Mitchel Cohen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hitched from the Rainbow Gathering in Tennessee with a couple
of
> researchers traveling to Asheville, North Carolina, where
they're
> working on some wild Tesla-related energy projects, independent
of the
> government. They work out of an old metal silo in Asheville
that was
> pretty cool, based n the work of Stanley Meyer, John Badini,
Marco
> Rodin, and Vortex-based mathematics and his Rodin-coil.
>
> The head of the "silo" research is Gregor Arturo, a
young fellow. He's
> very much into the "Thrive" free-energy stuff and
tyroidal energy.
> (Check the "Thrive" video online, of which I am
pretty critical but
> which also has some interesting stuff in it.) The fellow I
hitched with
> goes by the name Eden (aka Jeremiah), and he was very
interesting, very
> political, and had just arrived the week before from Colorado
before
> starting to do research at the institute.
>
> I haven't read any of the books they recommended, so I can't
say what I
> think of any of it, but they recommend:
>
> Stanley Meyer, "The Birth of New Technology"
>
> Margaret Cheney, "Tesla, Man out of Time"
>
> "Keely and his discoveries, 1893" and
>
> Keely, "Sympathetic Vibratory Physics"
>
> Patrick J. Kelly, "Practical Guide to Devices"
>
> especially an article posted in April 2012.
>
> Know anything here?
>
> Mitchel
> ----------------------
Petros Evdokas responds:
Hello,
The ideological, philosophical and scientific dead end of
conventional
science ("scientificism") was highlighted again recently
with the "God
particle" (the Higgs boson) fiasco. Notice how they all dropped
the
appellation "God particle" the very next day, after using
it and hyping
it for more than a decade continually?
Same as the string theory and other particle based models of
Cosmology.
They all keep bumping up on glass ceiling which they can not
penetrate.
Part of that reason is because conventional physics has abandoned
and
suppressed the branch that was born from its own body and loosely
referred to as "visionary physics" about thirty years
ago.
Another reason is that conventional science is unwilling and
incapable
of appreciating Orgonomy, which provides many answers to the most
basic
deficiencies in the currently existing "officially
sanctioned" Cosmology.
How we got here
Here are some (not all) of the elements that comprise the roadmap of
how
conventional science got stuck where it is now. It's like a man who
has
plucked out his own eyes and complains he can't see. [A woman would
not
do that!]
1. The maturation of Capitalism into Imperialism that was completed
around the beginning of the 20th century, also signaled the
invasion,
occupation and domination of the lands of Science by forces of
Capital.
An occupation regime was set up and since that time, Science is
ruled by
technology.
Since that time and to this day, most people, including scientists,
are
unable to tell the difference between Science and technology. This
is at
the root of many problems.
2. One of the early battles embodying that takeover was that between
Edison and Tesla. All of the folklore (and mystification) existing
today
that revolve around Tesla's legacy is due to Edison's war against
Science, carried out for Capital in the name of profits.
Here's a short summary of that:
3. The great revolution of the sixties and seventies, due to both
its
anti-imperialist anti-capitalist character AND to the element of
higher
Consciousness that it focused on and cultivated, was able to reunite
Science and philosophy temporarily, opening up the possibility that
Science might get out of the dead end it had entered.
The branch of science known as "Visionary Physics" was
created by
scientists whose eyes were opened again by the revolutionary process
taking place around them and within them. Two works, in particular,
produced within that context, held the possibility of a change in
course
so that science could become Science again.
One was the book titled "The Tao of Physics", by physicist
Fritjof Capra:
Among other things in his book, Capra manages to point out the
ridiculousness of firing particles through bigger and bigger
accelerators at higher and higher speeds in the hope that these will
reveal something supposedly profound about the structure of the
Universe. The only thing that comes out of those
"experiments" is what
early computer engineers used to say about programming:
"G.I.G.O. - it
means Garbage In, Garbage Out". In other words, what you get
out of
those "experiments" is what you put into them: particle
collisions at
ever higher speeds and energies, and no way to make sense of them.
If
you don't cultivate your ability to make sense, you can not make
sense
out of any of those experiments, nor devise meaningful experiments
with
relevance to the questions.
This profound guideline was suppressed.
Another significant item of the period was the book titled
"Space, Time
and Beyond", written by Bob (Robert) Toben with physicists Fred
Alan
Wolf and Jack Scarfatti:
This book is the definitive source for comprehending quantum theory,
tangible reality and Consciousness. It is a presentation - from the
point of view of hard physics - of the idea that reality consists of
Consciousness congealed into space-time. It is the "Mother of
all..."
books and movies on the connection between quantum reality and
Consciousness.
The mere existence of this book could have helped a restoration of
Science take place. But its point of view was suppressed and
ignored. In
the same way that healthy sexuality when suppressed becomes
transformed
into degenerate forms like sadism (a "secondary drive"),
Visionary
Physics became suppressed, distorted, misunderstood, and now thrives
in
a perverted form that feeds billion-dollar industries of new age
dogmatism founded on mystification, ignorance and
superstition.
4. The previous anti-Imperialist revolutionary period of the
nineteen
twenties and thirties was also a historical juncture that created
the
possibility of a restoration of science to its formerly correct
orientation. It produced the branch of science known as Orgonomy,
primarily through the work of Wilhelm Reich.
Reich's work held, and still holds, the possibility of providing the
glue that can bind together currently existing scientific knowledge
into
a comprehensive "Theory of Everything". Even though that
term is often
the target of nervous humour, it is a noble and valid scientific
effort
to unite what we know from the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory,
knowledge of Gravity, particle physics, electromagnetism, atomic and
nuclear theory AND the Life sciences, into one meaningful
whole.
The effort so far within conventional science is to hack at it,
nobly,
but still with blinders on - you can see a summary of where all this
is
today, here:
If you read even only the introduction of the above article you'll
see
that Life itself, and Life's very curious properties, exemplified by
the
knowledge that the very fact of Life's existence is a violation of
the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics, are excluded from the parameters that
scientists are exploring in order to put together a valid Theory of
Everything.
Nevertheless, the quest for a valid Theory of Everything is a good
one,
and it would be going in the right direction if it included Orgonomy
as
one of its perceptual or theoretical instruments that could help
congeal
it all into a meaningful Theory.
But Orgonomy is also suppressed and ignored, its findings and even
its
name are ridiculed by conventional scientists who have never made
time
to examine any of the postulates put forth by Reich, which are based
on
observations and easy to reproduce experiments.
At least Albert Einstein had the decency to try Orgonomy for a bit
and
tried to figure it out with Reich. But curious circumstances (and
perhaps the earth-shattering fear of a dissolving dogmatic
Cosmology)
eventually diverted him from it.
In my view Orgonomy is still the only way to go in order to help
conventional science get unstuck. Orgonomy can provide tools for the
"big picture", ie, it can provide help to move forward in
the efforts
for a unified Theory of Everything, but it can also help the efforts
currently being conducted within more narrow, specialized branches
of
science (such as those listed in Mitchel's letter at the top), to
find a
context within which what the researchers are doing can make
sense.
If you're interested in reading a little more about this please see
my
short letter published here on the archives of the Orgone Critical
discussion group, titled:
"Re: [orgonecritical] Is orgone really a specific
energy"
Thanks,
Petros
http://www.MitchelCohen.com
Ring the bells
that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets
in.
~ Leonard Cohen
