Home Page

Shop ABC.com!

Audio CDs
Rawn's audio-CDs.
Books and eBooks
Rawn's books and eBooks.

♦ A Bardon Companion
Rawn's Commentaries on Bardon's three books:
english
english
french
french
german
german
italian
italian
polish
polish
roma
roma
spanish
spanish
 
partial
translation
russian
russian
slovakian
slovakian
 

2009 Lecture Series
Audio recordings of the series.
Other Articles and Essays
An Examination of
  
the Gra Tree of Life
Audio-visual presentations.
Know Thy Self
A guide to recognizing the essential Self.
♦ Self-Healing Archaeous
Audio Lessons
english
english
polish
polish

♦ The Magic of IHVH-ADNI (TMO) Audio Lessons
english
english
polish
polish

♦ The Eight Temples Meditation Project
Exploring the planetary spheres of the Tree of Life.
english
english
italian
italian
spanish
spanish
polish
polish

♦ Permutations of the Tree: BOOK 231
A radical restatement of the 231 Gates.
english
english
spanish
spanish
french
french

Downloadable .MP3 audio files - Free
Downloadable .PDF and eBook files - Free
Excerpts from Rawn's public and private correspondence
BardonPraxis Message Archive
Archive of the old discussion group.
Bardon Questionnaire
Results of the 2003 survey.
Links

The Elements Vs. Physics

© 2002

>> It seems to me that the ancients saw the elements as fire, air, water and earth mainly due to an incomplete understanding of physics. Yet, Franz Bardon's system is so tied into these 4 elements. Can someone explain this? <<

It certainly appears that way from our modern perspective which is so saturated with the philosophy of the physical sciences, but the ancients held a different understanding and a different philosophy. It's really incorrect to say that the ancients held an "incomplete" understanding of the universe or to assume that modern Physics holds a "complete" one -- each perspective is simply *different*. Each uses a different set of symbols to describe the same essential thing -- our universe. What distinguishes the Elemental model however, is that it encompasses more than just the physical aspect of the universe. Therefore, it is *more than* Physics and can't really be compared directly with Physics. Much of Physics can be explained from a Hermetic perspective, using Hermetic symbols, but very little of Hermetics can (as yet) be explained from a Physics perspective, using the symbols of Physics.

The reason for this is because the Elements are not physically measurable things. Physics deals with the physical materia that naturally *adheres to the Elements*, so in this sense, Physics studies the *results of* the Elements. Hermetics, on the other hand, studies the *action of* the Elements AND the *results of* them. This is why I said that the Hermetic Philosophy is *more than* physics.

They also differ in methodology. Physics uses physical tools to explore the universe, whereas the Hermetic uses their own self -- their own physical, astral and mental bodies -- as the tools of exploration. This places the exploration into an entirely different context and *in that context*, the symbols of Elements, Fluids, Principles, etc., make perfect sense.

>> Is it just a magical thing that doesn't need to correspond to physical reality? Or is it just a convenient construct for humans to work with - like north, south, east, west? <<

Both correspond to physical reality, it's just that Hermetics also corresponds to the other aspects of reality that Physics has no direct cognizance of. Hermetics deals with the physical, astral and mental levels of reality directly, whereas Physics deals only with the physical *results of* the astral and mental levels of reality. As R. hinted at in his comment about an Alchemist's understanding of the Elements: within the Philosophy of the Elements, there's also cognizance of what a physicist would call "atomic structure".

Both these models are, of course, human constructs. However, the fact that they are human constructs does not diminish the validity of either since EVERY philosophical system is a human construct! ;-) They are nonetheless, quite different in their respective approaches and ultimately, their goals.

My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
12 Nov 2002

<< back to previous page

Excerpts from Rawn's public and private correspondence

<< back to Correspondence Links Page