IF-I-SEEK-US
Imminent Fulfillment, Immortality, Safety, Empowerment, Equality, Knowledge, Unity, Society

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches
of evil to one who is striking at the root." -
Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections and Suggested Reading Sequence

Paradigm Aspect Links

What Went Wrong
New Paradigm
Philosophy Paradigm
Psyche of God
Jesus as Paradigm
Sin Paradigm
Gospel Paradigm
Love Paradigm
Paradigm of Evil
Paradigm Lockout
More Paradigm
Catastrophe Paradigm
Bicameral Mind Paradigm
Holographic Universe
Holographic World
What-If Paradigm
Creator Paradigm
Paradigm of Solipsism
Reincarnation Paradigm
Turkey-Day Paradigm
Paradigm List
Paradigm Shift
Arp & Galileo
Electric Universe Theory

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Word Definitions
Human Condition
Christendom Analyzed
Christendom Challenged
Christendom Condemned
Bible/Canon Issues
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Theological Issues
Creation Issues
Geology Material
Cosmology Material
Paradigm Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Venus-Mars Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language-Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Misc Issues/Conclusions
PDF Download Files

Ancient Planetary Catastrophe

The extent of the ramifications of planetary catastrophe
and the Saturn myth reconstruction upon culture,
theology and religion is immensely wide and deep

If you have raced with running men and they have wearied
you, how will you challenge the horses? - Jeremiah 12:5

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 age 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.

Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. - Montaigne

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. -Einstein

It 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 to many of the facets of the modern world view are ripped out by the reconstruction, one may as well start all over in examining what one knows and what one believes.  In confronting the ramifications of the 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.

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 knowing it.

In the course of the last 45 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[1], 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.[2]

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 words. This

"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,
doubtful, and undefined words; which yet make these retreats more like
the dens of robbers, or holes of foxes, than fortresses of fair warriors."
 - 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 rational, logical and reasonable on the part of the listener.  This paper obviously is written 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 point is, why would being out in the sunshine, which is frying your skin, bathing you in ionizing radiation, and making 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.  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 environment that existed in the Golden age.  They may be experiencing those aspects of the current "nature" that remind them of the "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 make a person "feel" good.

If 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 is less than 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 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 12-13.

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.

The Nietschean 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.

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.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it. - Karl Marx

[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 for 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.  Appleyard continues:

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 journeyman."*

(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 wake.*(p. 82)

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 revolutionaries.
      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 pleasure and 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.

One of 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.

Even 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.

[1]  Richard Heinberg "The Garden, the Fall, and the Restoration" KRONOS, Vol VI, No. 2.

[2]Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, Anchor Press, Doubleday (Garden City, NY 1985). p. xi.

Home  Site Sections  Complete Article Map   Contact  Store  Contributions