauberger - quoted on p167 of Hidden Nature). It gives an indication of VS`s perspective - love being the crucial ingredient that is so often overlooked by science that cannot appreciate things it cannot measure. And actually, you might say, rather good careers advice - do what you love, with love, and as a consequence nature will respond.
# Working WITH nature perhaps meaning a different approach is required than controlling nature/bending her to will? Maybe working with nature requires the same approach as working with any living thing, love, empathy and so forth? Especially a living thing much larger than any human, nature "herself" that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
