Page 20 - thesecrethistoryoftheworld
P. 20





xx
The Secret History of the World

a) there is a true form of knowledge that is normally associated with religion


b) those with intellectual training tend to regard it as not being knowledge at all

3) That you - Praxis - teach this other form of knowledge, and the conditions under 

which it can be understood.

4) The reason that Praxis (and other religions) depends on a suspension of judgment 

is “that newcomers studying this material, despite quickly getting confirmation of 

its reality, will not understand it deeply enough”.

I will try to address and expand the above points and, perhaps, try to add some new 

ideas, if only for the future discussion.

Point 1) I agree. I agree completely. In fact it takes a scientist to truly know the 

limitation and the weaknesses of science, as many of the tricks and games and even 
lies are known only to the insiders - scientists.


Point 2) I agree that there is such a knowledge; I agree that is important and, in fact, 
is crucial. And it is because of this fact that we stress on our Website and in our 

publications the importance of “knowledge”, not just “science” or facts. It depends 

on whether you start with a fact and follow the clues to real knowledge, or whether 
you start with an assumption, and interpret all facts based on what may, at the very 

beginning, be a lie.

a) Whether this “true knowledge” is, was, or should be “associated with religion” is 

disputable.

The term “associated” is somewhat vague and can lead to misunderstandings. 

Science is also associated with religion. The Pope has scientific advisers; the 
Vatican supports scientific research.


On the other hand the greatest crimes of history have also been - and probably are 

still - associated with religion, one way or another.

Religion, if analyzed sincerely and critically, has many dark spots, and analyzing 

the reasons for this is not an easy task.

But I hope you will agree with me that one of the reasons why religions have these 

dark spots is that people were lulled into believing that they have (in opposition to 
others) the “true knowledge”.


So the very concept of “true knowledge” is risky. It is easy to imagine that two 
different people will have different, orthogonal truths. For one, the truth may be 

that he needs to kill the other man, while for the other man, the truth may involve 

avoiding being killed. Every noetic truth has down-to-earth implications. Or so I 
think.


b) Though I agree that what you wrote may describe a general tendency, yet there 
are exceptions. History knows scientists - great scientists - that were “mystics” at 

the same time. Pascal, Newton, Poincare - just few examples. So, indeed, the term 
“tend to regard” that you used seems to be appropriate. But for this present point, it 

is important to know whether there is a real contradiction between being a scientist 

and appreciating other forms of knowledge at the same time. It seems to me and, I 
believe, you will agree, that there is no intrinsic contradiction.













   18   19   20   21   22