Archive for March, 2021

How We Discover and Why It Matters

March 5th, 2021

Our Searching Disposition

We are driven to explore. As individuals, and as a civilization, we possess an insatiable desire to search and discover.

We see it in Star Trek, which proclaims a mission “to explore… new worlds, to seek out new life… , to boldly go where no (one) has gone before.” In science, we see it in the quest for larger telescopes, more powerful particle accelerators, and more sophisticated satellites to observe planets. We see it in other fields. Philosophers want to answer unanswered questions; mathematicians want to prove unproven theorems; oceanographers want to observe unobserved depths.

And we see it in the more mundane. We see it in the curiosity of a young child watching a swarm of ants on the sidewalk. We see it our own attraction to a mystery novel or a television crime episode – we want to know who did it. We see it in the mountain climbers scaling new peaks, the chefs experimenting with new recipes, or just us, looking for a new place to visit, or new restaurant to try, or new book to read.

As individuals, and as a whole, we seek to know what is unknown, to comprehend what is not yet comprehended, to investigate that which remains a mystery, to understand the who, what, where, when and why of an event-very simply to grasp the here and the beyond here.

The Source of Our Curiosity

What drives this drive, what pushes humanity, you and I, individuals and groups, to strive for this comprehension?

Certainly the answer to that question forms a quest in itself, a question not completely answered. We can, however, conjecture that as humans evolved, a curiosity about the world endowed a competitive advantage. Those that explored, learned, and as they learned they invented, key inventions, like tools, and writing, and agriculture and on and on. Being curious meant being inventive, and being more inventive rendered those with curiosity more fit in the competition of evolution.

But even without the evolutionary advantages of curiosity, as humans developed larger brains, those larger brains and the correspondingly more complex intellect gave us for free, as a tag along, an inquisitiveness. Mankind with a larger brain could think more, and in more intricate and abstract ways. With this, and given the brains essentially unceasing activity, mankind naturally sought out things to think about.

Then humanity entered the modern age. Technological and cultural evolution augmented biological evolution, and our rate of progress increased. As progress propelled us, modern desires (and pressures) also grew, to increase efficiency, grow profits, gain promotions, win elections, earn raises, avoid being unemployed. These new, emerging drives and imperatives added to the prior curiosity born of biological evolution. While we still enjoyed that natural curiosity, we also became endowed, and burdened, by a social impetus to innovate, discover and improve. Sink or swim. No treading water.

The Reason to Study

Well enough then. The goal here centers only initially on a survey of why humanity explores. We have done that, partially, but enough to get the idea or at least stimulate ideas. Our main focus now turns to how we explore. What approaches do we use to seek out that which we don’t know, but need to know, or alternately, are innately driven to know?

Why take up this how question? Why be inquisitive about how we satisfy our inquisitiveness? Seems an esoteric question, right?

First and foremost, understanding how we discover can improve the effectiveness of our discovery and exploration. And, with a judgment here that the good of such discovery out weighs the bad, discovery and exploration improves and raises mankind, eases its burdens, assists in the attainment of good and promotes the creation of intrinsic value.

We speak here not just of economic or material gain, though that may come to mind first and is of course singularly important. Beyond that, though, discovery and exploration can and will improve the non-economic lot of individuals and humanity, by improving social cohesion, emotional well-being, intellectual satisfaction, and so on.

But a more subtle motivation exists. Practitioners and proponents of the different methods of discovery do not always see eye-to-eye. Practitioners of one or another method do not always value or even respect how other methods work or what they find. This does not always occur, but often enough.

That is regrettable. I would offer that the scope and span of knowledge and experience, the breadth of what can be discovered and explored, ranges so far and wide that mankind, we, collectively need more looking and rowing towards knowledge, and less looking sideways bemoaning (and at times castigating) fellow explorers. And when disagreements do arise, we need more reconciling and less arguing.

Four Methods of Discovery

What then constitute the methods of discovery? I will put them in four broad categories, as follows:

I will cover each in turn.


Science has achieved spectacular success. In just the last few centuries, science has amassed orders of magnitude more knowledge than that collected in all the preceding millenniums of civilization, and expanded our understanding of our actuality from small to large, from sub-particles of sub-particles to universes of universes.

Consider some specifics. Science has sequenced the human genome, uncovered the esoteric nature of quantum mechanics, and mapped light from earliest eons of the universe. Science as realized through technology has landed rovers on planets and a satellite on a comet, has populated the world with electronics, and regrettably, enabled weapons of enormous destructive power.

Scientific understandings underpin our modern civilization. Engines and power generation rest on thermodynamics. Modern medicine rests on biochemistry. Electricity and electronics rest on electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. The corrections in the clocks for GPS satellites depend on understandings from General Relativity. Our skyscrapers and bridges emerge from the principles in mechanics, dynamics and strength of materials. Flight depends on aerodynamics. Plastics and synthetics fibers became possible due to organic chemistry. And on and on.

The success of science, and the corollary (reasonable) reliability of technology, rest on the process by which science discovers. Science rests on measurement. While the great theoretical equations stand out, for example Einstein’s theories of relativity, or importantly but less well know Maxwell’s theories of electromagnetism, these theories and corresponding equations have succeeded due to their ability to explain and predict measurements.

That focus on measurement, or observation, or empirical data, motivates science to built ever finer and more sophisticated (and maybe unfortunately more expensive) means of measurement. We mentioned before the push for larger telescopes, faster particle accelerators and more capable satellites. Add to faster means of gene splicing, finer probes of the human brain, and quicker tests for diagnostics. And so on. Building better instruments for measurements has underpinned the essentially exponential growth of scientific discovery and knowledge.

But with its focus on measurement, science progresses only incrementally. As fast as these increments have come, science by its inherent approach builds one step at a time, observation-by-observation. We may view science through its breakthrough theories, but the theories we don’t readily recall, like the efforts to show light traveled through a medium called the “ether,” fall by the wayside as measurements, one-by-one, show such theories in conflict with the way things are.

Similarly, science progresses only within its scope, the measurable world. Size, composition, configuration, behavior-these type items constitute the measurement focus of science. That scope and focus spans an enormous range, a range expanding as science plus technology develop new means of measurement, but a range currently with limits.

The core process of science, objective data collection to support generalized theories, builds piece-by-piece. Science does not soar like a bird, but rather stays grounded, always moving forward, but (thankfully) well-grounded.


While science focuses on what can be reasonably measured, religion boldly (recklessly?) focuses on what can not readily be so measured. Religion takes revelations, prophecies, divine manuscripts, acts and teachings of sacred individuals, inspired testimony, spiritual experiences, and the like, to conceive what lies beyond our lives and beyond the space and time in which we dwell. Religions temper and augment these convictions with theological study, with philosophical logic, and within the historic, scientific and social context in which revelations and prophecies occurred, but by and large religion at its foundation rests on that from the divine.

Religion then, goes decidedly beyond that which can be objectively verified. Certainly the sacred individuals, the prophets, teachers, saviors, scribes. exist and existed with reasonable assurance. But whether their sayings, writings, actions and instructions stem from divine guidance, and whether these individuals were divine themselves, can not be objectively verified.

We can not, for example, go back and record Christ’s ascension into heaven, nor measure any magnetic or gravitational anomalies that may have been associated with that ascension. Nor can we interview the originators of the gospel accounts to help separate actual accounts from observer error from allegorical literary devices.

This does not level a criticism, but rather contrasts religion with other avenues of discovery.

Does religion then constitute a valid pursuit? Given what some consider the rather ephemeral basis at the core of religious discovery, can we advocate it as a method of exploration?

If history provides a guide, that history would say yes. For millenniums, people, communities, entire cultures and complete empires have professed religious beliefs and observed religious rituals. Ancient history shows Egyptian gods and goddesses, Greek and Roman mythology, ancient Hebrew prophets, and Indian Vedic texts and traditions. Christ, Mohammed and Brahman stand as iconic sacred figures (though Brahman might be considered more philosophical than theological). Even today, in the midst of ubiquitous secular and scientific influences, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and other religions remain far reaching.

But of course quantity does not prove quality. Thus, the number of adherents to, and historic prevalence of, religion does not demonstrate the validity of its tenets nor its legitimacy as its methods of discovery. So the question remains-does religion provide a valid approach to discovery?

We must distinguish here between the actions of the religious, or actions taken based on religious beliefs, from the approach to religious discovery. Throughout history, individuals, groups, countries and even organized religions themselves have undertake wars and executions, and perpetrated irrationalities and retributions, in the name of religion. The actions of the religious have descended at times to the level of despicable.

However, a method of discovery, in this case religion, does not lose validity due to the improper use of the tenets arising from the discovery. Scientific discoveries at times enabled the weapons of modern warfare. Modern production processes, based on scientific discoveries and principles, at times produced less than benevolent by-products, such as pollutants, occupational injuries, and worker exploitation. We do not stop science due to those effects.

But the question then still remains – can a religious approach stand as a valid mode of discovery?

I will answer an unequivocal yes. Certainly, no objection can be raised to a pondering of what lies beyond our corporeal world, or after our contingent lives. Even children ask questions about those topics. And as we mature, we, just about everyone wonders, at least once, if any world or existence lies beyond death or outside our universe. For many, the meaning of life, or in opposition, its futility, lies in the nature of the “out there” beyond our science and experience. Thus, to desire, or more strongly, to need to know and explore for the beyond stands as natural, reasonable, valid, dare say necessary.

And just as certainly, given current and near future technology, we can not measure or record much if anything about our continuation, or lack of, after death, nor can we measure much about the divine, or retched, realm beyond, for example below the Plank length, or in dimensions beyond our space-time, or in a spiritual-only sphere. Thus science, based as it is on measurement, can not currently or in the foreseeable future satisfy, certainly not comprehensively and likely not even partially, our naturally occurring wonderment about what lies beyond.

And finally, we do possess significant numbers of historic individuals who claim divine inspiration or nature, as well as large numbers of historic writings, texts, images and events connected with those individuals and/or dealing with the divine or god realm. And currently we do observe significant numbers of individuals who conscientiously indicate they experience, as subjective as such indications may be, the presence and existence of a God.

Thus we can 1) legitimately wonder and ponder about what exists beyond, 2) can not readily bring scientific measurement processes to bear (not yet), and 3) do have a rich body of attestations, subjective though they may be, about the divine.

What do we have then. We have a possible, and possibly important, realm out there beyond. Our “flashlight,” science can not see it. But we do have a large body of non-scientific indications. How can study and investigation of that large body of indications not be a reasonable effort?

The alternative means doing nothing. Some may argue that doing nothing represents the most logical approach, and saves us from useless speculation. I would respond that religion has endured with sufficient longevity, that the divine offers a realm of possibly great breath and scope, and that the question of what is beyond looms as too pressing, to do nothing. A given individual, or group, or organization, can legitimately conclude they should do nothing, but, on balance, they can not legitimately fault other individuals, or groups, or organizations, for pursuing religion, and a religious approach, to discovery of the beyond.

Some may further argue that at times, possibly frequently, religious discovery defies logic, spawns unchangeable dogma, and when touching upon the impact, past, present and future, of the divine realm on our actual realm, contradicts science.

I would offer this. Religious discovery, by its essence, does not possess a direct method of validating its tenets. We can not send a satellite to or run a chemical analysis of the divine. Other approaches, including theological study, interpretation of scriptures, historic analysis of religious events, and so on, must come into play. One of those other approaches rests on ritual and belief – in other words a leap of belief to accept (unproven) tenets and then ritual (ceremony, contemplation, song, prayer, abstinence) to seek revelations, divine, based to those beliefs.

Given that scientific and philosophical methods of validation do not readily apply to religious discovery, these other methods, I offer, must be declared reasonable. But validation by these other methods take time, a very long time. A detective makes a “leap of faith” or more precisely an intuitive hunch, about the perpetrator of a crime. This hunch proves true or not in a few weeks, months or maybe years. Scientists make a “leap of faith” or more precisely, a reasonable hypothesis, about new phenomena. This hypothesis proves true or not in a few years, or decades, or maybe centuries. Given the nature of the possible divine, and our limited human methods of validation of the divine, religious “leaps of faith” or more precisely beliefs, tenets and dogma, may require millenniums for confirmation. But faith does evolves, beliefs do advance, and, in the ultimate, religions that drift from alignment with ongoing contemplation and events, such religions fade away.

And where religion and the secular fall into disagreement, each side upon reflection should respect the other, and work together towards truth. And where concrete arguments arise (school science teaching, the definition of life) all should work conscientiously for resolution, and were evil invades (war, extremism) work to remove those elements. More light of reconciliation, less heat of disagreement.


Science has uncovered physical laws and enabled modern civilization. Religion, I have argued, provides a possible avenue to the above and beyond. Science thus receives acclaim due to its efficacy in explaining the direct world around us and in improving our living. Religion receives attention by addressing our natural and enduring questions about life after death, about the meaning or futility of our lives, and about the nature and role of the divine.

In contrast, philosophy might bring us to a yawn. Almost no one (well maybe a few) would spend a Sunday afternoon or Friday night reading Kant or Plato, or contemplating Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. And even when no sports or night life is available, many more people participate in religious ceremonies than partake of Kant, or Plato, or Gödel.

But consider justice. No doubt we agree justice matters. Almost without doubt we agree that determining what is just requires deep thought and serious deliberation. And most all would agree that justice, while possibly definable by science in terms of evolutionary pressures, presses upon us much too solemnly to leave its definition to the neurobiologists and evolutionary anthropologists, though they certainly can help.

And while religion and theology aid in defining justice, mankind possesses much too strong and active an intellect to not test the commands of religion against the reckonings of its own intelligence. And even with an acceptance of divine commands without question, such commands require interpretation, maybe extensive interpretation.

That then points to philosophy. Philosophy, in its possibly dreary and abstruse manner, focuses on questions such as justice and similar, questions in many cases at the foundation of our society and our lives. We just mentioned one such question – what is justice. Other questions include: What should we value? Do we have moral duties? What produces the good life? How do we reason properly? Can we have free will? What is existence? What is the role of government?

Reflex a moment. Almost everyone holds some core beliefs. For example, we likely judge that if we treat others fairly, they should treat us fairly, and similarly that if we receive fair treatment from a person, fair treatment is due to them.

But what is fairness? On the subway, who should offer their seat to whom? At work, what constitutes a fair wage? For taxes, what constitute a fair assessment? In education, what is a fair tuition for public college? When the charity solicitation comes in the mail or email, what is the fair step to take? Throw it out/delete it? Or give one’s entire savings to the concern? Probably neither, but what action then?

We face issues of fairness every day, and as we contemplate those issues, we engage in philosophy. As we evaluate candidates for office, we engage in philosophy (what comprises proper government?) As we reflect on the cost of medical insurance, we upon reflection think deeply and thus philosophically (what represents the best social arrangement for the good, in this case for good health?) As we bemoan the profits of big corporations, we engage in philosophy (what comprises an efficient and equitable market system?)

We might concede then that, at times, we face philosophical questions. But the average individual rarely runs off and pulls out the works of a philosopher to find answer. Has formal philosophy influenced actual events? Has this “method” of discovery impacted the world in a tangible way?


Plato’s concept of universal forms influenced third century Augustine, who formalized many Christian doctrines, and those doctrines and Augustinian theology still underpin Christian thought. G.W.F. Hegel influenced Karl Marx, whose writings planted the seed of Communism, and Communism for good or bad rippled violently through the world.

Modern Science itself emerged from an intellectual cascade started, in part, by the philosophical writings of the Novatores in 16th century late Renaissance, writings which moved beyond an Aristotelian view of metaphysics. Writings of such as Bernardino Telesio, as obscure a name as that might be, fermented thought that lead Bacon, Descartes and Galileo to move science to an empirical, mathematical, observational basis.

The U.S. Constitution, of all things, provides an ultimate example of philosophy’s reach. We would agree, in terms of impact, that the document did not end up lost in the dark stacks of a dusty library, and that its content did not result from lofty, winsome discourse. No, the Constitution formed our government, installed the civic, legal and political processes at the foundation of our nation, and provided the framework for the freedom, democracy and growth that underpinned the success of the United States and the scope of its impact in the world. So no doubt the U.S. Constitution impacted our country, its people and the world.

But was it philosophy? Did and does the Constitution explore and stake out answers to philosophical questions? Absolutely. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments define the social contract between a people and its government; establish the distribution and limitations of government power; state the rights of individuals and groups; and delineate the nature of fair justice and judgment. In doing so, the documents apply, borrow and adapt the ideas of the philosophers John Locke, Thomas Hobbs, Charles de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills and others.

The Supreme Court of the United States provides a corollary example of philosophy’s reach. Inevitably, questions of interpretation arise on the Constitution, its Amendments and the myriad of laws created through the government established by the Constitution. And while the Supreme Court certainly follows legal precedent and theory, and can turn to science for guidance, philosophy bears centrally on the questions before the Court. When does life begin? When and whether does a corporation possesses privileges as if it were an individual? What balance must be struck between the good of the whole (in terms of a compelling state interest) and the right of the individual?

The formal discipline of philosophy may be dry, and its formal writings inscrutable, but the importance of the questions philosophy addresses and the precision philosophy can force upon us as we explore answers, is undeniable.


Is art really a method of discovery? Even when defined broadly across multiple mode of expression – music, dance, song, theatre, motion picture, photography, painting, sculpture, ballet, opera – does not art sit at or near the bottom of educational priorities, and near the top of the list for budget cuts? If education itself doesn’t see art as a main concern, how can we consider art a method of learning and discovery? Even literature has slide lower in priority as economic pressures and international competition push math, science, engineering and technology to the forefront.

But art does fit as a method of discovery. Art fits because in its essence art summons and invokes the totality of means by which human’s perceive. Art presents a holistic array of sensory, mental, and perceptual inputs. Art feeds us visual, aural, tactile, kinesthetic, symbolic and, if we include culinary arts, olfactory and taste sensations, in an integrated visceral, intellectual and emotional experience.

Take a live music act. The act envelopes us with rhythm, sound, harmony, lyrics, lighting, choreography and costume, driven by the enthusiasm and precision of the musicians, singers and dancers. Take a painting. The painting may startle us with a clashing collection of images, angles and colors; or evoke a calmness through a serene depiction of still life; or impress us with the grandeur of its size and the epic poses of its legendary historic heroes.

So in their essences, art mimics life and life mimics art.

Now certainly religion also touches our emotional side, and can heighten our awareness and heal our psyche. But religion, by and large, goes there by a certain path, a path of spirituality. This no way denigrates religion, but rather simply distinguishes what we generally mean by, and how we generally practice, religion.

Certainly also science can focus on human awareness. But to understand how the eye reacts to light, or how neurotransmitters flow under different emotional contexts, does not equal the experience of a golden sunset, or of the sight of a dear friend. And certainly scientific discovery often uncovers a deep symmetry and beauty in nature. But that beauty represents a corollary. Science aims to explain actuality, regardless of whether that explanation possesses beauty, or evokes reactions within us.

In contrast, art aims squarely to reflect the manner of human experience. As we experience, our minds integrate the profusion of incoming sensations into interwoven tapestries, and our memory stores those tapestries in interconnected webs. Art, by its design and essence, similarly presents us with a profusion of sensations, and our mind similarly weaves that profusion into a tapestry, then adds that tapestry to our memory and augments, rearranges, and adds connections to our existing mental web.

Now not all art reaches such noble heights to provide a gateway to new experience and appreciation. Some art simply provides entertainment; some serves just to soothe or enliven; some appears esoteric and beyond comprehension; some in cases rates no more than trash.

But a good TV documentary not only informs us of ancient cultures, but allows us to feel what daily living was like, bring us to awe at how far humanity has progressed but at the same time make us wonder what pr

Renaissance Science, Registered 21st Century Rebirth Document

March 5th, 2021

This essay is the birth certificate of the 21st Century Renaissance. It shows how the life-science of the Classical Greek era’s Humanities has been upgraded in order to bring balance into Western technological culture. Many philosophers have warned that the fate of human civilisation depends upon achieving that goal.

The ancient Greek Parthenon represented a Greek life-science culture, symbolising concepts of political government long lost to modern Western science. The Ottoman military once stored gunpowder in the Parthenon and in1687 a Venetian mortar round blew the building into ruin. Recent restoration techniques using computers revealed that strange illusionary optical engineering principles had been used in the building’s construction. We know that they were associated with the mathematics of the Music of the Spheres that Pythagoras had brought back from the Egyptian Mystery Schools. We also know that Plato considered that any engineer who did not understand about spiritual optical engineering principles was a barbarian.

Harvard University’s Novartis Chair Professor, Amy Edmondson, in her online biography of Buckminster Fuller, The Fuller Explanation, wrote about how Fuller had plagiarised Plato’s spiritual engineering discoveries and used them to derive his life-science synergistic theories. Those theories, which completely challenged the basis of the 20th Century Einsteinian world-view are now the basis of a new medical science instigated by the three 1996 Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. During the 21st Century the complex Fullerene geometrical reasoning has brought about the rebirth of the lost ancient Greek optical science of life. This is now rewriting Western technological culture, so there is a need to know why Buckminster Fuller wrote that this reunification provides a choice between Utopia or Oblivion.

After presenting complex geometrical reasoning, Professor Edmondson wrote, “By now familiar with Fuller’s underlying assumptions, we shall take time out to introduce some background material. The origins of humanity’s fascination with geometry can be traced back four thousand years, to the Babylonian and Egyptian civilisations; two millennia later, geometry flourished in ancient Greece, and its development continues today. Yet most of us know almost nothing about the accumulated findings of this long search. Familiarity with some of these geometric shapes and transformations will ease the rest of the journey into the intricacies of synergetics.”

Human survival now depends upon a more general understanding that ethics is not about how science is used but about what is the ethical form of the spiritual, or holographic structure of science itself. There is no need for the reader to become conversant with the complex geometrical equations suggested by Professor Amy Edmondson, in order to follow the journey of ethical logic from ancient Egypt to the 21st Century Renaissance. However, before undertaking that journey we need to realise the nightmare scenario that the unbalanced 20th Century understanding of science has forced global humanity to endure and which Buckminster Fuller warned about.

In 1903, Lord Bertrand Russell’s book A Freeman’s Worship was published, containing his vision of A Universe in Thermodynamic Ruin. This nightmare mathematical assessment of reality stated that all the most ennobling thoughts of humankind amounted to nothing at all and all life in the universe must be destroyed. Lord Russell wrote that humans must endure, with total despair, the hopelessness of living within a reality that was totally governed by a lifeless energy law that Einstein was to call The Premier law of all science.

The name of the law governing 20th Century technological culture is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is also known as the Universal heat death law or, the Law of Universal chaos.

That law demands the total extinction of all life in the universe when all heat is dissipated into cold space. As a result of that law, all life sciences, including global economic rationalism, can only be about species moving toward this imaginary heat death extinction.

Buckminster Fuller’s life-science energy does not obey the heat death law. It is based instead upon fractal logic, which exists forever. Einstein’s governing death-science law is the correct basis of modern chemistry, but that chemistry is balanced by Plato’s spiritual engineering principles, or the functioning of Fullerene holographic ‘chemistry’. While mainstream science does indeed accept that fractal logic extends to infinity, no life science within the Western technological culture can possibly be part of its workings. That mindset can be a serious distraction to biologists who seek to associate rain cloud fractal logic with the effects of climate change upon human evolution.

In 1996 within an Open Letter to the Secretariat of the United Nations on behalf of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, Australian National Library Canberra Australian Citation RECORD 2645463, a complaint was made that the Australian Government was unintentionally committing a major crime against humanity for endorsing a totally entropic educational system governed by the second law of thermodynamics. At the United Nations University in Washington the complaint was handed to the United Nations University Millennium, Project-Australasian Node, for investigation. Seven years of peer reviewed research ensued, concluding that the complaint was justified. In 2006 a formal Decree of Recognition was issued by the Australasian Division of the United Nations University Millennium Project, attesting to the urgent global importance of this issue.

Having contrasted the 21st Century rebirth of Classical Greek fractal logic life-science – the New Renaissance, with the 20th Century nightmare, we can follow Professor Amy Edmondson’s advice to begin our journey of ethical understanding from ancient Egypt. (George Sarton’s, A History of Science argues that ancient Kemetic theories of Egypt were scientific and established the foundations of later Hellenistic science).

The ability of the ancient Egyptian Old Kingdom to reason that two geometries existed to balance the workings of the universe was praised by the Greek philosopher Plato, whose fundamental idea was that “All is Geometry”. Old Kingdom wall paintings depicted that evil thoughts prevented evolutionary access to a spiritual reality. The geometry used to survey farm boundaries lost each year when the River Nile flooded was quite different from the sacred geometries basic to Egyptian religious ceremonies.

The BBC television program about the collapse of the Egyptian Old Kingdom by Professor Fekri Hassan of the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, explained that some 4000 years ago, a prolonged drought collapsed the First Kingdom, soon after the death of King Pepy II. Professor Hassan explains that 100 years after the collapse, hieroglyphs record that Egyptian government was restored when the people insisted that the ethics of social justice, mercy and compassion were fused into the fabric of political law. It is rather important to realise that at that point of time in history, ethics associated with fractal geometrical logic had been fused into a political structure.

During the 6th Century BCE the Greek scholar Thales went to Egypt to study the ethics of life-science at the Egyptian Mystery schools and he advised Pythagoras to do the same. Pythagoras learned that evolutionary wisdom was generated by the movement of celestial bodies, which the Greeks called The music of the Spheres. It was thought that this harmonic music could transfer its wisdom to the atomic movement of the soul through the forces of harmonic resonance, such as when a high note shatters a wine glass.

The Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy was to fuse ethics into a model of reality called the Nous, postulated by the scientific thinker Anaxagoras. The Nous was a whirling force that acted upon primordial particles in space to form the worlds and to evolve intelligence. The ancient Greeks decided to invent science by fusing further ethics into the fractal logic structure of the Nous. The harmonic movement of the moon could be thought to influence the female fertility cycle and this science could explain a mother’s love and compassion for children. The Classical Greek science was about how humans might establish an ethical life-science to guide ennobling political government. The idea was, that by existing for the health of the universe, human civilisation would avoid extinction.

The Classical Greek life-science was constructed upon the concept of good and evil. Good was For the Health of the Universe. A very precise definition of evil is found in Plato’s book, The Timaeus. Evil was classified as a destructive property of unformed matter within the physical atom.

The ancient Greek atom was considered to be physically indivisible and it can be considered that the anti-life properties of nuclear radiation had been classified as evil. Modern chemistry is constructed upon the logic of universal atomic decay, which is governed by the second law of thermodynamics. The Egyptian concept of evil thought processes leading to oblivion echoes Plato’s and Buckminster Fuller’s concepts of an oblivion brought about through an obsession with an unbalanced geometrical world-view.

The Max Plank Astrophysicist, Professor Peter Kafka, in his six essays entitled The Principle of Creation and the Global Acceleration Crisis, written over a period from 1976 to 1994, predicted the current global financial collapse being brought about by “scientists, technologists and politicians” who had an unbalanced understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Kafka wrote in chapter four, entitled Ethics from Physics, that the second law of thermodynamics had been known for centuries. Kafka realised that it had various other names throughout history such as Diabolos, the Destroyer of Worlds, the evil god of Plato’s Physics of Chaos, now the god of modern Chaos Physics.

The science to explain a mother’s love for children involving both celestial and atomic movement became associated with the Science of Universal Love taught in Greece during the 3rd Century BCE.

Julius Caesar’s colleague, the Historian Cicero, recorded during the 1st Century BCE, that this science was being taught throughout Italy and across to Turkey by teachers called ‘saviours’. He considered that such teaching challenged Roman political stability. During the 5th Century some 1000 years of fractal logic scrolls held in the Great Library of Alexandria were burned. The custodian of the library, the mathematician Hypatia, was brutally murdered by a Christain mob during the rule of Pope Cyril. Hypatia’s fractal logic life-science was condemned by St Augustine as the work of the Devil. In his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon marked Hypatia’s murder as the beginning of the Dark Ages.

Encyclopaedia Britannica lists St Augustine as the mind which mostly completely fused the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy with the religion of the New Testament, influencing both Protestant and Catholic religious belief in modern times. His translation of Plato’s atomic evil as female sexuality, influenced the 13th Century Angel Physics of St Thomas Aquinas, known as History’s Doctor of Science. During the mid 14th Century until the mid 17th Century, Angel Physics was used to legalise the imprisonment, ritualistic torture and burning alive of countless women and children. The argument that Augustine’s banishment of fractal life-science logic in the 5th Century was responsible for Western life-science becoming obsessed with the second law of thermodynamics can be validated.

The Reverend Thomas Malthus derived his famous Principles of Population essay from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas and used it to establish the economic and political policies of the East India Company. Charles Darwin, employed by that company, cited Malthus’ essay as the basis of his survival of the fittest life-science. Darwin, in the 18th Century, held the essay as synonymous with the second law of thermodynamics.

Plato’s Academy had been closed for being a pagan institution in 529 by the Christian Emperor Justinian, Banished Greek scholars fled to Islamic Spain where their theories were tolerated. The Golden Age of Islamic science, from which Western science emerged, included the Translation School in Toledo. Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars worked together to translate the lost Greek ideas into Latin. The Franciscan monk, Roger Bacon, during the 13th Century studied work from Jewish scholars familiar with the research undertaken at the Toledo school. Pope Clement IV encouraged Bacon to write his pagan ideas in secret, but after the death of Clement IV, Roger Bacon was imprisoned by the Franciscans.

Roger Bacon developed ideas about flying machines, horseless carriages,submarines and self propelling ships from the same Islamic source that later inspired Leonardo da Vinci. Roger Bacon studied the optics of Plato and the upgrading of Plato’s optics by Islamic scholars. Unlike Leonardo, Roger Bacon agreed with Al Haytham, History’s Father of Optics, that the eye could not be the source of all knowledge, an erroneous idea of reality that Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon, the Renaissance author and father of inductive reasoning, used to usher in the age of industrial entropic materialism. Thomas Jefferson, inspired by Francis Bacon’s vision of a great Empire for All Men based upon all knowledge from the eye, depicted the concept onto the Great Seal Of America.

Cosimo Medici, with the help of Sultan Memhed II, re-established Plato’s Academy in Florence during the 15th Century. Cosimo appointed Marcilio Ficino as its manager. Ficino wrote about the Platonic love associated with the Music of the Spheres influencing the atoms of the soul. He carefully avoided serious charges of heresy by placing eminent Christian figures into his writings and paintings associated with the new Platonic Academy. Two famous paintings commissioned by the Medici that survived the Great Burning, instigated by the Christian Monk Savarola, illustrated Ficino’s cunning.

In 1480 Botticelli was commissioned to paint a portrait of St Augustine in His Study, in which a book is depicted opened at a page displaying Pythagorean mathematics. Alongside the written formulae is an instrument for observing celestial movement. Augustine is gazing directly at an armillary sphere, an instrument used to calculate data relevant to Pythagoras’ Music of the Spheres. The Saint’s halo, accepted at that time as representing the consciousness of the soul, upon close examination, has a spherical book-stud within its orbit, depicting Ficino’s atom of the soul responding to the Music of the Spheres.

At the same time that Botticelli was commissioned to paint Augustine’s portrait, Ghirlandhiao was commissioned to paint a portrait of Augustine’s close colleague, St Jerome in His Study. Again, with careful examination, Jerome’s halo can be seen to have a spherical bookstud placed into its orbit, demonstrating that Botticelli’s depiction of the atom of the soul associated with the Music of the Spheres was not coincidental. Both Botticell and Ghirlandaio were mentors to Leonardo da Vinci.

By realising that Roger Bacon’s knowledge of Platonic optics was generally superior to Leonardo’s, the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, in collaboration with a cancer research team at the University of Sydney, during 1986, was able to successfully modify the optical key to Leonardo’s da Vinci’s Theory of Knowledge. This discovery also corrected the optics understanding of Descates, Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Russell, Emmanuel Kant, Albert Einstein and other scientists who considered Al Haitham’s optics as being industrially impractical.

The Science-Art Research Centre’s correction to the crucial optics key was published in a Science-Art book launched in Los Angeles in 1989 under the auspices of the Hollywood Thalian Mental Health Organisation. In 1991 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Peirre de Genes for his theories about liquid crystal optics. In the following year the vast new science and technology, predicted by the Science-Art Centre’s correction of da Vinci’s work, was discovered The principal discoverer, Professor Barry Ninham of the Australian National University, later to become the Italy’s National Chair of Chemistry, wrote that the Centre’s work encompassed a revolution of thought, as important to science and society as the Copernican and Newtonian revolutions.

Leonardo da Vinci was certainly a great genius, but he was not really the Man of the Renaissance at all, because he was unable to comprehend the life-energy basis of Plato’s spiritual optical engineering principles. He had attempted to develop the relevant optics for several years then reverted back to what Plato had referred to as the engineering practices of a barbarian. On the other hand, Sir Isaac Newton, was a genuine Man of the Renaissance, as his unpublished papers, discovered last century revealed. His certain conviction that “a more profound natural philosophy existed to balance the mechanical description of the universe,” was based upon the same physics principles that upheld the lost Classical Greek Era’s science of life and they are now at the cutting edge of fractal logic quantum biology.

The 20th Century began with the aforesaid Lord Bertrand Russell’s horrific acquiescence to enslavement by the second law of thermodynamics in 1903, followed in 1905 by Einstein’s unbalanced E=Mc2. TIME Magazine’s Century of Science lists Maria Montessori as the greatest scientist of 1907. Her association with President Woodrow Wilson, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Jefferson and Teildard de Chardin demonstrated how the entropy law embraces Plato’s definition of evil. Montessorri called the second law of thermodynamics the energy greed law. Montessori and de Chardin’s electromagnetic life-science key to open their Golden Gates of the future were derived from concepts based upon the spiritualisation of matter and humanity evolving with the cosmos. That was in direct contrast to the electromagnetic understanding of Alexander Graham Bell.

President Wilson was genuinely troubled by the loss of life during World War I. He and Alexander Bell chose Darwin’s entropic life-science as the electromagnetic key to the future of America rather that Montessori’s. After World War II, High Command Nazi prisoners at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal protested that Adolph Hitler had based the policies of the Third Reich upon the the Darwinian Eugenics of which Present Wilson and Alexander Bell had been involved with.

The scientist, Matti Pitkanen, can be considered to have upgraded de Chardin’s ethical electromagnetic key to open Montessori’s Golden Gates to the future. De Chardin insisted that the gates would only open for all people at the same time and not for any chosen race nor privileged few. Pitkanen noted that the earth’s regular deflection of potentially lethal radiation from the sun fulfilled the criteria of an act of consciousness, protecting all life on earth at the same time.

The 1937 Nobel Prize Winner for Medicine, Szent-Gyoergyi, wrote a book about scientists who did not recognise that their understanding of the second law of thermodynamics was balanced by the evolution of consciousness. The title of the book was The Crazy Apes. In his 1959 Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge in 1959, the Molecular Biologist, Sir C P Snow, argued that the inadequate understanding about the nature and functioning of the second law of thermodynamics by his fellow scientists was scientifically irresponsible. He referred to their thinking as belonging to their neolithic cave dwelling ancestors. The title of Snow’s lecture was The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. This book was listed by The Times Literary Supplement as one of 100 books most influencing Western public thinking since World War II and has been systematically denounced ever since.

During the past 15 years, science has developed so rapidly that it has given the Humanities no time to grasp the significance of the social ramifications of the rebirth of Fuller’s Platonic spiritual, or holographic, engineering principles from ancient Greece. Organised religious opposition to criticism of the understanding of the second law of thermodynamics from Christian schools, Colleges and Universities has been extremely thorough throughout the world. For example Professor F M Cornford, educated at St Paul’s School and Trinity College, Cambridge, was made a Fellow in 1899, becoming the Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy in 1932, and was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1937. His grasp of the ancient Greek fractal science of life can be shown to be completely illogical, yet it is the foundation for well organised international academic study courses at the present time.

Since 1932 Cambridge University has produced ten editions of Cornford’s book Before and after Socrates. Cornford states in this book that Plato can be considered as one of the greatest fathers of the Christian religion. Encyclopaedia Britannica advises that St Augustine was the mind which mostly completely fused the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy with the religion of the New Testament. Such pious academic reasoning flies in the face of Plato’s spiritual engineering principles being observed functioning within the DNA as a function of a fractal life-science evolutionary function, and is therefore ludicrous.Plato defined that reasoning as being ignorant and barbaric and the language of engineers not fit to be considered philosophers. The Harvard Smithsonian/NASA High Energy Astrophysics Division Library has published papers by the Science Advisor to the Belgrade Institute of Physics, Professor Petar Grujic, arguing that the Classical Greek life-science was based upon fractal logic, a totally incomprehensible concept within the much lauded ancient Greek study courses currently set for post graduate studies.

Having arrived at the destination of Professor Amy Edmondson’s journey from ancient Egypt to modern times, in order to be educated about the importance of Buckminster Fuller’s geometrical understanding, we are able to grasp the stark reality of the title of his book Utopia or Oblivion. The objective of this essay, to construct the foundations of the Social Cradle to nurture the Florentine New Measurement of Humanity Renaissance, was derived from that book. The following explains the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia’s long and arduous struggle to help contribute towards the vital human survival research now being carried out under the auspices of the New Florentine Renaissance.

In 1979 the Science Unit of Australian National Television documented the work of the Science-Art Research Centre into its eight part series The Scientists-Profiles of Discovery. During that year, at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, China’s most highly awarded physicist, Kun Huang, proposed a research plan that was put into operation by the Centre. Professor Huang was angry that Einstein and the framers of the 20th Century world-view were unable to discuss the Classical Greek life sciences in infinite biological energy terms. He proposed that by observing the evolutionary patterning changes to species designed upon ancient Greek Golden Mean geometry, it should be possible to deduce the nature of the life-force governing their evolution through space-time.

Huang suggested that the world’s seashell fossil record would provide the necessary patterning-change information. The research was assisted by the communities of the six towns comprising the Riverland Region of South Australia. During the 1980s the Centre’s several seashell life-energy papers, written by the Centre’s mathematician, Chris Illert, were published by Italy’s leading scientific journal, il Nuovo Cimento. In 1990 two of the papers were selected as important discoveries of the 20th Century and were reprinted by the world’s leading technological research institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers in Washington.

By deriving an Art-master optics formula from the Italian Renaissance, which can be considered to be associated with fractal logic, a simulation of a living seashell creature was generated. By lowering the musical harmonics a simulation of the creature’s fossil ancestor was obtained. By lowering the musical order by a different amount, the simulation of a strange, grotesque creature was generated. The Smithsonian Institute identified the fossil as being the famous Nipponites Mirabilis that drifted along the coast of Japan 20 million years ago. It was designed to drift along upright in water in order to ensnare its prey. Chris Illert became the first scientist to link its evolution to a living seashell.

In 1995 the discovery won an internationally peer reviewed Biology Prize from the Institute for Basic Research in America. China’s most eminent physicist, Kun Huang, was greatly honoured. The work was acclaimed for the discovery of new physics laws governing optimum biological growth and development through space-time. The Research Institute’s President, Professor Ruggero Santilli, in collaboration with the Centre’s mathematician, made a most important observation. He observed that the accepted scientific world-view could not be used to generate such futuristic simulations. Instead it generated cancer-like biological distortions through space-time.

The Centre’s Bio-Aesthetics Researcher, the late Dr George Robert Cockburn, Royal Fellow of Medicine (London), who had worked with the centre’s mathematician, became concerned by the scientific community’s refusal to challenge its obsolete understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. He published several books about creative consciousness based upon the ancient Greek fractal logic life-science. His correction to Emmanuel Kant’s Aesthetics was later found to be validated by the 19th Century’s mathematician Bernard Bolzano’s Theory of Science. Bolzano’s own correction to Emmanuel Kant’s ethics had been assessed by Edmund Husserl in his Logical Investigations- vol. I – Prolegomena to a pure logic 61 (Appendix) (1900), as being the work of one of the greatest logicians of all time.

We know that Bolzano corrected the ethical logic of Immanuel Kant by using aspects of fractal logic, as the famous Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem of 1817 is now synonymous with the pioneering of modern fractal logic. The Aesthetics associated with Emmanuel Kant belonging to the destructive entropic world-view are hailed as being of global importance during the 21st Century, when, in fact, they are known to be obsolete. J Alberto Coffa’s book The semantic tradition from Kant to Carnap: to the Vienna station, edited by Linda Wessels – Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1991 contains the statement “Kant had not even seen these problems; Bolzano solved them. And his solutions were made possible by, and were the source of, a new approach to the content and character of a priori knowledge.” The famous Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem was based upon fractal logic concepts.

In the book The Beauty of Fractals- Images of Complex Dynamical Systems is a chapter entitled Freedom, Science and Aesthetics by Professor Gert Eilenberger, who also corrected an aspect of Kantian Aesthetics in order to upgrade quantum mechanics into quantum biology. Professor Eilenberger wrote about the excitement surrounding pictures of fractal computer art, as demonstrating that “out of research an inner connection, a bridge, can be made between rational scientific insight and emotional aesthetic appeal; these two modes of cognition of the human species are now beginning to concur in their estimation of what constitutes nature”.

The Science-Art Centre had discovered that by using special 3-D optical glasses, holographic images emerge from within fractal computer generated artwork. The excitement within the art-work itself extends to the realisation that, over the centuries, certain paintings reveal the same phenomenon, created unconsciously by the artist, indicating the existence of an aspect of evolving creative consciousness associated with Plato’s spiritual optical engineering principles now linked to the new Fullerene life-science chemistry.

The electromagnetic evolutionary information properties generated into existence by the liquid crystal optical functioning of the fertilised ovum are transmitted to the first bone created within the human embryo. From the Humanoid fossil record, each time that bone changes its Golden Mean patterning design, a new humanoid species emerges. It is currently altering its shape under the influence of the same physics forces responsible for seashell evolution, as was discovered by the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia during the 1980s. The sphenoid bone is in vibrational contact with the seashell design of the human cochlea.The design of Nipponites Mirabilis was to keep its owner upright in water, the cochlea design is to enable humans to balance so as to keep them upright on land.

The cerebral electromagnetic functioning of creative human consciousness as a Grand Music of the Spheres Composition has been adequately charted by Texas University’s Dr Richard Merrick in his book Interference. The Fullerene life-science of the three 1996 Nobel Laureates in Chemistry has found expression within the medical company, C Sixty Inc. The Science-Art Research Centre in Australia considers that Buckminster Fuller’s crucial Social Cradle within the Arts, under the auspices of the Florentine New Renassaince Project might be able to bring to the public an understanding for the global betterment of the human condition.

China’s most eminent physicist, Hun Huang’s research program can now be upgraded to generate healthy sustainable futuristic human simulations through millions of space-time years, and from those human survival blueprints the technologies needed for overpopulated earth to ethically utilise the universal holographic environment are becoming obvious. The 20th Century adage that ethics is how one uses science is as barbaric as Plato’s Spiritual engineering classified it. Ethical consciousness has quantum biological properties beyond Einstein’s world-view as has been proven by medical research conducted under the auspices of the Florentine New Measurement of Humanity Renaissance.

Dr Candace Pert’s Molecule of Emotion, discovered in 1972, referred to in the films What the Bleep, do we know? and Down the Rabbit Hole, has been experimentally extended into further realms of holographic life-science reality. Dr Pert’s Molecule of Emotion is the same in humans as in a primitive cell, but has evolved by increasing the speed of its molecular movement. Associated with this emotional evolution is the functioning of endocrine fluids necessary to maintain cellular health. The Florentine life-energy research has established that endocrine fluids evolve within the earth’s holographic electromagnetic environment, affecting health in a manner beyond the understanding of an unbalanced 20th Century world-view.

On the 24th of September 2010, on behalf of the President of the Italian Republic, Dr. Giovanna Ferri, awarded the “Giorgio Napolitano Medal” to Professor Massimo Pregnolato, who shared it with Prof. Paolo Manzelli for research conducted in Quantumbionet/Egocreanet by their Florentine New `Renaissance Project.

This essay has explained the primary obstacle that has prevented Sir Isaac Newton’s ‘more profound natural philosophy to balance the mechanical description of the universe’ from being brought about. The knowledge of how to correct this situation has become central to the objectives of the Florentine New Measurement of Humanity Renaissance of the 21st Century. This essay is the Birth Registration Certificate of the New Renaissance.

Copyright Robert Pope 2010.


Professor Robert Pope is the Director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, Uki, NSW, Australia. The Center’s objective is to initiate a second Renaissance in science and art, so that the current science will be balanced by a more creative and feminine science. More information is available at the Science-Art Centre website: []

Professor Robert Pope is a recipient of the 2009 Gold Medal Laureate for Philosophy of Science, Telesio Galilei Academy of Science, London. He is an Ambassador for the Florentine New Measurement of Humanity Project, University of Florence, is listed in Marquis Who’s Who of the World as an Artist-philosopher, and has received a Decree of Recognition from the American Council of the United Nations University Millennium Project, Australasian Node.

As a professional artist, he has held numerous university artist-in-res