the great changes and advances of modern society has allowed us to arrogantly proclaim we understand so much more now through science than in any time prior.

yet, it seems like many of the ancient societies and cultures had a far better grasp on things than we do now even with our advanced sciences.

is perhaps part of the problem man has been so busy first rebuilding himself from the collapse of the ancient societies and then focusing too much through a mircroscope that he has lost contact with the bigger picture?

so what is the missing link between the spiritual understandings of our cosmos of the past and the new science of today?

today we have such a bias towards the new - the latest and greatest - that we have lost an appreciation for some of the well tested ancient methods. (even if we can recover them after the religious conquests of the past 3000 years decimated most of it)

there is a theory that it was not until 3000 years ago that man had advanced enough to understand that the "voices in his head" were from himself and not from gods. when man woke up, did he lose something in the process? something that we will only find again once we manage to merge our love of the microscope with the use of the macroscope?

What, exactly, do you think the ancients had a better grasp of than we do? What did they know that would invalidate our claim that we know more?

we may have a greater volume of knowledge, but has it gotten us as far as we think it has?

ancient cultures were more in tune with nature. they understood how we are a part of the world, not something separate or above it.

we, as scientists, have spent so much time staring through the microscope we fail to see the real ways things work sometimes.

Well, by definition, yes, but I think what you are asking is whether or not it has gotten us closer to answering some sort of ultimate Truth. The answer to this question would depend entirely, one would imagine, on what your definition of success is.



They didn't really have a choice, though, did they? I find it just as likely, in fact, far more likely, considering the many ancient rituals and ceremonies designed to exaltate humans above other animals, that ancient cultures believed themselves to be as seperate or above (again, definition depends on user) the rest of the natural as we do. More so, in fact. At least, modern man would hesitate before making the argument that our superiority is divinely based.



I can't say I agree with that. Do you have any examples?

have to say, ancients weren't more in tune with nature, they jst led simpler lives. It's all about the hierachy of needs - if u need food u go and kill it, but u don't kill so much that there won't be nefin left the nxt time u need a meal
And wot about science? i don't think we've really changed all that much, after all, science is still inly correct until its proven wrong! Hypocrates thought he'd hit the nail on the head with the theory of the four humours and some of his ideas were great (like observing and recording patients symptoms) but some were total gumpf! yet, people still went back to his theories during the renaissance - explain that one...

Well, to be perfectly fair, modern scientific methodology as we know it today didn't actually begin until the Rennaissance. It took another five hundred years to get to the stage we are today, with the five pre-requisites, formal logic, and verification protocols.

fair enough, but in the context of knowledge we aren't ne further advanced than they were and i still think we have the same divide between religion and science as they did. there's always been those that think religion is the answer and those that think science is, we haven't changed! we respect science no more than we did then, as evidenced by the fallacy of the modern 'global warming' theory. in fact, i believe it's fair to say that at the moment the politicians driving this have more control than the Catholic Chruch did in the 16th century!

I would say that science has far more authority among the leader and decision-makers of the global political machinery than religion, even if religion still dominates the common masses. Unfortunately, politics has far more on its agenda than pure science, and so cannot make the claim to base its decisions solely on research (and rightly so, to a certain extent).

agreeing with that point politics needs to be completely separate from science if we are going to truly advance

well, a large part of what i am refering to is that people now embrace the "greatness" of scientific theory without understanding it (appealing to authority) which is exactly what us non-religious hold against the beleivers of religion.

it is a double standard: we say "science is good", yet there is so much data most people are idiots outside of their fields (yet alone the layman) and at the same time we act as if believing in a book is bad just because it is ancient and contains errors.

when it comes right down to it, the more we learn the more we don't know. now i do indeed support the scientific process. i wonder that for all our knowledge, the world and its people are not all that better off now than in the ancient times. (yes, i know we have reduced disease, increased longevity, blah blah blah but is living 90 years now better than living 30 years back then?)

To take science on faith is miss the entire point of it, that is true. I personally blame the educational system that emphasizes tests instead of knowledge, memorization instead of research, and study without understanding. It is remarkably easy for any layman to grasp the basics of scientific methodology and, though that, be able to ascertain the credibility and validity of whatever is being claimed from themselves, however there seems to be a general reluctance, almost a fear that science is some great mystical beast that can only be understood by a few elite intellect, a notion which is so very wrong.

Regardless, however, i cannot help but think that, if you were to explain our modern world to an ancient man, he would consider it a Utopia, and happily join if given the option. I have little doubt the average ancient man would have happily traded whatever close connection to nature he had in exchange for an extra sixty years of life at a lifestyle he never before dreamed possible.

indeed.

the school system is a major part of the problem. rote learning is not learning at all.

i wonder if the ancient man would view living to 90 as fabulous. we of course have a built-in bias that supports our modern cultures. The question would be are people happy. It is a strange irony that people can live in a densely populated area and feel all alone. It is also funny to watch (where i live anyway) the people flood from the cities for a few moments in nature. When I talk to them they wish they could spend more time in nature, but are stuck in the city. It does not sound all that great to me. (i am "lucky" enough to be out in nature almost every day of the year for at least a few hours)

Perception. A person looking at death at thirty has a healthy interest in living to ninety. My sister would sooner give up sugar than go out into the woods. I would say I have a greater connection to nature than ancient man because i am not deceiving myself into granting its wonder and awe to pixies or fairies, but rather giving credit where it is due. It is all subjective.

I would be shocked to learn that depression and isolation didn't exist in ancient society. Elite families were often sequestered from others due to fear of common taint. You can't blame science for that.

i am not blaming science for anything.

science is what has given us great understandings. however, it has also left us (in some ways) too focused on the pieces rather than on the whole (IMO).

if anything is to blame for the problems in science, it is that it seems it has become the new religion to many. rather than maintianing critical thought, many people just accept what science says as truth. this makes the saying "the masses are asses" still relevant. for many, science has replaced the gods. (now we run to the dimwit doctor for a cure rather than going to the healer - funny how many ancient healing techniques are better than modern techniques, again because they focus on the whole rather than the scientific way of focusing on the parts).

Intellectuals govern present humanity in all of the countries of the Earth based on a tridimensional science; are they doing their job? What is the state on which this humanity is? There is chaos, there is anarchy and you cannot deny this.

The knowledge of modern scientists is not based on objective science, but, they learn it from one another’s sophisms and upon this subjective knowledge they have edified this false civilization.

i.e. while medical science is inventing certified medications, which are incessantly changing as the fashion of women, there exists a very ancient medical wisdom that has its origin upon the first foundations of the world and that has never changed its formulae.

This divine wisdom is preserved in Sanctuaries which are far away from this false, materialistic civilization. This science is zealously guarded by the Masters of wisdom in secret places, which are inaccessible to the ‘merchants of the Temple.’

It is absolutely impossible to be a true scientist in its whole significance without being a clairvoyant, and without having studied anatomy, biology and the pathology of all the seven bodies of the true human being.

All I want to know is how in the hell were the Mayans so accurate with their calendar?

Because they learned their Science of Astrology from Kukulcan!

And as Moses lifted up the serpent (kukulcan!) in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


I don't see the need to flood the pages with huge graphics which are repeatedly quoted from the post directly above.

@loge:

funny how it is not poverty and need, but excess and greed which reduce life to a merely material level.

we live in the age of absurdity, my friend!