<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
	<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
	<TITLE></TITLE>
	<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Namo WebEditor v4.0">
	<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20040204;6504800">
	<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20040218;533200">
	
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="de-DE" TEXT="#000000">
<div align="center">
	<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
		<tr>
			<td>
<p align="center" class="western" style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b><FONT size="4">The
Changed Scientific Outlook</FONT></b></p>
<P LANG="en" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<FONT SIZE=3>THERE is, of course, more than one line of scientific
outlook at the present day. It is well known that continental
scientists generally and Marxist scientists in particular belong to a
different category from Jeans and Eddington. But the important point
is this: a considerable body of scientists frankly hold the
&quot;idealist&quot; view, and these come from the very front rank
<I>qua </I>scientists. Discussion arises when it is seriously put
forward that Eddington and Jeans are not authorities in science
equalling any other great names; as if it is contended that because a
scientist holds the idealist view, <I>ergo, </I>he is a
pseudo-scientist, a third-degree luminary, a back-bencher, a
mediaevalist. The Marxists also declare, we may recall in this
connection, that the bourgeois cannot be a true poet, in order to be
a poet one must be a proletarian.</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.44cm; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>There is a scientific obscurantism, which is not less
obscure because it is scientific, and one must guard against it with
double care and watchfulness. It is the mentality of the no-changer
whose motto seems to be: <I>plus <FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">&ccedil;</FONT>a
change, plus <FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">&ccedil;</FONT>a reste le m<FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">&ecirc;</FONT>me..
</I>Let me explain. The scientist who prefers still to be called a
materialist must remember that the (material) ground under his feet
has shifted considerably since the time he first propounded his
materialistic position: he does not stand in the same place (or
plane?) as he did even twenty years ago. The change has been basic
and fundamental – fundamental, because the very definitions and
postulates with which we once started have been called in question,
thrown overboard or into the melting-pot.</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.45cm; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Shall we elucidate a little? We were once upon a time
materialists, that is to say, we had very definite and fixed notions
about Matter: to Matter we gave certain invariable</FONT><BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.45cm; padding-top:0cm; padding-right:0cm; padding-bottom:0.07cm; padding-left:0cm; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Page – 332</FONT><BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<FONT SIZE=3>characteristics, inalienable properties. How many of
them stand today unscathed on their legs? Take the very first, the
crucial property ascribed to Matter: &quot;Matter is that which has
extension.&quot; Well, an electric charge, a unit energy of it, the
ultimate constituent of Matter as discovered by Science today, can it
be said to occupy space? In the early days of Science, one Boscovich
advanced a theory according to which the ultimate material particle
(a molecule, in his time) does not occupy space, it is a mere
mathematical point toward or from which certain forces act. The
theory, naturally, was laughed out of consideration; but today we
have come perilously near it. Again, another postulate describing
Matter's dharma was: &quot;two material particles cannot occupy the
same place at the same time&quot;. Now what do you say of the neutron
and proton that coalesce and form the unit of a modern atomic
nucleus? Once more, the notion of the indestructibility of Matter has
been considerably modified in view of the phenomenon of an electric
particle (electron) being wholly transmuted (&quot;dematerialised&quot;
as the scientists themselves say) into a light particle (photon).
Lastly, the idea of the constancy of <I>mass – a </I>bed-rock of
old-world physics – is considered today to be a superstition, an
illusion. If after all these changes in the idea of Matter, a man
still maintains that he is a materialist, as of old, well, I can only
exclaim in the Shakespearean phrase: &quot;Bottom, thou art
translated&quot;! What I want to say is that the changes that modern
physics proposes to execute in its body are not mere amendments and
emendations, but they mean a radical transfiguration, a subversion
and a mutation. And more than the actual changes effected, the
possibilities, the tendencies that have opened out, the lines along
which further developments are proceeding do point not merely to a
reformation, but a revolution.</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.41cm; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Does this mean that Science after all <I>is </I>veering
to the Idealist position? Because we have modified the meaning and
connotation of Matter does it 'follow that we have perforce arrived
at spirituality? Not quite so. As Jeans says, the correct scientific
position would be to withhold one's judgment about the ultimate
nature of matter, whether it is material or mental (spiritual, we
would prefer to say): it is an attitude of <I>non possumus.<FONT FACE="Arial Narrow, sans-serif">
</FONT></I>But such neutrality, is it truly possible and is it so</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.41cm; padding-top:0cm; padding-right:0cm; padding-bottom:0.07cm; padding-left:0cm; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Page – 333</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<FONT SIZE=3>very correct? We do see scientists lean .on one side or
the other, according to the vision or predisposition that one
carries. </FONT>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.41cm; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>From our standpoint, as we view the modern scientific
developments, what we see is not that Matter has been spiritualised,
but that it has been considerably dematerialised, even
immaterialised, that it is in the process of further
dematerialisation or immaterialisation. That opens a long and large
vista. We say Science by itself cannot arrive at the spiritual, for
there is a frontier bar which has to be overleaped, negotiated by
something like a somersault. For the scientific view is after all
limited by one scope and range of the physical eye. Still, this eye
has begun to see things and in a manner to which it was not normally
accustomed; it has been trained and educated, made keen and supple so
that it seems to be getting more and more attuned even to other
vibrations of light beyond and outside the normal sevenfold spectrum.</FONT></P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.4cm; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Science has not spiritualised (or idealised or
mentalised) the world; it has not spiritualised itself. Agreed. But
what it has done is remarkable. First, with its new outlook it has
cut away the ground from where it was wont to give battle to religion
and spirituality, it has abjured its cast-iron strait-jacket
mentality which considered that senses and syllogism encompass all
knowledge and objects of knowledge. It has learnt humility and admits
of the possibility of more things there being in heaven and earth
which are not amenable to its fixed co-ordinates. Secondly, it has
gone at times even beyond this attitude of benevolent neutrality. For
certain of its conclusions, certain ways of formulation seem to echo
other truths, other manners. That is to say, if Science by itself is
unable to reach or envisage the spiritual outlook, yet the position
it has reached, the vistas it envisages seem to be not perhaps
exactly one with, but in line with what our vision (of the scientific
world) would be like if once we possess the spiritual eye. Matter,
Science says today, is energy and forms of matter, objects, are
various vibrations of this one energy. What is this energy? According
to science, it is electrical, radiant, ethereal (Einstein replaces
&quot;ether&quot; by &quot;field&quot;) – biological science would
venture to call it life energy. You have only to move one step
farther and arrive at the greater</FONT><BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.4cm; padding-top:0cm; padding-right:0cm; padding-bottom:0.07cm; padding-left:0cm; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Page – 334</FONT><BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>and deeper generalisation – Matter is a mode of the
energy of consciousness, all forms of Matter are vibrations of
consciousness.</FONT><BR>
</P>
<P LANG="en-US" CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.4cm; padding-top:0cm; padding-right:0cm; padding-bottom:0.07cm; padding-left:0cm; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Page – 335</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="right" style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<a title="Home" href="-00_-Content"><img src="/Nolini/Volume-1/_Gif_Image/house01_green.gif" width="28" height="23" border="0" alt="house06_white.gif"></a></P>
<div align="right"> 
	<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> </div>
			</td>
		</tr>
	</table>
</div>
</BODY>
</HTML>