Page 21 - thesecrethistoryoftheworld
P. 21


Point 3) Here of course you are assuming that Praxis is already in possession of 
such a knowledge. Perhaps this is the case or, perhaps, Praxis has only “fragments 

of unknown teachings”, and not the complete picture.

Being a scientist I am always careful and I would never state that I have the full and 

complete “knowledge” of something. I may know about tools, theories, formal 

structures, data etc. But one day, all my tools, data, theories and formal structures 
may prove to be wrong or useless with the uncovering of a single datum that shifts 

the entire structure. A true scientist MUST be open to this. What is important in 
science is being always open to surprises, to new paradigm shifts etc.

So, I think, you - Praxis - are teaching what you BELIEVE to be, at the present 

moment, “the true knowledge”, and you may have very good reasons for such a 
belief. You may have very important pieces of knowledge - as we think based on 

research - but, perhaps, you are still lacking some of other important pieces - which 
we also think, based on research.

How can we know in advance where the next unexpected discovery will lead us? 

And here I would like to make some constructive - or so I think - comments.

Looking at the history of “our civilization”, religion seems to have been in 
existence much longer than “science”. And yet we see that religion has failed. In 

spite of its teachings people are still constantly at war with each other. Human 

beings have not become better, and they are often much worse than animals. 
Gurdjieff described seeing the truth of our condition - the condition of our reality in 

general - as the “terror of the situation”. It is terrible because, when you really SEE 
it, you realize how great a failure religion or the “powers” of the various versions of 

God really are.

Science, which came later and has exploded in the last millennium, has failed too. It 

has brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction. Advances in mathematical, 

physical and computer sciences have brought about “applied game theory”, where 
“wars” are called “games”, and to “win the game” is to kill as many people as 

possible with as little cost as possible.

Is there any hope at all? And if there is, then where?

Perhaps it is time to try something new? Perhaps a “marriage of science and 
mysticism” has a chance?

Why not take what is good from science and what is good from religion, and 
discard what is wrong?

What is the best thing about religion?

Religion teaches us to be open minded and accepting of possibilities which are far 

from being “rational”. Religions teach us to pay attention to singular events, 

miracles, phenomena that are fragile and hardly repeatable. Finally religion teaches 
us to look inside as much as outside: know thyself.

The strengths of the approach of religion just happen to be the weak points in 

Science is often narrow-minded and conservative restricting everything to what is 
material and rigidly repeatable. Science teaches us that what is “out there” is not 

connected to what is “in here”, that it must be captured, weighed, measured and

   19   20   21   22   23