THE SCIENTIFIZATION OF CULTURE





Wim Rietdijk


 



Contents


Introduction

Rietdijk in Eight Pages


1. Most Recent Completing Ideas

1.1 Paradigm in Default

1.2 The Mother of All Woolly-Headedness, Most Philosophical Error, and Irrational Ideology

1.3 Devaluing Truth, Good and Evil – One Paradigm Explaining Basic Current Taboos, Repressions and Prejudices

1.4
On Basic Superstitions – More about the Paradigm

1.5 Causing Stirs

1.6 Anxiety is Your Private Censor: Their Roles in a Coherent Social Theory

1.7 Egalitarianism and Political Correctness: Devaluing Quality, Good and Evil

1.8 Socio-cultural thought: From ideology to ad hoc explanations on its way to coherence


1.9 An essence of social thought; an update


2. Formulation of my Core Theory

2.1 An Outline of Rietdijk's Work: Coherence as a Core Concept

2.2 Jesus, Voltaire and Prometheus: the Essence of Sociology - Current Orthodoxy that Keeps Waters Troubled

2.3
Techno-Science, Enlightenment and Happiness

2.4 Ten Main Points on Sociology

2.5 On Socio-Cultural Evolution – Outline of a Comprehensive Theory

2.6 Evil, Sex and the Mechanisms of Power; Machiavelli Now

2.7 Paradigms as Association Complexes, and Powerful Instruments of Establishments

2.8 Social Evolution and Hidden Agendas: a New Theory

2.9 The Jungle, Machiavelli, and Socio-Cultural Correctness

2.10 Science, Values and Meaning – Why Many Vital Insights Will Be Repressed or Taboo


3. Social Theory and the Enlightenment Way of Thinking: an Elaboration

3.1
The New Enlightenment: Combining Voltaire and Prometheus

3.2 Manifesto: Continuing the Enlightenment

3.3 Beyond Current Paradigm

3.4 Beyond the Brainwashing

3.5 Social Science and Philosophy for Unbroken Minds


3.6 Why the Orthodox do not Like my Ideas

3.7 Current Religious Orthodoxy: "The Group" as Supreme Being

3.8 "Oneliners"


4. Some Special Subjects

4.1 On Reactionary Modern Philosophy and Art

4.2 Our Unjust Legal Systems

4.3 Candidly, on Economics

4.4 Stop Cruelty Against Parents of Seriously Handicapped Newborns by Allowing Them to Choose Active Euthanasia

4.5 An Interview with Wim Rietdijk, by Paul Cooijmans

4.6 Letter to an Unknown Friend


5. Preliminary on Consciousness and Religion

5.1 On the Nature of Consciousness: a Scientific Hypothesis

5.2 The Paranormal: Bridging the Gap between Science and Religion?


6. On Rietdijk’s Physical Work

6.1 Four-dimensional Reality and its Coherence - an outline of Rietdijk's theory on physics

6.2 Physics Enforces a New Paradigm: Does God Play Dice with Destiny?


7. Rietdijk’s Main Publications

7.1 Books, Papers and Contributions to Conference Proceedings on Physics by C.W. Rietdijk, D.Sci. With an outline of Rietdijk's realistically four-dimensional theory on physics

7.2
Books and Papers on Socio-Cultural Subjects by C.W. Rietdijk, D.Sci.

7.3 The Scientifization of Culture
Special attention to this book


8. Appendix: Publications in Dutch

8.1 Wetenschap als Bevrijding. Socratisch gesprek met een gedreven maatschappij- en cultuurcriticus

8.2 God dobbelt niet. Overwegingen van een religieus rationalist

8.3 Conceptprogramma voor een politieke partij

8.4
Hoe links tot rechts werd – en iedereen zijn visie verloor
Artikel geweigerd door Opinio

8.5 Wim Rietdijk op Wikipedia

8.6 Naar meer Coherentie in de Maatschappijtheorie


9. Discussion Page
Seize the opportunity to contribute or oppose!


Wim Rietdijk



Introduction


Why Coherent Ideas about Society, Progress, Meaning, and Partly even Physics, are often Repressed or Taboo


Rationalism and Meaning

One feature of our argument is that, partly via something that has been called super-rationalism, we come to the idea of meaning. Super-rationalism boils down to determinism – also based on some physical disproofs of the “fundamental uncertainty and fuzziness” quantummechanics starts from – and a deep coherence of nature and its laws. Such coherence contrasts with current domination of concepts like chance, chaos and the above uncertainty. From a number of demonstrations by the author in the physical professional Journals it is concluded that Einstein was right in surmising that – beyond our human observational horizon – both the past and the future realistically exist, which implies their being just as definite as our current here and now. In what follows, we will also find that this leads to the conclusion that Einstein was right as well in his pronouncement: “The most surprising of all is that the world almost certainly has a meaning”.
            That is, from a scientific point of view a strong case can be made for a universe in which indeed “God does not play dice” (once more Einstein), not even with human destiny and the evolution of mankind. This is one among the major subjects elaborated in what follows. More generally, the latter suggests from a scientific point of view that the world evolves in the direction of expressing deep truths and values, also within the scope of its having conscious and general psychological dimensions too. Exploring these features may help us in reconciling science and religion.


Current Paradigm and Pseudo Religion

Modern thinking and culture in many ways emanate the idea that
“The world is incoherent, fundamentally uncertain and coincidental, man is partly `above the laws of science’ (think of free will, irrational behaviour,…), values are basically relative, and so is human quality (egalitarianism), whereas (as a consequence) progress is essentially undefinable and elusive.”
            All of this amounts to what we may call the Relativism-Uncertainty (RU) Paradigm. This posits a world, human life and destiny that are largely beyond the realm of science, reason and any means of objectively discriminating good from evil. Postmodernism, the fundamental uncertainty of quantum mechanics, the idea that human life is largely a sequence of coincidences, and that there is no hierarchy of quality and value among men, as well as Riesman’s other-directed personality (conformism), are all closely related to the paradigm, that is very dominant now.
            All objective criteria about value and (partly) truth being elusive, the only mainstay remaining is man as he is, his errors, prejudices and (partly genetic) inadequacies included. We witness the “religion of Man”. Objections to eugenics and euthanasia, and again egalitarianism, are concomitants.  Even multi-recidivists, chronic anti-socials etcetera are “of an equal value” in such ambiance. Genetic engineering on man is taboo. Man as he is is inviolable.


Social Evils, Irrational Power, and why the Paradigm is Good for Them

When we see the overwhelming influence of anti-rationalism, subjectivistic philosophy (relativism, existentialism, postmodernism,…), incoherent (“abstract”) art and the idea of Wittgenstein that science can do little to solve our problems of life, it is hard to believe all of this to be a coincidence. Culture and ideas will not appear in a vacuum but more often than not are associated with vested interests and social forces. We will elaborate this in the following and discuss in more detail what concrete interests and forces thrive on “fuzziness” and uncertainty in a broad sense – that is, on troubled waters on the level of thought, values and emotions – and the reasons why.
            In particular, we will discuss the major modern variant of censorship repression and taboo amount to, which, more indirectly and veiledly than in former times, frustrate independent and straightforward thinking – in philosophy, social science and partly even in theoretical physics. (Again we quote Einstein: “Fashion plays an important part in science, not much less than as to the clothing of women.”)

            The state of matters sketched above, inter alia, is responsible for it that, as to various major problems, the very essential factors relevant to them are ignored, repressed, tabood or hushed up. We give four concrete instances:

(a)
As regards Third-World immigration into the West, egalitarianism causes the repression of the circumstance that about all of those immigrants come from countries in which the average IQ is 85 or less. (See R. Lynn & T. Vanhanen: IQ and the Wealth of Nations, 2002.) The result for the countries of destiny can hardly be anything else than “hereditary ghetto formation”. Additionally, our dogmas around the inviolability of “man as he is” and his “goodness by nature” made us repress what Machiavelli teached about rulers who usually disguise self-interest by moral talk and ideology. (See also below.) This swept under the carpet that leftist politicians and welfare  organizations have an interest in many “disadvantaged” entering their countries, as future voters or as clients. Hence much ado about “racism” and “discrimination” towards those who oppose.

(b)
With respect to sexuality, relativism and egalitarianism repressed the evident fact that there is a great scarcity of  positively attractive men and women, as to both inner and physical qualities. Further, until very recently (that is, before the internet), the sex market was medievally inefficient, people being largely dependent on chance meetings. Still, about nobody saw the frustrating primitiveness.

(c)
Though life after death is felt to be a real possibility by several hundreds of million people in the mere West, we are so irrational as to employ worldwide only about twenty fulltime scientific researchers in the field of parapsychology. Again, this stems from the “fuzziness” idea and Wittgensteinian exclusion of vital problems of life from the realm of scientific thinking. That is, the RU error: “Truth is not detailedly definite, coherent and scientific”. More generally, increasing fundamental research to a multiple of the current exertion – say, from 0.3 to 3 percent of the national product – should be the highest priority of our leaders and  a core of any progress-minded policy. But it does not fit in the current “sceptical” climate.

(d)
In theory, most thinkers and politicians highly follow Machiavelli in his thesis that rulers will hide much self-interest behind moralistic talk and manipulating ideology. Very few, however, draw the logical conclusion from this: that many social abuses, unenlightened ideas and taboos – far from only being unintended consequences of well-meant policies – are nothing else but practices or ideology that (disguisedly) serve self-interest, irrational power, and generally what we call evil! Or, partly within the scope of our “idolization of Man as He is” and concomitant “solidarity”, we repress the idea that various groups or social forces, at least unconsciously, are simply of bad faith, anti-enlightened, pro-troubled waters (fuzziness) and disinterested in progress. For such ideology serves major vested interests, just as their opposition against clear and coherent reason (anti-Enlightenment) a few centuries ago was (un)consciously recognised as a useful ideological instrument by nobility and clergy in order to retain their power and privileges. Further, in view of the moral level of a large majority, we cannot even exclude the possibility that most current intellectuals, probably unconsciously, do not like clear and straightforward theories, arguments and solutions because these leave little latitude for now dominating quasi-deep irrational philosophy or details-mongering social science. That is, for the massive verbiage and inanity of those many who have nothing to say. Such “thinkers” prefer the RU paradigm and fuzziness, as do vested interests more generally. (A similar idea has earlier been advanced by Stanislav Andreski in Social Science as Sorcery , 1972.)

Within the above scope, it is a vital socio-cultural thesis of my work that, whereas in the past irrational power, censorship and conformism were maintained by violence, dogma and convention, the latters’ modern successors in formal democracies are mainly troubled waters and ideological manipulation made possible by them. That is, the RU paradigm. Hence present-day’s massive relativism, “fundamental uncertainty”, scepticism about progress, and irrational art. The former violence and explicit censorship as well as current relativism and fuzziness equally undermine the primacy of reason and the idea of progress based on knowledge and (human) quality.
            In this context, the basic antithesis, both in society and with respect to our thinking about the problems of life – from sex and anxiety to meaning and a possible hereafter –, is the one between
(1)
Consistent enlightenment, continued into the intimate and the unconscious, based on reason, rational values and progress up to and including human genes;
(2)
The complex of obscure bureaucracy and politics, and unenlightened ideas such as the principles of the RU paradigm, represented inter alia by subjectivistic philosophy, scepsis as to progress, incoherent art, anti-intellectualistic education and egalitarianism that even relativizes genetic quality.

Precisely as in the times of violence, jails and open censorship, current unenlightened (reason-relativizing and pro-fuzziness) ideas will serve interests: those threatened by the exposing, demystifying and cathartic power of reason and rational values, which are unrivalled in bringing things from their places.
            In later sections we will discuss in  more detail how such interests use the relevant ideas concretely. In the process, a new comprehensive socio-cultural theory will be produced, also related to a rather radically novel model of the physical universe that is preliminarily elucidated below.


On the Relation Between my Physical and Socio-Cultural Work

Such relation, referred to already, is based inter alia on the fact that I refuted the RU Paradigm by various demonstrations in the professional physical Journals. Something preliminary about the relevant physical work:
(a)
Four demonstrations from the Theory of relativity that past and future realistically exist and, therefore, can neither be fundamentally uncertain nor fuzzy in any sense other than what we experience here and now. For example, see on the internet the word combinations “Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument” and “Andromeda Paradox”. See also Sect. 7.1 of this site on my physical publications.
(b)
Four demonstrations, too, that such existing future, backwards in time (“retroactively”), can even co-influence the present (just as the past does by means of causality) within the latitude of the quantum (Heisenberg) “uncertainty margins”. My hypothesis: such retroactive influences precisely constitute Einstein’s hidden variable. (See again Sect. 7.1 for references.)
(c)
Proofs to the effect that both retroaction and nonlocality [the latter having been earlier demonstrated by others, inter alia, in the famous Paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR)] make the world much more coherent and less “coincidental”.
(d)
A physical theory about consciousness, including the paranormal. This, again, contributes to the inclusion of both into a rational, deterministic and even super-locally coherent physical and psychical universe. (This theory is in the process of being published. in Physics Essays. Again see Sect. 7.1 for further reference.) The theory substitutes both uncertainty and reductionist locality by even nonlocally coherent micro and macro determinism.

The above sketches some of the main ideas of this website. It contrasts with current “orthodoxy” such as the RU paradigm and political correctness. It consists of a number of essays that, inter alia, jointly constitute a coherent socio-cultural theory but can also be read separately. This implies some overlapping as a concession to their inner consistency.
            Most of my physical work has been recapitulated in Sect. 6.1, which also includes more detailed references.

Partly summarising, we conclude to what could be little less than the philosopher’s stone as to socio-philosophical matters:
Those in good faith have an interest in truth, value, quality, man and the universe at all to be objective, clear, coherent and knowable in principle. On the other hand, those who are not, have an interest in troubled waters, fundamental uncertainty, chaos and everything else kindred to the RU paradigm.
            This elementary antithesis virtually defines philosophical, cultural and social controversy and struggle in a general sense.