Felix - no problem in being concise. I just have a lot of time on my hands and I take some comfort in the idea that philosophy requires unrestricted leisure…
I’m claiming that everything that is done to come to know scientific law is manipulation. Either only teleologically based selection of ones own perception and interpretation or that as well as manipulation of the observed matter.
I agree that I am doing the same (I am trying to establish fact), but not that I am objective. Just consciously subjective. A fact is a fact to someone, not to itself or to “existence itself”, neither of which seem to exist.
But it’s object is not objectivity, but control. More precisely: the the type of understanding that amounts in a certain kind of control over a certain kind of object: one of the ones that can be understood in strictly physical terms, literal objects.
“Existence” is not an object. Since “The Universe” and “Existence” are mutually inclusive, we can not understand the universe as an object either.
Still we try and scientists comes up with a lot of nifty inventions. We like our tools so much that we try not to observe that the laws we used to make them turn into fictions when we use the tools to look deeper.
Technology contradicts the subject matter. We are trying to catch a tiger with a pair of spectacles, sorry for the awkward metaphor - discrepancy between reach and expectation. What do we think we are studying? We can’t be seriously thinking that w’re studying anything but the context of our perspective.
Behavior training, weaponry, the state, banking, mass-production machines, wheels on rails, conception of past and future, nucleair fission and fusion, whiskey, cigarettes, strawberry-syrup, genetical engineered caviar, cars, digital chat-rooms… I think you probably misread me there.
Every racial region has at least one control oriented system of ontology. The question is what they seek to control. If I understand anything relevant at all, Western sciences most serious competitor pertaining to fields that are relevant to Westerners is the Oriental understanding of energy. This is experience-based. Man is used as the measure, we study the universe according to man, and man according to the universe so revealed. It is an honest feedback loop, and it works. Energy can be generated by intention breath and motion, and can be known and manipulated by introspection. Telepathy is extremely common to many, and know well to me, and many a science exists on how to exploit this. Voodoo, for example.
Of course this is all quackery if one is not a voodooist, but this does not mean that one cannot be voodooed into a depression, or astrologically understood and thereby successfully manipulated by the ones in control of this science.
We can either say that or that it doesn’t exist at all. We know that it is constantly suggested anew as perspectives are born.
Or - and this is the only possibility to redeem science without calling it subjective, the universe is actually created or coincidentally come to be shaped according to the measure of man, so that we may know it. But even if this is the case we would do best to study our own energy, experience and perspective to come to know the cosmos and it’s true laws. If the universe is formed in a way that can be understood by man, then we have been looking in the wrong direction when we were seeking objectivity.
What I’m saying here suggested by a lot of people these days, but nobody seems to know how to draw any consequences from this or make any scientific progress. I’ve been hearing this quantum-processor rumor for 15 years, but not recently anymore. I am curious - I think that we should be able to influence the processing telepathically. Or actually that this is unavoidable and that may be what’s causing the delay.
I applaud Hawkins realism. Of course he has to consider how useful a model is as well - this seems a reasonable compromise between intellectual clarity and usefulness.