Science is Dead - Long Live Philosophy

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Science is Dead - Long Live Philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:52 pm

What I mean is, scientists have been stillborn for 70 years. We must reinvigorate the quest for knowledgeably applying it to our own drive to acquire knowledge and get to know what we really wish to acquire behind the facade of "what works".

What works to what end?

Dismiss Einstein - as naive as this guy was about human nature, even Freud had the best of him.
And he did not understand how he arrived at Relativity as a notion, which makes me suspect he had ulterior sources. Was it not he who said to never reveal ones sources? I have a fair idea where he got some of it.

God doesn't play dice, because god doesn't exist.
All that exist, if we want to use such simple gamblers terms, is entities playing dice with themselves to gain over one another.
In the same way as all reference frames refer only to themselves, all quantum entities refer only to themselves, and we can only refer to the world with them from their own perspective, if we want to arrive at certainty.

The problem is that the entity is not in the totality, but in all these little quirks of possibility that are the grassroot power of existence. All instances of "conditional love"; ultra-selective valuing and manifesting dominance in terms of appreciation of rejection - or dissimulation into another selective terms and breaking as a structural order, losing integrity.

So the answer to all this is in the discovery that we have no further to look than at the impulse to control. There we have the ground to our ontology, to whoever it was that thus far has been written down and understood. This impulse to control is self-valuing. In the very impulse to control we have discovered that which we wish to control.

Now, let philosophy reign.

"Value ontology is, obviously, an ontology–that is, it claims knowledge of Being in some way. The knowledge it claims is that beings are self-valuings. This is to say that every being is a self-valuing. But it does not mean that every being values itself as a self-valuing. Only those who accept value ontology can value themselves as self-valuings, as opposed to simply as selves. For those who accept it, however, valuing themselves means valuing themselves as self-valuing-valuings…

One may distinguish between four basic levels of self-valuing.
1. Most of existence consists of self-valuings who, however, have no knowledge whatsoever of themselves. That is, they value all things in their grasp in terms of themselves, but that is all they do. They have no notion of themselves.
2. Some of existence consists of self-valuings who do have a notion of themselves. These are what may be called animate beings or the “souled”.
3. Among the latter, there are those who, at least in theory, can know themselves and thereby the whole of which they are parts. These are usually called human beings. (Note that a human being in this sense need in theory not be a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.)
4. Among the latter, there are those who actually knows themselves (or at least can know themselves in practice). These are the ones who know that all beings are self-valuings.

If the self one values is a self-valuing, then one’s self-valuing is self-valuing-valuing; and as all selves are self-valuings, all beings are self-valuing-valuings. But in most beings this is unconscious. That is, most beings are unaware of just how alike they are to others. The vehemence of the adversity springing from this ignorance may even be proportionate to how close one is to enlightenment in this regard! Is there greater adversity than among so-called “human” beings, whether they have different skin colours or be fans of different football clubs or belong to different sects? And in fact, they are not wrong, as far as their self-knowledge is concerned; they cannot value the other, because he does not match what they hold to be their defining characteristics (note how football fanatics tend to be much less intolerant, in fact often do not even notice, those who do not care about football at all). An enlightened football fan would be one who realised that fans of the rival club love the same sport, and that that love is what makes one a football fan. Well then! An enlightened self-valuing is one who realises that all other beings value the same thing, namely self-valuing! This however means that the peak of self-valuing is to value all beings, to value the whole, to value Being itself. Nay more, it means that this is what all self-valuing is. But there is conscious and unconscious self-valuing. An enlightened self-valuing would value enlightened self-valuing the most, would value self-valuing more the more conscious it is. And this leads naturally to the preference of the souled above the soulless, the human above the non-human, the enlightened above the unenlightened. It leads naturally to a politics of soulfulness, of humanity, of enlightenment."
- Sauwelios

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever. Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value. The most important lesson to be learned from the alchemical diary of gold, is that it was as far away from given as could be - first stars had to be born from the sheer force of infinite potential, then they had to die, then two dead stars had to collide. Nobility is the end-product. And so we may regard our own notions of genius, such as evolution theory, gravity, will to power - things in which all other things come together. These are fruits of the kingdom, not fit for young boys.

Science must be taught after the rights of philosophy have been endured; the instincts that rage most ruthlessly in Physics. The results speak for themselves.

More and more it becomes rational to judge by results. In this sense the end of history had arrived; we can't afford to base our decisions on the past. The past is too small to contain the danger of the future, let alone the potential for greatness of Life.

Science has served life through medicine, but it has oppressed it using the same paradigm.
To what end?
What is health?
This is not a question science can answer.
Therefore it is dead.

It has been dead since Aristotle turned it into Epistemology. It partly got awakened by the advances in Chemistry. Philosophy comprises and controls the chemistry of ideas (which control the worlds resources), in as far as one wants to control a chemical procedure of superabundant joy - this is the divine conundrum to which we will have to surrender the reborn cry-baby of Science. When it grows up like a Spartan boy in the face of ruthless overflowing of nature, it divines for itself to yield actual power, rather than control - it begins to blend with nature and partake in her will to herself. Now it is her pale shadow.

As soon as the light is turned on and the shadow becomes stark, man turns away from science and into religion. Philosophy can catch some of them on the way and teach them that science is their possession, not the other way around - anyone who doesn't flee when he sees what is inside our scientific method is destined to become a great master.
Thunderbolt steers all things.


I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
Posts: 6855
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Return to Science, Technology, and Math

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users