Transcendence is not a human possibility because humanity is itself a transcendental possibility of consciousness.
We are not human beings with consciousness. We are only experienced to be human beings with consciousness.
It is not humans who are conscious. It is consciousness that experiences itself as humanity.
Only consciousness can know and say that it is consciousness.
Nothing can exist but consciousness.
If natural phenomena could exist apart from consciousness, and if consciousness is a natural phenomenon, then consciousness could exist apart from consciousness, that is, there could exist consciousness without there existing a consciousness at all; or, consciousness could exist without being conscious of itself as consciousness. This again amounts to saying that there could exist conscious experience without it being someone’s experience: Consciousness could exist without there existing a conscious agent!
Absurd.
That consciousness is a product of material processes is the most ridiculous superstition that science could ever come up with; it is even more childish than the mythical tale of a moralist god creating the universe a few thousand years ego.
In its rebellion against Christianity, science replaced one superstition with yet another: It replaced Christianity with scientific materialism; it replaced god with matter; it replaced church with academia, theism with atheism, Scholasticism with Scientism, scholastic hypocrisy with academic fascism.
If theism was the fashion of Middle Ages, atheism is the fashion of Modern Ages. Just replacing names doesn’t change the underlying rigidity of the idol and its blind followers. What is fashionable is by definition a brand, a fix for the pseudo-intellectuals of our times so hypnotized with the lure of science that they fail to see science is pure and simple an all too human tradition: One who accepts science and its Dawkins as superior and unquestionable sources of authority is enslaved to dogma as the one enslaved to religious dogma.
Only an idolater finds idols.
Only if one were exposed to the unimaginable levels of corruption in academic circles one would be more cautious in one’s worship of science. Let us make it clear to ourselves: Once a person, the scientist or the philosopher, makes a career out of the pursuit of truth, thus using the currency of self-proclaimed facts to feed an image and a family as a respected scientist with such and such accredited papers, then the academic truth becomes a whorified truth having to sleep with the public opinion of academic circles; their truth is just a self-interested motive with the mask of truth.
Truth can never emerge from science or academia, for no human being is so self-absorbed more than the modern scientist and its fascism toward any alternative mode of inquiry into truth. Science and its materialism will do to itself what church and its scholasticism did to itself: A universal revolt against itself.
It is no wonder that quantum physics after carefully probing the fabric of existence came back home with the news that “there was no matter down there; what we saw was what we put there ourselves.”
Hopefully there comes a day that man actually becomes a rational being for the first time.
NOEMAYA 
Interesting way you described this. However, how can we be sure (with certainty) that what may appear to be true about our subjective experience is ultimately informative and not misleading about the nature of the entire universe? I have heard it argued that the universe could be an interconnected system, yet not be characterized by consciousness at its fundamental level, for example. This need not be a naive or dualist materialistic view. I’m not saying that this is what is true, simply that it may not be possible to know whether or not it is, even with contemporary understanding of physics and/or phenomenology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thank you for your comment; I should say that what you say is absolutely legitimate; however, what I find missing in science is that the scientists don’t usually make their decisions based on concern that you and I may have. They systematically suppress alternative or new research that may be radical or undermine their own ideas (this is by the way very similar to what Einstein faced during his early scientific career.) A scientist when comes to a decision about a new approach to something thinks first about his grants, his image, his tenure and department chair, the theories for which he has spent his life, etc. Their motivations is not for the sake of objective knowledge. I see this frequently in science departments. And most scientists are ideologically charged, such as Dawkins or Krauss. Science is supposed to be away from dogams such as theism or atheism while these people go around for debates over the matter. How different is this from the priests who did the same during Middle Ages?! There is more corruption among these guys rather than genuine concern for objective knowledge.
Regarding subjective experience I should say that if we are not sure with certainty over this issue then we should not suppress research in that direction, especially researches with empirical basis. Science in its foundation is filled with metaphysical assumptions that are never openly discussed or even taken seriously. And in fact it was the clash of these assumptions with experimental findings of quantum mechanics that made QM so controversial.
When we speak about the nature of the universe we must keep in mind that there exists nothing except subjective experience, and this is a matter of brute fact. The universe we are talking about is the human universe, the universe we have come to know through subjective experience; science and experiments are modes of human subjective experience; there is no step in science and scientific achievements that doesn’t involve subjective experience, including theorizing, designing apparatus, setting up experiments, measuring, reading data, interpreting data, talking with other scientists, etc. It is all human products; and humans have only subjective experience. Nothing happens outside this subjective experience. It would be a metaphysical assumption to posit that the universe and its nature and its questions, etc. are independent of this subjective experience; but the modern scientists speak about universe as if science knows this universe through ways other than consciousness! The very objective appearance of nature and the world is something itself constituted within consciousness. What scientists call objective is simply someone else’s subjective experience, the subjective experience of a group of people (scientist) who believes his seeing and understanding is superior to others. Isn’t this a familiar scene for all of us; the fascism that always repeats itself in history.
I love and respect science; I am myself a physicist; but I love science as a project for objective knowledge which must always include the consideration that consciousness is always present in all inquiries and sciences. But scientist is a human person, as corruptible as anyone else. Once they get involved in ideology and ideological preference and fissionability and image, then they are no more objective; they are hypocrites as Dawkins is, and as this clown of a physicist Krauss is. An atheist scientist is just a technician working on a project; he/she is no more a scientists.
And what is worse is the followers of science that don’t really know what science is and what it is not; they are even more fanatical than Christians. Science is always a human tradition, a particular mode of inquiry among many others; findings of science insofar as they are independent of human subjectivity have no objective values, they are theoretical models with utilitarian goal. For instance, objects of physics are entirely different from objects of experience; objects of physics aren’t real; they can’t actually exist; they are approximations so to make theoretical models for practical purposes; but the blind fan of science is not aware of these limitations of science.
My personal criticism is that I worry about science; I like to preserve it and help make it more objective; what most scientists do now and their fans do is to destroy science. Any fanatic discipline which become mixed with human emotions and quarrels loses its objectivity.
I hope I explained my position and made it clear that I am a lover of science and objective truth which I find lacking in most academic circles. Dawkins and his type make more people hate science; science doesn’t need this and it should not be a concern of scientists to convert people or have them doubt their convictions, for science itself is just a human tradition and thus a conviction in essence. Not everything that works can reflect what is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think that is a good comment and it clarifies what your position is, and I also agree with some of the points. There has been a trend in recent years to overly “science.” As you seem to suggest, certain philosophical assumptions, for example related to philosophical materialism, are sometimes treated as though they are proven by “science,” although they should really be something to continue to discuss/debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems that we might say : there are, in evidence, two powers of truth, one that deceives , and another …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you very much. It seems that though the impulse for knowledge may start out as genuine disinterested inquiry by free choice, but when it becomes systematic and gains power and authority then it gets corrupted and deviates from the original intention. The pursuit of truth, if at all there is such a thing, should never be be turned into a system or tradition. Tradition is by its nature subject to its own inertia which entails the suppression and removal of everything alien to that tradition. Science as it is exercised today is one of these traditions that has already lost its objectivity. What is left is pure dogma. And even despite this, one thing almost no scientist is aware of is that the whole of modern science stands on Galileo’s decision to look at nature quantitatively; he did so by the power of Euclidean geometry and assumed that the ideal objects of this geometry can be good approximation for nature. So the whole of science continued as an approximation of something essentially ideal and not experiential. Modern science is a Galilean tradition; it is the reign of quantity. Most scientists are unaware of the origin of science, its limits, and its scope. Modern science is utterly blind to its own essence; it can’t even account for its own existence and validity. These are issues that cant be answered from within science, and the scientist doesn’t have the qualification to or proper intellect to see these issues. Scientists of today are just technicians or mathematical artists or model creators. No genuine scientist, such as Socrates himself, is left really. Genuine science should be a body of knowledge that includes both transcendental philosophy and natural science. Without critical philosophy science is just a child’s play.
Bertrand Russel is an example of the hypocrisy and shortsightedness that modern science represents; he said “it is a brute fact that universe is just there.” this is an utterly false and unscientific and metaphysical assumption and not a fact. If he were more observant and empirical he would see that the only brute fact is that “there is experience of a universe.” It is meaningless, as quantum physics agrees, to speak of a universe being there without considering the consciousness for which there is a universe in the first place.
The science that most people think is such an achievement is really in its most infantile stage, filled with metaphysical assumptions, blind to its own origins and shaky foundations, isn’t even self-conscious, it is utterly superstitious, and still believes in the independent existence of the world! I don’t know how scientists can’t see the fallacy of such notion; it is so obvious that one doesn’t even know how to prove it to someone who can’t see it.
In a few centuries perhaps science will look back and see this stage as how we see the people who believed in a transcendent god. Now people only naively accept science since they find it perhaps cool or fashionable or dare not say that they believe otherwise; it is part of the suit you have to wear if you like to be considered intellectual, modern, respected, etc. This science is no episteme; it is pure doxa.
LikeLike
“One doesn’t
LikeLike
Sorry. “One doesn’t know how to prove it to those who don’t see it”. I can really dig what you say. But I am unsure that humanity is getting anywhere but it’s own idea of progress. Yes, your analysis of science I can agree; I wonder; from what I’ve heard of Bruno Latour, he really gets into the details of what you are describing of science. But I am not sure if knowledge, as that evidenced of ‘science’, as you put, ever gets further than its own idea. It appears to me as a power, in its own right of ‘conceptualization’. That discourses such as yours are completely foreign to such reckoning beyond what is commonly understood as ‘spiritual’. That such ‘regular’ knowledge usurps what ever discourse is presented into its scheme of meaning. Such is its power. So it is I speak of a ‘divergence’ from this real totality. I am unsure there will ever be a ‘grand awakening’ — that is except as a historical estimation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure either. As you said there is always only the human idea of science or knowledge or progress. Even if we agree upon a system to represent a body of knowledge it would still be a human system, human agreement, and human knowledge. One cannot apply that system to the human being and expect to be objective. No science of human being can ever be objective since man himself is the ultimate source of sense and significance. Objectivity and knowledge are all too human. What I see as the blindness of modern science, which is a modern superstition really when it considers itself to know the thing in itself, is that science can’t see its own human origin. There is nothing but human subjectivity; we have nothing but this subjectivity; even the idea that subjectivity has objective origins is itself an idea of human subjectivity. No such thing as universal science in the sense of knowing the thing in itself or thing as independent from human understanding of it is possible, and it is so in matters of principle. Human sciences which we supposed to be sciences of the world have lost themselves in the world.
There is really only, if we are to be empirical at all, subjectivity; even man and his historicity are phenomena within this subjectivity. Science happens inside this sphere and not outside it; this is what science can’t see. To make this division that there is human subjectivity and then there are objective facts is a false division, for the ideas of fact and objectivity are themselves products of human subjectivity. One never steps out of the this sphere, let alone situating it in an existing universe whose existence is logically and ontologically absurd.
LikeLike
Landzek, as you said it is the sole matter of power that science calls itself science. Science, which is essentially a western phenomenon, is based on the conceptual domination. It is one particular mode of approach which is harmonious with the western mentality of “divide and conquer.” Divine and conquer is precisely what conceptual analysis does to phenomena. Now this mode may have its own practitioners but when it has turned into a power center, as now in the name of science, then it is really an intellectual fascism against all other modes of inquiry, including non-conceptual. To claim that the truths of science or truths of conceptual analysis are superior truths, that they are nobler than truths of other traditions, is symptomatic of a totalitarian dominion in the sphere of truth. West has purchased all rights to truth and academia is its truth factories that export these truth to the world, even to China. But this is really not surprising, for the wild west could never handle truth, particularly naked truth, as it is exposed for example in Advaita Vedanta. West had to enslave truth to concepts and then divide phenomena into these concepts so it could make it its own and profit from it. Modern science is the product of such weak and paranoid mentality.
West can’t handle the truth. JN 🙂
West thinks reality; East lives reality. Middle East just sucks.
LikeLike
I call what you are talking about here, ‘capitalization upon the discrepancy’. The discrepancy is found as ones identity is oriented in the True Object, a type of fetishism. Quite Marxist, but I don’t know if I’d say I am a Marxist; but he definitely has described the situation well.
LikeLike
You might be interested in my post(s) on faith. ( I think there are two, but my iphone WP app won’t let me go that far back to tell you which one I’m thinking about. Lol)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Landzek; I will find and read them. I like and enjoy your philosophy and identify with it.
LikeLike
The neuro scientist Sam Harris declares there is no self and no free will what make you of that?
It is true we all need money whoever we are and scientists are no more or less open to temptation than any one else. The question is does that make all they do invalid?
Technology has come a long way through science we all rely on it all the time.
The worrying thing is that it might be out of our control carrying the human race into crisis.
LikeLike
Where did I say that all they do is invalid? I said that the objective value of their work is at risk. And above all what they do is constructing theoretical models that have practical utility. It is not correct to take these scientific theoretical models as nature itself. Heisenberg says “what we observe isn’t nature herself but nature exposed to our methods of inquiry.”
But about Sam Harris: When we ask a Christian about the basis of his claim about the creation of world 6000 years ago, he says his proof is that bibles says so. Now that some guy named Sam Harris declares something doesn’t really means anything. I don’t need to make anything of that. The belief structure is the same as that of a Christian. You have given absolute authority to some guy and then take reality to be what he says. Especially that we both know neuroscientists who don’t belief as Harris does. And you have not done experiments yourself. You just accept what he says. Why should I even try to respond to his position?! And my question from you is that what do you yourself think about this matter? Regardless of the influence Harris or science may have?
But I respond to Harris’s claim and I ask you please give this response an independent thought:
If we take the assertion “there is no self and no free will” to be true, then who is it that has made this assertion? Sam Harris, according to his own claim, is a fictional character; there is no self behind his body; it is just a bundle of experiences, so his claim cannot have the validity of an individual’s claim!
And above all, if there is no free will, then Harris could not have possibly concluded otherwise; he could not have possibly said anything else. So his claim is something predetermined and conditioned and not something made objectively and by free choice based on an unbiased observation of nature! If there is no free will, then his claim too can have no objective value whatsoever, because it is imposed on him by external conditions and not a choice that Harris himself made scientifically! You see that his own assertion refutes the very assertion itself; it refutes the objectivity and legitimacy of his assertion. I wonder if you ever noticed this self-contradictory character of Harris’s claim!
So Sam Harris must be a pretty stupid scientist to make such a self-contradictory claim. And this is exactly what I mean: Such claims are made everyday in science and people simply accept it without examining it by themselves and free from influence. In fact what you said about Harris beautifully demonstrates my point about the lack of objectivity in most scientific expressions. Harris simply made a stupid claim so to made things controversial. Doesn’t he see that to accept his own assertion implies that his assertion is no more scientific?!
See that any universal claim made about the human subject himself and his mind and consciousness has this self-contradictory character: And psychologists, neuroscientists, AI people, and cognitive scientists make a lot of such claims. When you make such a universal claim about human person himself you need to consider that it is the human person that is doing the science, doing the investigation and making conclusions. If you universal assertions says something about human then that assertion also is true about science which is a human product and acheivement. If man is entirely conditioned by his environment, then his science too is conditioned as well, thus it can’t be true independent of human experience, thus it can’t be objective, thus the very assertion loses its validity, thus implies that man is not entirely conditioned by environment. Or if we say that everything in man is determined by neurons or survival drive, etc. then this implies that all human activity including science is motivated by these interested aimed at survival, thus these sciences can’t be valid objectively anymore. Objective is defined in science as that which is true independent of human experience or human influence. If human has no will or self then his sciences too are not developed by his free will and objectively.
Any statement questioning the absolute authority of human consciousness, questions the authority of the statement itself, since all statements are products of human consciousness. Even the very idea that nature exists independently of man is an idea of human consciousness.
So I hope I could show you how ridiculous such assertions including Harris’s are. And I ask you to think about it yourself rather than taking either my word or his. We are not here at odd each defending our own position. We want a knowledge that is not corrupted by human influence, if at all such a thing is possible. But modern science being filled with these ridiculous assertions is not more objective, thus it is not a science at all. When I see a neuroscientist making such an stupid and self-contradictory statement, then how can I trust his other scientific judgments or respect him as scientist?! (particularly that his assertion says that he can’t have judgments of his own.) These guys are just bunch of hypocrites abusing science and their academic positions to make controversial claims or assert their own ideological preferences, particularly aimed at religion. This is what a politician does not a true respected scientists. But the only thing I personally needed to hear in order to question the judgment of Harris was the assertion about free will and self. That is pretty stupid of him to say that. and I hope you see that point.
LikeLike
The worrying experimental evidence he produces is as follows:
In an experiment where the subject presses a button when he makes a choice Sam says he has evidence that his brain made the choice several seconds earlier.
He goes on to suggest that the brain only makes the choice it is conditioned to do. In other words it is a predetermined choice. No choice at all really.
Let me say I’m a layman with no special training or education just sn interest.
LikeLike
Well the fallacy still remains; that Harris too is conditioned and predetermined to see and say what he see and says, including the methodology of his science, science, etc. And even this is not necessary. If someone doesn’t have a free will then he can’t have objective science, can he?
Then Harris must be wrong in his observation and conclusion. Actually I read his findings a few years ago when a simple version of it was published in SA. he has done an experiment and observed something; that doesn’t mean he make an assertion that contradicts the assertion. This simply means he is wrong in his observations and conclusion about free will. As I said earlier: A someone without free will, with choices already predetermined by conditions, can’t produce objective claims or science at all.
LikeLike
We all rely on technology and this is exactly what I believe is the job of modern science; to produce ideologies or make metaphysical statements or self-contradictory assertions is not the job of science or scientists. He should stick to what is empirical and logically sound and sensible and verifiable.
And another point is that science being successful at technology doesn’t imply that theoretical models of science correspond to reality as it is itself. This is something even rejected in quantum physics. The success of science in technology has nothing to do with the nature of reality, for the reality that science grasps and depicts is a theoretical, ideal construct and not an experiential reality. This is what most people miss in their judgments. Science is great and I as a physicist love and respect it. But it must know its limits and what it is, what it is not, and what it can or can’t do. This is very important because any tradition that lost sight of its limits and became totaliterian and absolute, as science has come now, will be on the course to self-destruction. I don’t want science destroyed, so it must stay away from stupid, controversial claims that have no basis in experiment, let alone being self-contradictory. The cosmos of science exists only in equations and not something empirical. This is what quantum mechanics concluded after years of resistance from scientists. But still most scientists, non-physicists, still don’t get this; they’re still caught up in their superstitions.
Science needs to be preserved and protected, and it is scientists such as Harris or Dawkins or Krauss that are doing the most damage to science by playing stupid an d saying nonsense so to make attention or annoy some religious fanatics. Science fanatic is as dangerous as religious fanatic. science by definition is objective, this devoid of all fanaticism.
LikeLike
Science is successful so surely its view of reality , what ever that may be , must be a good one and getting better. Have they not unravelled the big bang and shown much of what stars and galaxies are about.
LikeLike
No they have not. Big bang, fields, singularities are all projections of human observation in the language of mathematics. They are all in principle theoretical constructs. I am not at all saying there is no big bang or stars. But the picture science provides is always theoretical because it is built in into its foundation from the time Galileo defined modern science as that which is quantifiable and can be expressed in mathematics. This is not absolute picture of nature; it is just one model based on certain metaphysical assumption that the scientist of today is unaware of. I said earlier that for instance the objects in physics are entirely different from those in nature; objects of physics are idealizations based on the principles of geometry; while objects of nature are experiential and not ideal; they are constituted in the flow of time and not in space like those in physics. So the whole picture is in its foundation theoretical; of course it is a working model. but one can never say that this is what it is independently of human consciousness and experience. TO say so is to be unscientific because every step of science and its production is entangled into human subjective experience and its idealizations of nature.
There are now holographic theories of the universe that say bog bang is not a real event but a projection of a singularity on a 3-D surface of a 4-D sphere. So the absolute reality of big bang is itself under debate, though this new theory too is still a model.
How these models depend on human factor and how they are productions of the scientists rather than nature is much more widely exposed in quantum mechanics and its principles which for the first time came into contact with reality itself and realized what we know if it is always our knowledge of it. Nature is human experience of nature. This must be understood, both by scientist and those who simply accept the authority of science.
LikeLike
Scientist must avoid becoming a public figure based on his/her science. Once he/she becomes a celebrity, as Harris or Dawkins or others have become, they will lose their objectivity. This is because now their public image is associated with their ideological preference derived from science. Now if there is even the slightest evidence to the contrary that may undermine their theories or public opinons, how likely would they be in accepting the new paradigm or research?! Not very much likely; they would resist anything that may undermine their position because their image is associated with that position; for them to change the position would damage their image. That is why scientist should refrain from becoming a public figure based on his conviction derived from science. Science itself is great; it is scientists who destroy it; there fanatics in science as there are in all religions. That the name is “science” doesn’t justify their fanaticism. The militant atheists are the Taliban of knowledge and science, the terrorists of truth. And I am very blunt in saying so. They are executioners of higher, often objective and empirical, truths so to have their own version be dominant. How is it different from fascism, intellectual terrorism? They academically execute and destroy the life of anyone who goes contrary to their often stupid and self-contradictory beliefs. The mentality when is sick it is sick; it doesn’t matter if you have a beard and a knife or if you shave and wear a tie sitting at a university chair.
LikeLike
Strong characters believe they are right and we all have our pet beliefs.
The men you mention are very angry with religion and seek to put it down.
At some very distant time and how I don’t know we accquired a conscience which caused us to examine our own actions. From this conscience religion was developed as a moral yardstick.
In the modern world we largely ignore our conscience and follow ambitious self- interest. Hence the parlous condition of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is the problem; a scientists who is an angry and wants to put something down is no more an objective inquirer. I understand the frustration with religion. But this is not the concern of an unbiased scientist. Besides, religion is practiced by millions of people. You have no right to decide that their truth is false while yours is true and then try to implement your own truth. They blame the misery of the world on religion; but the source of misery isn’t religion but ideology in general and seeing one’s own ideology above all others. This is the source of evil. Now a scientists who is doing the same thing with his own ideology is no different from religious fanatic. Science is a working machine; it is not to replace belief systems. If a hammer works perfectly we don’t rise and proclaim that “the hammer is truth.” Those people’s mentality shows exactly the same dangerous syndromes that are present in the mentality of religious fanatic. science needs no defense; its practical success is its own defense and proof. But it is also not an ideology or belief system. It doesn’t even make sense to say “I believe in science.” Science is not something to believe in; it just does it job and should claim no more. As the last example if my hammer worked perfectly, I dont say I believe in the hammer, neither do I expect hammer to replace all other tools and machines.
I very much agree with your point about self-interested motives, and this worries me because we see these motives very much among scientists or where they like to see themselves and views superior to others. This only damages science. Believe me, I as a physicist would like to be superior to others in intellect, etc. but this would be a dagerous state of affairs. My expertise solves certain specific problems; it can’t address human emotional or spiritual issues no more than religion could create a cellphone or an internet media like this one in which we can dicuss these issues openly. Self-interest and science don’t go together. If someone is angry and hates religion then they should be expelled from science department, for their actions would cause more damage to science. A science so successful in its practice needs no self-interested people to defend it. and they are after their own agenda than the health of science, otherwise they wouldn’t do what they’re doing.
LikeLike
I must also add that these successes are in the sphere of utility; there are philosophical questions such as the existential status of reality or even its origin that science cannot address; it is in principle inadequate to address these questions; some people like to accept the solutions of religions; let them do it. some other, like myself, like to keep asking and find ways to possibly answer to prove that they are unanswerable. But science can’t address them. When physics puts in the beginning the big bang, the quantum foal, etc, these don’t answer the question but only raise them with more vigor. The question is why are there things rather than nothing: Now you can’t put at the beginning a mathematical law and say that’s why. The question includes the mathematical law itself.
These kinds of stuff are genuine and series questions that can’t be answered from within science because science already takes for granted the reality and existence of the world which is never provable. At best logicians or perhaps philosophers can dig into these. But science has no right to come in and claim these questions are irrational simply because they have no answer in science.
Science is not the absolute criterion of rationality. If science can’t answer it doesn’t mean that question is worthless. Science like my hammer is build for specific purposes which is built into its methodology. To be aware of the limits of science is a good thing for scientist rather than playing the role of supreme leader of all knowledge. Yet this attitude is so typical of all western phenomena, including science which is just another western phenomena.
And my last point is that even the success of science can be considered success from a certain point of view and not universally. Maybe a thousand years later we look back and see the reign of technology as a period of dark ages or something. Point is that science and its worth are all too human phenomena, run by humans, values by humans, advertised by them, and abused by humans.
LikeLike
Yes we are running the show and at the moment it is tottering. With each advance of technology comes a stumbling block. Just look at the benifits of the internal combustion engine and contrast them with its enormous polution effects. Progress is a two-sided coin but there are some ugly forces driving it. Ambitious craving for more part of our inherited human nature. Man has never been content to just look at the stars and breathe the mountain air. I was born in 1942 a lucky time in some ways and I have seen great changes. I believe civilisation will fragment and dark times will come this century. My hope is that something better will rise from the remnant ashes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you and I hope the same thing 🙂
LikeLike