Conflicting Spectra? (Part 3)

v. The human animal is the only species capable of rational anti-natural behavior. The anti-natural could not exist without the rationale appropriate to its age. Even gods pass on. Rationality appears a component of the universe, else science would be unproductive and pointless. Cause precedes effect, but the mind will often see otherwise. Misplaced categorization schemes involve root errors concerning permanency. Rationality does not always develop accurately. Certainty is regarded a virtue. Its reassuring appeal is rarely complete or even correct. A secondary error involves a very human tendency to create connections and patterns where none exist. Random spots may become a miraculous picture when viewed from afar, but still mean nothing. Sub-levels have a different meaning from the entirety. Perspective may not always be correct or appropriate for a given situation. Like cracks in a concrete foundation, flaws are not always readily apparent. The base may be infirm. Generally, integrity is assumed slowly degraded. One expects old bridges, unless well maintained, to develop defects. Concepts and belief systems are similar in the abstract. Old ruins arouse curiosity, sometimes venerated, but are rarely restored. The long dead stay dead, but the less recently deceased are sometimes erroneously resurrected or preserved in stagnation. The Christian religion, as opposed to its faith, has either long waned or mutated, despite the best efforts of its shrinking adherents in the western world. The rational is not always heeded, nor should be, in most important human endeavors. However, a time does come to move on. Those left behind become as either dinosaurs or the walking dead. The rational need not necessarily succeed the irrational. The world view created by economics is a prime example, else a gold standard would still be necessary. The dollar has value because it is accepted to have value in a shared economic verbal world. If this situation were to change drastically, the result would be economic collapse even were nothing else to change (impossible). One might be tempted to question the exact rationality involved, and ponder its predominance in many tragic anti-natural human affairs, like wars and purges.

vi. For those whom find religion unnecessary and faith oppressive, its institutions are a weight to be eliminated. Action and thought dictated by a higher power is distasteful and offensive. Our own errors are most highly prized. However, the greater herd appears to require some imposed order, or semblance, in their collective view of the world. The shared beliefs bring comfort by maintaining shared concepts, value systems, and a sense of community. Those creeds most codified are attributed metaphysically or to some god. The moral follow those dictates willingly or not. If one ceases to believe for whatever reason, predominate cultural values may be substituted to fill the void. The herd requires guidance, and will always look for any god or myth to fill that need. Once God died, the herd just grasped a new deity to venerate. The resultant dictates may even have the same trappings as religion, only less mystical and more base. Eventually, the emergent value systems will create their own mythical justifications and moral codes. In the case of the machine, value systems based on efficiency are beget for preservation and propagation. Standards and common techniques are necessary for the most efficient and smoothest operation. The resultant improvement is called progress, but for its own sake. Progress therefore became mythological over time. Its associated morality is extreme efficiency requiring maximum advantage in all things, including those aspects of life not necessarily served best by efficiency. Hence, various aspects of human existence compete for maximum advantage, and the weakest elements in this scheme lose. Unfortunately, no distinction is made between the natural and anti-natural, perhaps less so than is the case for religious morality. Objectively speaking, one might even be tempted to recognize religion as less anti-natural and harmful than progress. At least religion is based on tradition and not completely obsessed with technical efficiency. Religion is venerable and slowly withering away in its power and influence to varying degree. Progress is more akin to suicide by chocking to death on one's own waste. Standing solemnly, we expect the elderly to die. Hence, the irrational is orders of rank higher than the hyper-rational. Of course, this analysis says nothing concerning right nor wrong. The herd needs god(s).
Of course, some religious types make annoying attempts at preserving their beliefs and morality in the face of progress, which will inevitably trample and crush that which became culturally terminal long before. One might be tempted to hail this situation as well and good. Indeed, the individualistic faith does beat the herd faith, which nurtures weakness and decadence, but the enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. The hopes of certain western philosophers, like Nietzsche, based upon the immoral superseding decadent Christian morality, have unfortunately proven unfounded. The amoral has instead coopted the immoral, and gained ascendancy, thus apparently leaving nothing left against which to fight. Wasting time and energy with ghosts, the real threat remains unseen and even embraced by those offended by dead Christian values. Perhaps progress would be a better target...
Life without God only becomes meaningless for peasants and the weak minded. Dostoevski correctly predicted the consequences for Russia, but developed countries have suffered far less by the general abandonment of Christianity in deed (if not word). Cultures have not evolved at equal rates, and that which is best or necessary for one society may prove an unmitigated disaster for another. Many in the west fail to realize these differences, and attempt to impose their value systems for supposedly universal maximum advantage by economic pressures and even militaristic means. The circular, flawed and empty wheel-within-wheels connections which are tenuously woven to justify these actions are at best technical morality parasitically feeding upon any available value system for maximum advantage in all things. Efficiencies do compete. However, their blind spot lies within the inability to recognize that some aspects of life are inherently inefficient. Past errors sometimes lay groundwork for major advances. Indeed, scientific thought did manage to emerge from the darkness by its own challenges to superstition and ridiculous mysticism. A backlash may sometimes initiate events fortuitous as an avalanche which unearths a vein of gold. One must take care it does not become pyrite. Christianity denied a bad or good conscience by attributing such sentiments to a higher power. Consciousness was brought to light by scientific inquiry which then attempted to incorrectly quantify it. Which error is worse? Both restrict personal developing by demanding a rationale for everything, which only denies irrationality. The original sin is the denial of the world. Even an old religion hating atheist might be tempted to question the wisdom of an entirely rational world with its inherent logical flaws. The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily a friend. At least the old superstitions have some basis in tradition, and point toward the future. The new deliverance is equally false, but cannot even conceive a future except through fantasy and speculation. The utopias envisioned by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century became pure hells for all engulfed by their false belief in rational progress and perfection. Hence, the rational does not quite dare go so far again as blatantly, instead opting for a mediocre balancing act called market capitalism. A religion is many orders of rank over base political dogma and propaganda. The external and internal are separated with the individual caught in the break. However, one can always choose not to believe. In a technological society, very few can afford the sacrifice and energy required to constantly swim against the current. It becomes so much easier to simply go wherever the river may lead. After all, one could always be wrong since any contrary gut instincts are just irrational speculation. Although conferring some short term benefits, the anti-natural will never prove ultimately good in the long run. One can govern actions and resist animalistic impulses through other means than fear of moral sanctions or punishment. Good and evil are matters of perspective, never absolutes, and defined from above or below for the benefit of tools. At least the irrational may be easily discounted...
The Christian faith, through its own decadence, spawned the mythical concept of progress by the rational backlash against its most ridiculous and unyielding tenants. Conflict is often conception. Perhaps, the rational will produce its successor though the same mechanisms.
vii. Scientific intuition is recognized to exist and considered some import in scientific education and pedagogy, but significant if and only if proven correct by quantified means. As all mathematics are not computational, some physical phenomena may not be quantified. An important connection may be missed or remain entirely unseen by narrow reliance on formalism. Indeed, many physicists seem to realize the flaws inherent in reductive techniques by the failure to reconcile the relativistic and quantum worlds. Gravity is as elusive as it is noticeable. Fermat's Last Theorem was intuitively obvious, but centuries elapsed before a formal proof was developed. The effort was commendable, but not (strictly speaking) necessary. Rather than step over the mire for the green pastures beyond, physics might stagnate for centuries were this demand to halt advancement at some crucial point. Perhaps Fermat's Last Theorem was his last joke...
The intuitive has become fettered by formalism, and must be unchained to receive its due. Even an idle musing may lead somewhere important. Following an overgrown path, the introvert may stumble across something deeper, allowing the fathoming of dark pools and the mysteries contained within the mind. Understanding the nature of consciousness requires knowing nature, not the machine. Unlike the limited access afforded by the avenues of formalism, the intuitive is different for everyone and therefore unique. Even errors may be productive, rather than being just incorrect. The scientific mindset may require an occasional dose of the irrational. The math can come later. Of course, most intuitions and irrational hunches lead nowhere, but a few gems have shown their priceless value across the ages. One wonders whether we will see such genius again. High intelligent quotients mean nothing.
Science requires more than compartmentalized mathematical formulae or any singular approach. More abstract sciences have indeed suffered when mental effort is too tightly reigned. Alternate means may still have the same ultimate standards of proof, however some foundations may prove obstacles rather than building material. An example may be the positivist approach. Reduction may be useful in understanding greater spheres, but may become myopic when pushed to an extreme. The tool has become its own doctrine. Like using vise grips to pull teeth, some scientific thinkers demand reality conform to their world view and belief systems. Much like the adherents of any religion, some blind faith is required, only more rational. One may be tempted to ponder which extreme is ultimately worse. The balance scale is unable to weigh the anti-natural in any manifestations. Interesting science has outstripped its own philosophies which more than bridle it. Eventually phenomena becomes increasingly bizarre because the intuitive is partly guided by what one wishes to see. Believing pervasive cultural myths, such as progress, which promotes its own errors of absolute rationality, some scientists would rather cling to such notions in the face of everything. The obsessive is never healthy. Why else would revolutions in science be so resisted?
(Arthur C.) Clarke's Law roughly states that when an elder established scientist states something is impossible, the pronouncement will probably be proven (at least partly) incorrect. Scientific thought is subject to some rigidity, which will ultimately prove unhelpful where the technical surpasses science. One might develop better ways to probe the nature of reality, but what matter if no one understands its significance. Never forget that atomic bombs where once popularly thought nothing more than a big explosion. The public will generally be farther behind the scientific community in the greater conceptions of reality. No practicing scientist would admit to a belief in absolute determinism, and reduction will someday be viewed equally invalid. The doctrine is too simplistic and smacks of wishful anthropomorphizing. Of course, ascribing human characteristics or rather an ideal to natural phenomena is nothing new. The modern age is more abstract, and less inclined toward concrete idols. Its hollowness is muffled by deeper, more universal if not absolute concepts, rather than debatable religious tenants. The mathematical sciences and techniques have the advantage of general automatic acceptance by anyone educated to understand the implications. It becomes far easier to extend the resultant world view through projections upon every aspect of existence and reality. The reverberations may be felt across all levels of human society, culture and even individual personality. The new savior is sterile, cold, and less comforting to a species which largely appears to require faith. Looking toward the future may require narcotics for survival of the herd. The individual is expendable in these considerations. For this herd drive, some will adopt decadent or even nihilistic tendencies. The educated are particularly susceptible. Sheer exposure levels insure all are infected by the dictates of dogma. Some more or less so. The open mind is a myth and a lie. Hence, certain supposed scientific truths may be among the greatest errors. By dogmatically embracing incorrect comparisons and spectra, the scientist serves ignorance rather than knowledge.

1996 - January 1, 2001