Crystal DawnFeedback to MENSA magazine (Dec98)
In her angry response to Dr Raj Persaud's "Crystals at No.10"
Ingrid Collins refuted what he was saying about female public figures going
for superstition,lucky amulets and new age therapies (Oct Feedback).I am
not particularly interested in how eminent or successful her clients are.I
am more interested in what her clients know about crystals or human physiology.In
particular,are any of them crystallographers, geologists, chemists, physicists
or physicians? And if so,what sort of exchange of knowledge and ideas do
they have with Mrs Collins? She refers to crystals as receivers of subtle
energy waves,as in the first radio sets,and then goes
on to say that if correctly chosen, crystals can be
potentially protective of the wearer's health.I think this needs a little
bit more clarification.The crystal in a crystal radio set is not a receiver.It
is the aerial which is the receiver,although in those sets the crystal (in
fact as a very early form of diode) did play a vital part in converting the
electrical signal received into something we can detect with our ears and
interpret.Energy in the scientific sense is defined as the capacity to do
work.Even if subtle,it is nevertheless capable of measurement, regulation,
storage and conversion to different forms of energy (eg electrical to kinetic)
so that a speaker in a radio can vibrate in such a way as to enable us to
hear music and speech etc. How does the wearing of a crystal affect a wearer's
health? I am a little confused.What is actually going from or via a crystal
into a human being to maintain the latter's health and well-being?How is
it delivered and what does it do when it is inside the body (compared,say,with
what energy in the form of heat does)? Where does it do it and how does it
do it? Or is Mrs Collins referring to a different sort of energy?If so,what
is it? Or are these the wrong sort of questions to be asking and is this
why she mentioned
Einstein's remark about not solving the problem
with the thinking that caused the problem? But if so I think she needs explaining
here as well. I can understand that if Dr Persaud does not have much knowledge
of crystals or their properties because his speciality is human behaviour,and
I would imagine that there are many more aspects to human behaviour of which
we still know very little than there are to crystals. Surely,being happy,relaxed
and confident - as well of course as what conventional medicine can do for
us (hygiene,a good diet,a good environment and keeping fit) are much more
likely to be the main cause of our health and well- being than anything else?
So I am really not too sure about these things that Ingrid Collins leapt
so fiercely to defend.I try to be as clear in my mind as I can about what
is most likely to cause what.Generally speaking the simplest theory about
something is the most likely to be correct - don't
multiply entity without necessity.If,for example,I were to hear the sound
of clattering hooves outside my house I would think it most likely to have
come from a horse trotting down the road. However,it could have come from
a zebra,from an amazingly sophisticated high-fidelity system, or from two
people running along with horse shoes attached to their feet,but I would
be most surprised if any of these turned out to be true. |
Chaos | Quantum | Logic | Cosmos | Conscious | Belief | Elect. | Art | Chem. | Maths |