How well can we impose our paradigm or hypotheses upon nature when we now know anti-gravity exists and Einstein's cosmological constant is just at the beginning of being integrated into a set of laws that cannot explain the fact of its existence? How can we continue to reject the reality of spirituality when all materiality and its laws are wrong and produce immoral constructs? Sartre addresses this long before the massive knowledge of quantum physics became instrumental to the computers and realities we now face. "The source of this unfortunate approach is well known: as Whitehead said, a law begins by being a hypothesis and ends by becoming a 'fact'. When we say that the earth revolves, we do not feel as though we are stating a theory, or that we are relying on a system of knowledge; we feel that we are in the presence of the fact itself, which immediately eliminates us as knowing subjects in order to restore us to our 'nature' as objects of gravitation. For anyone with a realistic view of the world, knowledge therefore destroys itself in order to 'become the world', and this is true not only of philosophy but also of all scientific Knowledge. When dialectical materialism claims to establish a dialectic of Nature it does not present itself as an attempt at an extremely general synthesis of human knowledge, but rather as a mere ordering of the facts. And its claim to be concerned with the facts is not unjustified: when Engels speaks of the expansion of bodies or of electric current, he is indeed referring to the facts themselves - although these facts may undergo essential changes with the progress of science. This gigantic - and, as we shall see, abortive - attempt to allow the world to unfold itself by itself and to 'no one', we shall call 'external', or transcendental, dialectical materialism." (6) Does Sartre actually think science and the hypotheses of the prevailing paradigm are an "abortion" of the potential of man and his creative soulful potential? We leave this thought in your mind. Be careful to allow knowledge not "to destroy itself" and you will admit that is one of many possibilities. In the process of evaluating the immanence of Divine spirit in all things and the multiplicity of the totalized universe you will alternately wax parallel and alternative until the absurdity of our KNOWing will seem elegantly if not eloquently amusing. But Harold Pinter will never reach my funny bone and Camus will still be left saying suicide is the only alternative to incorporation. But before total 'dis'-corporation into a void of pure rationality occurs let us revisit the absurdity of a unified transcendent field in the words of Sartre. Remember also, that truth is convergent, congruent (affinity applies) and growing, despite the Heisenbergian 'uncertainty' or 'observer' that Schrödinger’s 'cat' entails. "Altogether, these observations enable us to attempt a critical assessment of rationality (as a rule of understanding) at the level of the group. Common 'praxis' is 'dialectical', from the most basic level on (that of the fused group): it totalises the object, pursues some total aim, unifies the practico-inert field and dissolves it in the synthesis of the' common practical field'. If common 'praxis' is to be a form of rationality, it must be dialectical rationality. And, since it is always intelligible, we are compelled to recognise the existence of this form of rationality… {But must we surrender our soul in response to the Hobbesian/Hegelian rather than rise to the promise of the Socratian? Plato was a control or top down oriented person but he mourned the loss of Socrates with the best of them, 'they’ say.} … Moreover, it should be noted that in itself it does not display the specific characteristics of the 'individual' dialectic as the free development of a practical organism. Although - as we have seen, and as will soon become clearer - a dialectical relation may insert itself between a common 'praxis' and an individual's 'praxis', a common 'praxis' is not in itself a mere amplification of the 'praxis of' an individual. As we have seen, the interiorisation of multiplicity is one of the essential characteristics. And the organism is undoubtedly comparable in some ways with interiorised inertia. But, when applied to the organic individual, these words have only a 'metaphysical' and uncertain meaning in relation to its biological being, in so far as it eludes apodictic, dialectical investigation and manifests itself, beyond reach, in the milieu of the transcendental dialectic. In fact, dialectical investigation shows us, the action of the individual as unifying itself in the unifying synthesis and in the transcendence of the practical field, but it 'never' reveals it to us as 'unified'. The practical organism is the unifying unity of unification; thus the investigation refers us (as if to its first, most abstract intuition, and as to its limit) to man as the 'biological unit' on which every 'praxis' is based (and which every immediate 'praxis' realises as a temporalisation towards an end). The interiorisation of multiplicity, however, is a moment of collective action and the group constitutes itself 'by it' (as by the other factors already mentioned) as the means of the common 'praxis'. {This is the kind of thing that allowed Ed Kyle who was in the bunk next to me and refreshing his existential knowledge, to open me or me to open him as our bond in Sartre extended our intuition into actual and certain ESP. I learned more that two days than in any year of school to that point in my life.}In this simple form (the fused group), we are in fact forced to admit that the group is initially a 'means', in which the organism is agent, end and means all at once. {He goes on to express the necessary loss of fear ["means of defence"] and giving of oneself with reduced concern that rational or intellectual knowingness must achieve potency over the "free affirmation of freedom" yet he leaves room for more in the "hyper-dialectic" which might relate to Spirit and World Mind.} In our example, the grouping, still in a primitive state, is the 'invention of everyone' in so far as everyone is personally threatened by a danger which presents itself as common. {Is this conflict in self and group part of a natural right of all humans to allow each other the access to go beyond?} And everyone can invent this new instrument 'in so far as' the practical organism can already totalise multiplicities in a practical field, recognize the 'praxis' of developing common totalisations and create a group as a reinteriorisation and practical inversion of a totalising signification of negation (the 'praxis' of total annihilation). {It goes beyond mere nihilism I know, now; but at the time Nietzsche seemed to me a lot like Sartre - I was wrong!} Thus the practical creation of 'means of defence' is a resumption in freedom, as a new relation with men, of an exterior unity, or a dissolution of the serial relation of impotence by the free affirmation (through circumstances) of freedom as a human relation in a new 'praxis' (which comes to the same thing). This does not mean, however, that 'either' the interiorisation of the multiplicity in me, 'or' the affirmation here of 'my' freedom as a recognition of all 'our' freedoms, 'or' totalisation as the constitution of a means for 'praxis', or the synthetic and common character of the original urgency and of 'our' objectification in the victory, are capable of constituting a new statute of hyper-organic existence, as 'being-in-the-group' - any more than the specific characteristics of common action (in particular, the utilisation of multiplicity and the differentiation of functions) succeed in making it a hyper-dialectic whose intelligibility lies in its synthetic transcendence of individual dialectics." (7) Direct inference or the formulation of constructs and hypotheses are not true observation and therefore don't employ real science. Our right to be stupid and impose our values on nature is a reality but the reality has little congruence and creative potential. Without fear and in full acceptance that whatever actually is God or the spiritual and metaphysical intelligence that creates and allows chaos of gravity and anti-gravity to exist (along with all other apparent incongruities); we are able to find a commonality and enabling ability to accentuate the positive beyond mere authoritative deterministic and reductive models. Our soul does not use our retina as much as it uses our visceral and interiorized cosmic interfacing thalami. This is now being proven in research and we must prove it in our social exchanges and institutional environments such as school. We did not bargain to have new names for our maleficent overlords through ending the Dark Ages. We bargained for a new wisdom and brotherhood - we think! What do you think? Are you free to think such thoughts with certainty that no social repercussions will occur? Author of many books available at Lulu and World-Mysteries.com
|
