Ian Weinberg en Publishers & Bloggers, Healthcare, English Developer and facilitator of neuro-coaching program. Neurosurgeon in practice • NeuroSurge - neuromodulation 8/10/2016 · 1 min de lectura · 1,1K

Perhaps we ought to read the stars?

Perhaps we ought to read the stars?





The intrinsic fear of insecurity has pervaded the human condition ever since the beginning of recorded time. This fear manifests in the collective defense of the familiar and of the status quo – the comfort zone. Those that have presented radically new ideas and concepts and have challenged the status quo have invariably been quickly silenced. It’s just too inconvenient to entertain radically new ideas and their implications unless they offer an immediate benefit to the existing comfort zone.

Sadly, this bias has been carried over into the realm of science. This is most unfortunate because the scientific environment aspires to the highest ethics of human endeavor where anything and everything of us and our environments ought to be studied with healthy curiosity, logic and integrity so as to further our collective understanding. As a result, the gatekeepers of scientific research and their high priests have ordained what is ‘true science’ as opposed to what is ‘pseudo-science’ . Pseudo-science incorporates subjects which are regarded as undesirable and if research is pursued in these areas, serious threats to existing tenure and standing will inevitably occur. ‘Undesirable’ subjects include astrology, parapsychology and all ‘fringe’ health-enhancing modalities. Undesirable topics are inconvenient for the scientific establishment to engage with and integrate and so through the considerable muscle of the scientific community, are quickly suppressed. An illustration of this was the discrediting and excommunication of Rupert Sheldrake, an eminent cell biologist, who dared to postulate a radically new biological theory (Theory of Formative Causation), components of which he additionally validated through original research. In fact, Ted Talks removed his lecture under pressure from their own scientific advisors!

An so it is with some amusement that I note the publication recently of hard scientific evidence showing the significant effects that planetary configurations have on the sun’s electromagnetic field. Why am I amused? Because in addition to its self-defeating bias, the scientific world is an unintegrated place with a short collective memory. Specifically as regards astrology, through the inconvenience caused at the time of its publication the science world forgot about the thesis of a highly respected astrophysicist, Percy Seymour. Percy Seymour studied the work of psychologist and statistician, Michel Gauquelin who showed significant relationships between planetary alignment of five planets and success in specific vocations. Percy Seymour showed that it wasn’t the direct effect of planetary configuration on humans on earth that was the operative influence. Rather, through resonance, the planets modulated the sun’s electromagnetic field which in turn had a direct influence upon the earth’s magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has been shown to have significant effects on animal (including humans) physiology and behavior as catalogued in the science of magneto-biology.

Well, well .... full circle. We’re not alone. And we seem to control less and less of our extended environment and our behavior as we discover more influences which come to bear upon our small little corner in this vast cosmos - octaves of electromagnetic influences! Best to remain humble and respectful.

References

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Basis-Astrology-Tuning-Planets/dp/057202181X

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Clocks-Astrology-Modern-Science/dp/0917086422

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004113753.htm


                                                        Copyright reserved - Ian Weinberg 2016



Ian Weinberg 8/10/2016 · #9

#8 @Deb Helfrich thanks for that. I sincerely believe that we are evolving into a new scientific space as we speak. The old has not provided adequate answers. The substrate for 'legitimate' enquiry has narrowed significantly as more and more concepts have become inconvenient for incorporation into existing models. I would name Rupert Sheldrake and physicist Dean Radin amongst several others, who are birthing a new science.

+1 +1
Deb Helfrich 8/10/2016 · #8

Ah, Rupert Sheldrake has done some fascinating science. The easiest to approach is around how dogs know when their owners are coming home. And here is a pertinent quote from his book titled "Morphic Resonance"

"Although evidence is piling up that cosmology is evolutionary, old habits of thought die hard. Most scientists take eternal Laws of Nature for granted – not because they have thought about them in the context of the Big Bang, but because they haven't.
Laws anthropomorphize because what are laws in relation to nature, and there is no parallel in nature for monarchs or parliaments or congresses. The legal metaphor is incoherent.
I suggest a new possibility. The regularities of nature are not imposed on nature from a transcendent realm, but evolve within the universe. What happens depends on what has happened before. Memory is inherent in nature. It is transmitted by a process called morphic resonance, and works through fields called morphic fields."

This is in parallel with all of the studies about embodied cognition, wherein our senses of very subtle things influence our behavior in very marked ways. Of course, we are in many ways just as invisibly effected by the macro world as the micro world. The age of rational intellect as the supreme force in the universe is all but over.

It is only human to think about things. It is socialized dogma to find certain things not worth thinking about.

I am quite eager to surrender to the possibilities that I am so far unable to fathom.

+3 +3
Chas Wyatt 8/10/2016 · #6

@Ian Weinberg, Velikovsky's theories about planetary collisions were laughed at by the scientific community,but, are now regarded seriously by that same community. The theory of floating Tektonic plates on the Earth's magma was once also scoffed at. If it weren't for the moon's pull we would not have tides and the seas would essentially be dead. Astrology is based on a twelve planetary system. Planet x, a tenth planet is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community as well as a possible 11th planet. Many esoteric teachings and beliefs are beginning to be accepted by science as not just being cloaked in the veil of myth and folktales, but, being rooted in reality.

+3 +3
Ian Weinberg 8/10/2016 · #5

#4 @I know very little about it so can't give an opinion.

+1 +1
Aurorasa Sima 8/10/2016 · #4

What is your opinion of vedic astrology?

0
Melissa Hefferman 8/10/2016 · #3

I like to explore science, but I'm not a scientist so my feeble mind only grasps so far. At some point, I say to myself, wasn't all science conjecture at some point or another in human history anyways until proven/disproven and our beliefs subsequently evolved? I also like to explore poetry, literature, music and art, and sometimes I think they are all saying the very same things, they just use different languages and words and expressions. When I explore my heart, the stars whisper things to me. Maybe that's where both science and art are born. Maybe that's what is Awakening. Maybe.

+2 +2
Peter van Doorn 8/10/2016 · #2

Scientists need evidence. At some point in the very near future, we will not be able to find evidence anymore. Is that the end of science? I wonder.

I even wonder if the end of science would be a disaster or a blessing?

What did science do for humanity? Agreed, we live longer. The quantity of years improved dramaticly. I dare to say the quality of life itself did not improve. In the old days you had to be physically strong to be free. Now you need mental strength.

Science gave as weapons of mass destruction. Science gave us a long virtual life. I see so many people depending on technology.

A life staring at your phone. Expressing yourself on social media. Virtual, prolonged life. Safe. That's it, isn't it, we feel safe.

"Perhaps we ought to read the stars?" I have another suggestion. "Perhaps we ought to reach the stars?"

We reached a point where we know so much. And we use all that knowledge for potential destruction and dependence. To make money.

Two million years of evolution, and we are still apes.

Maybe humanity is near a turning point. The way we chose is up to us. Not to me. The universe is not going to change because of our actions.
We are free. And thus alone.

+3 +3