What would be a way to infinite possibilities? Not of the physical, for this would by nature be limited, but of the "thought body," some thing, formed and forming within our mentality? A place [?] where we might find imagination, inspiration, and full sensory eyelid movies. A place of real experiences of the unreal, and unreal experiences of the real. Can we postulate, within this thought body, a calm, thoughtless, but acutely observant position of integration? An enterable inner perspective, where in peacefulness and quiet attention, we find a nexus of the physical, mental, and spiritual? Some might instantly dismiss this notion while others could accept the idea without deliberation. Much of this division might be directly driven by one's apprehension of one's experience.
What was the basis a few centuries ago in Europe for belief in a flat world? For most, was it not just a part of the authoritarian viewpoints under which they grew up? Authority in those days was vested in churches and lords and enforced at the burning stake and other quaint mental and spiritual levers. The populace was bright enough to keep their bread buttered to what degree they could manage. Not rocking the boat, few dared advance any challenge. So looking back, it's hard to say how many might secretly have imagined a spherical Earth.
Today we know of the historic grinding through various cosmological models that has brought us to our present high state of understanding. The churches have stepped back to a position of dispensing afterlife insurance from tax shelters. The lords go bankrupt in so many generations, their holdings becoming so much corporate asset. Few in the clergy still scream "Heretic," at those embracing the broader scientific view. Why, the Pope has even warmed up to Darwin.
The prominent world view is now a product of science and the academe. It is delivered to the masses in shiny, eternally new corporate packaging. From the time we can begin to build our personal cosmology, we are informed of the basics. A line of university educated, mostly white men has shaped this view with their skills of quantification. Over the past several centuries, each built upon the works of their predecessors and through a succession brilliant formulae, we arrive at today. We walk on the moon and dabble in personal computing. We assume the assumptions of such men were correct, as advertised by the feats these assumptions have, through logic, wrought.
Science has done much better, generally speaking, with the mainstream magic show, than did the churches before them. Those that dare to think outside the authoritarian mindset are no longer stretched upon the rack. Such inducements are not at all necessary in these genteel times. Today, ridicule and pedantic snobery will serve quite as well. If there is any small festering hole in a theory, if a percentage of experimental evidence comes up negative, we say, "there is an anomaly," and if possible, leave it at that. Funny things, anomalies. Now where was I?
These anomalies come from the same place as the theories and formulas. Think about it. Does the natural world always conform to the model? Of course not. And is this the model's, or the natural world's fault? The anomaly is of the theory and is no part of reality. All the cosmos spins and turns. Science says it must in time stop, solely because the theoretical realities they model in their laboratories do. Science tells us all the stars are moving away from each other, though the spiral galaxies take a form exhibited in contracting and not expanding fluid motion structures. When formulas are imperfect, any deductions are suspect. Even quantifications that are 100% in the lab, can not necessarily be assumed to be 100% somewhere else.
So, this is the point of these pages and as well, their linkages. To turn a fresh light, as far back upon the very fundamentals of modern science as we can in order to find the spores, the potent germs spawning these anomalies. In a way, this is to go back in time. To go there ourselves, to a virtual time where these mentally created quantities still live their virtual lives, reaching into our age and conceivably hiding a better, more suitable model for our understanding. To do this, we must actually think, and not say, "well my teacher told me so, and I even got an 'A' on my final." Or, the even more sclerotic "Don't be silly, I taught that in school."
Let us not take anything on such authorities. Rather, it would be better we trust our own rational inklings and creative intuitions. To go after that particular human spark that has manifested brilliance, even when it's been played out upon flawed principles. Our innate genius makes do under such circumstances.
Quoting Immanuel Velikovsky, from the preface to the paperback edition of Worlds in Collision, in 1967, himself quoting the philosopher, H. Butterfield, from, The Origin of Modern Science, 1949:
"But the supreme paradox of the scientific revolution is in the fact that things which we find it easy to instill in the boys at school...things which would strike us as the ordinary natural way of looking at the universe...defeated the greatest intellects for centuries."
Michael Presley on P.D. Ouspensky
"Upon our very first steps towards cognition, writes Ouspensky, certain conditions determine both our usual way of thinking and understanding. Much of what we take as known and familiar in our daily lives is, in reality, far from certain and when pondered remains exceedingly enigmatic. The question of time and its relation to space, problems associated with the mysteries of life and death along with man's various conceptions of God remain distant and, as it were, obscured from unaided reason. Yet, recognition of these problems as enigmas along with attempts at possible solutions remains fundamental to any comprehensive understanding of the world."