Science vs. Healers

These books are recent but representative of the studies I was engaged in as well as giving the reader an insight to the continuing problem of censorship and supposed 'expertise' that prevents a great deal of truth. David Depew and Bruce Weber of MIT wrote 'Darwinism Evolving' in 1995 and it says on pages 492 & 493:

“They also made it harder for the scientific worldview to be received with equanimity by other sources of culture. Indeed, since the reducing impulse undermines fairly huge tracts of experience, people like Wallace, who feel deeply about protecting phenomena they regard as existentially important, frequently conclude that they have no alternative except to embrace spiritualism, and sometimes even to attack the scientific worldview itself, if that is the only way to protect important spheres of experience that have been ejected from science's confining Eden.

In response, scientists and philosophers who feel strongly about the liberating potential of a spare, materialistic worldview began to patrol the borderlands between the high-grade knowledge scientists have of natural systems and the low-grade opinions that in the view of science's most ardent defenders, dominate other spheres of culture and lead back toward the superstitious and authoritarian world of yester-year. 'Demarcating' science from other, less cognitively worthwhile forms of understanding was already a major feature of Darwin's world. A line beyond which the Newtonian {Newton was a Rosicrucian who achieved the status of an alchemist per Haeffner's 'Dictionary of Alchemy') paradigm could not apply was drawn at the boundary between physics and biology. We have seen how hesitant Darwin was to cross that line and what happened when he did. Twentieth-century people are sometimes prone to congratulate themselves for being above these quaint Victorian battles. They may have less reason to do so, however, than they think, for the fact is that throughout our own century, the same sort of battles with emotional overtones no less charged, have been waged at the contested line where biology meets psychology, and more generally where the natural sciences confront the human sciences. Dualisms between spirit and matter, and even between the mind and body, may have been pushed to the margins of respectable intellectual discourse. But methodological dualisms between what is covered by laws and what is to be 'hermeneutically appropriated' are still very much at the center of our cultural, or rather 'two cultural', life. Cognitive psychologists and neurophysiologists are even now busy reducing mind- states to brain-states, while interpretive or humanistic psychologists are proclaiming how meaningless the world would be if mind is nothing but brain. Interpretive anthropologists are filled with horror at what would disappear from the world if the rich cultural practices that seem to give meaning to our lives were to be shown to be little more than extremely sophisticated calculations on the part of self-interested genes. Conflicts of this sort would have given Darwin stomachaches almost as bad as the ones he endured over earlier demarcation controversies."

These authors use the term hermeneuts much as the early 20th Century supposed scientists ridiculed the quantum physicists by calling them 'atom-mysticists'. Hermeneuts is a new epithet for alchemists such as myself who OBSERVE and try to fit ALL the facts together and don't eject anything 'from science's confining Eden'. This quote continues to raise the spectre of the 'Bible Narrative' and Bishop Ussher whose late nineteenth century proponent was Wilberforce.

"The rhetorical pattern of these battles is still depressingly similar, in fact, to Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce. Hermeneuts ridicule scientists like Hamilton, Dawkins, and Wilson when they suggest that nothing was ever known about social cooperation until biologists discovered kin selection. Reductionists in turn criticize hermeneuts, now transformed largely into 'culturists', for bringing back ghosts and gods, just as their nineteenth-century predecessors were taxed with being 'vitalists' every time they said something about the complexity of development. Humanists identify scientists with an outdated materialistic reductionism. Scientists insist that hermeneutical intentionality is little more than disguised religion.

Perhaps, a way out of this fruitless dialectic between the 'two cultures', can be found if each party could give up at least one of its cherished preconceptions. It would be a good thing, for example, if heirs of the Enlightenment {Credited to Bacon, Shakespeare, Jonson and others with an alchemical background.} would stop thinking that if cultural phenomena are not reduced to some sort of mechanism, religious authoritarianism will immediately flood into the breach. They should also stop assuming that nothing is really known about human beings until the spirit of reductionism gets to work. Students of the human sciences have, after all, been learning things alongside scientists ever since modernity began. Among other things they have learned that humans are individuated as persons within the bonds of cultures and cultural roles, they are bound together with others in ways no less meaningful and valuable than the ways promoted by strongly dualistic religions. By the same token, it would be helpful if advocates of the interpretive disciplines would. abandon a tacit assumption sometimes found among them that nature is so constituted that it can never accommodate the rich and meaningful cultural phenomena humanists are dedicated to protecting, and that therefore cultural 'ought never' to be allowed to slip comfortably into naturalism. Humanists seem to have internalized this belief from their reductionist enemies, whose commitment to materialism is generally inseparable from their resolve to show up large parts of culture, especially religion, as illusions. These opponents, we may safely say, take in each other's laundry."

I wonder if these authors and their reductivist buddies are aware that all humanists are not without the ability to incorporate hard physical science to an even higher factual degree than they do. The quantum physicists like Wigner (Nobel laureate), Schrödinger and Heisenberg think that humanistic richness is robbed by reductionist unspiritual thinking. The global reifying thrust of materialism (Dr. Boddy of U of T, anthropology) is hopefully, in due course, going to return to a global deifying thrust of spiritualism. The only REALITY is NATURE and it assuredly includes ALL observable facts not just the 'Toilet Philosophy'.

If I may be allowed to quote someone who tries to keep an 'open mind' and use WHATEVER WORKS even if it isn't 'modernity'. I choose to quote a wholistic doctor by the name of Zoltan Rona who has his M.D. and M. Sc. He edited the 'Encyclopedia of Natural Healing' in 1997 which says on pages 33 and 34:

“It is misleading to call the natural health movement ‘alternative medicine’ as is often done. Natural Medicine is considered the founder of contemporary Western medicine. What we now call modern medicine is actually an aberration, the result of social change at the dawn of industrialization in the eighteenth century."

He continues to discuss one of the greatest alchemists of all time whose books I found contain the key to understanding how to make the Philosopher's Stone. He does not identify Paracelsus as an alchemist due to cultural bias against alchemy that has led to many of them being burned at the stake. He says on pages 34 & 35:

"PARACELSUS (1493-1541)
At the close of the Middle Ages, Paracelsus dared to challenge the orthodox medicine of his day, which, like today, had abandoned the teachings of Hippocrates {Another alchemist.} and become bogged down in superstitious, dogmatic practices. With the dramatic successes he achieved through observation and deduction to discover nature's latent healing powers, Paracelsus revolutionized medicine for centuries.

Born Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim {He used some other names in conjunction with these such as Phillipus Aureolus.} in Switzerland, this courageous genius had the early opportunity to accompany his father, a physician, on his rounds. He learned the value of observation and became acquainted with herbs and medicinal plants. In his university years, Paracelsus appreciated the critical spirit which reigned in Ferrara, Italy, compared to the close-mindedness in universities in other European cities. He was not content to limit himself to academic knowledge. He learned what he could practically from professionals and anyone else who had something to teach him about how to use the latent forces in nature. Due to his healing successes, notably in treating the plague, he began to gather a large following.

After returning to Basle, Switzerland, Paracelsus saved the leg of the rich printer Frobenius from amputation by applying his knowledge of nature's inner healing power. Paracelsus became Basle's official physician and was offered a professorship at the University of Basle. He soon ran into trouble with the authorities due to his blatant criticism of modern medicine. In a dramatic gesture Paracelsus burned the books of the medical authorities. Within several months he was forced to flee the university and found himself wandering penniless. . For the next eight years he lived with friends 'and worked on his manuscripts. The publication of DIE GROSSE WUNDANTZNEY in 1536 restored his reputation, and his fortune turned once more. Paracelsus became wealthy and was sought after by noblemen and royalty."

His actions against the ‘sins and demons’ origins of disease and illness mirror the free medicine and knowledge of the Gnostic Cathars a couple of centuries earlier that led to their genocide in a crusade that was won by the new head of the Dominican Order of the Catholics. Man, Myth, and Magic promotes the MYTH that alchemy was dominated by hermits in pursuit of wealth and gold from lead. They say that Paracelsus was poor and proof that no Philosopher's Stone was ever created and that alchemists were greedy failures. This author says 'Paracelsus became wealthy' but that assuredly was not his purpose and when he died he had only one special goblet to give to someone who he knew understood its value. Continuing to quote Mr. Rona:

"Paracelsus attacked the dogmatic belief of modern doctors that the human body is controlled exclusively by the stars and the planets. He insisted upon the right to discover latent powers of nature by daring to use his faculties of observation and imagination. He stressed the healing power of nature, and raged against modern methods, such as wound treatment that prevented natural drainage of bodily fluids.

One of Paracelsus's most important medical discoveries concerned the treatment of syphilis. He maintained that syphilis could be treated with carefully measured doses of poison mercury compounds taken internally. This contradicted all medical opinion of the day, but he was proven right. Paracelsus was the first to show that, if given in small doses, the cause of an illness also cures it. This discovery was an anticipation of the modern practice of homeopathy. In the summer of 1534, Paracelsus cured many people in the plague-infested town of Stertzing by applying the same principle."

At the time of the Plague the Flagellants were part of the Catholic hierarchy; they were burning Jewish people in cities across Europe. Men, women and children were surrounded in their neighborhoods and burned. The genocide in Rwanda that was initiated by the hatred' fostered by the Roman Catholic Church' according to the July 2000 report released by the Organization of African Unity is little different than the holocaust. The Catholic fostered anti-Semitism that was politically useful to Hitler (or Mississippi Senator John Stennis of the House Un-American Activities Committee) who was a Catholic and never ex-communicated; has been used throughout recent history to empower the Empire-builders from the Holy Roman Emperor Constantine to this very day. Yes, I know the Pope has meekly apologized, but the behavior continues. The 'War on Women' founded in the 'original sin' of St. Augustine and formalized at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. has far reaching influence across sociological norms in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic complex. Thus we can see this author correctly uses the word courageous when referring to Paracelsus.