|
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
Naar meer Coherentie in de Maatschappijtheorie
9. Discussion
Page
Seize
the opportunity to contribute or oppose!
|
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.
|