TOL

[caryn]

TOL = Tree Of Life:

Concepts:

Tree of life is a metaphor for common descent, and a motif in various world theologies and philosophies.

Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian) a tree in the Garden of Eden whose fruit gives everlasting life, i.e. immortality.

Tree of Life (Kabbalah) a mystical concept within the Kabbalah of Judaism which is used to understand the nature of God.

Tree of life (Science) a metaphor used first by Charles Darwin and subsequently to describe the interrelatedness of all living things through evolution.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

This is the thread that was started, in partial reaction to a "request" from Dan Smith, and so far no action. Why am I not surprised (by Dan, that is!)?

Well, let's take a look at some evidence coming to light about some of the lesser-known things that Sir Issac Newton studied:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06 ... index.html

Yemima Ben-Menahem, one of the exhibit's curators, said the papers show Newton's conviction that important knowledge was hiding in ancient texts.

"He believed there was wisdom in the world that got lost. He thought it was coded, and that by studying things like the dimensions of the temple, he could decode it," she said.

And this ought to ring some bells with regard to some things several of us have been saying:

The Newton papers, Ben-Menahem said, also complicate the idea that science is diametrically opposed to religion. "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," she said.

Now... this report (and allegedly the documents they describe) do not specifically mention that Newton studied Qabalah or the Tree Of Life... however, it is well-known that this body of knowledge was available for study in those times. Furthermore, I have put forward the suggestion that this body of knowledge is a central source of "hidden scientific truths" that are part of more than one esoteric "secret society" traditions (a la Masons, et. al.).

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

This is the thread that was started, in partial reaction to a "request" from Dan Smith, and so far no action. Why am I not surprised (by Dan, that is!)?

And still, to this day, there remains no action (by Dan) in this thread.

Why are you so obstinate, Dan? Are you afraid someone might know something that is not part of your BPWH, and you might actually learn something?

Think: Systems Theory, Dan.

The graphic of Tegmark's that Gary posted in the other thread is another clue. (Geez...whodda thunk that Gary would actually be useful in helping Dan see the forest for the trees?)

Ray

[dan]

Ray & Caryn,

I regret that I missed this thread.

If I am not also a closet Qabalist, then, please, shoot me.

.