Re: virus: How Does a Shaman Pay?

Wade T.Smith (
Tue, 12 Aug 97 19:57:06 -0400

>Perhaps it would be more acceptable to you if I said: The predecessors of
>modern astronomers were not so clearly scientists; they were engaged in
>activities that mixed aspects of what we call astronomy and what we call
>astrology. Same for alchemists: They were seeking metaphysical results,
>but in the process discovered useful and interesting physical phenomena
>that became parts of modern chemistry.

That is most concise and I have no argument with it whatsoever. It is
exactly the sort of statement which I wish I had said to the myriad of
bluntbrained zodiacgazers who nyah-nyah the all too frequent comment you
first used. (And which of course pushed a button....) The two statements
are quite different.

>If an alchemist in the 17th century sought to turn lead into gold, you
>call that magic and dismiss it.

No, I call it alchemy and hold it totally to its historic and cultural
milieu. (I ain't a monster.) I would dismiss someone performing such
idiocy now however.

[Aside-] I don't know nearly enough about it, alas, but there is a kind
of modern 'alchemist' named Jack Sarfatti. For those with a firm
grounding in high level physics, he is worth a looksee.

Wade T. Smith | "There ain't nothin' you | shouldn't do to a god." |
******* *******