|
January 21st, 2013 | #1 | |
Eternal Glory
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,668
|
The Ancient “Doctrine of Signatures” Suppressed By The Establishment
Quote:
http://www.richardcassaro.com/the-an...d-by-the-elite
__________________
Make your short life immortal. |
|
January 21st, 2013 | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
|
Quite interesting.
|
January 23rd, 2013 | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
|
The doctrine of signatures is medieval foolishness - dumb as hell.
If a plant (say) looks like a kidney, and also is helpful in maintaining kidney function, that's a memory device to remember that that plant is useful for that function - not a sign that that plant has been moulded into that shape by a higher power in order to be useful to humans. |
January 24th, 2013 | #4 | ||
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...s/ratliff-text Quote:
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 |
||
January 24th, 2013 | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
|
Quote:
The wild versions of a lot of 'domesticated' plants (that is, plants that have been grown by humans for humans for generations) have the same general form as a lot of the domesticated plants. These plants grew (and still do grow) wild before people ever thought to deliberately grow them to use them in some way, let alone for medicine. So the idea of the existence of a natural doctrine of signatures is contradicted by that. Not to mention, it is contradicted by the majority of drugs derived from different plants and natural sources having no resemblance to any part of the human body. ... basically, it's complete nonsense. |
|
January 24th, 2013 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
|
This is an awful, awful article for a number of reasons:
1: It assumes the existence of a 'doctrine of signatures' without establishing that such a doctrine actually exists. 2: It does not define which 'Establishment' it refers to. 3: It fails to demonstrate how the 'Establishment' are suppressing the natural doctrine of signatures. If it was produced by a 13 year old schoolkid learning composition, it would have been failed - or, in modern terms, been stamped with a big 'NS'. |
January 24th, 2013 | #7 |
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
I favor your interpretation as well - the pattern recognition is likely just a human mnemonic. My point was simply that sometimes the argument does often make sense as seemingly traits that weren't selected for seem to appear , like in the case with the foxes and wagging at humans.
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 |
January 26th, 2013 | #8 | |
professional critter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
|
Quote:
One sees it everywhere. My theory is there are sets of pre-existing, probably divine, concepts, their forms determined by some logical necessity, that inform the created world.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause." Last edited by Roy Wagahuski; January 27th, 2013 at 11:36 AM. |
|
January 27th, 2013 | #9 |
professional critter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
|
thanks varg
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause." |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|