Velikovsky
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
In Support of Velikovsky
I am surprised and disappointed at the apparent absence in SIS ranks (a Society formed to expound his ideas) of any recognition of the wholesale incorporation of Velikovsky's interpretation of catastrophe theory, wandering bodies, colliding bodies, the birth of planets, etc. by conventional science. Almost every day some pundit 'introduces' the 'new' idea that all is not as was thought and that catastrophe rules! Never even a mention of Velikovsky or even of his successors. Over the past ten years or so much effort has been spent 'proving' him wrong in details (no man is ever completely right) and (virtually) nothing said in support of his astonishing pioneering interpretation of matters both cosmological and historical.
Right or wrong, he opened forever doors to progressive radical thinking that had been bolted shut by hidebound conventional 'philosophy' (certainly not science!).
Even in the SIS, with its widely publicised theories of chronology, it seems that despite criticizing and 'proving' him wrong, the critics cannot agree (even among themselves) which itself demonstrates the huge difficulties such research faces.
Again, without the input of such a great, courageous and tenacious personality, even if flawed, these foibles of historical record would most probably have remained unconsidered by any beyond a very few left crying unheard in an intellectual wilderness.
The level of interest and effort he displayed in researching his sources (so many) is remarkable, involving as it did, the interpretation of ancient language, customs, myth and ideology, yet again opening closed (or forgotten) doors to understanding. Much has been learned by those checking and sometimes correcting those sources.
The inspiration engendered by the life and works of this great man deserve the unstinted respect of every thinker, including those who think him completely wrong. Not the first catastrophist, he was the first mythologist in that he recognised widespread myths as reflections of true events. Indeed, I think it was the 'pillar of fire by night' Bible story, mentioned worldwide, that ignited his own burning interest in solving its mystery.
Perhaps someone more 'with it' than my now ancient self, could write a full article bringing the now rampant clash between Velikovskian catastrophe theory and the dying conventional nonsense into a clearer perspective.
John Kalber
9-2-16
I am surprised and disappointed at the apparent absence in SIS ranks (a Society formed to expound his ideas) of any recognition of the wholesale incorporation of Velikovsky's interpretation of catastrophe theory, wandering bodies, colliding bodies, the birth of planets, etc. by conventional science. Almost every day some pundit 'introduces' the 'new' idea that all is not as was thought and that catastrophe rules! Never even a mention of Velikovsky or even of his successors. Over the past ten years or so much effort has been spent 'proving' him wrong in details (no man is ever completely right) and (virtually) nothing said in support of his astonishing pioneering interpretation of matters both cosmological and historical.
Right or wrong, he opened forever doors to progressive radical thinking that had been bolted shut by hidebound conventional 'philosophy' (certainly not science!).
Even in the SIS, with its widely publicised theories of chronology, it seems that despite criticizing and 'proving' him wrong, the critics cannot agree (even among themselves) which itself demonstrates the huge difficulties such research faces.
Again, without the input of such a great, courageous and tenacious personality, even if flawed, these foibles of historical record would most probably have remained unconsidered by any beyond a very few left crying unheard in an intellectual wilderness.
The level of interest and effort he displayed in researching his sources (so many) is remarkable, involving as it did, the interpretation of ancient language, customs, myth and ideology, yet again opening closed (or forgotten) doors to understanding. Much has been learned by those checking and sometimes correcting those sources.
The inspiration engendered by the life and works of this great man deserve the unstinted respect of every thinker, including those who think him completely wrong. Not the first catastrophist, he was the first mythologist in that he recognised widespread myths as reflections of true events. Indeed, I think it was the 'pillar of fire by night' Bible story, mentioned worldwide, that ignited his own burning interest in solving its mystery.
Perhaps someone more 'with it' than my now ancient self, could write a full article bringing the now rampant clash between Velikovskian catastrophe theory and the dying conventional nonsense into a clearer perspective.
John Kalber
9-2-16