Evolution question.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

You are reading hostility where there is absolutely none.

That's the problem, and why I don't wish to have this discussion.

I'm glad I was mistaken Juan. Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for the misinterpretation.

Namaskar

[AndrewX]

For more on how there can be a Sacred Science (as distinct from the glorification of current science, or reliance on empiricism alone), see this website: http://english.divinaciencia.com/info.php

A quote on that site from Paracelsus seems fitting:

" If we wanna search for God, we shall look within ourselves because on the outside we will never find HIM. "
-- Paracelsus

[path_of_one]

Andrew- what makes Sacred Science... science, and not mysticism?

As a scientist who is also a mystic, I recognize very different "ways of knowing" between the two. Mysticism is, by methodology more than content, different from science. Science is a relatively defined mode of inquiry that involves replicability, the scientific method, and peer-reviewed publication.

We can always use terms however we wish, but calling mysticism some sort of science seems like a corruption of both. It seems like trying to justify mysticism to the empirical West by misusing the term science.

I insist that mysticism is a valid way of knowing in its own right, and indeed one of the few ways to know certain things that fall outside the bounds of science. But looking within is very, very different from scientific inquiry. So why act as though mysticism must be justified by calling it science?

Why not let each mode of inquiry follow the evidence in their own way?

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Andrew- what makes Sacred Science... science, and not mysticism?

As a scientist who is also a mystic, I recognize very different "ways of knowing" between the two. Mysticism is, by methodology more than content, different from science. Science is a relatively defined mode of inquiry that involves replicability, the scientific method, and peer-reviewed publication.

We can always use terms however we wish, but calling mysticism some sort of science seems like a corruption of both. It seems like trying to justify mysticism to the empirical West by misusing the term science.

I insist that mysticism is a valid way of knowing in its own right, and indeed one of the few ways to know certain things that fall outside the bounds of science. But looking within is very, very different from scientific inquiry. So why act as though mysticism must be justified by calling it science?

Why not let each mode of inquiry follow the evidence in their own way?

Good questions, and good points, Path. Here's my take on it:

Science, as you point out, involves replicability. It involves a method whereby anyone who is willing may verify the results of another person's experiments. What makes you think that consciousness, and spirit, are any different than the material world?

Religion (and even psychology, the social sciences, plus modern science itself) has done us a great disservice by trying to neatly divide the worlds of matter and spirit, or matter and consciousness. To the Esotericist, these worlds are not separate. Instead, there are interpenetrating worlds in which we each live, dwell and have our being ... yet none of these worlds is utterly without matter, consciousness and spirit.

Futher, each world is capable of [exploration & being experienced via] sensory perception, and of having these perceptions described - as well as replicated - by independent observers. There is nothing to be gained, and only an attitude or identity of separatism to be preserved, when exoteric religion steps in to tell us that these experiences over here cannot be explained, defined, reproduced or understood - without its unique contributions ... especially where these latter always seem to outweigh the contributions of any neighboring religion you happen to name.

I'd like to quote the opening statement on `Mysticism' from Wikipedia, if I may:

Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, an initiate of a mystery religion, μυστήρια meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion, identity with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, the Other, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.

The Sacred Science, by whatever name it might be known, includes Mysticism as a subset, because it is not concerned just with "achieving communion, identity with, or consciousness awareness of" -- God, Ultimate Reality, etc. Certainly this is part of what the Sacred Science is about. It is part of the Goal of the Initiate to make this contact with his Soul at will, and to learn how to maintain "Soul infusion" throughout his daily life.

But since initiation is a beginning, and not an end-goal conferring a summum bonum of earthly (or even heavenly) bliss upon the candidate, the path of mysticism must eventually give over to the deliberate, conscious treading of the path of Service and - Sacrifice. I believe the latter is known as the Via Dolorosa in Christianity, because of the great suffering which is experienced by the personality during the Long Dark Night of the Soul.

The idea that there is a Science regarding how disciples and initiates must tread the spiritual Path is not a new one. Plato had a school, the Academy, where just such a Science was demonstrated. His students were not mystics, as such, though I do not mean to suggest that they were not familiar with mystical experience. The School at Krotona, established by Pythagoras, another Initiate of the Old World, was similar.

The Greeks, who we usually credit with much of the ancient origins of modern, Western science ... knew well what they were teaching to their disciples. Study the Tetraktys of the Pythagoreans, and tell me this is mysticism -- yet not Sacred Science. I will agree that is both, but not that the Great Master was only seeking to produce a Divine Communion within the hearts and minds of his students -- with no greater Purpose in mind. Most certainly this Communion was part of his goal ... but to what end?

If there is no science, no tried and true, established method for treading the Spiritual Path ... then there is no God. There is Covenant between God and God's People (ALL of Humanity), and truly, mystical experience becomes whatever we want it to be. There is no objectivity, no "actual Divine" behind all of these wonderful, yet random, phenomena. Indeed, we just need to do a bit more research and find the "God spot," and soon, everyone can have a mystical experience of her own.

Does that sound like an unnecessary extreme? And will you say that it is not the only alternative to the idea of a Sacred Science as I am suggesting?

Think again. Either there most certainly IS - One, Grand Reality ... something which even modern physics finally has been willing to consider, hypothesize and investigate, with its Grand Unified Field Theory ... or else there is but CHAOS. And I don't mean the primordial Chaos of Gnostics or mystics.

Why is it reasonable for us to conjecture like this, to look in the direction of this objectivity which a `GUFT' proposes ... yet refuse to inquire regarding the worlds within, where consciousness holds sway over matter, or even where spirit governs consciousness just as the latter governs matter? Is the work of J. B. Rhine, the well-known researcher from Duke University (about an hour from my house) all just pseudo-science? And the same of the investigations of Charles Tart, or the more modern contributions of Virginia businessman Robert Monroe, whose Monroe Institute has shared so much with us about transpersonal or non-physical-based states of consciousness?

I will not accept this. This is not mysticism. And it is not pseudo-science, nor bad science. It is some of the most forward-looking, cutting edge science currently being practiced. And as such it forms part of an exoteric Sacred Science. Consider the methodology used, the replicability of the findings of these sorts of researchers (into the paranormal, but also into the phenomenology of religion and religious experience itself, including mystical experience) ... and I think you must admit that we are not speaking of a no man's land, where there are no rules of the road or established set of signposts, mile markers or even well traveled highways.

All of these latter, in their figurative significance, have long existed -- even for millions of years, if we would but open ourselves to this possibility, but certainly for tens of thousands of years in the very least. There were Instructors of the Sacred Science belonging to civilizations that preceded the last of the great flood catastrophes (in 9564BC) -- described by Plato, as taught to him by Solon, who himself learned this knowledge from the very priests who guarded it.

Like the ourobouros, we will end up chasing our tails on this one, until finally we come back to the very idea of Those Who have guarded the Wisdom ... bit the subject of these Instructors (Who are both capable of stimulating or assisting us with mystical experience itself, let alone training us to properly tread the Spiritual Path ... and necessary as Guides thereupon) -- may be best left for another thread.

Namaskar

[Tao_Equus]

Hi everybody,

I have been reading whilst on holiday here in Austria that dramatic and important discoveries that take us another step toward knowing exactly how life as we know it took hold on Earth, have been made, almost accidentally, during the genetic sequencing of over 500 viruses. I have been quick to say in recent months that bacteria are the key to life and the most important an numerous organisms on Earth. How wrong I was. Bacteria are almost and endangered species when compared to phages and viruses. What is causing me the excitement is that viruses are far more important and pivotal to evolution than I had ever imagined. Viral DNA makes up at least 10-20% of the code in the genes of every organism on Earth, including us, and the early research is pointing toward it being central to evolutionary processes we knew took place but that have confounded evolutionary scientists to explain. Viruses predate cellular life and I expect virus research to finaly strike the death of any debate from the creationists. I believe there are articles appearing in most science journals this week. Worth having a look!!


tao

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi everybody,

I have been reading whilst on holiday here in Austria that dramatic and important discoveries that take us another step toward knowing exactly how life as we know it took hold on Earth, have been made, almost accidentally, during the genetic sequencing of over 500 viruses. I have been quick to say in recent months that bacteria are the key to life and the most important an numerous organisms on Earth. How wrong I was. Bacteria are almost and endangered species when compared to phages and viruses. What is causing me the excitement is that viruses are far more important and pivotal to evolution than I had ever imagined. Viral DNA makes up at least 10-20% of the code in the genes of every organism on Earth, including us, and the early research is pointing toward it being central to evolutionary processes we knew took place but that have confounded evolutionary scientists to explain. Viruses predate cellular life and I expect virus research to finaly strike the death of any debate from the creationists. I believe there are articles appearing in most science journals this week. Worth having a look!!


tao

Should be interesting. One point though is that we're having a difficult time even classifying a virus as being/having life itself...

[AndrewX]

I wonder how many modern scientists would agree with the statement, "If it's made of atoms (quarks -- strange, charm, etc.), it's alive."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have been reading whilst on holiday here in Austria that dramatic and important discoveries that take us another step toward knowing exactly how life as we know it took hold on Earth, have been made, almost accidentally, during the genetic sequencing of over 500 viruses. I have been quick to say in recent months that bacteria are the key to life and the most important an numerous organisms on Earth. How wrong I was. Bacteria are almost and endangered species when compared to phages and viruses. What is causing me the excitement is that viruses are far more important and pivotal to evolution than I had ever imagined. Viral DNA makes up at least 10-20% of the code in the genes of every organism on Earth, including us, and the early research is pointing toward it being central to evolutionary processes we knew took place but that have confounded evolutionary scientists to explain. Viruses predate cellular life and I expect virus research to finaly strike the death of any debate from the creationists. I believe there are articles appearing in most science journals this week. Worth having a look!!

Awesome, hope you're having a good time!

I vaguely recall a passing mention in a general biology class that pointed in this direction, but it sounds like they've come quite a bit further along since then. Viruses are tricky little devils, and a lot depends (as I recall) where one draws the line and calls it "life." I recall most viruses *require* other living organisms...to provide cells...for them to invade in order to reproduce. In other words, where I left off about four years ago, viruses and phages weren't quite considered alive because they could not reproduce by themselves in the complete absense of other life.

It will be interesting to take a look at what you came across, Tao. Any links?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I wonder how many modern scientists would agree with the statement, "If it's made of atoms (quarks -- strange, charm, etc.), it's alive."

I think a lot depends on how one defines "life."

One of the typical biological distinctions that seems to be the bump in the road for a lot of these things is the ability to reproduce...create offspring. So from a strictly biological POV I would be inclined to say "no." Rocks don't typically create more rocks...they don't eat, they don't poop, they don't breathe (in the sense we think of drawing breath). Yet they are made of atoms.

Now, I suppose in some quantum entanglement pseudo-philosophy emphasizing the interconnections across the galazies it might be said that since stars are born, pulse and die, in the process giving birth to other stars and planets and so on and so forth, perhaps. But I think that would be a far fringe group, not a mainstream science.

And of course, if you were to ask me, I would be only too happy to tell you that rocks are indeed alive. But it is not science that tells me this.

[AndrewX]

So who needs catching up, Juan? Modern science with the way things really are ... or the other way around?

I just think that there will come a time when we are a little bit wiser, and when our science really can show that what now seems like a pseudo-philosophy, is really just the Divine's modus operandi.

Even now there is instrumentation that is capable of detecting and measuring Life existing on non-physical levels. Perhaps the problem -- is that the scientists just don't realize what they're looking at ... yet.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Viruses predate cellular life

Where did you come up with that idea? Viruses REQUIRE cellular life to exist in the first place. THEY CANNOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT CELLULAR LIFE. Viruses are descendents of cellular life. In a sense, they are "more evolved" than cellular life, since they evolved from cellular life. Where did you get your biology degree? You need to get your money back if that's the sort of thing they taught you.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I recall most viruses *require* other living organisms...to provide cells...for them to invade in order to reproduce.

ALL viruses do. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

Perhaps I should comfort myself by noting that, at least, nobody has written "virii".

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I wonder how many modern scientists would agree with the statement, "If it's made of atoms (quarks -- strange, charm, etc.), it's alive."

None or almost none--certainly no biologists would.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Where did you come up with that idea? Viruses REQUIRE cellular life to exist in the first place. THEY CANNOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT CELLULAR LIFE. Viruses are descendents of cellular life. In a sense, they are "more evolved" than cellular life, since they evolved from cellular life. Where did you get your biology degree? You need to get your money back if that's the sort of thing they taught you.

Just guessing, but perhaps he meant the hypothesis of the 'RNA world' and was referring to the evidence for self-replicating RNA, and made the jump to RNA viruses.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Where did you come up with that idea? Viruses REQUIRE cellular life to exist in the first place. THEY CANNOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT CELLULAR LIFE. Viruses are descendents of cellular life. In a sense, they are "more evolved" than cellular life, since they evolved from cellular life. Where did you get your biology degree? You need to get your money back if that's the sort of thing they taught you.

Try here... Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences Vol:103 P.3669.

You have a serious attitude problem. And you have a long way to go yet before I can begin to take you seriously.

tao