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
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