Devaluing
Truth, Good and Evil – One Paradigm Explaining Basic Current Taboos,
Repressions and Prejudices
C.W.
Rietdijk, D. Sc.
|
|
There is system in major fallacies. |
|
1. A physical demonstration also leading to a general change of
paradigm
In
our pages Paradigm in
Default and On Basic
Superstitions – More about the Paradigm we argued that a dominant role in
mainstream thinking – on philosophy, social science, modern art, ideas about
equality, education, religion and much more – is currently played by what we
called the R(elativity)U(ncertainty) paradigm. It is characterised by
its tending to relativism and fundamental uncertainty as to both ethics and any
“blueprint of the world”. (Our mere “free will” would involve uncertainty.) It
implies basic chance and the subjectivity of various (or most) truths and values.
According to such idea, man, evolution and the universe at all are incoherent
or irrational to a considerable degree, also progress being nonexistent or a
question of subjective interpretation.
We
can say that the RU paradigm is at the origin of or closely related to
(a) “non-naturalistic” (subjectivist or man-centred) philosophy and “abstract”
art;
(b) cultural relativism;
(c) the belief that “nurture” prevails on “nature”;
(d) fundamental uncertainty and probabilism in microphysics;
(e) the idea that man and his “free will” and values are beyond the realm of
science, let alone their being special instances of deterministically and
coherently operative natural laws that define order and/or meaning in the
universe;
(f) egalitarianism: relativism as to human (genetic and other) quality;
political correctness such as softness on problem groups;
(g) playing down the cognitive in education in favour of the social dimension.
In Paradigm in Default we
argued why the relevant paradigm cannot but be fundamentally wrong, in
particular because of two demonstrable facts or phenomena:
(1) The complete four-dimensional world – that can be coordinated by the four
dimensions length, width, height and time, and that, besides the present world,
also contains the past and the future – is quite as real and defined to details
as our present here and now. (For references see below.) Exit fundamental uncertainty, also in
quantum mechanics.
(2) Optimising total happiness can rationally be argued to constitute the
only thing which is objectively desirable. That is,
the exclusive ethical guideline that has an objective basis. Exit moral
relativism.
More generally, we showed in the relevant page that everything in the RU
paradigm can be proved wrong, except a remaining possibility that – in spite of
the fact that the comprehensive world is univocally defined – an unknown degree
of incoherence or chaos is inherent in the four-dimensional world, also as
regards our evolution and destinies. For it might be that natural law (or
whatever else), it is true, defines everything completely, but at the same time
does so partly chaotically. Note here that, say, many pairs of causal chains
may meet without any natural law defines the result as such of the
interaction of the relevant chains (that separately are completely causally
defined).
In
view of many social and psychological (ideological) interests in the RU
paradigm – see Paradigm in
Default and points (a) through (g) above – it can a priori be expected
that vigorous opposition (or silence!) will appear with respect to
everything tending to disprove or undermine it. This explains the
remarkable circumstance that, in spite of their far-reaching import, prominent
publication and virtual non-refutation (only one out of eight proofs having
been rather vaguely contested), little attention has been given to my
demonstrations of the realistically four-dimensional nature of the universe;
that is, also of determinism. People intuitively sense
that they constitute damning evidence against the “orthodox paradigm”.
They imply a definite, non-fuzzy, articulate nature of the four-dimensional
world (probably determined by four-dimensional laws, about which
see also below). Still, one can find rather much about the
demonstrations on internet under “Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument” and
“Andromeda paradox”.
Of
course, the mere consequences for physics of our demonstrations
of four-dimensional realism are radical, but, beyond this, the combined
collapse of fundamental uncertainty and moral relativism [compare (2) above]
will eventually drastically change the very cultural climate. “Fuzziness” and
troubled waters – the RU paradigm and an “in-principle non-scientific world
view” – will highly give way to transparency and coherence. That is, to a more
scientific way of thinking, even extended to the intimate psyche and the
unconscious.
In
actual fact, many derive illusion, myth and self-delusion from “fundamental
freedom and indeterminism”, and from man being somehow “above science and
natural law” to such a large extent, that they strongly oppose to the ideas
advanced above, which basically reverse the RU paradigm into what we suggest to
call the C(oherence)T(ransparency) paradigm.
Still
remind that we indeed disproved both indeterminism and moral relativism but
succeeded only partially in making plausible a completely coherent universe
(the latter corresponding to a radical variant of the CT paradigm). We did so
by proving that “hidden variables” working retroactively from the future to the
present and the past in the realistically four-dimensional world, do actually
appear. See for details my page Four-dimensional Reality and
its Coherence. Also compare
http://spacetimecenter.info/4Dbook/Rietdijk.pdf
The latter will appear in Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World (Editor:
Vesselin Petkov, Springer, 2007).
In
coherence with massive investments in the ideological and other interests
stated under (a) through (g) above, the opposition mentioned will certainly be
responsible for the relative silence my demonstrations encounter.
As
regards the four-dimensional natural laws referred to above the following
argument is relevant. To begin with, four-dimensional realism need not a
priori
imply four-dimensional natural laws. Still, the appearance
of the latter becomes more obvious from these points:
1. Causal laws as known in our conventional three-dimensional
world actually mean that what they “cause to happen” is “that which should
logically happen”. That is, they implement logical relations (“influences”)
between “objects in space”.
2. Partially similarly, retroactive influences, such as
discussed with Figure 2 of the just-mentioned Four-dimensional Reality and
its Coherence (also see there for further reference), simply
implement logical relations between events that correspond to
“influences” from one event to preceding ones. “Influences” that, from our
three-dimensional point of view, are logically needed in order to make the
total picture of what happens coherent.
Now
also realize in connection with the concept of four-dimensionally operative
natural laws that the appearance of retroaction implies that not only causes
(co-)influence results, but results co-define causes too. That is,
causes and effects (results) can have an essentially feedback kind of relation
as to their mutual dependence. This not only illustrates what
four-dimensional laws amount to but also shows the world to be fundamentally
more coherent and less dependent on chance than both
merely local-causal determinism and quantum-mechanical uncertainty imply. Hence
retroaction, in the last resort, not merely shows reality to be
four-dimensional, but also that natural law is so too. With this,
it further radically undermines the RU way of thinking.
3. More generally, we may see “four-dimensional laws” as relations between
events that answer deep or simple logical, mathematical and/or even
moral and other truths or principles. That is,
four-dimensional physical laws amount to four-dimensional patterns of events
that are ordered, “composed”, in coherence with logic and other theoretical
truths. This suggests the idea that four-dimensional reality and its
coherences are concrete material expressions of what logic, mathematics and
truth in general contain more abstractly. Four-dimensional laws
actually correspond to the symmetries and architecture of the four-dimensional
patterns of events.
4. Now the only hypothesis in positing the radical CT paradigm referred to
above is that four-dimensional natural law, in ordering events according to
4-dimensional patterns that define such events’ mutual relations, is not only
completely defined by logic, mathematics and possible other
theoretical truths or inevitable necessities (among which may be values inherent
to truth), but in its turn also completely defines the world. For example,
think of biological evolution that might completely be defined by logic and
relations of natural laws that reflect deep coherences and values. The
alternative option is four-dimensional realism, determinism, and logical and
mathematically coherent natural laws that – though partly of a feedback nature
– are still less than univocal in enforcing coherent macro evolution towards
meaningful purposes. In this case we can speak of the moderate variant of
the CT paradigm, in contrast with the radical one that holds every
detail of the world to be coherently defined by natural laws implied by a
number of deep principles, and having a function in a comprehensive design.
Actually,
the CT paradigm is the opposite of the RU one. It starts from the idea that
natural law defines everything coherently, up to and including many macro
connections as implied by symmetries and other nonlocal features of
four-dimensional patterns of events, such as the course of evolution or
individual destiny. Moral values could play a part in such “design” features of
four-dimensional laws. Causality and retroaction are mere aspects of the latter
that, we repeat, refer to event-pattern “architecture”. The laws
reflect logical, mathematical or whatever consistent, intelligent truths, the
meaning and features of which are highly unknown as yet. In any case the CT
paradigm excludes chance, basic uncertainty and moral indifference. The
paradigm adds macro coherence to local determinism, as a hypothesis. Note that
mere three-dimensional (causal, objects-related) natural laws could never
produce more-than-statistical macro coherence, such as in human destiny, or the
one implied by the retroaction of Figure 2 of Four-dimensional Reality and
its Coherence.
The
demise of (factual and moral) relativism, fundamental uncertainty and
subjectivism, as actually implied by the foregoing argument, also corresponds
with the interests of righteous people. That is, those hating troubled waters
and human destiny being also a plaything of coincidence and the “free will” of
others. They will prefer such destiny and general evolution to be defined by
comprehensive wise laws that transcend local coincidence and the arbitrary: God’s
not playing dice with us, either.
Note
that such possible “guided lives” also imply some relation between coherent
facts and values. Both have to do with patterns in what happens. Values, in
particular, have to do with what ultimately happens to conscious beings. This
means that to some degree they correspond to coherence in natural law. Beyond
doubt, they will also do so to certain patterns in the human brain.
Final remark: In the foregoing we spoke of causal or retroactive influences. Realize
that this may seem to contradict the static nature of a four-dimensional “block
universe”. However, mind that “influences” here refer to how we, from our
limited three-dimensional point of view, see relations between events. That is,
to how we experience that four-dimensional patterns of events, or the
latter’s mutual “positions”, have such orderly structure that it seems that
such events causally or retroactively are produced by each other from the
standpoint of an observer uniformly “travelling” in the time direction.
2. Neo-positivism as a special “ideological device” unconsciously
attuned to preventing current physical theories and the RU paradigm from
appearing to be wrong
Neo-positivism holds that experimental results and
formulas predicting them are the primary elements of physics, rather than
understandable models and explaining insights. Such approach has an important de
facto, and probably also an unconsciously intended,
purport. For, if coherent explanations leading to understandable models are no
longer deemed vitally relevant, one actually removes the possibility of being
confronted with paradoxes. If some phenomena don’t tally, one simply reacts
with: “So what, we need no coherent picture”. Neo-positivists no longer need
explanations that keep phenomena coherent. Paradoxes, then, are swept under the
carpet. From the neo-positivistic point of view that now dominates theoretical
physics the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Ultraviolet catastrophe would
not have conduced to any revision of our basic conceptions about space-time
relations and the amounts in which energy is transmitted, respectively. One
would have reacted with: “So what, we need no coherent model of reality”. In
the present situation we see a very similar situation with various serious
paradoxes; that is, phenomena that cannot be integrated into a coherent model.
Think of nonlocality as in the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR),
the “collapse” of wave packets, wave-particle “duality”, and phenomena “that
have no causes” and are defined merely “probabilistically”. Mainstream physics
(neo-positivism) reacts with: “No problem; we don’t need coherent models!”. On
the contrary, my own approach is
(1) Real paradoxes appear; they should be solved by our abandoning prejudices
and/or revising some starting points.
(2) This can precisely be done by our generally abandoning the RU paradigm and
in particular our realizing the realistically four-dimensional nature of the
universe, the subjects of four-dimensional natural laws being events rather
than objects.
(3) As explained in Four-dimensional
Reality and its Coherence and in its References,
this causes nonlocality, wave-particle “dualism”, the collapse of wave packets
and “probabilism” to fit jointly in an understandable, deterministic and
coherent physical model.
Neo-positivism is little interested in paradoxes; it acquiesces in them and in
an incoherent world rather than considering them as indications that we should
revise some primary ideas (prejudices). For example, it is not interested in
how two mutually distant EPR particles influence each other, often contortedly
arguing that there is no “influence” at all.
Wittgenstein
follows suit even beyond microphysics: “All explanation must go, and
description should take its place”.
All
of this amounts to ignoring the very essence of scientific thinking: coherent
explanation and the Aha-Erlebnis.
As
far as I can see, the most plausible – simplest and most coherent – explanation
of the popularity of neo-positivism, and of abandoning the idea of
understandable models, joins with the foregoing. Specifically, it is an
unconscious realization that such models, requiring the solution of current
paradoxes – i.e., the removal of the paradoxical consequences of mainstream ways of thinking – would imply our not merely abandoning various
prejudices about three-dimensional
physics but also the RU paradigm and its “troubled waters”
more generally. That is, free will, chance, subjectivism, and the idea that the
world is fundamentally “fuzzy” and undetermined. Inter alia, we should understand that our
“free will” is a mere epiphenomenon of natural laws in action. (Compare
Spinoza: “If a stone could think, it would strive after falling to the earth”,
and Schopenhauer: “We are free to do what we want, but not free to want what we
want”.) In all, a deterministic four-dimensional so-called “block universe”
would fly in the face of many present sacred cows. The future, man’s destiny
and the outcome of whatever processes and developments would be subject to
natural laws rather than “subject to us” in the way now being associated with
free will and an undefined future. Not only
causes but also effects or results would obey laws and be far less a coincidence than according to both the quantum-mechanical and the classical picture. Current mainstream thinking prefers considering the world to often
not allowing coherent models, because the alternative is abandoning the
“fuzzy”, troubled-waters-friendly RU paradigm.
Hence: close your eyes for everything except measurements and formulas
predicting their outcomes, and sweep potential paradoxes under the carpet. Lack
of coherence is no longer recognized as a shortcoming.
Quite
to the contrary, the CT paradigm starts from a model of the world in which
natural laws refer to events and the four-dimensional patterns they constitute,
rather than mere objects and the forces they exert on each other. Just as with
causal laws, such four-dimensional ones can be expected to work by logical,
mathematical and/or other coherent principles, among which may be moral or
aesthetic ones too. It may be that the dimension of intelligent, nonlocal
composition or design of event-patterns is inherent in such four-dimensional
laws. This faculty may prominently appear in the “creative” human brain.
3. Vested interests in uncertainty, relativism and the RU paradigm
in general; current cultural-philosophical stagnation
As far as I can see there are three major interests in
the purport of the RU paradigm:
1) Generally, the enemies of enlightenment – of what on this site is called the
red thread in history – will thrive on
troubled waters such as implied by (fundamental) uncertainty, and on unsettling
or relativizing truth, good and evil. The more incoherence, subjectivism, basic
uncertainty – and, therefore, anxiety –, the more latitude for the insincere,
the “political”, and manipulation. Hence, anyhow bending or devaluing truth and
ethic is, and has always been, a pre-eminent instrument of power and
manipulation. “Three cheers for the RU “ambiance””.
2) Many prefer to make the world simple and orderly for themselves and others,
or attribute a meaning to it, via myth,
ideology and tradition – via subjective frames of reference – to doing so by
reason and rational values. That is, there is a tendency to making prevail
subjectively or culturally defined interests, ideas and preferences on reason
and scientific argument. Again: three cheers for the RU way of thinking.
3) Quite a few intellectuals create business and status for themselves by
paraphrasing and interpreting non-information such a the works of Martin
Heidegger, Michel Foucault, postmodernists and “innovative” artists as Jackson
Pollock or Joseph Beuys. Even more do so by simply being mainstream,
commentating on others who are also mainstream, and by details-, methodology-
or obscurity-mongering. Stanislav Andreski discussed this in his Social
Sciences as Sorcery (1972). (He did not refer
to particular figures like the above-mentioned.) Concomitant with the increased
number of alpha and gamma “professionals” we see a massive inflation of
socio-cultural and philosophical thinking.
Again,
great latitudes as regards truth, values, quality, substance and coherence as
implied by the RU paradigm serve vital interests: it creates much opportunity
for arbitrary social games, subjective choices, “valuable” art, the “meaning of
life” and intellectual “performance”. Actually, many academics and intellectuals
who have to report nothing original of substance, revert to
new-clothes-of-the-emperor variants of the innovative: “abstract” art,
“existential” or otherwise subjectivist philosophy and “deep” verbiage, or the
elaboration of micro social phenomena.
Somehow, the relevant inflation of “knowledge” also corresponds to Parkinson’s
law in science: wasteful bureaucratic expansion.
Actually putting much in a nutshell about the RU way of thinking, Wittgenstein
asserted: “Even if all possible scientific problems
would have been solved, our problems of life would not even have been touched”.
This highly summarises the irrational view of man, his problems of life and his
implicit need of or acquiescence in uncertainty, subjectivism, the
poly-interpretable, incoherence and relativism. Wittgenstein actually says:
“Man, his life and his problems are beyond science”. He does not see them as
integral and coherent parts of a universe that functions by natural law and, by
that very fact, comes under science. This means that he ascribes them to
sorcery. This makes the RU paradigm inevitable: reason,
experiment and science should leave latitudes for the “freedoms” of the
subject, his choices, values and cultures, and they (reason etc.) should be sufficiently
undetermined and relative for indeed leaving the “dimension” of the problems of
life to be indefinite and up to the arbitrary to a large degree. That is, indeed beyond science.
This
way of thinking amounts to an attempt to produce a philosophical basis for myth
and the arbitrary. That is, for keeping beyond the realm of rational thinking
many things referring to man, including many of his prejudices, cultural
brainwashings and subjective ideas that throughout history figured in the shape
of orthodoxy, convention or myth.
Further,
once more, note that, from the perspective of a righteous individual, the
demise of a fuzzy world and the RU paradigm is clearly positive because it
corresponds to an in-principle possibility of “organising justice and
happiness”, in addition to the one that our ultimate personal destinies too are
part and parcel of an evolution according to deep laws and positive values.
This model of existence contrasts with an RU one in which such values do not
even exist in an objective sense and many waters are basically troubled, “God
playing dice with our destinies”.
In
addition, the stickiness of so many social abuses once more demonstrates the
power of those who have positive interests in the world not being transparent,
that is, again, in the RU
ambiance.
Again,
the above causes physical demonstrations of four-dimensional definite reality –
probably determined by coherent four-dimensional laws referring to patterns of
events – to fly in the face of substantial interests, attitudes and prejudices
that are now philosophically “based” by the RU paradigm.
Particularly
note that Wittgenstein’s pronouncement, besides being in the spirit of the RU
paradigm, also joins with what we called in other pages of this site the religion
of man, in which he, his subjective feelings, preferences
and culture are given to a considerable degree precedence, inter alia, over objective values corresponding to optimal total well-being. In
such conception, man himself is partly “inviolable”, of a semi-divine nature: no
eugenics, genetically inferior people don’t exist, no euthanasia applied to
seriously handicapped newborns. Anyone is an Irreducible, Unique and Valuable
Personality. God secularised and humanised. Also note that such
“self-dramatization and inflation” of the human subject joins with a primitive
state of mind that is more interested in its “micro environment” than in models
of the universe.
We now witness a cultural-philosophical stagnation or impasse in the West that
contrasts with techno-economic dynamics. (See also below.) I suggest such
stagnation to be closely connected with our foregoing argument about the RU
paradigm, the latter frustrating rather radically the abandonment of both
traditional models of reality (habits of thought) and various taboos. Within
this scope, most things that can
be discovered without overthrowing the RU paradigm, now have already been
discovered in various disciplines. In order to make more progress, the relevant
models and taboos should be abandoned.
However, because the paradigm is highly a “consistent error and fallacy”, such
abandonment can only happen “as a great Move”, as a “Copernican revolution”
that – as generally holds for paradigms according to Kuhn (in The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) – will only appear
when an alternative paradigm has been formulated. Well, we posit that the CT
paradigm, which decisively started with the demonstration of four-dimensional
reality and concomitant determinism, is such an alternative. However, as
explained above and in the pages Paradigm in Default, The Mother of all
Woolly-headedness and Four-dimensional Reality and
its Coherence, many powerful interests, habits of
thought and social evils – particularly in the context of anti-enlightened
(anti-red thread) tendencies – are connected with the RU way of thinking and will
resist to the utmost its substitution by the
CT one.
We
now give some examples of the stagnation in question:
1. Microphysics got highly mired in complicated algorithms and failed in
constructing understandable models, in consequence of its sticking to the
three-dimensional picture and related fuzziness or “fundamental uncertainty”.
Such indeterminism and corresponding absence of coherent models allowed one to
sweep some paradoxes under the carpet that otherwise could have enforced new
ideas.
2. Sociology did not even see the red thread of increasing enlightenment in
history, mainly because of relativism; details-mongering was a result.
3. Because of subjectivism, its not joining with natural science, and its
ignoring any search for a coherent world, philosophy virtually irrationalised
out of existence, reverting to mere “literature”, speculation on black cats in
the dark, discussions about language, and the paraphrasing of current
mainstream ideas. Accordingly, serious coherent and enduring motivations of
existence, based on rational thought about an objective world, failed to
succeed old-time dogmatism and convention, again because of relativism and
positing fundamental “fuzziness”. Instead, a superficial here-and-now and
consumption mentality succeeded the old beliefs and conventions.
It is a general symptom of the relevant stagnation that academics and the media
shun vital questions such as eugenics, the average genetic quality of
“disadvantaged” groups, scientific research into a possible hereafter, and
concrete social interests at the background of current orthodoxies (such as
both political correctness and rightism) and of many social abuses. And, of
course, they shun demonstrations of four-dimensionality and determinism…
Generally, socio-philosophical thinking got stuck as a social game in which one
is solidary with the established network of interests. Within this scope, also
massive energy is drained by irrational “totems” like sports, incoherent art,
“alienation”, “being” and “emptiness”.
For
the rest, not only stagnation appears in various disciplines but we can see
also rather massive symptoms of degradation: for example, moral relativism,
also as to human quality, led to nihilistic softness with respect to crime, the
underclass and problem groups. Egalitarianism and political correctness,
fitting within the scope of relativism and subjectivism, oppose any firm
answer, such as eugenics.
Finally,
I once more repeat that also the above parts of my general theory and relevant
explanations in any case have the merit of being much more coherent and
comprehensive than others, that will join with the RU way of thinking.
4. The core dogma; secularised or
“humanised” religion going with the RU paradigm
Throughout history, up to recent times, the centres of
power have been co-supported by the sacral: religion, myth and tradition; in
short, by an orthodoxy. As reason and science
progressed, such instruments of government more and more secularised or
“humanised”. They became highly demystified and disenchanted. Nevertheless, the
“retraction of former projections from heaven” did not (yet) result in a
completely rational “edifice of power and purpose”. Now our thesis is that, as
far as power, government and elite formation are still irrational – aiming also
at other things than managing society into an optimum of total well-being – the
mechanisms of generating such power etcetera are so too. Additionally, we
hypothesize that the relevant irrational ideology and orthodoxy (conventions)
that in modern democracies survived to some degree – from myth to taboo – are
now precisely based on the RU way of thinking (apart from some remains of old
rightist dogmatism or convention). Within this scope, both politically correct
leftist and many rightist ideas start from the RU core content that various
fundamental and human domains and problems are beyond the competence of reason
and science. Even if this were true, one errs fundamentally in adding that, as
to such domains and problems, convention or human choices are indeed competent, for example, by
their (the domains’ and problems’) depending on “pre-rational individual or
cultural choices”. The RU view can in principle philosophically support
everything beyond reason, science or rational values, from ideas up to ways of
government.
Our theory further contains that most taboos, collective repressions,
ideologies, conventions and irrational philosophies and schools of art have
an anti-enlightened function of supporting power and interests that shun the
daylight of rational scrutiny. (Remind anti-red-thread
forces.) We hypothesize the above simply because it explains many phenomena
more simply and coherently than current ideas do.
Two special features are part and parcel of the above theory that starts from
the idea that elite formation and power wielding still are only very partially
open, democratic and rational:
(1) Public discussion avoids (taboos) any hint of major sectors of the
establishment not acting in good faith. Such hint, for example, can consist of
the suggestion that some concrete
instance of any ideology veiledly supports the interests of some part of the
establishment. Think of the idea that the juridical sector tends to foster
needlessly complicated laws and procedures because lawyers will thrive on them,
or leftist parties advocating the immigration of many “disadvantaged” whose
majority appears to vote for them eventually. We consider the idea of the
establishment and its major components to be in good faith as the core dogma of
current way of power exertion. It reflects
present-day’s central “solidarity”: “The elites are essentially good”, just
as God, the King and convention were in earlier days. This “solidarity”
essentially shields the status quo and explains why social evils will live for
quite long periods, and websites like this will be ignored. (We admit the bad faith to be unconscious, as a rule, interests innerly
being translated into ideology and mentalities.)
(2) Within the scope of the “social game” often going with manipulative power
many will demonstrate their joining in by symbolic actions such as paying
tribute to the statue of the Roman emperor or to the national flag. This also
holds for conforming to established values or habits at all. Those playing,
conforming or being solidary (with the group) recognize each other by the
relevant tributes as demonstrating one’s joining in. In modern society, paying
tribute, demonstrating solidarity, and joining in also occur by people’s
publicly obliging to the taboos and habits, also if, as an individual, one
considers them to be senseless or even not sympathetic. Think of going to the
church or paying (lip) service to an orthodoxy or political correctness, or to
“abstract” art. Doing so amounts to using passwords as to “belonging”. Ways of clothing or speech are comparable.
It is clear that, without the RU paradigm relativizing truth, reason, good and
evil, neither the taboos of (1) nor the games-with-passwords of (2) could
endure: rational criticism would prick them, as well as ideology, conformism,
convention and an acquiescence in abuses. In actual fact we see indeed that
representatives and the media keep silent about the juridical sector and
leftist parties mentioned in (1) above. Not doing so would violate a taboo and
betray that one does not join in the game of solidarity in which major
participants in the “cartel of interests” play into each other’s hands. The
general public is deluded by sundry kinds of completing irrational solidarity
such as “loving one’s country”, religion, tradition, or solidarity about “our
kind of people”, class and the like.
Final remark: One cannot refute the above by
saying that current power elites and in-crowds roughly shedded power
instruments as discussed, so that secularised religion (of Man) and the RU
paradigm would no longer be relevant. It is precisely the many social evils and
anti-enlightened forces discussed on this website that disprove such picture.
Therefore, my explanations and theory continue to be very relevant in their
competing for making the world more transparent and coherent.
5. Various expressions of the RU state of
mind
|
|
Many say that it is a shame that one in three
children in the US grow up in poverty. You could also deem it a shame that
the relatively untalented poor got so many children. |
|
1. The one-sided view to which our motto refers is indeed a consequence
of the RU mentality that contains relativism as to genetic quality, nurturism
and political correctness at all.
2. The (relativistic) RU approach implies softness on crime, on problem youths,
on addiction etcetera. Such policy should be reversed: eugenics, removal from
society for good of chronic problem cases, spending little money for them and,
as much as possible, forcing “bourgeois values” on those sponging on society.
(Partly compare Theodore Dalrymple.)
3. What is the merit of philosophy or “original” art that, like absurdism, does
not join with any model of the real world, apart from its embodying a boost for
the ego’s of many who have nothing to say? If it is neither beautiful or
impressive, nor eloquently expresses some important objective truth, what else
can be its intention?
4. Much manipulation could be prevented if voters would no longer vote for people but for alternative concrete policies
as proposed by various political parties, after they (the voters) filled in
yes, no or neutral with respect to, say 50 items of policy. On account of the
answers, computers should then decide what party best reflects some voter’s
preferences and automatically vote for it.
This would highly substitute image, habit, political correctness and prejudice
by substance, fundamental emotion and reason. Let experts elaborate the
details!
5. We see three major symptoms of decadence in the West:
(a) The preoccupation with consumption, the short term, the here-and-now and
the incidental.
(b) A similar preoccupation with moral, intellectual and genetic rearguards
(think of education, social expenditure,…).
(c) The unwillingness of our intelligentsia to stand tall with respect to our
(relatively) enlightened culture as superior to others.
Now think of the RU paradigm:
As regards (a), its purport is clearly in the direction of incoherence and the
absence of enduring motivations of existence.
As to (b), RU relativism is closely connected with an egalitarian disinterest
in human quality.
As to (c), RU implies indifference with respect to enlightened values. Further
compare a take-it-easy attitude, also related to affluence, and giving priority
to rights as compared with duties and their enforcement.
6. If there is no objective good or evil, and no coherent objective meaning of
life and the world, then society, the community, is the only instance around
that is in a position of distributing self-esteem and status! Such state of
matters makes conformism the obvious option: being good friends with and being
appreciated by those who matter as last-resort authority – the community –
become all-important. This is the more obvious because the social evils for
which the establishment is responsible are not objectively so in the RU way of
thinking. Then, why not conform? It is good for
your career and for cosiness!
7. A remarkable exception to general relativism is the radical denouncement of paedophilia. Now I (preliminarily) accept the judgment of experts that sexual
contacts of, say, a 12-years old with adults are harmful to him or her. Still,
my question is: “Is it more unnatural for such children to have one, or ten,
peaceful contacts with an adult then are, say, the thousand-odd times of
masturbation to which current youths are virtually forced by the remains of the
old-time sexual order?”
6. Substituting the RU paradigm by the CT
one need not be inimical to religion
|
|
Religion means the universe not to play dice with
human destiny, and its causing the latter to be meaningful and just in the
last resort. |
|
A possible correctness of the RU paradigm can only be harmonized with
the essence of religion, as described in the above motto, by our hypothesizing
the “supernatural”. On the other hand, the CT picture of the universe, for such
harmony, “only” needs to contain a rather coherent order, in human destiny,
with respect to meaning and justice. This, however, cannot consistently hold
without other coherences holding true too. Within this scope, say, the
teachings of Jesus might symbolize a very realistic order in the universe,
without our needing to call on the above-mentioned hypothesis of the
“supernatural”. For the rest note that already the mere four-dimensional
realism throws a new light on death and surviving it: the past is real, and
connected with the future by various feedbacks!
In
any case, even the moderate CT paradigm is more “kind” to any meaning of life
than the RU one, as to both individuals and macro evolutions, because nonlocal
coherence is one of its core concepts (to an unknown degree). In this context,
also see my two articles
Four-dimensional Physics, nonlocal Coherence, and Paranormal Phenomena, to appear in Physics Essays,
Vol. 19, No. 2, and
Consciousness and the Coherence of Natural Law,
to be published with Hadronic Press in a “PIRT-related” book (edited by Michael
C. Duffy).
Actually,
religion is also an emotional experience of the coherence, beauty and ultimate
justice of the world that, in turn, can in principle be associated with the CT
ambiance. In the above CT-related conceptions of religion, too, the problem of
evil is far from being solved. We hypothesize that – as in biological evolution
– evil (as a general concept referring to aggression, causing suffering,
frustration, deceit, opposition and challenge) has an inevitable function in
natural laws working in the direction of progress and development. Evil may be
part and parcel of how the complex of natural laws unavoidably works towards
evolution also by means of answering challenges by
psycho-biological organisms that can
evolve only in such way.
Within this scope, one can see that in some way or
other man needs opposition and
counterforce – that is, “frustrations”
–, as also appears from the mere truth in the phrase: “Power corrupts, absolute
power corrupts absolutely”. That is, it does no good to man if he is in a
position to eliminate everything he does not like.
Additionally
to the above, one can imagine that, if a survival of the fittest way of
evolution is implied by the complex of natural laws, the corresponding egoism –
that is, evil – is inevitable in some stages of the evolution of the universe.
The in principle positive, or at least non-contradictory, relation to religion
of science in the context of the CT paradigm, in which non-fuzzy determinism –
coherence and transparency – is primary, does not alter the fact that the
religions appearing in the real world used to work negatively as to freedom,
progress of science and human rights and happiness. Think of mere stifling
conventions and the usual sanctioning of the status quo.
In
Sect. 4. we already referred to a core dogma
in current society, and to secularised religion, that, in contrast with the CT
paradigm, are associated with the RU one. We now elaborate this with a view to
current “orthodoxies” such as political correctness and the like.
Rather
generally, religion is seen as “projections into heaven, the sacred and the
transcendental” of very human desires, anxieties, authority, ideas and in
particular (the preferences of) society and its elites at all. Humanism and the
Enlightenment highly caused the projections to be “withdrawn” from heaven and
the supernatural, liberalization and a more prominent role of man being among
the effects. Still, the “sacral dimension” did not fade out completely, but
now got bestowed on man and society in their “original” non-projected, secular shapes. In actual fact,
this constitutes current “religion of Man as He is”. He and We (society as a whole) got some flavour of the sacred and the
inviolable, constituting current “secularised” religion. Nationalism,
(historically developed) convention and political correctness (egalitarianism)
are variants. (As regards egalitarianism: “All individuals are very valuable
and actually inviolable”.) To a certain degree, man and society became the
modern God. They are felt to be essentially good or just, as God was in earlier
times. (As to man this was a major error of the original Enlightenment!) Now
compare the “inviolability of human life”, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia (also
as regards seriously handicapped newborns), and anti-eugenics. One deeply respects man as he is, rather than seeing what and how he
was throughout history… We already pointed out in Sect. 4. how the “sacral”, more-than-rational nature of society, also causing it
and its leaders to pass for being fundamentally in good faith, constitutes a
crucial ideological instrument of power. The concomitant idea that current
“orthodoxy”, culture and its repressions and taboos are basically positive,
does so as well. In sum, the status quo, including the elites, man, society
and culture as they are, still are roughly sanctioned by current religion. It is obvious that the core dogma discussed in Sect. 4. – that is, the idea that the group and its establishment are
essentially in good faith, and that associated taboos have a positive function
– finds its origin highly in what we discuss here: the modern West has a
dominating religion too, with the traditional function it had throughout
history. That is, bestowing the status quo – the establishment, prevailing culture, convention, institutions and,
the last half-century, man as he is – with transcendental, “sacred”, super-rational authority and inviolability.
By this, they are highly shielded from critical reason and revolutionary
enlightening insights. The RU paradigm helps much. Far more than the
scientifically oriented CT one. In actual fact, the opposition to my work
essentially ensues from my criticising current
“religion” in the above sense and, therewith, my undermining the status quo
by depriving it from its non-rational bases.
In
the irrational taboos that, within the above theoretical scope, succeeded in
maintaining themselves, we see various striking concrete expressions of such
religion. Note that, in the four following below, the elevation of Man above a
rational judgment of quality plays a vital part. Current “humanized” religion,
in a way, takes Him to be sacral and inviolable: “every individual is a Unique,
Valuable Personality” (compare egalitarianism). This implies that the very core
of a relevant problem will be ignored in the discussion because of taboos
against considering man from a rational point of view. We give four germain
examples from a number we discussed earlier in other connections:
1. As to sexuality, the all-important point of “genetic scarcity” of positively
attractive individuals is completely hushed up. Before internet partially
“filled the gap”, the primitive nature of the love market was also ignored.
2. Eugenics is taboo, just as the idea of low genetic quality being highly
responsible for crime, anti-social conduct, and educational problems.
3. With respect to immigration, it is simply hushed up that in most countries
of origin of Third-world immigrants the average IQ is 85 or lower. (Cf. Richard
Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen: IQ and the Wealth of nations, 2002.) This causes many hardly solvable problems: more crime,
welfare-dependence, addiction,…
4. In the juridical domain, multi-offenders are released time and again instead
of being removed from society for good. The orthodoxy refuses to write off
basically defective people.
We can say that one shields the relevant problems from rational discussion because
one senses that the consequence of such discussion would contrast with current
religion. Or, vital sections of the status quo are screened from reason by
taboos in the spirit of the Man religion.
Further
realize that both current cult of consumption and the “rights” inflation join
with the religion of Man. Everyone is entitled to everything; duties and
performance and, therefore, the ethical dimension, are secondary.
Last
but not least we draw attention to a culmination of the Man-is-God variant of religion.
That is, the circumstance that the interest in religion will now concentrate on
what men subjectively experience as to the religious, rather than objective features of the real world
that may or may not harmonize with the main theses of religion. Think of
ultimate justice, life after death and evolution in the broadest sense being
realistic phenomena or not. Actually, “religion” lacking an objective basis is
worthless and a mere illusion projected into the “existential”. Compare that
books about personal and subjective religious experiences are massively sold,
whereas hardly anyone is interested in scientific research into a possible
hereafter…
Please react! See our
Discussion Page