Talk:The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception

Untitled

Please read my entry in the Copyright problems February 4 --GalaazV 05:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New article on this book

Following the Copyritght violation notice, I have written a new article about Max Heindel's main book in The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception/Temp. I tried to present there a NPOV information and details on this book, which is a worldwide reference book in the Christian mysticism and the Occult literature.

Please be kind to review and accept its description. Thank you --GalaazV 03:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

edition

I have noticed a while ago this "temp" page was already closed for editon. I made some editing meanwhile in order to present the article as complete as possible. Thanks --GalaazV 19:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work! I've moved the article out of temp now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for moving the article out of temp.--GalaazV 19:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

undid redirection

Deletion was spurious. Article is important to series of articles on the Rosicrucians, fully notable, and the fact that its taught by them is no more relevant than the fact that various encyclicals are only taught by catholics, or that various other occult texts are taught by no one at all. This isn't a metric by which to measure usefulness. Style and content issues may be valid, but outright deletion is foolish. 66.251.25.139 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Supported and thank you. This attempt of "explaining away" the article, undoubtedly beyond some individuals' comprehension, did not pass unnoticed. I'm adding now an external link to the 1911 edition of the Cosmo digitized by Microsoft (tx!) and available at the Internet Archive on-line library. Cheers! --Tekto9 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the relation to science

The section presented below (constitued by a paragraph and related notes), which was part of this article since 2006^[1] (Portugal IPs) and was recently updated by an anon with Netherlands IP,^[2] were promptly removed by editor Dougweller who labeled them as WP:OR, in an unilateral form.^[3][4]
It is a fact that this section had been already noticed in the past for causing concern among Wikipedia science editors;^[5] (even once an attempt to vanish the current Wikipedia's article about this centennary book was made; see section above). It is also true that a indepth analysis into the historic of actions-editions in the whole range of articles in the scientific scope at Wikipedia will show that through the years there has been an attempt by a group of editors to banish from this free encyclopedia all the data, studies and experiments, produced in real life by men and women of science, that clearly do not support the current mainstream scientific materialist paradigm. Obviously, I am far from being the first one to be aware of their successful attempts.^[6] I won't get into detailed analysis since the outcome of this war within Science is something that is already being studied: cf. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

“ According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable — the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. ”

From my viewpoint, currently Wikipedia acts as a fortress, and derived promotion, of the current rotten mainstream paradigm in Science, which is still deeply entrenched into society; so, I am only surprised that the removal of the section presented below took so long. However, this section is written in a neutral language (NPOV) as required by Wikipedia's policies, it is related to the contents of the book that this Wikipedia article tries to describe in a very brief manner, it states the current fringe/heretic status whitin current scientific community of the studies and research presented, and it lists the best available sources-articles on this issues (for obvious reasons, above described, the majority of researchers on these fields aren't able to get their papers to be accept into the mainstream "high-standard" journals, as Dr. Pimm Van Lommel from the Netherlands and Dr. Harold Aspden from England were able with their advanced research and incontestable evidences and results: The Lancet and Physics Letters, respectively).

Relation to science

Many concepts, presented in this work, The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, written in 1909, are in agreement with recent paradigm changes purposed in different areas of science; these paradigms are currently considered 'fringe' and controversial among the mainstream scientific community, although the proponents regard them as protoscience. Perhaps the currently more relevant ones which approach the concepts presented in the Cosmo come from the area of physics (aether science) , geology (tectonics theories) and medicine (NDE research field) .

Physics: aether science

1. ^ Aspden, Harold (2003), The Physics of Creation, PhD., Electrical Engineering & Physics - University of Cambridge [1953], UK, (html and pdf available)

Chapter 8: Creation: Stars and Planets

Appendix IV: Hydrogen as a Star

Appendix V: The Angular Momentum of the Solar System

Idem (2005), Physics without Einstein - A Centenary Review [first ed. in 1969], (pdf available)

Idem (1996), Aether Science Papers, ISBN 0-85056-015-2, (html and pdf available)

Geology: tectonics theories

1. ^ NCGT Group, Organized Opposition to Plate Tectonics: The New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group, Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 97-104, Spring 2006:

Pratt, David (2000), Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat

Idem (2000), Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift

Idem (2001), Problems with Plate Tectonics

Idem (2005), Plate Tectonics Subducted

Medicine: NDE research

1. ^ Lommel, Pim Van, Dr. (2001) Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands, Dutchman, Cardiologist, Division of Cardiology - Hospital Rijnstate, medical journal "The Lancet", UK, in 2001 (358: 2039-45)

David Fontana, Prof. (2003), Does Mind Survive Physical Death?, Cardiff University and Liverpool John Moores University, UK, Finland 2003:

Neal Grossman, Prof. (2002), Who's Afraid of Life After Death? Why NDE Evidence is Ignored, Ph. D. in The History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana University, and associate professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, published at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS).

Let me assure you, that if my domain of the English language was even close to the one I possess with my mothertongue, surely I would take the edition of the removal of this section from the article above, through all the dispute steps that Wikipedia allows and into every discussion and detail which would then arise... Yours, --VanHelm (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting the material above. I'll try to lay out my thoughts on the matter as quickly as I can.

• First, I absolutely disagree with Kuhn: the new paradigm must be integrable with the old paradigm, otherwise it would go against previous work and observations. For example, relativity is integrable with classical mechanics because at standard observing conditions on Earth, the relativistic terms go to 0. But I think this may be off-topic from your main point.
• "Many concepts": which concepts in this work, specifically? Until this is here, there is no cited proof that these claims actually exist in the book.
• Also, these are not newly-proposed paradigms, or at least the geology one isn't a "recent change proposed". It was a early-plate-tectonics proposal that has quite a few issues and has been abandoned since. They are now relegated to publishing in their own journals and in the pseudoscientific Journal of Scientific Exploration.

So if any of this is to remain, it must first be established that they are in the book. Then the info about the hypotheses must be correct. Awickert (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern perspective needs work or deletion

As it stands, this part contains no sources and reeks of opinion. It should be improved or deleted.

"The first edition was printed in 1909 and has changed little since then, Some of the science will seem outmoded. Some of the social commentary (for instance, on matters of race) may seem hopelessly dated, as well. It's still being an interesting book, on the whole."

The works of the Rosicrucians through different time periods and different institutions is a direct result of breaking away from what was presented previously. A form degenerates over time, crystalizes and needs to be reborn. To connect these different manifestations is a mistake, as that was what was to be avoided and the reason for a new dispensation.24.137.147.31 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)