It was in the nineteenth century that sciences began to determine the total worldview of man. Prior to that century it was not so clear that science’s theoretical grasp of natural order based on the purely quantitative aspect of phenomena had anything to do with the reality of human existence. Prior to nineteenth century in which science snatched the right to veto man’s every move, especially his perennial relation with the spiritual order, prior to that uproar and fuss about endless prosperity, prior to all that man was still spirit, a being essentially beyond and above the natural order whose hidden machinery was unveiled and exploited by his superior intelligence. The very success of sciences was telling of man’s supranatural dominion over nature, for if he were like all other beings fully subject to the same limiting laws and conditions, if his sole motivation was the prejudice of survival, then how could his science possess any objective value!?
Science began when man responded to his wonder about the world, when he realized that perhaps his mortality in flesh could be compensated by his immortality in intelligence; he wanted to know the world as it transcended the spatiotemporal limits of his finite existence; he wanted to know the world in itself. In other words, science began when man made a distinction between reality and appearance: Thus man entered the theoretical attitude, knolwedge for the sake of knowledge, episteme rather than doxa, truth in place of opinion.
However, when man initiated himself into the business of disinterested inquiry it was not as if he faced the world in an originary manner; it was not as if his starting point was a nature bare naked before him devoid of prejudice. The world that became man’s object of disinterested inquiry was the same world in which his all too practical existence was rooted. The object of his disinterested inquiry was already something in which man was spiritually, emotionally, and existentially invested, and it was such investments in which man’s theorizing was made possible in the first place. To be more precise, the world of facts that became man’s object of disinterested inquiry was a world already contaminated with prejudice.
It is not that science’s quantitative-theoretical attitude toward the world began with prejudice; rather, science’s quantitative-theoretical attitude toward the world is the prejudice. That the quantitative grasp of phenomena in general, and of human existence in particular, reflects the world as it is, and even worse as it should be, is the very prejudice upon which the total worldview of modern man is founded.
Science, of course, is not the source of problem; but the fact that science should determine man’s worldview and spiritual worth, that science as that which is determined by man is now to determine man, and that man has become enslaved to and suppressed by his own creation, man’s utter oblivion to the in principle blindness of science is the source of problem. A science that makes its master irrelevant, the very master who is the source of all relevance, including that of science, is none but the Judas of human existence.
NOEMAYA 
Reblogged this on dog biting its leg.
LikeLike
i am not good at English language so i cut and paste these from original post which expresses the degradation of environment in large scale in short duration. from point of knowing our true truth many evils faced by human species will certainly reduce,
The very success of sciences was telling of man’s supra natural dominion over nature, for if he were like all other beings fully subject to the same limiting laws and conditions, if his sole motivation was the prejudice of survival, then how could his science possess any objective value!?
A science that makes its master irrelevant, the very master who is the source of all relevance, including that of science, is none but the Judas of human existence.
LikeLike
I agree. It is not possible for us to be completely detached from the universe because within us we find the universe. We are made up of all that is and more. We are the “supreme talismen” which, to me, denies the possibility of being able to strictly adhere to the rules of objectivity. What we study in the sciences is what is inherently a part of us therefore leading us to integration and unity with all of creation. We do affect what we observe. Thanks as always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m going to reblog this. I hope you don’t mind. If you do, I will delete it! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thank you for sharing it. It is my pleasure. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!! 🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on WritersDream9 and commented:
Do you want to learn and stretch your mind? Check out this beautiful mind. Please refer all comments to NOEMAYA, tomajjavidtash.com/2014/11/28/science-and-prejudice/comment-page-1/#comment-470 Thank you.
LikeLike
I agree with the above. I think, however, we can unite science and truth, man and his existence within nature. Take, for example, the question of love.
Love is a feeling. In its simplest form, it is an attraction between two objects that fall under the gravitational pull of another. We humans believe that feelings are unique to our brains and nervous systems, but the essence of feelings is reflected in primary particles, waves and magnetic fields.
Our first feelings are the experience of touch and pressure. These feelings create both pain and pleasure, as we learn to seek the one and avoid the other. Movement and change is the product of existence itself. Movement creates motion, which in turn creates heat and friction. This heat and friction are felt by everything from particles to living entities. Love is only one aspect of a universal law of attraction that has been complicated greatly and unnecessarily by placing human values on universal processes.
How’s that for removing the mystery?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting. The problem is that the world described by science has no concrete reality. Science’s model of universe is a theoretical model that has practical applications, but does not coincide with world as it is in itself. For instance, man is not his brain or the nervous system; consciousness is not produced by brain or other natural processes, etc. We have simply accepted all these as if it were a matter of fact but it is not. Science reducing nature to a series of computations is only an abstraction. Love, however, is real as you beautifully said 🙂
LikeLike
I just happened across your book on Amazon and am very much looking forward to reading it. I all too rarely come across young scientists who see its limitations (yet clearly love science!) so clearly. Your statement here, “the world described cry science has no concrete reality.”
Once you see this, it is so obvious it’s hard to remember what it was like to understand science any other way. But trying to tell other people about it meets extraordinary resistance.
I wrote an essay in 2011 along these lines, “Shaving Science With Ockham’s Razor.” http://www.integralworld.net/salmon3.html There are two responses, one by the webmaster, who has no formal science background. But another is by a philosophy professor. Both completely misunderstand the essay, and in several years of follow up comments, I’ve utterly failed to get across the idea you just stated with elegant simplicity in a brief paragraph.
I wish you best of luck in your efforts. May the Divine Mother’s Grace be with you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the encouraging comment and I apologize for my delayed response as I hadn’t checked the blog for a while. I visited the link and look forward to reading your essay.
I have had a similar problem with interpretation as what I say is either understood as lowering spirituality and metaphysics to the level of science, or completely rejecting science. But I like to see everything in its own place, without one conflicting the other. But that there are parallels it is because nature is the shadow of transcendental Ideas, and a shadow though not the same as the object, it at least contains the general form and shape of the object reflected.
LikeLike
Hi Noemaya! I wanted to ask you what you know about tori and the related structure found in all life and energy? I am hot on the trail of learning about free energy and these models and thought of you as a kind of reference point. Thank you in advance!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know about tori. Do you mean torus the mathematical structure? I know there are certain mathematical structures that repeat themselves in nature, for instance fractals like in snow. I am myself very much interested in these structures. But I know only of those that we study in physics; vibrational motion is the one motion behind all natural phenomena. Let me know if I am talking about the same thing as you intended to ask.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was referring to the holographic/fractal nature of the universe. For example the ideas of Nassim Haramein regarding free energy and crop circles. I think it’s outside of the mainstream scientific circles. Which leads me to wonder if I might be walking down the wrong trail so to speak? Thank you so much. If you have any more thoughts or if I’ve clarified what I was meaning let me know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry for late reply. I don’t know much about Nassim but I will read about him. About crop circles as far as I know they were some prank done by a few guys; but regarding alien origin I personally doubt it as I don’t believe aliens ever visiting earth 🙂 The fractals are seriously studied in math and physics and are everywhere in nature. One of the causes for them is the space is a symmetric structure. For phenomena to grow since they find all directions to be the same they will have to grow symmetrically so they won’t pick one direction over the other. There is a lot more to it that I don’t know.
I am more into the holographic picture. The holographic nature of universe is drawing a lot of attention these days from mainstream physics because it is one of the consequences of string theory and quantum physics. I do not know Nassim’s idea of holographic universe, but the one holographic universe that is recently studied by cosmologists I am personally attracted to the one version in which the whole 3-D universe is a hologram projected on the 3-D surface of a 4-D sphere around a central singularity (center of blackholes.) In this picture the big bang and universe have never really happened; they are just images.
My own approach is a little bit different; many people look inside science to find justifications for metaphysical truth. But I don’t give much credibility to science. I see the metaphysical truth as fixed and absolute without needing scientific justification. Where science is at odds with metaphysical truth it is science that is wrong, as I believe. Regarding metaphysical truth I adhere to Advaita Vedanta metaphysics which is also accepted by most mystics and sufis. In it the supreme reality, ultimate reality, is non-dual; it is absolute and infinite; has no parts. Universe is an outward projection of it, but it is nonetheless an illusion. Universe has no substantial reality and there has been no real creation, according to Vedanta. The personal god of organized religions is of course real; but it is the relative absolute in that it is a projection of the supreme principle. Relative to supreme reality god is relative but relative to cosmos god is real and absolute. Universe although it is experienced but is mere illusion. This is the summary of that metaphysics. from this point of view, that universe has no substantial reality, it makes sense that science find universe to be a mere hologram. That is why I adhere to the holographic theory. Since universe is illusion, more like a dream, then its sciences too are illusion. But although science is illusion but its conclusions cannot contradict those of metaphysics; perhaps that is why physics too comes to the conclusion that universe is a mere hologram. The only thing that is real is that supreme principle, or godhead; everything else has only illusory reality. My own view of science is to see how science reflects this metaphysical truth. Obciously holographic unverse is a good candidate :).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I will need to think about this for awhile but initially my response is, as usual, to go to the Baha’i writings where I find that your ideas are mirrored. Baha’u’llah tells me that this world, meaning the “world” of all creation is simply a chimera and that we give it life and meaning because it was created for us. Thank you so much. I am broadening my horizons and you have become one of my “go to” people. Bless you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I gotta say I do believe that all religions, including Bahai faith, point to one and the same truth; they are only different superficially, essentially being the same. Apparent differences is only to fit different mentalities and geographical-historical temperaments. Interestingly I find the Bahai formulation to be more direct, pretty similar to nondual vedanta.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oh javidji. really great. thanks u keep pulsating. i saw few times u have taste for science prime but when the questioner is seen more to truth u drive them to core by nondual aspects with respect to sufis and mystics.
my love for ever . keep good health during holidays.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Conversations I Wish I Had and commented:
“Science began when man responded to his wonder about the world, when he realized that perhaps his mortality in flesh could be compensated by his immortality in intelligence; he wanted to know the world as it transcended the spatiotemporal limits of his finite existence; he wanted to know the world in itself. In other words, science began when man made a distinction between reality and appearance: Thus man entered the theoretical attitude, knolwedge for the sake of knowledge, episteme rather than doxa, truth in place of opinion.”
LikeLike
Nice post Toomajj. You say “..I see the metaphysical truth as fixed and absolute without needing scientific justification. Where science is at odds with metaphysical truth it is science that is wrong, as I believe. ”
Spot on. Science will never gainsay Nagarjuna. The idea that science can solve metaphysical problem is called ‘scientism’ and I share your horror at the idiocy of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comment; I am really glad to see more people who without rejecting science altogether, can see its limits and proper plane in addressing human problems. As you say it, metaphysics is the prerogative of the saint and the metaphysician; physicists must focus on physics problem without deciding once and for all which problems are important and which are not. It is not physics itself that we despite but its arrogance and totalitarian judgment.
LikeLiked by 1 person