Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
15,349
edits
HPB-SD(ed.1) v.1 p.3 sec.6: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{HPB-SD-header | volume = 1 | part = 3 | section = 6 | section title = The Masks of Science | previous = v.1 p.3 sec.5 | next = v.1 p.3 sec.7 | edition = ed.1 }}...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
There was a time, he added, when he believed he knew something of matter. But the more he lived, and the more carefully he studied it, the more he became convinced ''of his utter ignorance of the nature of matter.'' * (See Buckwell’s “ Electric Science.”) | There was a time, he added, when he believed he knew something of matter. But the more he lived, and the more carefully he studied it, the more he became convinced ''of his utter ignorance of the nature of matter.'' * (See Buckwell’s “ Electric Science.”) | ||
The Occultists are often misunderstood because, for lack of better terms, they apply to the essence of Force ''under certain aspects ''the descriptive epithet of ''substance. ''Now the names for the varieties of “ substance ” on different planes of perception and being are ''legion. ''Eastern Occultism has a special appellation for each kind ; but Science — like England, in the recollection of a witty Frenchman, blessed with thirty-six religions and only one fish-sauce — has but one name for all, namely, “ Substance.” Moreover, neither the orthodox physicists nor their critics seem to be very certain of their premises, and are as apt to confuse the effects as they do the causes. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, as Stallo does, that “ matter can no more be realized or conceived as mere spacial presence than as a concretion of forces,” or that “ force is nothing without mass, and mass is nothing without force ” — for one is the noumenon and the other the phenomenon. Again ; Schelling, when saying that “ It is a mere delusion of the phantasy that something, we know not what, remains after we have denuded an object of all the predicates belonging to it ” † — could never have applied the remark to the realm of transcendental metaphysics. It is true that pure force is ''nothing ''in the world of physics ; it is all in the domain of Spirit. Says Stallo : “ If we reduce the mass upon which a given force, however small, acts to its limit zero — or, mathematically expressed, until it becomes infinitely small — the consequence is that the velocity of the resulting motion is infinitely great, and that the ‘ thing ’ . . . is at any given moment neither here nor there, but everywhere — that there is no | The Occultists are often misunderstood because, for lack of better terms, they apply to the essence of Force ''under certain aspects ''the descriptive epithet of ''substance. ''Now the names for the varieties of “ substance ” on different planes of perception and being are ''legion. ''Eastern Occultism has a special appellation for each kind ; but Science — like England, in the recollection of a witty Frenchman, blessed with thirty-six religions and only one fish-sauce — has but one name for all, namely, “ Substance.” Moreover, neither the orthodox physicists nor their critics seem to be very certain of their premises, and are as apt to confuse the effects as they do the causes. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, as Stallo does, that “ matter can no more be realized or conceived as mere spacial presence than as a concretion of forces,” or that “ force is nothing without mass, and mass is nothing without force ” — for one is the noumenon and the other the phenomenon. Again ; Schelling, when saying that “ It is a mere delusion of the phantasy that something, we know not what, remains after we have denuded an object of all the predicates belonging to it ” † — could never have applied the remark to the realm of transcendental metaphysics. It is true that pure force is ''nothing ''in the world of physics ; it is {{Style S-Small capitals|all}} in the domain of Spirit. Says Stallo : “ If we reduce the mass upon which a given force, however small, acts to its limit zero — or, mathematically expressed, until it becomes infinitely small — the consequence is that the velocity of the resulting motion is infinitely great, and that the ‘ thing ’ . . . is at any given moment neither here nor there, but everywhere — that there is no | ||
{{Footnotes start}} | {{Footnotes start}} | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
{{Style P-No indent|real presence ; it is impossible, therefore, to construct matter by a synthesis of forces ” (p. 161).}} | {{Style P-No indent|real presence ; it is impossible, therefore, to construct matter by a synthesis of forces ” (p. 161).}} | ||
This may be true in the phenomenal world, inasmuch as the illusive reflection of the ''one reality ''of the supersensual world may appear true to the dwarfed conceptions of a materialist. It is absolutely incorrect when the argument is applied to things, in what the Kabalists call the supermundane spheres. Inertia, so called, “ is force ” according to Newton (''Princ. Def. iii.''), and for the student of Esoteric Sciences the greatest of the occult forces. A body may be considered divorced from its relations with other bodies — which, according to physical and mechanical sciences, give rise to its attributes — only ''conceptually'', only on this plane of illusion. In fact, it can never be so detached : death itself being unable to detach it from its relation with the Universal forces, of which the one Force or Life is the synthesis : but simply continues such inter-relation on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right, can Dr. James Croll mean when, in speaking “ On the Transformation of Gravity ” (''Philosophical Magazine'', Vol. II., p. 252), he brings forward the views advocated by Faraday, Waterston, and others ? For he says very plainly that gravity — | This may be true in the phenomenal world, inasmuch as the illusive reflection of the ''one reality ''of the supersensual world may appear true to the dwarfed conceptions of a materialist. It is absolutely incorrect when the argument is applied to things, in what the Kabalists call the supermundane spheres. Inertia, so called, “ is force ” according to Newton (''Princ. Def. iii.''), and for the student of Esoteric Sciences the greatest of the occult forces. A body may be considered divorced from its relations with other bodies — which, according to physical and mechanical sciences, give rise to its attributes — only ''conceptually'', only on this plane of illusion. In fact, it can never be so detached : death itself being unable to detach it from its relation with the Universal forces, of which the one {{Style S-Small capitals|Force}} or {{Style S-Small capitals|Life}} is the synthesis : but simply continues such inter-relation on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right, can Dr. James Croll mean when, in speaking “ On the Transformation of Gravity ” (''Philosophical Magazine'', Vol. II., p. 252), he brings forward the views advocated by Faraday, Waterston, and others ? For he says very plainly that gravity — | ||
“ . . . . . is a force pervading Space ''external to bodies'', and that, on the mutual approach of the bodies, the force is not increased, as is generally supposed, but the bodies merely pass into a place ''where the force exists with greater intensity''. . . . .” | “ . . . . . is a force pervading Space ''external to bodies'', and that, on the mutual approach of the bodies, the force is not increased, as is generally supposed, but the bodies merely pass into a place ''where the force exists with greater intensity''. . . . .” | ||