Sherry (My ex) had a couple of problems of a medical nature. Her hypoglycemia had been miss-diagnosed and she had been given massive cortisone shots that I believe had contributed to
cancer that resulted in partial mastectomy. I got her off caffiene and through power of LOVE she was healed in two years. Women are not treated as men are when it comes to medical treatment; as well as every other aspect of misogyny in society. My studies of wholistics and hermetics were becoming quite extensive and alchemy founded and continues real science. I am going to quote two authors from quite different sides of fence. These books are recent but representative of studies I was engaged in as well as giving reader an insight to continuing problem of censorship and supposed 'expertise' that prevents a great deal of truth. David Depew and Bruce Weber of MIT wrote 'Darwinism Evolving' in 1995 and it says on pages 492 & 493:
“They also made it harder for scientific worldview to be received with equanimity by other sources of culture. Indeed, since reducing impulse undermines fairly huge tracts of experience, people like Wallace, who feel deeply about protecting phenomena they regard as existentially important, frequently conclude that they have no alternative except to embrace spiritualism, and sometimes even to attack scientific worldview itself, if that is only way to protect important spheres of experience that have been ejected from science's confining Eden.
In response, scientists and philosophers who feel strongly about liberating potential of a spare, materialistic worldview began to patrol borderlands between high-grade knowledge scientists have of natural systems and low-grade opinions that in view of science's most ardent defenders, dominate other spheres of culture and lead back toward superstitious and authoritarian world of yester-year. 'Demarcating' science from other, less cognitively worthwhile forms of understanding was already a major feature of Darwin's world. A line beyond which Newtonian {Newton was a Rosicrucian who achieved status of an alchemist per Haeffner's 'Dictionary of Alchemy') paradigm could not apply was drawn at boundary between physics and biology. We have seen how hesitant Darwin was to cross that line and what happened when he did. Twentieth-century people are sometimes prone to congratulate themselves for being above these quaint Victorian battles. They may have less reason to do so, however, than they think, for fact is that throughout our own century, same sort of battles with emotional overtones no less charged, have been waged at contested line where biology meets psychology, and more generally where natural sciences confront human sciences. Dualisms between spirit and matter, and even between mind and body, may have been pushed to margins of respectable intellectual discourse. But methodological dualisms between what is covered by laws and what is to be 'hermeneutically appropriated' are still very much at center of our cultural, or rather 'two cultural', life. Cognitive psychologists and neurophysiologists are even now busy reducing mind- states to brain-states, while interpretive or humanistic psychologists are proclaiming how meaningless world would be if mind is nothing but brain. Interpretive anthropologists are filled with horror at what would disappear from world if rich cultural practices that seem to give meaning to our lives were to be shown to be little more than extremely sophisticated calculations on part of self-interested genes. Conflicts of this sort would have given Darwin stomachaches almost as bad as ones he endured over earlier demarcation controversies."
These authors use term hermeneuts much as early 20th Century supposed scientists ridiculed quantum physicists by calling them 'atom-mysticists'. Hermeneuts is a new epithet for alchemists such as myself who OBSERVE and try to fit ALL facts together and don't eject anything 'from science's confining Eden'. This quote continues to raise spectre of 'Bible Narrative' and Bishop Ussher whose late nineteenth century proponent was Wilberforce.
"The rhetorical pattern of these battles is still depressingly similar, in fact, to Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce. Hermeneuts ridicule scientists like Hamilton, Dawkins, and Wilson when they suggest that nothing was ever known about social cooperation until biologists discovered kin selection. Reductionists in turn criticize hermeneuts, now transformed largely into 'culturists', for bringing back ghosts and gods, just as their nineteenth-century predecessors were taxed with being 'vitalists' every time they said something about complexity of development. Humanists identify scientists with an outdated materialistic reductionism. Scientists insist that hermeneutical intentionality is little more than disguised religion.
Perhaps, a way out of this fruitless dialectic between 'two cultures', can be found if each party could give up at least one of its cherished preconceptions. It would be a good thing, for example, if heirs of Enlightenment {Credited to Bacon, Shakespeare, Jonson and others with an alchemical background.} would stop thinking that if cultural phenomena are not reduced to some sort of mechanism, religious authoritarianism will immediately flood into breach. They should also stop assuming that nothing is really known about human beings until spirit of reductionism gets to work. Students of human sciences have, after all, been learning things alongside scientists ever since modernity began. Among other things they have learned that humans are individuated as persons within bonds of cultures and cultural roles, they are bound together with others in ways no less meaningful and valuable than ways promoted by strongly dualistic religions. By same token, it would be helpful if advocates of interpretive disciplines would. abandon a tacit assumption sometimes found among them that nature is so constituted that it can never accommodate rich and meaningful cultural phenomena humanists are dedicated to protecting, and that therefore cultural 'ought never' to be allowed to slip comfortably into naturalism. Humanists seem to have internalized this belief from their reductionist enemies, whose commitment to materialism is generally inseparable from their resolve to show up large parts of culture, especially religion, as illusions. These opponents, we may safely say, take in each other's laundry."
