Direct Inference and the Failure of Words

It is incumbent on any serious student of the sages towisdom in all philosophy and the verbiage or jargon
actually study what system of thought they were partcan send a lay person into paroxysms or convulsions
of, I think. But how many scholars are alchemists? Itof laughter given the oxymoronic nature of defining
would be difficult to be a paradigm academic personwisdom. I will endeavor to simplify and make less use
and retain the kind of involvement an alchemist mustof the obfuscating semantical diatribes. But beyond the
have. It was even difficult for Socrates and Aristotle insemantics of academics lies archetypes and codes
far less socially controlled times. I am regarded by highthat must be understood if we are to pierce
Rosicrucians I have met - as an alchemist. I havesomewhat the nature of Socrates and Plato or other
demonstrated to them - in advance in one case - that Ihumanist/alchemist/sages. The Socratian Dialectic or
am adept! So you can be assured that my point of'questioning' has much to offer society at present, as I
view is unique in regards to Plato, Socrates and othersee it.
alchemists or humanists who have blessed the world"Thus we find that John of Salisbury, Lambert of
with their great works and the over-arching GreatAuxerre, and Albert the Great--in discussing 'methodus'
Work we all must aspire to. That Great Work includesas they found it in Boethius' translation of the Topics or
the Great Architect of the Masonic religion and it isin the standard medieval definition of dialectic--tended
akin to Intelligent Design.to emphasize the point that method is a short cut to
So I humbly agree and disagree with Borro who knewknowledge, or a short art or compendium. As yet,
the method of Aristotle well enough to see thathowever, no very well-developed doctrine went with
Aristotle himself said a few years of studying sciencethis rather vague formulation, which, as we have seen,
did not allow one to rise past the method itself and yetis somewhat foreign to both Plato and Aristotle, and
Borro did not adequately address the devious affectwhich yet purported to be a 'Greek' notion. In fact,
of Direct Inferential injection of theory upon the'methodus' did not become a common philosophical
observations of reality that a true science mustterm until much later, in the Renaissance, when, as
achieve. But Borro was not alone in this, and most ofMelanchton observed, it was adopted by 'the
science still fails to integrate and apply their 'gradualistic'dialecticians' for the most correct order of explication."
or 'reductivist' opinions to a reality that includes ethereal(2)
things. In fact many scientists reject the ether exists atAll right, maybe this is true--but we must question the
all.specialized de-construction of the early thinking which
In the last decade I have taken it upon myself towas more whole and integrated. The sophists that
create a whole new history of man's culturalSocrates railed against can appear in many forms and
development which shows Pythagoras was actuallyeven Hume and Ayer in a far later time seem quite
not the first sage or alchemist. That kind of fiction issophistic despite their attempt to denounce mere
the work of people who sought to claim allsophistry. Things are not always as easy as they
advancement was of their own making as theymight appear, to say the least. Words are part of the
developed Empires and refined various means ofway we think it would appear. I think Socrates and
enslaving people. These same Spin-doctors try to sayPlato were less affected by the meaning attached to
there was no Hermetic School of thought or nowords partially because Plato observed that disciplined
alchemy until after the time of Christ.knowledge or wisdom had diminished in the millennium
In 1960 Dr. Neal Ward Gilbert wrote Renaissancesince the Phoenicians gave them a writing alphabet.
Concepts of Method which was reprinted in 1963. He"But it is not clear what Hume took their 'sophistry and
documents the debate that "Foreshadowed the greatillusion' to be, precisely speaking. It is not clear, either, to
expansion of scientific research" in the ensuing years.what extent his own philosophical practice and
(1) I side with Peter Ramus who proposed that thepropositions require us to revise and loosen his two
Aristotelian science is not different than the Humanistcriteria for what is not sophistry and illusion.
pedagogical efficiency. I know the Humanists includeIn speaking of necessarily true propositions, Ayer
the great sages or alchemists including Aristotle.evidently has in mind much more than the contents of
Unfortunately the academic world hides the book Theformal logic and pure mathematics. He takes it that all
Secretum Secretorum which was a letter tothese necessarily true propositions are merely analytic.
Alexander explaining alchemy. Thus I will have to getThat is, they are not made true by any necessities in
past the Euro-centric propaganda that hides thethe world, any natural necessities, but just by meanings
alchemical root of the teaching of the family ofof words alone and the logical structures into which
Merovingians including Yeshua again. There is a greatthey enter.
deal of circumlocution and vague attempts to distill