Women and Self-Realisation in the School

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

lost archives

Postby ross nolan » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:30 pm

Tom, just checked on the John Colet archives -- looks like they have deleted everything bar two pages from 2004 on "Abhinaya' (dance) and a file that will not open on " science ,Thales to ... "

By the way has anybody tried to download the episode of "South Park" that 'dealt with' Scientology ? (that resulted in the Cook character leaving and Tom Cruise apparently threatening to boycott the film promotion of Mission Impossible 3 -- every site I checked had been "sanitized" -- come to think of it a bit of "sanity" could do a lot of good to the scientologists (bad pun )

On the subject of Sheldrake's hypothesis -- I will bet that all the "junk DNA" will have a role in somehow translating the 'instructions' in the 'real' DNA for making proteins etc into real things like cats or people .

Can anyone hazard a (scientific) guess at how such abstract things as the ability to fly, to navigate for thousands of miles in both birds,salmon,eels,butterflies etc unnerringly back to their breeding grounds or migratory pathways etc can possibly be 'encoded' into their microscopic germ cells and DNA etc ?

How can the 'nature' of various animals be implanted in their genes -- this is not a matter of protein manufacture as such . (eg a Wolverine does not behave like a deer ) .

Quote from Arthur C Clarke ' any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic ' (in apparent effect )

Also Tom , am I right in thinking you were the 'first cause' in getting this website underway ( I seem to remember your starting with "Friends reunited' but I may be wrong ) --?

Regards,
Skeptic

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Re: science vs SES

Postby Tom Grubb » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:15 pm

ross nolan wrote:Thanks Tom, I have read Rupert Sheldrake on morphic fields and pets who 'know their master is coming home' etc -- I think New Scientist made the comment on his first book that "if there ever was a candidate for book burning this has to be it ".

It was actually the great John Maddox in 'Nature' who made the "burning" comment: "[Sheldrake's] book is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years". He made it clear elsewhere in the article, however, that he wasn't being entirely serious and he didn't actually approve of book burning!

ross nolan wrote:A bit harsh perhaps -- Sheldrake is a qualified biologist (or something similar ) so knows a hell of a lot more than I do about such things and I can see what he is trying to explain - ie. what is the 'scaffolding' that somehow gives three dimensional living things their shape,size and symmettry (amongst other things) -- how is it that a lifeless combination of amino acids,base pairs etc - in reality just colourless, simple molecules in a 'soup' of other similar molecular fragments can come together to create something that has a definite shape detailed to even atomic dimensions and yet also precisely defined in terms of a specific (as in species) three dimensional shape and size (there is 'no one' to 'read' any 'instructions' or 'encoded information' as we like to 'explain' the facts of DNA by comparison to, nor is there any toolkit to make things with or rulers to measure with and yet it all happens.

Sheldrake is attempting to postulate a 'mechanism' to explain how this sort of thing comes about ("morphic fields") which is itself more mysterious than the problem itself -- nonetheless no one else can really show how a sequence of anything (genes etc) can be converted into a three dimensional and size specific 'thing' like an animal.

His concept of some sort of template is a hypothesis and he does give a number of doable tests to verify or reject it so, at that level, he is being scientific -- just about any basic concept in physics or other sciences is ultimately 'inconcievable' in reality so I would hesitate to ridicule him -- if nothing else he has suggested a possible solution to a very real problem.

As you rightly say, Sheldrake's hypothesis is "more mysterious than the problem itself". Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, but the glaring lack of any evidence (of the controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed variety) suggests that it very probably is. Sheldrake likes to see himself as some sort of latterday Galileo, with 'orthodox' science as the Catholic Church, blinded by dogma and unable to admit the truth of his heretical ideas. Thus when his ideas are tested scientifically (i.e. not by self-selected samples of credulous data-searchers) and fail, it simply reinforces his persecution complex.

Yes, he has a PhD in biochemisty from Cambridge but, unfortunately, having high-level science credentials doen't always guarantee that people think scientifically. After all, it was a magician who definitively exposed Uri Geller after more than a few scientists had been taken in by his magic tricks.

ross nolan wrote:(I have two twin cats that are indistinguishable but for a small scar on one's ear -- somehow that "3D shaping program' that has to exist has 'sculpted' each one of them to essentially exact replicas and no doubt right down to all the internal skeleton,muscles and even cellular level -- I cannot even conceive of how such a thing can be done 'in the dark, with no measuring devices, no 'plans' as such etc -- having been in the engineering patternmaking game for a few years and following a little of the programming for CAD CAM etc it still looks like a real' miracle' .

I think this is a very human response! I know it's different but it reminds me of the old argument many people put forward against evolution: 'How could this process ever produce something as complex as the human eye?' It's superficially convincing but ultimately an 'argument from incredulity' rather than a valid refutation.

I don't know anything about CAD CAM - I don't know very much about DNA either! - but I'm quite prepared to accept that genes are essentially computer programs for creating 3D objects, from the relatively simple to the staggeringly complex. I also think genetics and biology can ultimately do a much better job of explaining seeming miracles of nature than the metaphysics of people like Sheldrake.

ross nolan wrote:Remember reading a comment by Michael Crichton -- he was referring to how our minds are so influenced by 'representations' like maps,diagrams
etc that they tend to become our reality rather than mere analogies -- he was flying across the USA and suddenly realized he could not see the nice neat state boundaries and differeing colours that he 'expected' to see from his subconcious map memories -- likewise when looking at living cells under a microscope he expected to see a dark nucleous and outlined cell walls, mitochondria etc -- just like in the text books ; only trouble is that those cells were dead and stained to reveal the otherwise invisible structures .

When it comes to real understanding of just about anything we are just about bereft of real 'global' perception of how things work let alone any knowing of why . (most of the underpinnings of industry and medicine were learnt by observation without knowing what was the cause of things and practice certainly preceded the theory and still does .

There is no doubt that intelligence exists in the universe (and stupidity !) because we are here -- we recognize the value of intelligence whether it has evolved without purpose or was somehow made by a higher intelligence (a bit like the evolution of the elements from primordial hydrogen to iron and then via supernovae all the way to uranium -- it could be that intelligence has to undergo more 'stages' than just one 'incarnation' -- it seems appealing to believe in something beyond pure chance and reincarnation has such appeal that virtually every religion offers it (including Christianity) .

Perhaps I diverge from strict "Dawkinism" on this philosophical level even if I can not hope to match his intellect -- ultimately the whole of life and the physical universe is astounding in it's complexity and would seem to be a lot of trouble to go to for no particular reason ; on the other hand this lack of certainty is no excuse to open the door to every circling conman or charlatan who trades on the vulnerability of the 'thinking person' (the target for SES advertising )

Agreed!

ross nolan wrote:I would have liked to find the SES/SOP to have been a sort of 'secular , non institutional , thinking organization to allow people with an interest in the intellectual ideas that both science and philosophy (and life) thow up to discuss and ponder on those things -- if only it were so.

I'll certainly have a look at that John Collet website, thanks.

My bit about Tolkien and the Hobbit, LOTR etc, was a bit obtuse maybe in the context -- I think it(LOTR) was itself an allegorical "journey of self realization" reflecting both Tolkien's interest in the mythology of the scandinavians mainly and the whole 'good versus evil thing', with the ring symbolizing the sort of danger of the 'original sin' of forbidden knowledge in some fashion, and the state of the world up to and in the second world war.

The idea of removing evil from the world by an act of selfless risk or even sacrifice (taking the embodiment of evil - the ring- to mount mordor /mt doom for destruction) in the form of an innocent,naive, hobbit and returning the world to an age of simple yet blissful ignorance in effect is the yearning for the pre nuclear age or the putting the genie back in the bottle, closing pandora's box , or some other example of man going back to his 'innocent childhood' in effect rather than exposing himself to the worry and threat from seeking knowledge that is not good for him.

This common theme postulates a divinely intended sort of 'bovine bliss' in an unspoiled
garden of Eden to some extent and underpins the modern cynicism with science as the source of all wrongs in the world (or at least threats to continued existence, pollution,global warming etc genetic meddling etc ) and creating a backlash against science and technology.

Agreed again! If only more people would realise how much better science has made the world and how it can and will continue to improve the world.

ross nolan wrote:It is that anti science thread in the SES teachings that I instinctively reacted to as I would any form of backward looking and dictatorial type of
'teaching' process -- there are big parallels to other cults like the Jehovah witnesses and even such things as Amway take on these same cultish manifestations that invariably result in someone being screwed (very much more often than not women seem to be the victims as well )

Sometimes the only 'realization' that takes place is the one of having been taken advantage of - too late.

Indeed.
Last edited by Tom Grubb on Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Re: lost archives

Postby Tom Grubb » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:47 pm

ross nolan wrote:Tom, just checked on the John Colet archives -- looks like they have deleted everything bar two pages from 2004 on "Abhinaya' (dance) and a file that will not open on " science ,Thales to ... "

That's the one! I went to http://www.archive.org/ then put johncolet.nsw.edu.au/texts.html into the search engine (after the http//: bit), then clicked on the 'Nov 08, 2004' link The '...Thales...' file is the one you want. It's a big file (stuffed with megabytes of garbage) but it should open.

[Added 25/04/06: I've just found out that the file is still available (nicely hidden away) on the current John Colet site. It's at http://johncolet.nsw.edu.au/Downloads/Electricity%20from%20Thales%20to%20Tesla.pdf]

ross nolan wrote:Also Tom , am I right in thinking you were the 'first cause' in getting this website underway ( I seem to remember your starting with "Friends reunited' but I may be wrong ) --?

I wouldn't say that!

Several years ago I came across a page about the SES created by the modest but heroic Mike Gormez. This was at a time shortly after I'd decided that I had to do something to try to come to terms with my St Vedast experience. I contacted Mike and he kindly published my request for contact with other former pupils. Not a lot came of that but...

What really set things in motion was Matthew's very first (and very brilliant) post over two years ago on this very forum, which I think was previously concerned only with Scientology-related discussion. By an impressive coincidence - not that I believe in synchronicity! - dan, Alban and I independently discovered the forum and responded to Matthew's seminal message.

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:38 am

Hi Bella,

There are a few comments in response to your question. What do you make of them? There certainly seems to have been a very established approach to treating women as secondary to men in the past. I've also had this confirmed from my mother.

Are you comfortable that this is no longer part of the teaching? If so, what do you think caused the shift?

Best wishes,
Ben


Hi Ben,

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm satisfied that the expressed views I paraphrased in the OP (that women have to be reborn as men before they have a hope of making any real spiritual progress) were misinterpretations, or otherwise unfounded. Note I am making a distinction between women serving husbands or teachers, and women requiring a rebirth as a man - I understand that to many, both will be equally laughable, but the original post was only intended to query the latter.

Personally, I don't believe it's particularly necessary for a woman to serve a husband or the school in order to achieve spiritual satisfaction/realisation/however you want to play it. That doesn't mean I haven't heard it mentioned, though. My understanding is that it's intended to be a surrender to "the truth", in a couple of convenient forms. I don't, however, accept that men can serve the truth in absolute, while women need window dressing. I do accept, though, that service in general is entirely necessary on a spiritual path.

The school I attend doesn't attempt to hold women as inferior or secondary, in my view. Although, as I've said before, I don't actually view deference to a husband as an indication of inferiority or secondary quality. I'd imagine that any shift that has occurred in this thinking or teaching has been a direct response to changing times and attitudes. Maybe also, the inevitable gap between spiritual ideals and common human interpretation and implementation (and the pain that can cause) is more obvious.

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

ses science

Postby ross nolan » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:44 pm

Tom, just looked at the John Colet science curriculum on electricity -- thanks for the address; I cannot understand how the '9 Vedic elements' can be taught in a contemporary science education -- also their text reference on static electricity dating from 1904.

This certainly mixes "philosophy" and a fairly orthodox science with the stated emphasis on the personalities involved and subtle reference to the 'supernatural' elements involved in discovery (eg Mendeleyev's dreaming the periodic table (in fact he made up a set of 'playing cards' with suites related to properties and numbers corresponding to atomic weights and 'played' a form of solitaire looking for patterns recurring at intervals -- perhaps he fitted the pieces together in a state of near sleep )

Tesla's "vision" in 'seeing' the alternate current motor and dynamo is also emphasized -- another end point of a long intellectual struggle rather than a divine inspiration that would suit SES .

The real problem of converting any form of potential 'information' storage into tangible three dimensional things without any equivalent process to 'reading' 'seeing' ' manipulation' ' shaping' etc etc is still conceptually unsolved let alone how a butterfly goes from Mexico to Canada via some 'inbuilt' 'instinct' (imagine the size of a Monarch butterfly brain)

All very interesting....
Skeptic

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Postby Shout » Wed May 03, 2006 9:21 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Thu May 04, 2006 6:03 pm

Wise words from a wise man.

sly_gryphon
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:48 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: ses science

Postby sly_gryphon » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:17 pm

ross nolan wrote:Tom, just looked at the John Colet science curriculum on electricity -- thanks for the address; I cannot understand how the '9 Vedic elements' can be taught in a contemporary science education -- also their text reference on static electricity dating from 1904.


If anyone still has a copy of the mentioned PDF, could they please PM me -- the document appears to have been taken off their web site.

Thanks

- Sly

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: ses science

Postby mgormez » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:50 am

sly_gryphon wrote:If anyone still has a copy of the mentioned PDF, could they please PM me -- the document appears to have been taken off their web site.


I'll mail you a copy. Every now and then I make offline copies of such sites for this purpose so stuff doesnt'get lost. The file is about 2MB.
Mike Gormez

trubleshtr
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:54 pm

Re: Women and Self-Realisation in the School

Postby trubleshtr » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:19 pm

I am writing simply to say that whilst the activity on this site has reduced over the years the presence of the Forum is valuable - and I found this topic very helpful.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests