| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"jer0en" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2007 05:31:44 AM |
| Object: |
at last, a D- in metaphysics |
I wanted everything
Fear as a credible basis for truth in metaphysics
When it comes down to the world that surrounds him man is a
funk. Apart from actual natural disasters perfectly innocent
phenomena like St.Elmo's fire, solar and lunar eclipses
terrify him, phases of the moon and rising and setting of the
sun are meticulously observed for accuracy and any
contemplation of nature or the universe exceeding the quite
ordinary reverts into a deep-felt suspicion.
It's in our blood, like the deer in the forest we are
constantly wary of danger, and when that danger no longer
pertains to live creatures we will start to project our fears
onto lifeless things. It would be fair to assume that we do
not have a very realistic account of the world around us, an
account that is threaded with fears that have relatively
little to do with our present existence.
What doesn't really help matters is that we can speak and
share our emotions with other people. Particularly where more
than two individuals are involved this would have the effect
of an amplifier, the shared fear being more than the sum of
the individual, and this could result in disconcerted action
better known as panic, quite common under social animals.
The fear of such uncontrolled situations is to be added.
Fear of the effects of fear, in particular of panic, is what
distinguishes us as intelligent, social beings. We anticipate
these effects and actually have more to be afraid of. It is
intelligence rather than knowlegde that frightens us. And from
this point of view we would rather know as little as possible,
not least since we will not have to share the information in
case we're being asked for it. With all possible consequences.
Multiple strategies are available to handle this predicament,
but we invariably choose for religion. We will of course start
to assign benign and malign personalities to every object of
our fear, and in a latter stage to events, and all of this in
a group setting. In fact everybody knows that it is pretence
and that is how it works, since the target, being that no more
comprehensive discussions on natural phenomena are to be had,
is achieved in this way. The procedure is quite common, people
in groups have agreements all the time on how to deal with
delicate subjects, particularly what you can and cannot say.
For seemingly social purposes we at some point choose for
monotheism, but we should not underestimate its advantage
over polytheism as a single natural explanation. Monotheism
too is in the first place a natural religion. And when, at the
end of the middle ages, religion is on the retreat, we are
quite pleased with our new society, but actually we are back
at square 1, though people might be only aware of this in the
Vatican, and in the street the rumours start to fly.
Amsterdam, Kalverstraat. We are going to check the measure of
everything. Not just that, we are doing it decimally, that is,
digitally. And then we will mathematically reconstruct reality
with the acquired data and implement the algorithm as a part
of man's perception, or at least of the public version of it.
The process is so utterly subconscious that nobody but nobody
is even remotely aware of what we think that we're all doing.
Well, we are measuring everything.
Fortunately enough the measuring of Descartes, the registered
inhabitant of Kalverstraat 58 in the 17th century, also known
as "the method", has many commercial and military applications
and therefore it was bombarded to our world religion, science.
Rather than the religion of the dogma, science is the religion
of the consensus and all her decrees result from discussion.
And that's the rub, because these discussions are on nature.
No we are not afraid of nature. Man you couldn't even look
down from the third floor without having vertigo. But at this
scientific round table you wouldn't dream of telling anyone.
So what is the result? A completely regular, orderly, stable
picture of nature, that perfectly applies on the technical
level, but emotionally is not so much lacking as inexistent.
It isn't so relevant if you are building a rocket but if you,
as metaphysics does, set out to picture reality as a whole,
you miss out on half. People are quite prepared to tell you
THAT the are perceiving but seldom WHAT they are perceiving,
because at that level it would become personal and emotional.
If you pursue this indefinitely you will get a metaphysical
library. Basicly it is the science of beating around the bush,
in hundreds of books that do not really communicate anything,
which is completely in sync with the purposes of science.
It's probably even in our blood, we do not publicly discuss
our emotions, particularly those on nature and the universe.
In reality our picture of nature is hardly regular, orderly
or stable, or the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Actually it IS being discussed, though not in science, or it
would have to be psychology, and that only treats anomalies.
That is, anomalies of the regular.
It is being communicated through art, by blighters, villains,
scurrae, who have themselves invited to parties of the rich,
with or without manager, and who may even be very successful,
but could never make a serious contribution to metaphysics,
let alone to science, or it would have to be the blurb you
find on the insides of brochures in galeries. The rich, who
wouldn't stoop to science, but who would occasionally dabble
in metaphysics:
"Ich, das Subjekt, dr„nge mich in das Objekt herein um mich,
meinen Geist, mit seinem unendlichen Beschr„nktheit und
Geistigkeit zu ern„hren." Das ist Gottesl„sterung.
Meanwhile artists give us quite an accurate, and what is more,
personal account of what, according to them, the world looks
like, whether that be green stars or a just a specked panel.
And that is more than I, with all the will in the world, could
ever say of all of modern philosophy and science. How shall I
put it. It is perhaps somewhat uppish. And slightly mechanic.
Those specks are still the most apropos, since they render a
picture of the scientific world.
I feel more comfortable in a Dali than in a fractal, JPEG or
even photo of an Alps meadow, however well the resemblence.
Dali is not exactly regular, orderly or stable, but a bit
closer to reality. Instead of being lost information is being
added, of things you may not be able to measure or photograph,
but I see no apparent reason why we shouldn't discuss them in
philosopy. Because they do seem to exist. And if you ask me
which is the most weird, I would immedeately admit to Dali.
This would be the mechanism leading to the misunderstanding
of metaphysics and the philosophy of perception. Unlike art,
philosophy is scarcely communicative of our real perceptions,
and hence metaphysics is more like 100000 identical prayers
than something remotely concrete. It is a fair example that in
our world our status is more important than our achievements,
without it being necessary to be conscious of either.
You cannot say what you see if you cannot say what you see.
Even Betrand Russel cannot deny that. That is the Cassandra
dilemma, and you won't quickly find a more bulky example. Of
course, without metaphysics, science would have had the same
problem, but it would have gone largely unnoticed. Therefore
reading metaphysics has ultimately analytical merits that no
body should underestimate. Personally I haven't read a word of
metaphysics in my life, but we should have faith even in the
absence of any hope. I draw the same conclusion Wittgenstein
draws in the Tractatus, but from an entirely different point
of view. A masterpiece by the way, but completely regular.
Perhaps metaphysics has more on offer than art has, but it
must be in the scope of the abstract then, because as to the
elementary metaphysics, philosophy and science are seeingly
blind. It is hear, see and speak no evil. You may think that
the matter of metaphysics is insubstantial, moreover you may
wonder why you are holding a wrench during spacewalks. Since
you don't know any fear. Aha, you do individually just not
collectively. Well then you have a problem individually. And
that is not in China, Japan, Korea, India or Iran but right
here. Because, in the west, the truth, and therewith your
rights, only exist scientifically, and so collectively, and
eventually that would be metaphysically. Now I'm hardly an
expert in the field of metaphysics (I don't know the first
thing about it) but I could show you the way to the nearest
museum, where you could enjoy an emotional view on reality.
Basicly science is for fools. Fools in vast numbers that use
science to prove their intellectual superiority. The point is
not that any fool could build a rocket, suspension bridge or
skyscraper, it is that only fools can. If not to unemployment,
that notion could add to a better understanding of our mental
abilities and deficiencies, in the fabric of modern society.
I think we should leave metaphysics to the people who have a
professional understanding of it. Speaking of which, perhaps
we should leave metaphysics altogether. Yes, and art as well.
And inasmuch we do not leave philosophy and science they
should perhaps be radically altered. Do you think that is
impractible? Everything is impractible for 7 billion people.
That figure is a direct consequence of science and if we do
not defeat its indefeatable pessimism it will only be more.
Moreover, it seems to be more and more impossible to further
sustain these people without science. So there's only forward
and no way back. And that is a familiar dilemma. It would be
reasonable to assume that we are all addicted to science. But
unless I'm completely wrong, I don't think that it is science
that keeps us alive, not in the past, nor in the present or in
the future. Everything seems to indicate that science kills
and does so on a planetary scale. So what IS keeping us alive
must be the fabric of our society. Which is very reassuring.
So are people going to die? By us pursuing other careers?
You're joking. Of course they are, and preferably 6 billion.
Theoretically we could be in the clear in less than a century.
But if you mean if there are going to be "forced redundancies"
I'm sure that we can agree on some sort of redundancy scheme.
If you don't try you'll never know. Now who's the pessimist?
At present we have about 6 billion redundancies on the planet.
When we are down to 1 again, you could do science as a hobby.
Do you think that is impractible either? How interesting.
As to the emotional story that this is all in essence about,
I think we should leave some space for the plants and animals
as well, and not in some museum-like setting, but for real.
Currently our behaviour as a species is more that of a group
of bacteria than what you keep calling the crown of creation.
Bacteria have no way of anticipating, and it would be sad if
history were to be prove us intellectually of the same level,
collectively, by having us die collectively if food runs out.
I think we should at least leave 75% of the earth's surface to
the rest of God's creatures, that is not counting the oceans.
This is a merely matter of feeling, but if you don't have any
you couldn't communicate any. The thing is rather that most
people do have feelings but do not trust to communicate them.
Which collectively amounts to the same. We're made of stone.
the Hacking Promotion Society
, Patchwork Diy
1 It might be a good idea to immedeately suspend all manned
space flights until further notice, but you are free to ask
any psychiatrist for a second opinion.
2 The information compiled in this document is to be largely
attributed to the research of H. Hendriks, H. Kunneman,
J. Dorling, K. de Leeuw and A. Senn who gave courses on the
subject at the university of Amsterdam from 1986 to 1987.
3 I wanted everything by the Ramones on Road to ruin 1979.
.
|
|
| User: "jer0en" |
|
| Title: Re: at last, a D- in metaphysics |
11 Jan 2007 06:00:36 AM |
|
|
In case you would like to personally reply, my e-mail address,
jer0en@freemail.nl is no longer valid since freemail.nl dropped
its e-mail services in late 2006 and I haven't been able to find
another suitable freemail service. So though you cannot mail me,
I haven't changed my address, it just doesn't exist anymore.
jer0en@freemail.nl
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
