Erle Frayne D. Argonza
Magandang hapon sa inyong lahat! Good afternoon to you all!
Before everything else, let it be clarified that this note intends to advance and articulate the thesis that science is a way to the Divine. Knowing is an inherent trait of the soul (or 5th body), and given that all souls were emanated sparks from the divine Godhead, then science is an endowment from the Almighty I Am Presence and is among the seven (7) essential ways or paths back to the Godhead.
Let it be clarified further that science—as the enterprise that seeks to build knowledge—is not only limited to material science. The other core category is spiritual science: knowledge of the higher ontological domains called ‘spiritual dimensions’, the purpose for their existence, the intelligences inhering in them, and most of all the knowledge of the Almighty Cause of all Causes or ‘God’ (from Teutonic Godin, related to Nordic god Wodin or god of the woods, related to the Nordic deity Odin).
A Seeker is one who, after filling up shis (his/her) ‘glass of faith’, must move on to progress in the path by filling up shis ‘glass of knowledge’. For a Seeker, it doesn’t suffice to just believe in God. It must be proved, by way of scientific methods—established for both the material and spiritual sciences—that the higher ontological domains and the intelligences inhering in them do exist. By employing the very accessible scientific method of yoga meditation—in its advanced form—such domains and intelligences can be observed and known.
So the lesson for Seekers is: learn the sciences for both domains, the spiritual (with 3 dimensions) and material (with 4 dimensions), study them arduously, learn the methods and theories about them, the rules about the establishment of knowledge, and internalize the scientific attitude in daily life. Not only that, as explained in the fundamental article on the 2nd ray, a Seeker must adopt the critical thinking that pervades the sciences whenever s/he does a task of interpreting texts (exegesis).
Discourses on science are tough ones, so bear with me, Noble Seekers, as I am a scientist myself: a sociologist, economist, and ‘social technologist’ (technocrat). As Seekers you have chosen particularly the 5th Ray (science) and 2nd Ray (wisdom) as twin sub-paths congealing into a singular Path, so please digest knowledge-based discourses no matter how tough they are. I’ll try to simplify them, worry not about the digestibility, masticate the discourse well and quaff them with ‘glasses of wisdom’ for more efficacious comprehension.
To move on, science is a systematic, institutional response in fulfillment of a basic human attitude: knowing. Situational adaptations demand knowledge, adaptations to complex situations demand complex knowledge. Knowledge manifests in two essential forms: science, or ‘know-why’ (pure knowledge), and technology, or ‘know-how’ (applied knowledge).
Knowledge must be further converted to information, or those quanta of knowledge that are used to make decisions or choices. Such a conversion process requires a fundamental strategy of how to make do with information that seems to be almost always imperfect. The degree or level of intelligence would determine to a greater extent the appropriate identification and efficacy of any strategy applied thereto.
Incidentally, human society is moving towards the Information Age. In this Age, which had in fact already begun but which is just in its infantile stage, human engagements will be largely knowledge-based. Daniel Bell, Alaine Torraine, and Alvin Toffler elaborated on this coming Age very deeply and successfully. This rising context brings enormous luck to Seekers, precisely because the emerging context will demand the Seeker-type souls who will, in the main, come to dominate this society as it matures in the future.
Needless to say, human society will go high-tech, and only those who are most adaptable to the new context will survive in it. Fact is, only the aboveground of the physical plane now remains in this infantile state of Information Age. The underground cities, of which there are more than a hundred (please do your respective research on this), and the worlds or cities of the higher planes or dimensions, are exceedingly high-tech aside from being high-Spirit (take this as a given). So it pays to understand science very substantively and adapt adroitly to the technological developments evolving. We aboveground people need to catch up with our underground and other-dimensional siblings, and likewise those advanced siblings in the other star systems and constellations who are able to travel across vast spaces.
If your evolutionary level is lower than that of a Seeker or advanced Devotee/Believer at least, and you cannot catch up enough for reasons that are largely internal to you (such as the laggards do), then necessarily you must be transferred elsewhere. You aren’t fit on Earth, which is itself evolving and will climb from 3rd density to 4th density very soon, so you better be shipped out to less evolved planets that would fit you most. The moment that the planet moves to 4th Density, misfits (not necessarily ‘bad guys’ or ‘evil ones’ but simply slow learners) won’t be able to adapt to the vibration of the planet and to its demand for knowledge-based smart living. Forcing the slow learners to stay here later will leave them highly fragmented and perpetual schizophrenics, unable to digest and comprehend what they see and feel. Pitiful siblings, but out of compassion let us give them what they deserve: the chance to continue evolving in contexts that fit them.
Practically all of you have already begun your science studies in fact. And, chances are that many of you Seekers who browse this website are scientists, technologists, and professionals who deal a lot with information: ‘Information Workers’. But many of you may not know where to begin your inquiries on the mystical or spiritual sciences. So I can give you some tips here, your fellow Seekers can input some other tips, and your Inner Guide will lead you to the bulk of the reads.
I presume that you are familiar, if not adept with the structure of the scientific enterprise. This you learned in high school yet. The notion of structure was well articulated in the 1st half of the 20th by the Vienna Circle thinkers and the Copenhagen school, with their followers extending the discourses until the 1960s. You can examine for instance Hempel, Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Wittgenstein, Russell and Popper and see how they treated the matter of structure. Positivism was the dominant paradigm then. Planck, Shcroedinger, Heisenberg and Einstein, on the other hand, represented a variant of relativism that challenged the objectivism of the positivists.
On the mystical/spiritual side, the outstanding giant is no other than Helena P. Blavatsky, the mind and heart of Theosophy. She and her team mates—Hodson, Leadbeater, Bessant, Olcott—began to establish the contours of spiritual science at the tail end of the Victorian Era (late 19th century), tasks that spilled over to the first three (3) decades of the 20th century. It took just a single figure, Blavatsky, to deconstruct devastatingly the arrogant contentions of the classical Evolutionists who regarded change as a very static, linear movement from one stage of life to another. In place of lineal evolution was superimposed a cyclical theory of evolution, which already shows the seeds of the evolving paradigm of ‘dynamics’.
The contributions of the theosophists were very monumental, by my own admission. Although I do reserve certain critiques of their discourses, notably regarding the ‘Lucifer question’, I appreciate the monumental and indispensable contribution of the theosophy team. Remember that the said thinkers, all of whom were Teachers or gurus in quality, were battling wars on two fronts: on the objectivist front were the atheistic scientists who shamelessly reduced science to a mere building of knowledge about the material world; and, on the subjectivist front, the vulgar spiritists comprising of the churches and their legions of Pied Pipers who slandered the theosophists no end. I’m sure you’d agree with me that it was a very, very tough war, with uphill battles fought on many sub-fronts at the same time.
After the Blavatsky team, many mystics tried to fill up their shoes and hats. But, sad to note, the post-theosophy’s outputs paled in comparison to the thinker-gurus. What you, Noble Seeker, must do is to gather the different bits and pieces of information about the works of other mystics so you can erect the tapestry of spiritual science yourself. For instance, the contributions of Paramahansa Yogananda and his guru Sri Yutekswar Giri are of paramount importance, per my assessment. Among contemporary mystics you’ll discover the contributions of Sal Rachele who, like E.Argonza, was trained in the sciences and can handle the toughest scientific questions from sub-atomics to cosmology (see http://www.salrachele.com).
Sadly, many mystics and psychics are channelers who by my estimation do not measure up to the accepted standard of an epistemologist and scientist. They came straight from experiences of spiritism and healing, and without the proper grounding in scientific precepts and meta-language, they tend to misrepresent spiritual science into a hodgepodge of seemingly unrelated quackery with nil scientific credibility at all. There are too many of them over the internet, even as many before the internet days have published materials that sound low-tech and approach spiritual science from a defensive, superstitious position. Without mentioning names, I would honestly say that they are a disgrace to us Lightworkers. They should better stick to their spiritism and healing works and leave science to the scientists, technologists, and epistemologists among seekers and mystics who abound in great numbers today.
One more thing to note: over the past three (3) decades, there was a marked shift from questions of structure to questions of process. Today, being among the students of the latter thinkers, I tend to view science and the knowledge pursuit from the vantage point of process, even as I am nauseated by the antiquated fixation to structures and elements, and the flaws of its paradigm ramparts (systems theory, neo-evolutionism, structuralism, uniformitarianism, psychoanalysis, structural functionalism) which, thanks heavens, have all become obsolete before the turn of the century.
For your own sake, for an understanding of the contemporary issues involved that are process-centered and transdisicplinary (borderless science), I would recommend that you review the key works of the following thinkers:
- Theodore Adorno & Max Horkheimer: Founders of the ‘Frankfurt school’, they were among the earliest defenders of ‘inter-disciplinary’ and transdisciplinal (borderless science) methodology.These were elaborated in scattered articles. Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality is an example of cross-disciplinary method, by integrating sociology, psychology, and medical science (psychiatry) to explain the rise of fascism and nazism.
- Thomas Kuhn: He dovetailed on the notion of ‘paradigm’ as focal category for understanding scientific revolutions. Kuhn is an excellent thinker on the history of science. The key work is Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
- Jurgen Habermas: A dissection of the interests inhering in knowledge led Habermas to infer about the logic inherent in theories. He clarified the emergence of three paradigms—positivism, hermeneutics, critical theory—on the basis of inherent human interests. Go straight to his core work Knowledge and Human Interests.
- Michel Foucault: He disclosed the connection between knowledge and power, and the process of how Discourse emerges from that link. He is a brilliant thinker on the history of ideas. The book Order of Things is the fitting start of his works regarding scientific methodology.
- Jacques Derrida: Advanced the thesis that ‘writing’ (referent for text in general) preceded speech. He also innovated on the method of ‘deconstruction’. His works have enormous implications for scientific modeling purposes. The work Of Grammatology is a fitting start. Follow it up with Writing and Differance. [Note the distinction between the terms ‘differance’ and ‘difference’.]
- Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari: This team of thinkers elucidated the preference, in terms of modeling, for the ‘machinic discourse’ in contrast to the pervasive ‘organismic discourse’ of previous thinkers. Reality moves like unto a machine that keeps on rolling, without bordered elements. The team also advanced the ‘transversal’ (transdisciplinal) method of establishing knowledge. The machine model has much kinship to fluid dynamics, which is the preferred model of Chaos Paradigm. Go straight to their work Anti-Oedipus.
As to scientific discipline, the attitude in science is one of humility. No scientific theory can be regarded as fixed, absolutely pervasive and applicable throughout time. More so, there is no such thing as a Theory of Everything or TOE. Every scientist, no matter how brilliant s/he may be, can only contribute to a fragment of the cosmic tapestry of knowledge. Such a situation explains the humility of scientists and university professors.
Go ahead in your scientific pursuits, Noble Seeker. For the scientists and technologists among you, it is highly recommended that you take up advanced degrees up through the PhD level. Remember, you are not only preparing for ‘this life’. We are all preparing for the ‘afterlife’, and your learned knowledge and information will have a strong bearing in the other planes as well when you go back there. Go ahead and please conduct research, present papers in conferences before scientific peers, and publish your outputs in reputable journals. Bro. Erle is well with you in these S&T efforts.
To conclude, let me echo the note of one of my most revered thinkers, Jurgen Habermas: let us transform knowledge into a liberative pursuit, and allow the knowledge-bearer to apperceive the transcendent in the process of knowledge pursuit. Knowledge is liberation. Amen. Om. Aum.
[October 2007, Quezon City, MetroManila]