Democritus and the Atom

by Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Introduction

Admittedly, I have not said much over the past few months. This was partly due to self-examination, partly due to questioning motives, partly due to events and circumstances in life, and also partly due to considering the work that needs to be done in, this, the 21st century. In the section concerning the seven departments, HTL mentions that by ~2025 energies of the 4th department will begin to penetrate the worlds of man (47-49) and this is bound to bring about many changes. The energies of the 4th department will serve to stimulate 49:4, 48:4, and 47:4 respectively. Besides this, there is the potential “discovery” of the physical-etheric envelope and related etheric energies (at least 49:4, anyways) by scientists and, with it, a revolution in scientific thought. It is clear to me, anyways, that science is going to play a very important role in the coming years. Religion, which was the hallmark of the previous zodiacal age, is taking a step back and science is becoming the dominant factor in this zodiacal age. This can be a good thing – if scientists will condescend to consider something other than the physicalist dogmas currently ruling. Medicine, as a subset of science, is in dire need of reform. As it currently stands, it is mostly just butchery and gambling with pills. The “discovery” of the physical-etheric body and related energies (at least 49:4, anyways) should shake things up a bit. As such, I am putting a bit more effort into connecting science and Pythagorean Hylozoics. Science is in need of a view like Pythagorean Hylozoics. Science is in need of a solid, reliable mental system. The next scientific revolution should be a Pythagorean revolution. Probably I am expecting too much, but at least I have an idea of the direction we must take. If science is ever to become more than just a bunglers art, it must be connected with a solid, reliable mental system; it must be connected with an esoteric system; it must be connected with Pythagorean Hylozoics: the science of the future. As such, this short meditation concerns the history of Democritus and the atom.

The Atomic Theory

Every school kid knows (or, rather, used to know back when they still taught something of it) that Democritus was the father of the atomic theory. Democritus gave us the atom, described as “that basic element, that fundamental building-block of all forms, which was infinitesimally small, indivisible, and indestructible”. Every school kid also knows that Democritus was an idiot in that atoms have proven to be larger than he claimed, divisible, and certainly destructible. Or so they thought. In reality, Democritus was not describing the atom of science, the chemical atom (what amounts to a physical-etheric molecule, 49:4), but the monad (1:1) of Pythagoras. The monad (1:1) is, indeed, infinitesimally small, indivisible, and indestructible for the monad cannot be broken down into a smaller component. It is the smallest component. By virtue of the fact that the atom of science, the chemical atom (49:4), can be broken down at all indicates that the atom of science, the chemical atom (49:4), was never the true atom, was never the monad (1:1) of Pythagoras and the atom of Democritus. Those are just a few necessary corrections for posterity concerning the history of science, the history of the atomic theory.

What of it?

It is an interesting thing to note that, despite the fact that scientists consider Democritus the father of the atomic theory, they never stop to wonder: “Wait a minute – how did a philosopher and scientist from ancient Greece discover the atom?!” Wonder of all wonders, and – yet – the scientists never stop to think about it. They are so busy dissecting his theory (or rather, their misinterpretations of his theory), gloating about their “superior knowledge”, that they miss this very interesting point. Where did the notion of the atom come from? It’s not as if the ancient Greek philosophers and scientists were able to observe the atoms in question such that they were aware of their existence – so, how could they have come up with this idea, to begin with? When we look at the world, through the lens of our senses, everything presents itself to us as a (more or less) homogenous whole. We do not see the building-blocks of things. Even if we were to break things down as best would could, our senses can only go so far. Based upon our senses alone, we would never have been able to conclude the existence of infinitesimally small, indivisible, and indestructible atoms; likewise, there would be no real reason to suspect such a thing. It seems to be an absurd claim that it was all discovered by chance or was a lucky guess on the part of Democritus. Thus, we are left wondering: where did this idea come from?

Esoterics has it

Esoterics has an answer: Democritus had got his knowledge of the atom from an esoteric school, such as the Pythagorean school. The esoteric schools had the knowledge because they were founded and run by individuals that knew: superhuman individuals, individuals belonging (generally) to the fifth natural kingdom in nature (the essential kingdom, consisting of 46-selves and 45-selves). Pythagoras, who founded the Pythagorean school, was a 46-self at the time. Pythagoras knew about the atoms – both the monads (1:1) and the atom of science, the chemical atom (49:4) – and much more besides. How much more is obvious when one begins to study Pythagorean Hylozoics. In any case, a 46-self can observe all the matter in the worlds of man (47-49), atomic and molecular; more than this, a 46-self can also identify himself with all kinds of consciousness there is in the worlds of man (47-49). In many respects, a 46-self is practically omniscient in the worlds of man (47-49). If they do not know something concerning the worlds of man (47-49), then can get that knowledge with very little effort by virtue of the collective consciousness there is in the planet. Probably this all seems so fantastical to some people; however, is it really so fantastical to think that man is not – in fact - the end-product of evolution? Is it really so fantastical to consider the possibility of their being superhuman individuals (“superhuman” meaning above human, a higher stage in evolutionary respects)? Is it really so fantastical to think that we might have gotten knowledge from such superhuman individuals from time to time? What other theories do we have? What other theories can we compare to this one? Not only can we explain where Democritus got his information, but we can see that man is not the end-product of evolution – which should be a very refreshing and uplifting point of view, mind you: to know that there is more.

Conclusion

The history of Democritus and the atomic theory is just one of many examples of curious and inexplicable things in history. Everyone knows about Democritus, the father of the atomic theory, but no one ever stops to wonder: “How did he do it? Where did he get his knowledge?” He got it from an esoteric school. The sooner people begin studying Pythagorean Hylozoics, the sooner that fact will become obvious. There is much more to be discovered. Science is on the verge of scientific revolution the likes of which are unimaginable – and the scientists do not even suspect it. The first step to that scientific revolution, however, is for scientists to finally condescend to study Esoterics, what had been taught in esoteric schools - and especially the modern presentation of Pythagorean Hylozoics a la HTL and LA. Science needs this. Science needs a solid, reliable mental system as a foundation. The current hypothesis method, inductive reasoning – what amounts to guessing - is lack-luster and painfully slow. Scientific discovery will be hastened if scientists will start from an esoteric system, the system of Pythagorean Hylozoics: the science of the future. The discovery of the physical-etheric envelope and related energies (49:4 to begin with) will revolutionize a great many fields (such as Medicine) and open the doors to many new fields of scientific research; lead to the production of many new technologies; lead to greater accuracy in prediction of gross physical events; also, lead to a new view of the world and our place in it. This is not some far off ideal. This is a possibility that is just upon the horizon. We are so very close. Can we really afford to neglect to consider Esoterics when all of this is possible?

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.