Random Reflections

I have been wanting to write something in my blog but I really have nothing to say at the moment, at least the usual stuff that I say. I thought it is a good opportunity to push myself to write when there is nothing to write, that perhaps a new field may open itself up to me which is concealed by what I usually think and say. So I decide to devote this post to free-writing.

I think I have put my mind in an awkward situation: At the same time I have used the analytic part of the mind most of my life, doing only physics, mathematics, and western philosophy. On the other hand, I am inherently drawn to the synthetic language of religion and spirituality. The analytic aspect of me tends to dissolve the whole into pieces, disintegrating whatever comes in its way. The synthetic aspect longs for the shattered whole. No wonder I linger mostly in metaphysics which is the intersection of scientific thought and religious aspirations.

By science of course I mean not modern science which I see as the perversion of the intellect. We should remember that the idea of science as systematic knowledge of totality was handed down to the fathers of modern science, such as Bacon and Galileo, from Aristotle. But in the vision of Aristotle science as systematic knowledge must always contain the two complementary parts, Physics and Metaphysics. Modern science took physics and dispensed with metaphysics, the result being a collection of scattered and mentally challenged disciplines that outwardly behave as science but lack the proper metaphysical foundations. For Aristotle metaphysics is the ground of all science; he called it the First Philosophy, supreme science.

Of modern sciences I like them insofar as they explain phenomena quantitatively but disliked them for their lack of metaphysical foundations. And by modern science I really consider exact sciences; the rest such as psychology, humanities, AI, and even biology and neuroscience don’t even qualify as science; they are awfully misguided in their characters and conclusions because they adopted the methods of physics which deals with inert matter and tried to apply them to totally different kind of phenomenon, life. Their procedures is based on an unfounded assumption that life is nothing but inert matter put together in a complex structure. I cannot see how one can make this unscientific assumption and claim to produce a science out of it!

There is very sharp line between organic and inorganic systems, between life and inert matter. The whole of these pseudo-sciences is based on ignoring this impossible gap between the two kinds of phenomena. We can consider a stone, a piece of wood, water, etc. to be natural phenomena, but we cannot possible consider consciousness too in the same class, for nature and all its phenomena are given to us, and known, in and through consciousness. To say that pure material phenomena and natural processes cause the emergence of consciousness is exactly like saying that the objects in our dream cause the dream experience!

The very basic division that we so take for granted, the objective-subjective divide, is itself a moment of conscious experience. The objectivity that we so much value in science is a possibility within subjectivity. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing but subjectivity; no one can say something that lies outside experience; and even the idea of “outside experience” or “independent of experience” is itself something experienced and cognized by consciousness. Only a subject can think of a world existing independently of him/her; only consciousness can imagine its own absence.

What modern scientific thinking has done was to push everything non-material into the human mind, telling us that imaginations, inspirations, religious experiences, etc. are all in your head, that they are subjective and not in the world. And we have simply accepted this crooked judgment and as a result take our own spirits less seriously compared to the men and women of the golden age. They have created a police state and sent everyone home, into the privacy of your mind. But when science speaks of a God-less, objective world isn’t it speaking of the subjective experiences of a few who consider themselves privileged in their knowledge of what is real and what is unreal?! Isn’t a God-less, objective world itself an idea in the consciousness of those totalitarian institutions known as academia?! What they consider objective reality is really someone else’s subjective experience, the scientists.

We have been raised and educated with this hidden propaganda that the knowledge of reality is only accessible to a few with whose unquestionable verdicts we must agree or else we are superstitious and unintelligent! Their subjectivity is better than ours! Well, if we don’t get caught up in their superficial names and forms we recognize this mentality as almost always present in history: It is nothing but fascism. It has emerged in the realm of religion, race, and now in the realm of intelligence. The dogmatic scientism exercised by many such modern scientists is nothing but intellectual fascism. When you consider your own methods of inquiry and modes of knowledge as superior to others and systematically ridicule and suppress everything that smells of the slightest disagreement, then you are that recurrent fascist who always shows up in history demanding the reign of its own truth and the exclusion and execution of the truths of others.

Modern science is but an abstraction from the immediate conscious experience. To consider these abstractions as the causes of that conscious experience is a self-refutation of science because the results cannot precede the methods by which the results are obtained. Knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is essentially the content of consciousness and cannot account for the existence and form of that consciousness no more that a water in a glass can be the cause of the glass itself. I must add that here by consciousness I mean something broader that the particular human consciousness because our humanity, our mind and consciousness, our existence, etc. are things of which we are aware, and hence they too belong in the content of a more general, universal consciousness who has no personal subject; it is rather subject-less consciousness, or if you like its pure subject is The Absolute, or God. Anything of which we are aware of is always already inside consciousness: We are constantly aware of ourselves surrounded by an external world; thus, we and world with its quality of being give as something outside me are all contents of consciousness. In other words, there is nothing outside consciousness, even the idea of outside-consciousness itself being something inside consciousness.

The problem of course is not with science as such. It is the wrongful role and status that we have assigned to it. We must understand that modern science with its picture of the universe is nothing but an abstraction, however a very practical and beneficial abstraction that can in many ways improve our lives. But this science and its objects have nothing to do with the Reality in itself, reality as it first shows up in our immediate conscious experience, the reality that contains science only as one of its possibilities, a human tradition at best. Science itself is something experienced; it may explain other objects of experience but it cannot explain itself and its own origin and possibility. Modern science as one among the many other human achievements can never understand its own master, the human person, for it is itself produced and conditioned by that person. Therefore, psychology is bullshit.

Good night.

11 thoughts on “Random Reflections

  1. For having “nothing to say” you manage to say it beautifully!

    I know you have studied John Archibald Wheeler, have you seen the Lanza/Berman book on “Biocentrism”? It’s a bit uneven in places, and Lanza spends a lot of time talking about how remarkably smart he himself is πŸ™‚ but he does go directly to the physics / metaphysics nexus.

    I have found only a handful of serious scientists and philosophers who have taken up these questions (e.g., is “it” actually from “bit”?), and I have found quite a few heated and vehement “refutations” that really just don’t hold water and make me wonder what it is about the idea of metaphysics as truly foundational makes these people so upset.

    Perhaps it is that they have devoted their lives to deep study of what they believe to be essential truth, and don’t like the idea that instead of the fire, what they have been studying are the shadows that it casts on the cave wall.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You said it beautifully. There is a naive realism behind these scientists you mentioned, and unfortunately academia has become insanely competitive. The policy of “publish or perish” and tenure track and government funding, etc. has made businessmen from a lot of scientists. They’re so attached to their theories that even if experimental evidence comes forth they do everything to undermine it, and not for objective reason but for prejudice. Physics may explain beings but it cannot address Being as such which is the task of metaphysics, and unless the two are together our knowledge cannot aim at completion or true objectivity. I personally do not expect physicists to do metaphysics but they should understand that physics is incomplete without metaphysics if we are after the knowledge of the whole.
      I think that even if physics solves all its problems and finds the theory of everything, yet the real question as to why things are, why laws of physics are, is not yet answered. They deal with this question by saying it is irrational and should not be asked! This is pretty stupid of a scientists who claims is committed to science and objectivity.
      Interestingly the scientists of past generations were more aware of this problem, including Wheeler whom I respect very much; he was the graduate adviser of my graduate adviser, Bei-Lok Hu; he is basically the only person I know in our department who is interested in deeper issues, perhaps under the influence of Wheeler.
      Anyways, I am pretty sure the situation will change eventually, at least I hope so.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Chick sorry for the delay; I have been working on some project which will end this week, so I should be able to post the rest of Egology and also Quantum Field thing by next week.


  2. Free writes can be the best kind of all. To write when we have “nothing to say,” can be really delightful.

    “Intellectual fascism,” great term. I suppose free thinking has never really been encouraged. Many of our great thinkers and scientists encountered opposition there.

    I love to play with ideas around subjective and objective reality. So many try to claim they possess absolute truth and live in objective reality, unlike the rest of the humans. That can be somewhat funny, because even objective reality and absolute truth must be perceived subjectively. There are moments when we can manage to take ourselves out of the equation and catch a glimpse of the objective world, but for the most part our experiences of it are going to be perceived subjectively.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That is very true. The very idea of an objective world out there is something reflected in our subjectivity. I do believe in an absolute truth, but that lies beyond the subjective-objective divide. It is the internal working of the mind and subjectivity that makes the world appears as if outside itself, like when it does it in dreams also. Physics, for example, explains the reflection of that transcendental reality on our minds.
      I personally like to see thoughts and imaginations as real things in the world, as objective as anything. When you experience God in you feelings you are really experiencing God and not your fantasy; but of course God always speaks our language, so it appears it is only in our mind. But we know that our belief in God can actually transform us, change our reality, etc. If it were just a subjective/relative component, then it would not have that power. One example that I love in the Bible about this issue is when the sick woman was healed by touching Christs and thanked him for it, and Jesus tells her “I didn’t save you; your belief saved you.” (something like this, I don’t remember the verse or exact phrasing.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, it really is like that. Faith is a tangible thing, it has a substance that can manifest into reality. The woman with the issue of blood, it was her faith that made her boldly reach out there and believe she would be healed.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Great post Tomaj,
    Metaphysics is living its dark age these days with many of the big and not so big names in science playing the inquisitor role. Subjectivity equal to heresy and universal consciousness is almost the name of the evil one. Modern science, as you say is a corpus of truths imposed by fascists that confirms the rightfulness of the self-centered individual with all the maladies that comes with it.
    As human history has shown before I feel certain that obscurantism will inevitably lead to renaissance. Humankind is in need of renascentists and you are doing a fine job. Thank you for it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comment. I too hope we’re moving toward a true enlightenment, both in science and people; and metaphysics has a key role here.


      1. Which brings up another interesting question: Can human evolution be advanced by mind or consciousness, or is it limited to natural selection around random mutations?

        Will humanity evolve away from attachment and toward liberation?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I personally do not believe in evolution, not so much because I am a fan of intelligent design or creation theories; there are many biologists that are beginning to question evolution, simply because there is no evidence indicating the morphing of one species to another.
        Besides lack of evidence that supports evolution I have no logical argument against it except that metaphysically it doesn’t make sense to me; I see natural phenomena as descending from metaphysical archetypes, similar to Plato’s Ideas. Physics is sees nature as degradation rather than evolution, due to increase of entropy, as if we are moving away from truth and toward more attachment to the mundane. And I take physics more seriously than biology or evolution theories πŸ™‚
        About liberation I think it is a possibility always in the here and now, not something in the future nor in the past. I am very much convinced that this phenomenal world has no reality of its own; it is just an experience, science and its results being only one mode of this experience. Nothing is apart from this experience. Or something like that.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s