RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Post-Modern Critical Anti-Evolutionism, Can't evolutionists be post-modern too?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,17:54   

The post modern deconstructionist trend began mainly with Nietzsche, although because his works were not widely read until after his death and he had little promotion, it often seems that the roots of this way of seeing  the world did come from Lacan and Derrida.  Particularly these men focused on Will To Power, the human tendency to dominate or submit, as well as the tendency to be Dionysian.  Any good  biography of Lacan and Derrida will claim that Nietzsche was a major influence on their thought.

However, these two men only pursued one thread of Nietzsche's thought, and so their writings don't really reflect Nietzsche accurately.

Nietzsche claimed that there is no such thing as random, since to measure anything as random requires a stable point of measurement, and so to claim there is randomness in the universe would require there to be somewhere in the universe a single stable point, and that then would be God, or Creator, or unmoved singularity.

Since Neitzsche had convinced himself that God Was Dead, the only possible way to explain the universe was to claim it was chaos.

This is not the chaos of chaos theory.  Chaos theory, or at least practical chaos theory, are rules and equations for analyzing and predicting determinate systems which only seem chaotic in that their nature and sometimes sheer size makes piecewise deterministic calculations impractical. With chaos theory at least some prediction can be made.  Examples where chaos theory are applied:
Weather prediction, fluid mixing, combustion.

If you watch time lapse photography of clouds moving, especially storms forming, it is intuitively clear that that there are equations at play, but to try to predict the motion of every moisture droplet in every cloud would be humanly impossible.  Yet, weather prediction continues to improve, partly due to the rules and equations of the weather subset of chaos theory.

Nietzsche's chaos was more profound, in that it posit's that ultimate or all knowledge is unknowable, since for all knowledge to be knowable the fact base would have to be stable over time - thus there would have to be a singularity.

Furthermore, as Kant pointed out, and Nietzsche agreed, the human mind is limited in what it can know due to sensory limitations and due to the fact that all knowledge has to fit into our limited templates - synaptic connections may not be preconfigured to arrange themselves in ways that allow the understanding of all possible phenomenon.  Of course, our templates could be evolving, but no one knows this yet.

Transcendental numbers, like pi and omega, and the failure of regular math to work in quantum physics, suggests that the original assumption that 1+1=2 is incorrect, and likely just an economic expression and approximation.

Bertrand Russell's admitted failure to connect logic with math, and Godel's work to further prove this failure, tends to support the idea that 1+1=2 is arbitrary and economics.  

Nietzsche also pointed out that scientists will typically think everything can eventually be figured out, but this is only an aspect of their psychological and emotional makeup.  He called scientists mere clerks (fact gatherers, fact filers)

As the direct reading of Nietzsche became gradually more popular in the United States around 1960, these ideas have crept into some intellectual circles.

Then the work of Sir Karl Popper is added into the mix, so that nothing is ever certain, rather, we only know things to a degree of probability.  And every scientist knows this is true, since every measuring instrument has an error factor, and repeated trials show varying results.

The ability to apply equations to observations is due to our built in templates for knowledge, and does not mean anything absolute in any way.  The dog, the dolphin and the chimp can figure some things out, but we don't credit them with being able to ultimately figure all things out.  Arbitrarily, scientists give this ability to themselves, for reasons no one really knows, except if Nietzsche was right, that they are pychologically or emotionally adled.

Anyway, what comes to be accepted as fact is simply that which is tested and confirmed over and over again until no one wants to test any further.  The stoppage of testing always occurs before 100% certainty is reached.

What is reached is practical certainty.  Once something is known to a practical certainty, engineers can use the information to make things.  So, even to the engineer the scientist is a clerk.

But then some people, some post-moderns, take all this to mean nothing is known with certainty. And embarrassing errors in science from time to time reinforce this assertion.  (All batteries are still marked backwards to this day!;)

In the pursuit of the elimination of error, greater and greater accuracy in instrumentation is pursued - the graininess of the data is refined.  Unfortunately, this leads to atoms and subatomic particles where certainty is far less certain than in the macro Newtonian physics, and the post-moderns are further reinforced.

Ulitmately, many post-moderns then take all this to mean that nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do, and all authority is bogus.  Even more twisted,  uncertainty is often used as an excuse for engaging in compulsive behaviors without having to recognize them as such.   People who use alcohol, marujuana, speed, ecstacy, all the other recreational drugs, and engage in compulsive sex (60% of Western Culture) find the idea of the unltimate relativity of knowledge an attractive proposition.  The brain's dependence on the neurotransmitter rushes from these substances and activities makes concepts of certainty difficult to accept for such persons, as such concepts tend to condemn compulsive behavior as such, as robotic, and no one wants to think their thoughts are not their own.

But then, another class of intoxication dependant people find the purely materialistic world view of evolution as a justification for intoxication.  No one is to be blamed for anything!  Which in a way is true, and is in a way likely just a paradox.  This excuse is gradually becoming successful in courts of law, where bipolars are excused from monstrous behavior, blaming their neurotransmitter fluxes instead, while there has never been a proof that neuro-typicals are not also compulsively controlled by biochemistry, and thus can't be blamed for anything they do, such as winning an Olympic medal, acting kindly, or cheating on their spouse.    

Typically, the more sober one is , the less one is interested in relativity or materialism as an excuse for anything.

Sober Postmodernism:

The hard truth, however, is that the pursuit of science is a manifestion of Will To Power, and can only masquerade as something benevolent.  It is curious that evolutionists find Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" such a pleasure to contemplate, while not understanding that they themselves are condemned as cretans by this theory.  Oh, and Nietzsche came up with the selfish gene idea way  back in the 1880's before he even knew about the gene.  Anyone familiar with Nietzsche's writings knows exactly where this comes from, namely, "Human, All Too Human".  

All science serves masters.  All scientific funding comes from economic enterprises that seek advantage from the scientific findings.  Sometimes, simple minded people -  pawns - are employed as scientists by business and universities funded by business.  These people are allowed to think they are serving humanity, and in this way they are most docile and compliant to their master's will.  To some extent, some more than others, one is acted through by the will of another.

Nietzsche: "Scientists are compelled to pursue their interests into every corner, and act on them, no matter how terrible the consequences".  And thus, 45 years after Nietzsche's death, two atomic bombs were detonated in Japan.  This kind of devastation will be wrecked by science on humanity many times over into the future.  Thalidomide anyone?  How about some PCP's?  Or ozone depleting chemicals?  (There was a time I didn't need sunscreen)

Thank god they haven't perfected the anti-matter bomb yet, although the US Defense Department is working on it.

Scientists will often squawk at the assertion they are ultimatley dangerous, but then, wouldn't anybody?  The scientist who is an atheist humanist goes to great pains to make all who observe him/her believe they are genuinely interested in the welfare of ALL the human race - they want to appear as saints and saviors!  But then they couldn't be the result of the selfish gene, could they? Are they suggesting they are of virgin birth?  

And is anyone really as "perfect" as  the atheist humanist scientist likes others to believe he/she is?  This mask is one of the most clever yet to be invented by humans, and like all masks, allows the wearer the comfortable illusion of deception.

No deceiver will ever admit to deception in polite company, and rarely to themselves even in solitary moments, which they typically avoid with a multitude of distractions just in case they might catch a glimpse in the mirror.  A public opinion poll would show that A) most people believe most people wear masks B) no one admits to wearing a mask.

Almost every person, every scientist, can be deconstructed into a pitiful creature if for instance, one could record his/her entire train of thoughts and behaviors and experiences, as in the movie "Final Cut".  Even if one planted eavesdropping devices in the scientist's home, car, and office enough data could be gleaned to show the person to be not the person they show to others, but rather, much more banal.

What we call the personality is just a collection of lies, just as the hermit crab assmbles it's plummage from bits and pieces of coral and seaweed.

So, could the evolutionists show a little humility in their attacks on creationists?  No truly sober person is at all impressed by your crusades.

The day the democratic public elects a scientist as president will be a very dark day.  And yet, what scientist doesn't want to rule the world?  (Usually due to having been bullied and excluded as a child)

Impossible goal for most scientists:  give up all intoxicants for the rest of your lives.  Few will be able or willing to do this.  (What, scientists need intoxicants too?)


ALL intoxicants means your big fat ego, too.  What scientist can give up the ego without having an identity crisis?

  7 replies since Sep. 22 2004,15:40 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]