The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which was available to all those who subscribed to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.

$cience: the 20th Century Religion, Part the 2
by Phil Spickler
1 Oct 00

Hello, One --
       I'd like to say "everyone," but my readership has been reduced from
two to one, and I'm not absolutely positive about that one.  But anyway, in
due modesty, let me now submit Part the 2 in this series.

       To avoid any conceptions or misconceptions, any conniptions or
mis-conniptions, any suppositions or presuppositions, I offer from an
antiquated dictionary the following definitions.  Well, in this dictionary,
just below "sciatica," defined as "any painful condition in the region of the
hip or thigh . . .," comes "science," to which I have assigned the
daffy-nition "an activity that often leads to painful conditions like
radiation sickness, overpopulation, and drug-resistant strains of pneumonia
and tuberculosis, just to name a few." :)

     But to get serious for just a moment (an all-too-prevalent scientific
attitude), "science," in my little dictionary, out of the Latin 'scientia,'
which means "to know," originally "to discern or distinguish.  (1)
originally, the state or fact of knowledge."  And then it goes on to point
out that "science is a systemized form of knowledge, derived from
observation, study, and experimentation, carried on in order to determine the
nature or principles of what is being studied."

        "Scientist" is a noun, defined as "a specialist in science,
especially a person whose _profession_ is investigating in one of the natural
sciences, such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. etc. etc."

       Now these definitions have lots of words in them, and it is semper (or
always) my hope that anyone reading words will make a conscious effort to be
sure that they understand said words as they are commonly defined.  This is
at least part of the hope that a good communication cycle between
communicating entities will occur.

     Another helpful aspect of the communication cycle is the degree to which
you, the receipt point, which is to say you the intelligence that is
receiving the communication, becomes *willing* to duplicate the communication
you are receiving, up to and including the point of (to some degree) being
willing be or become, momentarily, that which is communicating to you.  If
these conditions are met in a fairly successful fashion, it might be said
that *good* communication is taking place, and that understanding becomes

        If, however, you find that you, or one of your selves, is already in
opposition to the communications of another just upon hearing who's
communicating, or if as soon as you start reading or hearing another's
communication a series of reactions start occurring within your universe to
these thoughts and you find yourself becoming emotional or misemotional, with
disagreement sweeping across your feelings and strong opposing thoughts and
ideas coming up with a sense of rejection, well, if that's happening, you're
not being a very good receipt point.  What you're now involved in is
something that takes place much too often in life, and even, believe it or
not, right here, yes, right here on that beautiful medium of exchange, the
IVy subscribers list.

       And instead of *good* communication taking place, you now have what is
called a game, with opposing terminals and an outcome that yields a winner
and a loser.  All this for want of a simple passing grade in a good
communication course, where the basics of communication are broken down into
training drills until a person achieves the ability to become someone who can
be there and communicate.  Really being able to be there means as a receipt
point that another can communicate to you, perhaps even about you, without
tons of reactions and reactivity occurring in your space as the incoming
words, thoughts, and other less obvious things arrive.

       I think it might be safe to say that there is a science, as previously
defined, of communication, and that it's possible to master that science. To
a very large degree, it has been done, and is within the range of Pre-Homo
sapiens ability.

        So, if we're going to get anywhere in this series, my hope is that
there will be a few scientists of communication present, and as a result of
this I shall feel acknowledged, appreciated, and understood.  None of those
things imply that anyone has to, must, or should agree with anything that I
mignt have to say.  Once a scientist of communication realizes that
acknowledgment of another's communications and understanding of them can take
place without the requirement of agreement, that agreement is distinct and
different from acknowledgment, folks can sit back and relax and further gain
the ability to appreciate the drivel that pours out of most of us, but which
we find to be so satisying, especially when it's received well and
acknowledged and appeciated.

        I guess this piece should be entitled "Preamble to Part the 2nd,"
although through definitions and their understandings the protocols for a
good set of communications to take place have been established, and if this
should prove to be the case I shall rest easy tonight in the deep darkness of
latitude 90 degrees south, as I stir uneasily on the bed of frozen nails that
I'm learning to adjust to as I seek to reach the ability to be able to
experience anything -- an ability far senior to the ability to cause anything.

     Goodnight for now --  As ever,
       No One in particular