Mystics do not distinguish between religion, mysticism and psychology in that they are all aspects of the mystical journey. Religion is the outer framework: it provides a set of guidelines and rules to make the journey easier. Psychology, in its real sense, is the study of the mind, and it is through levels on consciousness that the journey takes place. According to the ancient historian Plutarch, the admonition “Gnothi se auton” (“Know Thyself”) was inscribed on the Sun god Apollo’s Oracle of Delphi temple in ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks inherited their religious symbols and gods and goddesses from the Egyptians who were monotheists. Their gods served a similar purpose to archetypes propounded by the psychologist Carl Jung. Before the days of television and soap operas, archetypes served the purpose of showing human traits in their stereotyped forms. The idea was that people would be able to observe these traits in themselves and gain insight into their own behaviour. The gods and goddesses were of an archetypal nature that went deeper into the soul of humanity than just behaviour patterns. Throughout the universe there are energy currents. These pulsate through our own bodies, through the Earth, the solar system and the galaxy. Understanding that energy in microcosm in our body helps us to understand the energies in the world. For example, some days have a very charged, positive energy. At these times we feel motivated and energetic. At other times the energy is heavy and we feel lethargic. Sometimes we feel emotional; at other times we may feel inspired to paint or write. Most people have a better relationship...
Scientists often talk about ‘The arrow of time’. That time moves in one direction only. This is nonsense and shows how narrow the twenty-first century view on science has become. Time is a dimension, in the same way as length, height and width are dimensions. If you climb up a hill and look down you can see the land laid out before you. You can view the dimensions of width and length. Similarly, if you could go into the fifth dimension, you would be able to see the four space-time dimensions laid out before you. It would be like opening book and seeing any event and then moving to see it’s outcome. The idea of the arrow of time is because scientists have certain assumptions that they need to accept without question. One of them is the concept of cause and effect. An action produces consequences. Science is the process of relating a cause to the effects. If the there is no arrow of time, then causality in this sense becomes indeterminate. Science, then, is based on assumptions of how the world works. There’s nothing wrong with this so long as science works within these assumptions, but frequently it gives rise to circular arguments. Someone at a table knocks a glass over and it drops and breaks. The physicists tells us that it hit the floor with a certain force. The chemist tells us that the glass can withstand a certain impact before it breaks. But why did the person drop the glass? Was he clumsy or nervous? A car crashes on a road and kills the driver. Again,...
Most of the problems facing women today are caused, or exacerbated, by the ‘women’s movement’. Many years ago I saw an interview with Germaine Greer, one of the early pioneers in the women’s movement. Someone had made the comment that women could not be airline pilots because ‘what happens if they are having their period?’. Germaine Greer’s response was ‘You couldn’t tell if I’m having my period now could you?’. In other words, A woman on her period is as capable of doing anything a man can do. Except that’s not true of all women. I’ve seen women in therapy who deal with extreme issues related to PMS. One asked me, rhetorically, why no-one had done anything about this as it’s a common problem. The reason is that men are not interested in dealing with this but neither are many women. If you are going to say that a woman on her period is as capable as doing anything a man can do, then women who who have issues during this period are ‘letting the side down’. But this is just one example of how women are let down by the feminists. Women are supposed to be strong, and decisive. Women are supposed to be more like men, or more precisely, a stereotype of men that even the feminists don’t accept. Lets’ look at these adjectives: Strong. Certainly in physical strength world in general come off weaker than men. The word strong is used in a emotional way. It is meant to paint a picture of someone who who can achieve outcomes. But what about affection, flexibility or compassion? What...
Atheists and skeptics frequently write articles from the standpoint that their view is ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and that religious or ‘New Age’ views are irrational and based on incorrect assumptions. This view is fallacious and in these writings I explain that atheism is simply another belief system with as many (if not more) irrational assumptions as many religions. Skeptics place great emphasis on arguing techniques. Ostensibly, their motive is to expose the false arguing techniques used by their opponents but the fact is, many of them place greatly more emphasis on arguing than they do on understanding. In my personal experience, I would say this applies to the vast majority of skeptics. One of the arguing techniques that seems to raise its head frequently is that Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof. The basic proposition here is that science has established some rules for how the universe works. These rules appear to work, they are useful in that we can build on them to, for example, produce computer chips or send rockets into space. If a claim comes along that appears to go against the established way of seeing the world then we can’t apply the same rules of proof to it as we would to a claim that goes along with our current way of seeing the world. For instance, an investigator trying to determine why an aeroplane crashed would look at the known possibilities for crashes: Pilot error, equipment failure, maintenance failures, these sort of things. If someone suggested that it was caused by an alien UFO, most investigators would be dismissive of the idea. This is, in...
Atheism is on an evangelical drive. Largely fuelled by Richard Dawkins they are out to convert people. To some extent one might argue they are simply making it more respectable. In the same way as the Gay movement see themselves not as converting people to homosexuality but as allowing homosexuals the freedom to express themselves, one could argue that the evangelical atheists are simply allowing people who are atheists the freedom to say so without stigma. Except, of course, that is not their agenda. They want to convert people away from religion and what they call ‘belief’ to what they call ‘reason’ and ‘science’. A recent item on the US National Public Radio reports that atheism is on a crusade. One of the weapons in their armoury is ridicule. This would not be a surprise to anyone who has had dealings with members of the various sceptical societies. I have in the past tried to engage in intelligent email debates with sceptics only to be sent an email reply that the author obviously thought was clever but relied on ridicule rather than answering the issues I raised. Atheism relies on what they call reason to counter what they call faith. If they are unable to put their case using reason then really they have nothing to offer. In the NPR program is a reference to the TV program ‘House’. In this program a rather cynical doctor (Dr House) uses logic and reason to find the cause of esoteric symptoms that patients exhibit. In one episode, a colleague uses a scoreboard. When Dr house finds a scientific reason, he scores a point; when he can’t...
Here are writings on a wide range of subjects. Intelligent comments are welcome.
Recent Comments