Peter Taylor: Hidden History – Deep Mystery

Posted: February 26, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

I am late to this debate – which is my favourite territory, but for which I get little time ‘cos I am out there doing policy (and some science). Its all very familiar – I spent some time at Oxford in the ’70s doing some research on the linguistic anthropology of perception..initially how tribal peoples perceived environment, causality and healing (very shamanic), but then with an interest (frowned upon by my superiors) in the way anthropologists as scientists peceived themselves and eventually broadening that to how scientists in general perceived themselves. Their language gives them away.

They do present an image – Mike Haseler got it perfectly – ‘fundamentally a scientist is a dispassionate objective interrogator of the evidence’…..and many do actually believe their own image. But many don’t. They know it is a cover. Behind the scenes, they carry the older scientific tradition of a more passionate embrace of reality, like the alchemist fathers of the Royal Society, who had learned to hide their passion from the Churches. This is the passion – an inordinate love, of order and measurement, law and prediction that goes way further back than any of the current religions. It is a deeply patriarchal system of thought. Obvious enough, I know – but when you take a look at the climate science, not only do you find the expected levels of deception – but at the highest political levels of the science (like the IPCC and the modelling community) you find a complete lack of appreciation of cycles, periodicity, waves and rhythm, harmonics and the sheer power and unpredictability of Nature, with its chaotics and spirals and lack of repitition (in space and time, nothing actually repeats!).

Science as we know it (normal or post-normal) is betrayed by the word – from the Latin scindere, to divide (and the secret societies to which many top scientists belong has the dividers as their most sacred symbol!)….to separate, and hence masure and manipulate. That is far removed from Knowledge – gnosis, the Ancient British canawan, to really know something. This is what the ancients knew as Sophia – wisdom, and it was dark not light.

Hence climate science completely downgraded the ‘dark side’ of the Sun – its magnetics and mood swings, not to mention its almost orgasmic tendency to wind itself to a climax. Unconsiously of course, because very few climate scientists – and very few of any scientists, get to study their own rites and rituals, gender, social conditioning and linguistic heritage and the manners in which these forces condition the making of an hypothesis in the first place, let alone the energy and funding to elevate it to a worthwhile question to answer.

Dear Al Gore urges everyone, like an old conjuror, to focus on carbon – and resonate like all carbon life-forms with complexity and recycling – like certain death (as well as his carbon taxes!). Be afraid because you have a limited lifespan and whatever you do don’t look at the Sun! Where the frequency is simpler, like hydrogen and plasma and closer to spirit and eternal life. Who so rooted in their essential inner nature – as a fractal of the long-time creative Sun, would be afraid of the climate?

Every scientist has this gender bias built in, and sadly most women scientists fail to break the conditioning.

And of course, it is not just a gender bias. There is the pride in all that expensive equipment. There is a sense of command and control in all this prediction. And there is what I once called the lure of the ‘Merlin’ position….the government’s chief advisor. In former centuries it was an alchemist or an astrologer. In Oxford, I reckoned the social anthropologists really desired it most, but from a suitable distance – like a Marx or a Durkheim casting spells of theorem upon the political psyche. But mostly my government appointed chemists, physicists and the like.

Then, on top of all that bias, there is the bias against consciousness itself. The dividers ruled that the material world and the world of consciousness were separate. If the old shamans and witches had still been around (the latter had been burnt and the former were hiding in the woods) they would have had a right laugh, though perhaps with some foreboding as to what would happen to the Earth. And some of them might have seen that this also was a deception – because behind the scenes, the old alchemists and astrologers, believed nothing of the kind.

All the great founders of western science – Galileo, Kepler, Newton and the founding fathers of the Royal Society, like Elias Ashmole, were practising astrologers giving advice to Kings and Dictators as well as themselves, and most particularly practising alchemists in the sense of pursuing an inner path to raised consciousness (Astrology being then an exalted science of consciousness and its relation to material reality). By then, of course, they had lost track of their divine feminine companions so essential for the real alchemical marriage in the Hermetic tradition (which goes back through Greece to Ancient Egypt) – but soldiered on in Masonic orders that were very happy to do without women as altogether unworthy of the path.

Thus divided, the scientific mind had no chance of understanding climate change. The most subtle and powerful energies of planetary change go way beyond atmospheric and even solar physics – into realms where almost nothing is actually perceivable – such as gravity or dark energy. Science has no way yet of connecting gravity with any other physical force – except by invoking about eleven other dimensions! And the sub-quantum world from which particles move in an out of existance, is by definition, highly creative but totally beyond measurment. How to explore these realms? Could at least one of them be a realm of pure consciousness? And causal? Of course NOT, say the camouflaged alchemists, then they shuffle off to their lodges and enter the realms of ritual magic. Ever wonder why Uranium gives birth to Neptunium and then Plutonium during radioactive decay?….its in the naming, an astrological series.

The old alchemists knew things directly – the process was called gnosis – knowledge through inner perception. The shaman has this- and nowadays is the only real source of public communication…. shamanic vision sees a pulsating shimmering web of the continuum, pregnant with power. And that sight has a fast-forward button that is probably as good as any predictive power drawn from measurement and prediction.

So – the ones who train in secret inner traditions – and there are many, populate institutions that teach that only the outer reality is a valid source of knowledge. Its a dodgy set-up.

But there is a convention…that perhaps Prof Ravetz may be challenging – I am not sure – that afflicts BOTH our houses – sceptic and warmista alike, and that is to keep consciousness out of it. That is la-la land. Woo woo stuff. Then we get to do the Punch and Judy show and have a laugh at each others’ expense. But we stay stuck in the Science paradigm. Neither side cares about the billions of people who are really vulnerable to climate change through natural cycles. The UN invests next to nothing on adaptation, whilst intelligent and creative people get locked up in arguments about prediction.


Peter Taylor’s book ‘Chill’ is available now.

  1. P.G. Sharrow says:

    When the earliest humans began to communicate and name things it was accepted that if you studied a thing well enough to correctly devine it’s name, you gained power from it and over it. Everything else is just added complexities. pg

  2. Tenuc says:

    An interesting read about humanities path to knowledge about the universe and the world we live in. Three things spring to mind regarding our development along this rocky road…

    Science in general has lost sight of the big picture of how things operate. It has invented evermore complicated and contorted abstract thinking in trying to explain how things work. However, I think the dynamic and complex but orderly systems we see operating are the result of a simple set of rules iterated over time which in turn produce order out of chaos. Size is also very important, with many natural systems displaying the fractal characteristic of self similarity at all scales.

    The role of the observer is paramount to science to separate fact from assumption. Much of the human mind works by having sets of templates and pattern matching which makes us prone to observing what we expect to see, rather than reality. The position of the observer is also important in discovery of truth.

    Knowledge is power. History proves that rulers will deliberately suppress knowledge by many means available, including misdirection and smokescreens. Governments and large corporations both hide the results of research which aids their cause. They make also make efforts to prevent some of these discoveries being remade at a later time.

  3. Zeke the Sneak says:

    “and eventually broadening that to how scientists in general perceived themselves. Their language gives then away.

    The scientific disciplines certainly do have their own lore which they repeat over and over. These are like myths which are transmitted faithfully, and are not questioned any more. They celebrate historic progress from the dark ignorance of the past into the light of present understandings and paradigms.

    Yet the old debates of the past were not always settled by true scientific merit in the winning argument. And current paradigms are full of “implicit assumptions that are often deeply habitual” (Sheldrake).

    The presence of myth in science is the only way to understand how astronomy went from the theory of epicycles, to the theory of galaxies possessing undetectible black holes in the center, surrounded by undetectable dark matter, pulled and accelerated by undetectable dark energy, which of course comprises most of the matter in the Universe. That is the progress into the light from the ignorance of the past that the astronomers tell themselves.

    And if you don’t agree with it, you are simply not educated, or scientifically illiterate. The exciting thing is that focused, independent, critical thinkers have almost everything ahead of them to discover. One of the keys of the future is to look for what the electricity is doing in any situation.

  4. Joshua says:

    Interesting read, but I’ve got a few problems with your argument.

    I think that your monolithic depiction of the state of science and the mindset of scientists is way too broad. For the most obvious example, you weave in and out of talking about climate scientists and a politician (Al Gore) as if either one was an example of the other.

    I think there is a kernel of truth that lies at in the current critique of science and scientists so ubiquitous in the world of folks motivated by their believe that AGW is not a credible theory; indeed, there are no doubt embedded biases and blind spots in how modern science tries to deconstruct the world. But, IMO, a lack of specificity in those critiques, ironically, serves to reveal biases in the critics.

  5. Peter Taylor says:

    Hi folks – it is really nice to talk on this level! I have been reflecting recently with my friends that we live in a world with two spheres and each has its own language. In my immediate world of friends there are no scientists (the nearest is a friend in Boulder, Colorado – I live in Somerset, England), a few policy makers – mostly in forestry and land management, and a handful of graphic designers; most of my daily contacts are with artists, healers, musicians and dancers and we relate through networks that encompass all manner of work on consciousness. In this circle, the language of astrology, tantra, homeopathy or shamanism is second nature.

    Then there is the other world.

    I still work as a professional ecologist – mostly now as a writer rather than consultant, and more toward creative endeavours such as rewilding compared to the old days of battling against the bad guys polluting the planet – and it was from there, after I thought I had retired early to my much friendlier world (in 2004) that I ventured back into the realm of politics and science with ‘Chill’ — In 2003 I had completed several years working with government agencies on integrating renewable energy into landscape, biodiversity and community. I realised it can’t be done. Not without consuming the countryside. I also realised many people don’t care if we eat the planet and destroy all beauty – they have been educated to think we can escape and colonise somewhere else! I began my review of climate science because I wanted to know just how much time we had, how much leeway to make awkward decisions and trade-offs. Up until then I had never questioned ‘global warming’ science and some of my colleagues from the old days on ocean issues had moved to help set up the Climate Convention.

    As many of you know….the global warming science is crocked. Or more accurately, the really good science of climate was marginalised and a few highly motivated people used deeply flawed analyses from people living in the twilight zone between academia and government, because it produced the scary climate story….you all know the rest.

    Since then I have visited a few labs (NCAR and NOAA in Boulder; Hadley here in the UK) and been welcomed with people giving me a lot of time when they realise I speak their language and am concerned about the truths of climate science. I have enormous respect for many of them. I have also met a politician – just one, but he was a former shadow Home Secretary, not currently in favour, and he invited me to Westminster after reading my book. Apart from the academics who know my work in conservation and ecology, that world ignores the book. An ecologist colleague (in a network I helped create) at Leeds University, set up a lecture there – it is a major hub of climate science in the UK, and we had a good ole ding-dong as I defended my thesis. And a professor of Human Ecology took me to task with a long debate on the internet (you can find it at wherein his argument was – ‘we should leave the science to the experts at the UN’ and instead sought to find out what kind of person I was to challenge their authority!

    This is all to say….I have met some really excellent scientists (I did my own training at Oxford and in the field of pollution control, still have good relations with some key professors) and at least one very sound politician. I have always worked to support parliamentary oversight and robust science analysis.

    But to return to my two-world’s argument. In that ‘otherworld’, were I to mention shamanic perception, astrological analysis, freemasonry or the return of the Goddess, I would be dead in the water! It is a world devoid of any appreciation of the deeper dimensions of reality. And yet, I know that behind the scenes, many in the upper echelons have a magical practice (in the old sense of the magus and the world of inner knowledge).

    What interests me now – is why? Why set up a methodology of ‘knowledge’ that has now pervaded the whole of medicine and education (and certainly ecology and anthropology) and yet is antithetical to your own belief in a world where consciousness and materiality are not separate? And then keep all the ‘magical’ practices secret?

    I am working on answering that question and would love to hear from anyone with some ideas!