BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? - April Taylor
                          I
Seeing is believing, it is said,                              
And on that sensible assumption all  
rules of evidence in courts of law,
at least two witnesses to back it up,
have rightly functioned.  It is so,
and shall be taken to be so, if you and I
were there together and that is what we saw.

Without this sensible assumption we
couldn't function to the least degree.
It is the necessary basis for
all deductive science everywhere.

Make no mistake, our modern science had

to fight a universe of superstition to                                        
make this point and thus to rear its head.  


                          II

             One vast problem followed from this fight
in founding our English Royal Society:
the smuggled in assumption that this right
             made every other kind of thinking wrong

This is very bad philosophy,
            as all the wise since Socrates have known
(and he was not exempt from smuggling in
            when faced with the task of rational persuasion).

The logic of the matter's simply this:
my simple demostration of what IS -
my hand and all my body, let us say -
does NOT entail that I am nothing else
- or more.  It has always been a false deduction
to claim as false what wasn't known as true.


                             III 

Of course in the relatively trivial
arena of what is self-evident -
that if my hand is here it can't be there
at the self-same moment - yes, of course
there's a valid basis there for Aristotle's
law of contradiction, which has held
the field for two and a half millenia.
But we have let these truisms lead us on
to a reductio absurditum. 

To hold its framework stable, science has
decreed that what it sees not can't be true.

This is so grossly illegitimate
the time has come for us to intimate

that Occam's razor really is too blunt.

 
                             IV

But if we want to stray into the woods
          of what might lie beyond the obvious,
what shall we take for compass, what our chart?

In asking this, we come to realise
that science has hardly stayed within its brief.
ITS whole direction is HYPOTHESISE:
suppose something, then imagine what
would happen if the something's true.
That is called prediction, therefore if
it happens, hey presto you were right.

Now this gets really interesting as soon
 as you're in the shadowy realm of quantum theory.
For quanta play ducks and drakes with evidence

              and thus prediction hardly has a chance.


                            V

Everything then is in the melting pot,
whether scientists like this fact or not -
 for if the basis of the stuff we think
 we are is unreliable, what then
of the erection we have built our science on?

 It fizzles into impotence and needs
direction from some other kind of source
 to give it countenance and honesty.

But where to look when all the visible roads
are blocked by our solid inhumanity
(born on the fruits of our technology)?
What is to count as truth where such a mess
as we have made of things is facing us
with rocketing destruction and distress?


                          VI

Here the east can come to ease the west -
provided they join forces and do not
seek to replace one failure with another.
 For it clearly takes two keys to unlock this door -
of knowing what we did not know before.

 The turning of both keys at once implies
making an assumption, a presupposition,
then going to work as if the assumption's true.

That is how technology got going.
All hands on deck - and very soon the 'knowing'
that followed from the methods used was showing
 in a stream of manifestations far and wide
to prove that science when it really tried
 could make us wealthy - if not happy too...



                            VII

What then's the link between this circumstance
and what the east discovered long ago?

Those words AS IF are really more than telling,
linking science and magic as they do.
For if we really put them to the test -
as western scientists have in modern times,
we'd find I think (as quantum scientists
have) that so-called matter would obey
prediction.

                   This is a very powerful tool
to wield.  No wonder then that we have been
a long, long time discovering how to use
it properly.  For only synergy,
the working together of our energy
can bring results that will be evident.



                             VIII

So reasonably indisputable.
This is the crux.
                For nothing could so count
as proving this result was caused
by this invisible attention to
the thing we wanted, coming so to be.

Something is only reasonably felt
to be so when the vast majority
believe it so, so hold it into being,
maintain it through its morphic resonance.

Knowing is therefore shared belief, no more,
no less - and seeing is believing, for
what we believe and therefore pour our energy
 into with our counsciousness, will come
to pass. That is the east's hypothesis.



                              IX

To put it with the west's and try it out
for size needs very much more than mere
predictions such as blunt and cerebral
western scientists are wont to make.

The synergy called for is an inner state
of synthesis, alignment, based on some
assumed model of the constitution  
of those whose energy is thus aligned.

Agreement here's a matter of the heart
at least as much as of the head - and some
would argue that the throat is equally
relevant to inducing synthesis
and therefore synchronicity of action
or manifestation in the outer world. 



                                X

For the subtle throat would seem to be the centre
of all our actual creativity -
linked with our sounding and our use of hands,
coordinated also with our eyes,
 especially inner eye to visualise
what we seek to bring into the world.

The beautiful paradox, of course, is this:
so long as the matter's mere hypothesis
it lacks momentum - so will not give birth.

As soon as we give it force, it has belief
behind it - and we are no longer free
to be scientifically deispassionate
concerning its success or otherwise.

To manage this we really have to KNOW...
 

You may quote from or reproduce these editorial clips if you include the following credits and email contact:
Copyright © Daniel J. Benor, M.D. 1992 Reprinted with permission of the author P.O. Box 76 Bellmawr, NJ 08099
www.WholisticHealingResearch.com   DB@WholisticHealingResearch.com 

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONENTS FOR THIS NEWSLETTER