RE: MD Wavelength reality

From: Patrick van den Berg (
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 14:49:21 GMT

  • Next message: Mari: "Re: MD The Quality of removing Saddam Hussein from power."


    I was very curious to see Moq-ists like Erin, Glenn, Marri and Platt
    read and reply on GJ's mail, and also the more Level-devotees (I'm
    ashamed to say I never was one so far!). You all understand the MoQ very
    well, and GJ's rather boldy proposed project to fit things like Reiki
    into the MoQ hit a chord in me, and I hoped it would in others also. But
    maybe there is a difference between the Dutch and American cultures
    here. I've never been in America, but it seems that over there (for me)
    at least outside the academic world psychic phenomena and healing by
    prayer to plants or by laying on hands are much more accepted in terms
    of folk-knowledge.

    I see it in the literature, read Donna Tartt, A Secret History, or The
    little friend: Tartt describes in different places that people sense
    someone is looking at them, and also there are frequent occasions of
    synchronicities in the story-line. Then take a dutch author like Adriaan
    van Dis, in 'Indische Duinen' for example: he makes meat of his family
    devoted to floaty new age, and actually, the quality of his scientismic
    attitude against them is quite high.

    Here in Holland, when you say to people that you believe in psi (or
    aura's or chakra's), you provoce the same discussion over and over
    again, about scientism as both a method and a worldview (which nearly
    always implicitely goes hand in hand in people) on the one side, and the
    floaty new age holistic worldview on the other. Just like the
    hippie-culture now, most people have a negative aftertaste of the term
    'new age' and thereby everything that's associated with it. The
    worldview of scientism nearly always wins, although often people do
    admit that they believe 'there's more between heaven and earth'.

    Scientism as a worldview (not only as a method) is in the head of many
    people. It's a huge static intellectual construct. It's adaptable, too,
    but establisged dogma is strong. Right now, there's no bridge between
    the scientismic and the new-age-worldview. GJ points out to us that the
    Metaphysics of Quality is potentially able to provide this bridge.
    Problem is, we need to find a hard-working Darwin(s) that puts the 1%
    part of inspiration, to the 99% part of hard rational and empirical work
    that is needed establish this bridge, and make scientism and (ugly, ugly
    name) new age one worldview. Isn't it so that at least hundred years
    before Darwin's The Origin of Species, many people have voiced a strong
    intuition in favor of an evolutionary theory like the one Darwin finally
    formulated, but, crucially, backed up with a huge amount of observations
    of similar birds on different nearby islands and all? Nowadays scientism
    (as both a method and a worldview now) considers Darwin as the father of
    evolutionary theory, just like Newton in Physics and astronomy.

    So, how long will it take before the Darwins rise up? The age in the
    beginning of the twentyfirst-century is different than Darwin's age. The
    memetic infrastructure has drastically changed, see the internet and the
    many more book-writers and scientists around here now, than was the case
    150 years ago. So there might be Darwins out there already, like Dean
    Radin or Rupert Sheldrake, only they are outshouted by the many more
    other book-writers and scientists. And, the nature of the topic is of
    course also different. As Thomas in his recent MoQ-essay says he is a
    self-admitted 'splitter', there are a lot of 'lumpers' out there, and I
    am one of them. I mean, like GJ I lump reiki, laying on hands,
    psychokinesis, pre-cognition, aura's, reincarnation-theories, chakra's
    and so forth all together on one pile. That's the new age heritage, who
    embraces them all. But maybe it's likely that there are a lot of areas
    of potential scientific knowledge and practice waiting for mankind, that
    turn out to be fundamentally different eventually. Maybe the difference
    between pre-cognition and telepathy, for example, is the same as the
    difference between the senses of touch and seeing. And the theory of
    chakra's and of aura's might denote different potential scientific
    disciplines such as geology and meteorology today.

    If you come this far, thanks for your time and patience. Cheers to the
    contemporary Darwins among us.

    Greetings, Patrick.

    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 14:49:42 GMT