Scientists as Ideologues
As ideologues, scientists are no more cogent nor less dangerous than any other ideologue.
I write this post providing an introduction to the concepts of Monism and Categorical Knowledge -specifically so that readers can begin to rid themselves of the ideological constraints of looking at -and living in- the real world with a scientific bias.
I do not -and- care not to attempt to understand the logical approach of science. It is all gibberish. In the past I thought I understood the logical approach of science. I have since seen the results of science -though. And the results of science do not align themselves with the purported efficacy of the scientific approach. Science is not logical.
Science is but a variant of witchcraft that employs what is referred to as The Scientific Process.
The scientific process is the Bible or the Constitution of the scientific-type ideologue.
The scientific process is the framework upon which the many beads of science are strung, as if upon a rosary, Hail Mary, full of grace...
In the mind of the scientific-type ideologue -the scientific process is the ultimate law governing all the laws of the scientific-type ideologues who sit on their benches not in the black dress of jurisprudence, but in the white lab coat of trial and error, and like in mumbly-peg only narrowly missing destroying the world one experiment at a time.
Whenever scientific truth is questioned, scientists -because they are ideologues- will almost invariably start reciting the ideological tenets of the scientific process.
Anyone that questions any further -in the mind of the scientist, is an anathema, an idiot, a fool, and a denier of the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH -just as if such a thing required all capital letters to emphasize the ideology of it all.
Science has built-up its knowledge on a logical framework suggesting a reality that many find completely convincing.
Let me shatter that scientific conception of reality, its efficacy, render the endless devotion to science and the scientific process less logically inviolate; and let me remove its strongly entrancing hold upon the faithful.
Science has asked, without being asked to ask, and in fact after having been specifically told NOT TO ASK by conventional wisdom long ago -the many bizarre questions scientists ask themselves- each of which, these questions -are connected to an utterly absurd logical framework.
That pretentious logical framework entirely ignores the efficacy of these scientific ideas -as they play out upon the modestly tenuous existence of humanity in this infinitely complex reality.
Given the results of science -not asking any more of these scientific questions designed to prove the god-like genius of scientists -seems the best advice- that some immortal might offer humanity.
We are not gods though. We are not immortal. We can only imperfectly imagine such a view. From there though, in our imaginations, we can see, over time -science is going to ruin -existence for humanity.
There is no possible scientific future for humanity. As infinitely complex as reality is, and contrasted with the history of scientific pursuit, our infinitely complex reality has proved itself fraught with immense danger hidden out-of-our-intuitive-conceptual reach, but within easy grasp of our experimental bounds.
So then, this scientific pursuit is logical? --No, it is not.
Science is not even clever. Science plods along wrecking, polluting and irresistibly tempting human nature every step of the scientific way. Science and how its results negatively impinge upon human existence -clearly demonstrate science is a destructive waste of time.
Our lives are only so long. Why would anyone spend their lives creating and accumulating the knowledge of science, which is demonstrably debasing human existence, -generation after generation-.
Along those exact-same-lines -and only to prove a point- I have just one question for the scientists-
Will you ever stop asking these absurd questions that are designed within a fabulously strained logical framework -always implying you are some sort of genius-type with a license to destroy the planet or the lives of many around you -if you should happen to slip up and only get half-lucky with one of your endless intuitive guesses?
Try not to wreck the place before your education is complete, scientists. Now -pay attention.
The Window Monism Opens Up On Reality
The concept of monism expects both assumptions and logical arguments to have unity and cohesion lacking any implied conflict with the other assumptions or logical arguments in any system or mentally-constructed-model one might consider as a close facsimile to the one reality that exists.
Monism is a cogent test of any assumption or logical argument.
And even then, having momentarily passed the test of monism, such implied cogency as monism imparts -does not necessarily guarantee -even- any approximate unity or parallel with the one infinitely complex reality that does exist -all around us-.
It is necessary for every idea to be tested by prying minds tossing other logical arguments at the mentally-constructed-model -to see if it is as resilient -but not more resilient- than the one infinitely complex reality we all know exists outside any finite mind -such as we all have.
Scientific knowledge is a good example of just how confused our conceptions of that reality can be. The approach of science asks us all to learn to improve our hands every time we should stuff them into -and lose our fingers in- the scientific meat grinder.
Categorical Knowledge
Humans, and no less scientists, endlessly talk in terms of universals, universals that only exist in our heads as we individually and imperfectly define universals hoping to cope in an otherwise infinitely complex reality.
No universal is real. All universals can be distinguished apart from any remotely possible reality. And most often, -universals are also easily distinguished from how anyone-else might define those same universals - regardless that those universals do not exist within this reality.
Worse yet, despite a common description, we have no way of knowing what was either meant by that description or what was taken from the description inside the head of another person.
Scientists would have us all believe their use of universals is as concrete and steady as the use of log tables by mathematicians. (Not even numbers are real as universals, but this will wait for another time.)
In a set-theory sense, the infinitely complex reality is entirely defined by itself -if constantly changing. There is nothing inside the infinitely complex universe we inhabit -that does not belong, nor anything outside it -that should be included.
In a set-theory sense, when we express ourselves in universals and imperfectly as we are only capable, -we are discussing that which is outside the infinitely complex reality of our universe.
Again -in the same set-theory sense used directly above, -what we discuss- is about finding truth in a set infinitely larger than the infinitely complex reality of the universe we inhabit. That set is infinitely larger than the infinitely complex reality of the universe we inhabit, because we must include all the false choices we are capable of making -as we try to ferret the truth of what we might discuss.
We are left with some few tools in the hackneyed approach of science meant to wade through the double-infinite complexity of our choices about what may or may not be real; what we may or may not even be aware of in this double-infinite and yet entirely inadequate complexity we each individually and quite disparately build inside our own heads.
Those tools are -intuition, -trial and error, -emotion, and a smattering of analytical guesswork with mathematics, physics, chemistry etc. -all of the latter of which -rely on the first tools in our list of tools, intuition, trial and error, and yes -ultimately- emotion.
Scientists get cocky about being on the right path, -only- due to emotion. The AH-HA! moment is purely emotion. It is only the AH-HA! moment, that permits any scientist to think he is right.
Of course, the AH-HA! emotional experience misfires frequently. Just keep in mind the only thing that will correct such a known mistake -in the emotional mind of a scientist once he has discovered his error, is yet another emotional AH-HA! moment.
All this is empirical knowledge. Categorical Knowledge is brand new.
Categorical Knowledge by definition is that knowledge that is true in every instance, without any exception. Here with Categorical Knowledge -we have stepped far outside the realm of the hackneyed knowledge of science, and into the realm of philosophy.
We are suddenly faced with knowledge that exists in the reality that is in this universe, if it can be discovered.
Until recently, there was only one statement of Categorical Knowledge. This is Descartes' Cogito, I think therefore I am, -and in the more famous Latin, Cogito ergo sum.
The cogito is noteworthy, even if it was taken to be a blind alley for some centuries since its discovery.
Categorical Knowledge, that knowledge that is true in every instance -without any exception-, was held to be impossible by philosophers. It was thought, everything is relative, so how can anything always be true when the world is constantly changing?
Many philosophers post-Aristotle assured us, nothing could be proved true. The philosophic response to the Enlightenment -Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Sartre proved dominant, if depressing -and wrong.
The small of man of philosophy Mark Twain, even though he was the Great Man of American Literature, was thought childish for his belief that there is something that is always true.
That something is morality, which must be distinct from ethics.
In the age of Twain, morality was a gut feeling. "It was all the difference between hearing of a man being stabbed through to the heart, and seeing it done."
Twain's instinct was true.
There is something in this world that is categorically true. And from it, all manner of Categorical Knowledge can be derived.
How this singularly important truth was ever found in this infinitely complex reality in which we all live, bounded by yet another infinity of all the mistakes we can make about it, -it is a wonder, -and a wonder that proves -there is free will.
Here is that categorically true moral statement.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
That statement and the resulting Categorical Knowledge that springs from it -makes science as obsolete -as science once made superstition.
Don Robertson
No comments:
Post a Comment