Paradigm Aspect Links
What Went Wrong
Jesus as Paradigm
Paradigm of Evil
Bicameral Mind Paradigm
Models of Human Destiny
Paradigm of Solipsism
Many Worlds Paradigm
The Universe as Organism
Arp & Galileo
Electric Universe Theory
Site Section Links
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels of Canon
Misc Ancient Myth Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store
If you have raced with running men and they have wearied
you, how will you challenge the horses? - Jeremiah 12:5
Ancient Planetary Catastrophe
The extent of the ramifications of ancient planetary catastrophe
and the Saturn myth reconstruction upon culture, Mankind's
psychology, theology, and religion, is immensely wide and deep.
The overwhelming challenge of accepting the Saturnian Reconstruction
If you understand and accept in general the theme of planetary astral catastrophism
and especially the Saturn myth reconstruction (hereinafter
called "the Reconstruction") and the concomitant themes of the Golden
ending in a major disaster and resulting in a series of lesser Solar system
shakeups, the implications and ramifications of the reconstruction become
enormous. The range and extent of intellectual knowledge and spiritual
belief change becomes almost unmanageable or overwhelming for the modern man
immersed, educated, trained and conditioned in the popular world views built
around either the "godless" or purposeless evolutionistic gradualism of
establishment science, or his "religion" based on some external authority
figure (book, tradition, denomination or hierarchal priesthood, leadership
or clergy), or some mind and soul numbing combination thereof.
The....tranquilizing philosophy....or religion?...is so delicately contrived
that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer
from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let him lie there.
is so difficult to fathom the extent to which our "knowledge" and
concepts in one arena or discipline are conditioned and constrained
by our "knowledge", assumptions, and beliefs in the other areas of
understanding. When you radically change your view in one domain,
the repercussions may be extensive in the others. When the
underpinnings of the facets of the modern world view are
ripped out by the Saturnian Reconstruction, one may as well start all over in
examining what one knows and what one believes. In confronting the
ramifications of this reconstruction, modern man now faces the
challenge of an intellectual, social and spiritual revolution
unmatched by those introduced in the last two millennia a la
Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Semmelweiss, et al.
Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. - Montaigne
For instance, it is impossible for modern theorists to understand that the enigmatic
structures at Stonehenge, Sacsayhuaman, Chaco Canyon, et al. are
enormous religious shrines that reflect the ancient triune God; and with
an inordinate investment built to honor, and probably induce the return
of the Saturnian sun deity that ruled during the Golden Age. Such a
concept seems completely unrelated to anything they are aware of today and
therefore appears ludicrous. The modern myth of the stable, largely undisturbed
solar system going back for millions or billions of years totally
precludes its validity.
On the other horn of the dilemma, one of the ultimately meaningful
concepts propounded by Velikovsky the psychoanalyst is that mankind
is suffering from a catastrophically induced amnesia, a kind of
cauterized mental aptitude, an intellectual scotoma rendering him a
driven person, controlled by trauma from the past and not even being
aware of it.
the course of the last 65 years since Worlds in Collision
blazed onto the literary scene, there have been a few (precious few)
articles written in the journals dealing with the ramifications—of
the necessary reconstructions of myths, paradigms, history and
chronology, etc.—on the ultimately important and meaningful issues,
that is, on philosophy, religion, theology and the import and
destiny of the individual and the human race. One of the best was
"The Garden, the Fall, and the Restoration" by Richard Heinberg
which article should be read or reread in conjunction with reading this article.
Is it important or paramount to be concerned about the extent and the
ramifications of the Reconstruction? One of the least vital reasons
is given by physicist Nick Herbert:
The search for the picture of the "way the world really is" is an
enterprise that transcends the narrow interests...for better or
worse, humans have tended to pattern their domestic, social, and
political arrangements according to the dominant vision of physical
reality. Inevitably the cosmic view trickles down to the most
mundane details of everyday life.
There are probably two contrasting ways, using words, to accomplish
the almost impossible task of introducing paradigm breaking or
belief shattering ideas to homo sapiens. One way is with parables
or analogies (literally "outside of logic") which are designed to
engender an insightful sense of the idea or truth of what is being
communicated. Since one partial definition/description of a
language is: a set of words,
Grammar is the logic of speech, even as
logic is the grammar of reason. - Trench
each of which is definable by other
members of the set; the other or "hard" way is with logic and
reason, which absolutely requires careful and precise definitions of
"There is no such way to
gain admittance, or give defense to strange and
absurd doctrines, as
to guard them round about with legions of obscure,
undefined words; which yet make these retreats more like
the dens of robbers, or holes of foxes, than fortresses of fair
- John Locke
is a brick by brick building approach which must of necessity
be accompanied by a high level of intelligence and education, and a
core-deep commitment to being attentive, rational, logical and reasonable on
the part of the listener. This website obviously is written
mostly in the
latter mode or style of communication.
Here is another core issue:
Every great advance in
natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of
authority. - Huxley
The highest duty is to
respect authority. -
Pope Leo XIII
Well, which is it?
When out walking with me on one of the first sunny pre-spring days,
my friend noted, "Isn't it remarkable that people (strangers) you
meet on the sidewalk smile so much more when the weather is nice
than they do the rest of the time?" When asked what she thought the
cause of this was, she replied. "Why, the balmy conditions make them
feel better and more friendly." I remarked that I thought the cause
was that the sunny, balmy conditions stirred deep-seated human
memories of a much better time, the Golden Age. The point is, why would being out
in the sunshine, which is frying your skin, bathing you in ionizing
radiation which makes you look older, intrinsically make anyone
"feel" good or better, even considering a higher negative ion
balance in the air?
This is an example of the kind of broad scale change in thinking that
may be necessary. When people say they are uplifted or feel good
when they are communing with nature by being out in a lovely natural
setting, or even gardening, they may not really be "communing" or
"getting back" to nature. Nature (the natural environment) as it is
so constituted now is unpredictable and hostile—we do not live in a
benevolent "natural" environment. Nature is savage, "red
in tooth and tong" Why would anybody rational want
to "get closer" to such a thing. This might be like getting closer
to a huge, hungry crocodile in his natural domain. Rather these
people, instead of communing with nature in a mystical way, may be
remembering on a very basic level the benevolent natural environment that
existed in the Golden age. They may be experiencing those aspects
of the current "nature" that remind them of the "Edenic paradise" that once
was in existence. Since the bottom line purpose of anything we do
is to make us feel good, any thing that "reminds" us on a gut level
of this previous state of humankind would tend to make a person "feel" good.
The issue of defining God
you do not define your God or what your God is like, you quite
literally have the problem of confusing any real God with whatever
shows up and differs from your definition. Every intrinsically or
ontologically dualistic religion or every religion that has a fallen
superior being has this problem intensified by the introduction of a
counterfeit from its evil one.
Modern enlightened man has feelings of insecurity, isolation,
anxiety, homelessness, frustration, loneliness, restlessness and
betrayal by the traditional God and traditional theology.
It is evident, that all the sciences have a relation, greater or
less, to human nature; and that, however wide any of them seem to
run from it, they still return by one passage or another. [We
must] march directly up to the capitol or center of these sciences
to human nature itself; which once being masters of, we may
everywhere else hope for an easy victory. From this station we may
extend our conquest over all those sciences... There is no question
of importance, whose decision is not compromised in the science of
man; and there is none, which can be decided with any certainty,
before we become acquainted with that science. In pretending,
therefore, to explain the principles of human nature, we in effect
propose a complete system of the sciences, built on a foundation
almost entirely new, and the only one upon which they can stand with
any security...The science of man is the only solid foundation for
the other sciences. - Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, p
If to fear God is
the beginning of wisdom, then to not fear God is the beginning of
freedom. You may be wise and afraid or wise and free, but you
cannot be free and afraid.
"Science is perfectly capable of marginalizing believers without
actually stripping them of their belief." - Bryan Appleyard,
Understanding The Present, Anchor Books, 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY. 10036, 1992 p. 10.
solution was, in effect, to start again now that the
values and mythologies of the past had been so thoroughly
discredited...His role was simply to see the problem with such
tortured clarity that it could never again be ignored. In his final
years he descended into insanity.
"But, for most thinkers, starting again represented a kind of defeat.
It meant throwing away the whole history of religious insight and
truth. Perhaps the more sober, saner response was to find new
ways of defending the ancient faith.
".....Science was the lethally dispassionate search for truth in the world
whatever its meaning might be; religion was the passionate search
for meaning whatever the truth might be. Science can lay a claim to
a meaning in the sense of establishing causality, and religion could
claim truth in the sense of a transcendent order. But science's
meaning does not answer the question Why? And religion's truth had
no scientific relevance.
"Above all, the division between truth and meaning persists, for
those are the way the terms are defined in the modern world; truth
and meaning were severed by knowledge. That is what we think we
know." - Bryan Appleyard,
Understanding The Present, Anchor Books, 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY. 10036, 1992 p. 79.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it. - Karl Marx
The demand of the human condition
"First, it is clear that there is something about the human condition
that demands a dimension we call religious, whatever it might be.
Particular faiths have come and gone, but nothing has ever displaced
the religious presence itself from human life. It has always
accompanied men and their cultures.
Religions have usually attempted to relate their spiritual systems
to the material experience of the world. In doing so they have
depended on the conviction that value and meaning can be found in
the facts of the world—precisely the conviction that science has so
successfully defied and apparently disproved. It is, therefore,
idle to pretend, as many do, that there is no contradiction between
religion and science...they are absolutely and irresolvably
conflicting views. Unless, that is, science is obliged to change
its fundamental nature.
"[R]eligion, like science, began with the inscrutable and majestic
spectacle of the heavens. This points again to the fact that they
are destined to compete: they are occupying the same territory.
The great religions, therefore, were about completeness, a totality
of explanation. After Moses....the Rig-Veda was written down in
India and was followed, in 600 B.C., by the Upanishads. Siddhartha,
the Buddha, taught around 500 B.C. Zoroastrianism began in Persia
in 660 B.C. Confucius was born in 551 B.C. and so on. For the 1,800
years up to the death of Muhammad in A.D. 632, the world seemed to
have embarked upon a massively diverse program of universal
explanation. And, for such explanations to be true, they had to
apply to all aspects of life. Religion progressed from its roots in
the cycles of nature and as a background to culture to become the
culture itself. In Chinese, Indian and European civilizations,
religion aspired successfully to become one with all the works and
lives of men. In Christian Europe the grandest expressions of this
unity were the Gothic cathedrals. - Bryan Appleyard,
Understanding The Present, Anchor Books, 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY. 10036, 1992, p. 82.
The above cited dates correspond quite nicely with the end of the
intersecting orbital, cyclical catastrophes. The point
supporting catastrophism and the Saturn myth reconstruction is that when you
live in one you don't
try to explain a benevolent environment, you are too busy living and
enjoying it. And you can't explain things very well when they are
being catastrophically disrupted and are significantly changing,
when you are mostly just trying to survive. The explanation phase
comes when things are peaceful enough to get around to it.
The explanations and justifications in each of these systems were,
of course, extraordinarily diverse. Weber characterized each by the
ideally perfect carrier of each faith: "In Confucianism, the
world-organizing bureaucrat; in Hinduism, the world, ordering
magician; in Buddhism, the mendicant monk wandering through the
world; in Islam, the warrior seeking to conquer the world; in
Judaism, the wandering trader; and in Christianity, the itinerant
(Appleyard, p. 82 Quoting Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion,
trans. Ephraim Fischoff (Beacon Press, Boston, 1964, p. 132)
But they were all explanations and justifications of human life and
all tended to fall into the prophet-priest pattern also described by
Weber. Prophets provided the system and the ultimate values;
priests analyzed and rationalized this system and adapted it to the
forms and customs of life. It is an important pattern in human
affairs which was to be repeated in the development of science. The
prophets were the innovative scientists, the priests were the
interpreters, extenders and technologists who followed in their
Yet from one of these Theories of Everything—only one—sprang the
form of knowledge that was to challenge and transform them all.
There are any number of theories as to why the scientific
imagination should have sprung solely from the Christian.(p. 82)
Let us not become "priests" of the reconstruction. Rather let us
lean more towards being sensitive "prophets" and sensible
For the secret catastrophe of the modern mind is too terrible to be
acknowledged in polite society. Human beings cannot live with
such a revelation. The only morality left is that of the
consoling lie. In the absence of great old illusions, little
new ones must be our consolation.
Only the most willfully insensitive could be unaware that something
has gone badly wrong with the nineteenth century's dream of material
progress. For we have not only inherited that century's legacy of
the cold shock of a meaningless universe, we have also to cope with
the discovery of a range of potential evils unknown to the world
before the advent of science and technology. p. 107,
Science is a wonderful thing, but it has not succeeded in maximizing
minimizing pain, and that's all we asked of it. - Anon
[The] fragmentation is in essence a confusion around the question of
difference and sameness (or one-ness), but the clear perception of
these categories is necessary in every phase of life. To be
confused about what is different and what is not, is to be confused
about everything. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate
Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980, p. 16.
the reasons, I believe, that knowledge is in a state of useless
overproduction is that it is strewn all over the place, spoken in a
thousand competitive voices. Its insignificant fragments are
magnified all out of proportion, while its major and
world-historical insights lie around begging for attention. There
is no throbbing, vital center. - Becker, Ernest.
The Denial of Death. New York, NY.: The Free Press 1975 Preface x.
What we today call
"inauthentic" men, men who develop their own uniqueness; they follow out
the styles of automatic and uncritical living in which they were
conditioned as children. They are "inauthentic" in that they do not
belong to themselves, they are not "their own" person, do not act from
their own center, do not see reality on its own terms; they are the
one-dimensional men totally immersed in the fictional games being played
in their society, unable to transcend their social conditioning: the
corporation men in the west, the bureaucrats in the east, the tribal men
locked up in tradition—man everywhere who doesn't understand what it
means to think for himself and who, if he did, would shrink back at the
idea of such audacity and exposure. - Becker, Ernest.
The Denial of Death. New York, NY.: The Free Press 1975, p. 73.
All the traditional
ideologies that disguised and absorbed it [neurosis] have fallen away
and modern ideologies are just too thin to contain it. So we have
modern man: increasingly slumping onto analysts couches, making
pilgrimages to psychological guru centers and joining therapy groups,
and filling larger and larger numbers of mental hospital beds. - Becker, Ernest.
The Denial of Death. New York, NY.: The Free Press 1975, p. 177.
Freud—Enlightenment man that he was, after all—wanted to see a saner
world and seemed willing to absorb lived truth into science if only it
were possible. He once mused that in order to really change things by
therapy one would have to get at the masses of men; and that the only
way to do this would be to mix the copper of suggestion into the pure
gold of psychoanalysis. In other words, to coerce, by transference, a
less evil world. But Freud knew better, as he gradually came to see
that the evil in the world is not only in the insides of people but on
the outside, in nature—which is why he became more realistic and
pessimistic in his later work. - Becker, Ernest.
The Denial of Death. New York, NY.: The Free Press 1975, p. 283.
Mankind today is still
making history today without having any conscious idea of what it wants
or under what conditions it would stop being unhappy; in fact what it is
doing seems to be making itself more unhappy and calling that
unhappiness progress. Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death,
Vintage Books, p. 16.
 Richard Heinberg "The Garden, the Fall, and the Restoration"
KRONOS, Vol VI, No. 2.
 Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, Anchor Press, Doubleday (Garden
City, NY 1985). p. xi.