The fall of Reason

[ark]

Have received the following comment to my editorial "The Fall of Reason"

Subject: Pseudoscience

An article entitled "The Fall of Reason in The West" is littered with lack of
reason. I was just curious, was this article an example of the title? Please,
get a grip on reality, evolutoin does not say we evolved from primates.
Evolution says that we share common ancestory with all life on earth, and chimps
just happen to be our closest living ancestors. DOH, you fail. Please, stop with
the pseudo science and total lack of reason, and for the love of reason, stop
pretending you are rational.

In the same spirit, one of our readers received a comment from one of his friends that stated, among other things, that

[...] I'm not saying that the stuff about 911 isn't true. But all this talk about past lives and entities attached to people that make their knees hurt.

"To me it just seems selfish and delusional to think they our minds are so important that they live on after our bodies. I'd even go so far as to accept that this reality is an illusion but our brains are part of our reality so they must be an illusion as well. I just don't see how
it's possible to think without a brain. Is this what you're talking about when you say the bigger picture?"

So I started to think that, perhaps, I should write a follow up article about the scientific method, Ockham's razor, the "soul" hypothesis and the "bigger picture" ?

Comments welcomed.

 

[Alana]

To me it just seems selfish and delusional to think they our minds are so important that they live on after our bodies. I'd even go so far as to accept that this reality is an illusion but our brains are part of our reality so they must be an illusion as well.

Ah! The failure to aknowledge the observed from the observer! :^) (in need for humor!)

And since i have no knowledge as to what the theory of evolution REALLY says, i can't comment much on the comment from the first guy/gal, but even without that knowledge, i still wonder: Is this ALL he/she read from the whole editorial? The first 3 sentences? Can't but wonder!

 

[Ben]

Subject: Pseudoscience

Please,
get a grip on reality, evolutoin does not say we evolved from primates.
Evolution says that we share common ancestory with all life on earth, and chimps
just happen to be our closest living ancestors. DOH, you fail.

What is this fool talking about?. He contradicts himself when he says that 'evolution does not say we evolved from primates' and 'chimps just happen to be our closest living ancestors'. Human species are actually classed as primates, as are their proposed ancestors. So, a more accurate description would be that the theory of evolution proposes that Homo sapiens is derived from another primate species. Such a lack of thought in his post.

 

[vinny]

Until now I didn't know what 'Ockham's razor' referred to. When I saw it mentioned here, I went off into the internet and found out. It made me reconsider how I think about things.

And so, yes, I think an article describing the scientific method would make a very fitting follow up. I would expect that many readers consider themselves to be 'rational thinkers' but in actuality only have a fuzzy understanding of such, and are not really familiar with the scientific 'mindset' and methods of working with a hypothesis.

 

[Johnno]

Perhaps you could discuss how science these days seems to be occupied by "How?" rather than "Why?".

From Gurdjieff via Orage "Objective Science is that which has as its conscious purpose the investigating of the meaning and aim of existence.".... not much evidence of that, more an ".......anatomising the corpse of the universe."

Reason seems to be highly valued in this scientific period. Are we close to the end of Mouravieff's "Scientific Periods" and gradually heading towards an "Artistic Period"?

 

[Ryan]

Please, get a grip on reality, evolutoin does not say we evolved from primates.

Amazing what some people think passes for logic...

Something I have noticed in general is that some people think that by being "skeptical" they can somehow invoke science to dispel any nasty ideas or facts that might disturb their comfort zones, eg: "Sure, there is suffering in the world, but things are getting better". By endlessly demanding proof, never admitting possibilities, and the application of remorseless logic, they stave off the cold hard facts of reality via a buffering mechanism that seems completely opposite to the New Age types, but is nonetheless equally as effective. I found this quote by Nietzche, which is a concise summation of the phenomenon IMO:

"There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism."

I also like this one:

"When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason."

 

[Cyre2067]

I would be interested to read a follow-up. I loved the original.

I find it very interesting how different individuals respond to information. Especially when it is controversial.

The gentlemen who doesn't understand how we could think without brains needs a better understanding of how the brain functions. Mostly it is with slight perturbations in the electromagnetic field surrounding it. This allows cells to communicate without being in direct contact or having to use neurotransmitters. In fact, most of the intra-brain communication is done in this manner. Now if i can only find where i read it...

 

[tschai]

Perhaps the poster that answered Ark did not evolve from primates-perhaps he/she is of REPTILIAN lineage... a follow up would be splendid.

 

[Guest]

An article entitled "The Fall of Reason in The West" is littered with lack of
reason. I was just curious, was this article an example of the title? Please,
get a grip on reality,...Please, stop with
the pseudo science and total lack of reason, and for the love of reason, stop
pretending you are rational.

Aside from the nonsensical comment about evolution, this quote is just one spill of sarcasm and venom completely lacking reason. It is, furthermore, tiresome to me to see this constant abusive use of the word "pseudoscience" that seems to have taken the place of the word "heresy" for which many were tortured and killed in the past.

I see a lot of parallels with many world views that sprang from sincere and innovative human beings only to be ponerized into manipulative dogmas. So much of science today has become technological cleverness in the service of pathocrats and corporate greed, or an excuse to support propagandizing "icons".

Passing off a particular hypothesis as science is like saying Christianity is religion. Religion is not bound to any one dogma, and neither is science bound to any hypotheses, especially science where new evidence can overturn established views all the time.

When Christianity took over Europe, magic flourished in the Middle Ages there. When science took its place, we notice the same phenomenon. It is not surprising when in both cases we have dogmas that have stripped humanity of one of its primary spiritual foods: the sense of the mysterious.

In my personal experience science was about meeting the right people, publishing material acceptable to them, doing what the ones with the money tell you to do and playing political games. Above all science was NOT stepping on any toes. I've seen results falsified, work plaguarized and stolen, and research ground to a halt because it did not serve ponerological ends (energy research in this case).

Science was meant to insure that the sense of the mysterious did not lead to irrational outcomes. Instead the concept has been institutionalized and the institutions ponerized. If there was any real science there would be no trends toward irrational magic, for such irrational outcomes are born out of reactions to oppressive dogmatism.

Real scientists have become underpaid workers for the most part, while those who prosper are high priests of the establishment. And scientists have to make a livlihood by paying tribute to the priests of their institutions, and those of the industial miliatry complex who pay them.

In the end it seems many scientists also suffer from Stolkholm syndrome, vehemently supporting ponerization, while defying their own trained sense of reason and objectivity. In the end even a scientist has to live with him/herself, and deal with the dissonance of their own conscience. It's a real shame that all that work to hone the organs of reason is applied to self-opiation and denial. In all too many reason has turned into rationalization.

 

[John Chang]

Most historians mark the decline of the West beginning around the start of WWI - when europe lost her mind and went nuts. A war that was in no one's best interests but happened anyway.

Maybe science was wobbling on the rails, but in art it was completely off the rails. Dada paintings, dada poetry, destroy the medium with the message, so that both are annihilated. Music started going into decline. The great classical pieces that the 19th century produced, stopped. No successors to Beethoven or Schubert. Maybe Bela Bartok? But have you ever tried listening to his stuff? The 20th produced no great thinkers like the 19th did. Maybe Santayana? Even so, he's dead now and has been for a while. Even economic growth compared with the 19th was muted. The U.S. grew something like over 100% over the 19th, but it was under 100% for the 20th.

Here's a dirty secret that no one will talk about. Look at an inflation adjusted chart of the Dow. Look at the 1966 peak and the 200 peak. The 2000 peak wasn't that much higher than the 1966 peak. Now think about the econonmic envirnoment of 1966 vs. the economic environment today. But here's the main point - for most of the 20th century, the Dow essentially went SIDEWAYS. No real gains, when you zoom out to a century level time window.

It was a long climb up from 1500 at the start, so it has been a long slow decline down for most of the 20th. Most of the damage has been hidden, but I think in this century, it's going to become obvious. Some places improved (the U.S. bucked the trend for a good chunk of the 20th, but started tracking the rest of the west towards the end), and there were countertrends, but the overall picture has been down.

 

[ArdVan]

The great classical pieces that the 19th century produced, stopped. No successors to Beethoven or Schubert. Maybe Bela Bartok? But have you ever tried listening to his stuff?

This is of course completely subjective, but what about "Karl Orff" (1895-1982), "Maurice Ravel" (1875-1937), "Gershwin George" (1898-1937)?

 

[John G]

This is of course completely subjective, but what about "Karl Orff" (1895-1982), "Maurice Ravel" (1875-1937), "Gershwin George" (1898-1937)?

I was thinking Gershwin too and if you really want to get current there's always that Jedi Master John Williams. I've heard rock music called nonlinear and classical music linear so maybe rock music is trying to tell us something :)

Real scientists have become underpaid workers for the most part, while those who prosper are high priests of the establishment. And scientists have to make a livlihood by paying tribute to the priests of their institutions, and those of the industial miliatry complex who pay them.

The U.S. seems really bad as far as turf protecting goes. The big picture of how science can see souls is much more profoundly interesting than all the turf wars that are going on. The big picture seems all binary decision treeish math whether you look at Ark's EEQT or Laura's Wei Qi. Amazing all the patterns that show up just starting with ones and zeros (Clifford Algebra).

 

[Mr. Premise]

Jacques Derrida and Wittgenstein could more than hold their own with the 19th century thinkers. How about Freud? Does he count as 19th or 20th?

I think most historians are very sceptical about the whole "Decline of the West" thing, anyway. What is "decline"? What is "The West"?

The 20th produced no great thinkers like the 19th did. Maybe Santayana? Even so, he's dead now and has been for a while.

 

[John Chang]

Jacques Derrida and Wittgenstein could more than hold their own with the 19th century thinkers. How about Freud? Does he count as 19th or 20th?

I think most historians are very sceptical about the whole "Decline of the West" thing, anyway. What is "decline"? What is "The West"?

The 20th produced no great thinkers like the 19th did. Maybe Santayana? Even so, he's dead now and has been for a while.

The West, I would define as a loose confedation of the peoples of europe and north america. Perhaps you might even include Latin America as well?

I would define decline as increasing cultural entropy. This guy says it much better than I can, here's a link - http://prorev.com/quietstorm.htm

The main thing I'm trying to say is that there's a larger context to what Ark is talking about, that's all.

 

[Mr. Premise]

OK, now how far east does "The West" go? Is it the old boundaries of Latin Christianity? But then how can ancient Greece be considered the founders of "Western Civilization?" OK, then does it include the area of Eastern Orthodox Christianity the old Eastern part of the Roman Empire and the lands to the north, like Russia (also Europe)? Well, no Russia is considered "the East" sort of. Does it mean the "developed countries?" I remember in the late Cold War, someone in the media saying something like, "Western countries, like Japan."

Anyway, you get the idea. These things get real slippery when you examine them. Same with the idea of decline. Does it have to do with raw power? Culture? Elite self-confidence?

Then I looked at the link you cited. It has to do with the United States or the American Empire, which I would agree is on the decline, but can Europe be said to be declining now? Also, he tries to tie it to culture, comparing decadent products today with more vital products of yesterday. That's hard to measure.

Jacques Derrida and Wittgenstein could more than hold their own with the 19th century thinkers. How about Freud? Does he count as 19th or 20th?

I think most historians are very sceptical about the whole "Decline of the West" thing, anyway. What is "decline"? What is "The West"?

The 20th produced no great thinkers like the 19th did. Maybe Santayana? Even so, he's dead now and has been for a while.

The West, I would define as a loose confedation of the peoples of europe and north america. Perhaps you might even include Latin America as well?

I would define decline as increasing cultural entropy. This guy says it much better than I can, here's a link - http://prorev.com/quietstorm.htm

The main thing I'm trying to say is that there's a larger context to what Ark is talking about, that's all.