Building Bridges

[re-rose]

This morning I read a blog and an article which inspired me to write a post here about the impeccable scientists who know that what 'science' knows is a piffle of what there is to be learned. Of course, I got logged out before I went to post and lost the post. So, long story short, here are the links that inspired the labor:

Blogging biochemist Michael Swords tells Out Proctor stories of family experiences here:
http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/

And from Tara McIsaac, of the Epoch times, an article on thought, complete with an intro by that dangerous China-dwelling, Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/659799- ... lly-exist/

MacIsaac seems to be doing her part to build some bridges with her provocative "Beyond Science" series:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/c/scien ... d-science/. Every nudge helps.

rose

[re-rose]

And so, to continue my musings on yesterday's readings, the Professor writes:

Catherine Crowe, one of my new-found heroes, saw this clearly far back two hundred years ago. She saw the Enlightenment for what it was --- both creator and destroyer. It was creating "light" but doing so in only a restricted illuminated space. It was sort of like a magnificent Drunk and The Lamp Post --- inspecting minutely the only area that was already illuminated while ignoring the vast scope of reality.

I think that possibly beyond vast even, is a scope of reality in which ordinary theories of causation are turned upside down by work such as Dean Radin's investigations into retrocausation, mentioned in the article on Thought. Now there's some hyperstition at it's finest!

Okay, posting now, before I get logged out.
rose

[kevin]

Rose,
I really like Prof Tiller.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/535619- ... ciousness/
kevin

[LuisP]

Very nice thread, Rose.

Inspirational, I have to say.

So much so, in fact, that I wonder why, FAIK, it doesn’t exist Per Se out there ...
Thanks (many) for having thought of it.

Because people do get entrenched on either side of the Subject and forever argue their Parallaxed point of discussion, forgetting what to me appears as a most elementary notion that nothing exists without a counterpart, and therefore, that everything is a part of a Single Unifying Subject.

Excepting Agnostics – those self mutilated minds who have abdicated of pursuing Knowledge given “its intangibility and human impotence” to either prove or disprove it – everyone else, the colossal and overwhelming majority, “feels” him(her)self pulled into one of those sides, and by so thinking and acting, in fact – with contrarian reasons – doing nothing but recognizing and acknowledging the existence of a Singleness.

Even if, to avoid siding with theological views or to just sidestep mind traps and pit falls, many choose to call it “A Consciousness” ... for religion, to these “educated” minds, is but a form of obsolete mind control.
Little do they know, for it is precisely the opposite - a very current mind enhancer.

As if they, we, all of us, were not talking about the same stuff.

And Teilhard de Chardin was not “dangerous” for saying so, if that’s what you meant by it. Just ahead of its time. As some guy pointed out, “one step ahead of everyone else, and you are a genius. But if two steps ahead, you are a wacko”. Or a “dangerous” man.

He was a true Renaissance spirit. More known as a paleontologist, yes, but he was also a theologian, a philosopher, a mathematician, a physicist and a chemist, and just to dumbfound us all, also a soldier, who earned the highest military decoration his country granted for Valor under Fire. Not for having killed anyone. But for having saved countless lives, as a stretcher-bearer in that godless and gruesome WW I slaughter.

With a Mind and a Will like these, inside the Church he could only be a Jesuit.

Even if a censored, reprimanded and often punished one, because of his many “bridge building” books and essays around a beautiful mental breakthrough :
- Universal Energy is a Thinking Energy, and Mankind its manifestation subjected to a process of Unanimization, by which Evolution is nothing but a path towards a global and voluntary psychic unity that once reached, will allow us to ascend and achieve Omega, the point of complete identity and association with Everything.

Beautiful. And revolutionary, in its Oneness and Simplicity.

Always accepting, in the meantime, incomprehension from his Peers and their harsh judgment in consequence. Stoically Patient and consentingly Obedient till the end.
As if he “knew” it was all necessary, and a small price to pay on the road to Knowledge.

Nowadays, he has been “recuperated” by that same Church who punished and tried to silence him. Not only that, but truly admired and hailed as a visionary.

And that so said not by an eccentric Father of a distant parish but by the “Princes of the Church” themselves, as Cardinals are known.

Some of the more vocal ones said things so direct as “Critics of Teilhard de Chardin suffered from having their intelligence silenced by emotion” … for he was a man “living in Christ to the depths of his soul and because of it obsessed with unifying faith and reason” …. who had “a fascinating vision that brought together faith in Christ with the scientific explanation of the world”.

I would advise everyone to buy and read his premonitory book “The Phenomenon of Man”.
Food there for many thoughts, regardless of Parallax.

FWIW, here is a comment from one of its Amazon buyers :
-“Simply astounding. These are about the only words that I think best describe “The Phenomenon of Man”. Teilhard is a genius and the best modern example of the intellectual firepower that can come from the Catholic Church and the Jesuits in particular.”
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Phenomenon-Ma ... non+of+man).

Enough said.

Yes, Pierre is one of my Heroes. And guiding lights.

Very opportune, and inspirational, beginning for a thread dedicated to Bridge Builders, Rose.

Will now look up those links you provide, with reinforced interest.

[re-rose]

Luis, I read the Phenomenon of Man many years ago. It had a phenomenal influence on my world view. Pierre's teaching were dangerous enough to earn him a gag order from the church and I am relieved to know that he has been rehabilitated.

I like Tiller, too, Kev. Anyone who has the audacity to make a well thought out case for an unseen reality has my support.

rose

[LuisP]

Five pieces of Wisdom:

1. “Allow yourself to be human” - Do not run away from peril, sickness, discomfort or embarrassment, for you will then never experience humanity.
2. “You don’t have to be someone else to be holy” - Just be yourself. There’s a reason why we are all different, even if you can’t understand it.
3. “There’s no need to please everyone” - Behind the good desire to please everyone looms the not-so-good desire to have everyone like you.
4. “Don’t let anyone prevent you from becoming the person you want to be” - We all walk towards something uniquely ours so never change yourself in reaction to others or let their problems mold you.
5. “You’re not perfect” – So don’t pretend to be and accept your limitations, while always striving to do your best.

[Mikado14]

De Chardin was first discussed by Linda on the ttbrown forum...excuse, that would be Victoria Steele...or that redhead that bought the puppy...Barbara?

March 6, 2006

http://www.ttbrown.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=312#p312


This is one of the most telling posts made by Paul. It was a discussion of a post I made that made Paul think about what it was I posted.

http://www.ttbrown.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 773#p16773

I have made bold, the pertinent part of the post. The original discussion of Chardin was instigated by Victoria Steel. However, according to Paul in his own words, it was brought up to him by Linda. How could Victoria know this and be the first to bring it up? I believe the answer to that has been made.

Where's Kramer ?
Postby Paul S. » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:16 pm

Musing the other day over the weekend and trying in vain to clear my head, I started to think about Dr. Brown. I wandered what would I say to the man if he approached me or if I met him?

This post from Mikado showed up here last week just as I was getting ready to fly down to Texas to join Ann there and help her with (literally) the care and feeding of her ill and elderly father. However, I thought about this post a lot while I was out of town. I am rather intrigued to learn that readers still have questions like "What was he like?"

I think the question is fair, if a bit misdirected. So I want to address it comprehensively. And then I will attempt to take the constructive parts of this commentary and get back to work.

I have read the book as presented, all 500 plus pages of it. I have read of the forlorn hope and love of a young couple and a couple that went through their personal and public trials and tribulations. I have read about science known and science unknown. I have read about voyages under and upon the sea, of sky jumps and possible time jumps. Of visitations either actual or jointly dreamt. Of multiple moves and moves made multiple times.

And...what? That's not enough?? <g>

And yet, I still have certain unanswered questions.

Don't we all. I think I wrote to Linda early in our correspondence -- back when it was all still via snail-mail -- that this book would, of necessity, have to be more about the questions than the answers. There have been many times since I made that statement that it has presented a standard that has proven maddeningly difficult to adhere to. Nevertheless it is the reality that defines this undertaking.

"What was he like?"

The question arises at a time when many of the fundamental issues that afflict this entire enterprise arise anew, as I revisit the material and try to determine what effectively drives the narrative and what are pointless tangents that spin the story off into (pardon the expression) empty space.

I confess, it is a little disconcerting to learn that after reading 500+ pages, some readers maybe still don't have at least some idea "what was he like?"

I think I find it even more unsettling to think that some readers might think that things like his favorite color or meal preferences some how reveal meaningful insights into Townsend Brown's "character."

I have to be careful here. If you have read all that has been offered so far, and still don't have any idea "what was he like?" then it would be very easy conclude that this whole enterprise has failed pretty miserably, and maybe I should see if they're accpeting applications at Wal-Mart (Ann says, "no... Target or Lowe's..."). But I honestly don't think that's the case; given the constraints we (chiefly Linda Brown and I) have had to contend with, I think we've probably got 95% of what we're ever going to get regarding the course of Townsend Brown's life -- or any meaningful insights into "what was he like."

Perhaps a bit of my own background is in order, to give you a more precise idea of where I'm coming from, the approach that I bring to this work, and the attitude that informs my response to this question.

When I was in Hollywood in the 1970s and trying to learn a little something about the craft of screenwriting, I was introduced to one of the seminal texts on the subject, "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by the Hungarian playwright Lajos Egri.

The premise of Egri's approach to stagecraft -- which, I think, translates into any form of narrative art -- has stayed with me long after the rest of his text has faded from my memory. The premise can be summed up in a simple phrase:

Action is character.

Translation: you discover the character of a person by witnessing their actions. When you see how they respond to situations, what sort of situations they initiate, how they deal with people, how they handle conflict -- then you have the ingredients you need to assess that person's character.

Action reveals character; conversely, character drives action. Yes, it's a symbiotic equation, but the end result is the same: if you know how a person acts, then you have all you need to judge their character.

The rest is window dressing.

If you can accept that premise, then it's easier to understand the fundamental obstacle we face in creating a coherent biography of Thomas Townsend Brown. It should be clear to everybody within the sound of my key-strokes by now that, even with all the anecdotes, the travelogue, the meetings, the demonstrations, the confrontations ... the inescapable fact is that we still do not know what Townsend Brown's life was really all about.

At least I don't. Maybe I was supposed to have figured it out by now. And maybe my inability to do so reflects some fundamental failure of my own character, i.e. the oft invoked admonishment that maybe I'm "not ready" for some deeper truth that I've spent the last nearly 6 years now trying to determine. If that's the case, then maybe somebody else should finish the book.

In any event, the question of "what was he like" boils down to a simple fact for me: If you don't really know what the man really did, than you cannot truly know his character, and you are left instead to ruminate on fluffy details like his favorite color or dessert.

In other words: if you're not getting enough "character" out of this story, that's because my sources are not supplying me with enough truly consequential "action."

What was Dr. Brown's favorite color? He enjoyed his green Cadillac but was that his favorite color? Did he enjoy a Turkey dinner, Roast Beef or Ham? Did the family have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, friends or no one? We know that he enjoyed a taste for Earl Grey tea but did he enjoy coffee, milk, juice or Coca Cola?

I dunno... those might be interesting details, but they are also the sort of sparkle that has to be addressed within some kind of context or they just look like rhinestones.

The things you mention, if they truly interested me I might have asked more about them. But I have been more focused on finding the unifying "arc" that makes this story make any kind of sense. I've been trying to build the bridge that connects one end of Townsend Brown's life to the other. The sort of details you're describing are embellishments along the way. Like the shiny lights hung from the suspension cables of a bridge, they sure are pretty and sparkly. But they are not the bridge, and without the bridge, you simply cannot get from here to there no matter how well illuminated the trail.

Action is character. Absent compelling action, the sense of character necessarily suffers. You wind up with... a bridge to nowhere.

What pissed him off? We know that he threw his glasses down at Decker's and we were told that his point was reached but what would get him to that point?

I think that's an excellent example of precisely the quandary that this line of inquiry poses: you tell me who was on the other side of that phone conversation -- and what they said -- and then we will all know what pissed him off. But the people who DO know that information, well, they are apparently not at liberty to divulge.

I hope that doesn't sound like a complaint. I resigned myself to this predicament a long time ago. And so we just keep moving right along...

Did he ever reach that point with Linda or Josephine? Out of all the years that they were married did they ever not talk or did they ever sleep in different bedrooms? It is ever so possible to love someone but not agree.

Well, we did learn (almost by accident...) that Townsend and Josephine were divorced at one point. But since neither Dr. Brown nor Josephine are around to fill us in on the details (nor did either of them ever confide in Linda), we just have to go with the bare facts. Unless, you know, there was some fly on the wall that I can call and interview...?

We know that his daughter Linda enjoyed horses and that she had named all the fish in the pond but what does that tell us? It tells me that she learned that from someone, was it Mom or was it Dad? Did he like dogs or cats? Did he enjoy crossword puzzles or riddles, or both? Did he enjoy mathematical word problems and what type of books did he read for leisure? History, Science, Biographical, Drama, Science Fiction etc.

I guess those are all interesting questions. Maybe if all of my effort had not gone into building the impossible bridge, I would have been more inclined to devote some energy to those kinds of issues. Again, though, they have to arise in some kind of context.

We know, for example, that he was fairly well versed in the Bible. He knew all of the places where "flying saucers" show up in the Old and New Testaments. That would seem to reveal some depth of his interests -- not only in unexplainable phenomena, but in how the ancients interpreted them. Does that not give us some idea "what was he like?"

By the same token, Linda Brown did mention a number of times that her father was very enamored of the writings of the French Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, whose book "The Phenomenon of Man" attempts to make some sense of the unfolding of history and the universe. Maybe I should slip that in somewhere...

We know he enjoyed the "Day the Earth Stood Still" but what did he think of "Star Wars" or "2001"?

Which reminds me... what is Luke Skywalker's favorite color? What did Han Solo like for dessert? What color was the pod bay door, Hal?

Now that you mention it, I don't think the first draft mentions that Dr. Brown closed his lab and took everybody to see "The Day The Earth Stood Still" the day it opened in Los Angeles. I guess that's another detail I need to squeeze in. I suppose that's an action that reveals some facet of the man's character.

Nor have I mentioned the business Morgan told me about Dr. Brown predicting a big UFO flap over Washington in (I think) 1952. But... what would that tell us about what he was like? That he was clairvoyant...or... that he just knew something that the rest of us will likely never know? There's another illustration of my central point here: if we had a better idea of what precisely drove his actions, then we'd have a much clearer understanding of his character.

What about Josephine? I realize that the book is about Thomas Townsend Brown but owing to the fact that Josephine is a large part of it, what was she like? Wouldn't some of Townsend Brown's actions have been precipitated upon by Josephine's likes and dislikes?

That gets some coverage, I think. For example, Josephine's determination that the family would not move to Hawaii until Linda was 2 years old speaks volumes. Or, similarly, Josephine's insistence that the family stay put in Philadelphia for two years so that Linda could finish high school in one place. Doesn't that tell you something about what motivated her in life?

Conversely, what do we learn about Dr. Brown from his treatment of his only son? Not a pretty picture, really, is it? But if we knew more about what Dr. Brown was really engaged in during those years... would we not have a better appreciation for the character who became so estranged from his son?

Action is character. No action... no character.

How about these little truths that perhaps no one knew: Dr. Brown would apply absorbine jr. to his legs, Josephine liked her brand of "tea" in the afternoon, there were separations in the marriage.

Separations in the marriage, have, I think, been addressed -- again, to the extent that any factual data is available. The business about Absorbine Junior, well, sorry, that just never came up. But the part about Josephine's "tea" (a euphemism for the harder stuff Josephine imbibed while Townsend was taking his afternoon break), I might be able to squeeze that in too. It was something she had in common with Charles.

I for one believe that there are anecdotes and stories that can be had by asking the correct questions from several sources.

Ask the right question? Of whom?

You seem to forget: with the exception of Linda Brown, my "several sources" would not even actually talk to me. Maybe that's because they know that, in the course of an actual, two-way conversation, I might find the inspiration to ask "the questions for my answers," as Morgan said to me once. But Morgan, and Twigsnapper -- as far as I know, the only two people on the planet who know the answers to the real questions -- have made it a point to keep me at arms length throughout this process. They have communicated with me only through intermediaries like Linda, through (admittedly copious) e-mail exchanges, or via messages posted to an internet forum.

And so we are left to guess at the answers to the questions that would tell us the actions that would reveal the underlying character.

I would like to see a bit more, if possible, as to the man that made the decisions that he did.

And my contention remains: if we knew what the REAL decisions were, and what motivated them, then we would know all we could ever hope or want to know about Townsend Brown's character.

And I dare say that you would then agree with me that all the rest is... just... "stuff."

I know this probably sounds like more whining from me but... really: are these the things that you what you really want to know? Do you want know how he liked his steak cooked -- or what was in those notebooks he spirited away in the last weeks of his life?

Those may be interesting details, but they are a poor substitute for a clear understanding of exactly what the man did with his life.

But I guess you're right. Absent those kinds of details, what we really wind up with is a 500-page Seinfeld episode -- without the laughs.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser

I suppose in a manner of speaking, I am the one who may have first planted the idea in Paul's head to quit. But it certainly was not in Huntingdon, Pa.

Mikado

[Mikado14]

"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer

[StarCat]

Mikado, even if you did "plant the idea," as has been speculated, did you do anything to force Paul to quit? I'm probably out on a very thin branch here, but I do like to at least try to understand mutiple points of view on things. It always upset my mother terribly that I refused to let her do my thinking for me. Yes, I'm digressing. Shutting up now.

Cat

[LuisP]

The Power of Education

Education, based upon serious principles, means instructing the intellect, training the will, and forming the character — in other words, builds the Whole in preparation for life.

A lacking in either of those disciplines or knowledge causes disasters if left unchecked - the worst of all being to spread ignorance and extinguish in others the desire to learn, and to love learning.

The ultimate end of Education is therefore to develop, discipline, and direct all the capacities of the human personality - body, senses, memory, imagination, intellect, and will - towards the pursuit of Truth.

If you are just shooting for intellectual knowledge and you are not strengthening the will and forming the character at the same time, not only is education defective, but it is capable of being even dangerous to self.
A Mind is not properly formed and will never be Educated by the mere accumulation of information if, while harvesting it, will abdicate, or be compelled to forget, the wielding of its most precious tools - the ability to Analyze, Think and Choose.

That is why an educated mind is not shackled, will constantly fight attitudes of mediocrity, and will strive to do things correctly no matter how long and hard it will take, adapting to what is circumstantial and accidental while always preserving in its integrity what is essential – Natural Humanity, our common touchstone.

And that is also why an educated mind is not Utilitarian, and even less Dominant. But forever Humble and Curious. For within it lies the Power to understand the existence not only of the Natural but also of the Supernatural, as the only valid conjugation of Truth.


Don’t let anyone tell you, or make you act, otherwise.