Elaboration 4

Absurdities due to fixed-path thinking in which the path itself is not wholly sensible appear in all sciences. They remain obscure just because this fixed-path thinking is generally accepted, is thought to be applause promoting, under the severe jungle-like pressure to publish, the absurdity of copyrights, etc. Is the opposite to fixed-path, now, the 'free-think' (lateral think (DeBono) ), the complexities of life, soon leads to 'double-think' or 'treble-think' (Orwell) (room 101). Then, A becomes Not-A as well as A, everything outside A will be A, and B for that matter; double think indeed, but also: 'we like efficiently ordered ways, therefore we use clumsy ways'. An example in astronomy e.g. is the p. s. or parsec (to distinguish it from Pferde Starke). Naturally, in that science, the meter or kilometer is too small and therefore would need gigantic numbers for measurements of galaxies. It is not unthinkable that for these distances, one uses a unit that is sufficiently large, the light-year. This is roughly a distance that the light travels in a year i.e. 300,000 x 3600 x 24 x 365 kilometers, and nobody would notice it when one takes 365. 25 instead of 365. Even this gigantic unit of distance is sometimes far too small, hence large numbers to write down. Now, they invented a new unit to remedy that, the parallax second, i.e. the distance over which one sees half the earth's orbit as one second of arc. Now is this not absurd? This parsec is only 3. 2 times the light year. A great help indeed! What is wrong in taking the powers of ten anyway, like light decade, light century, etc. or, more scientifically, use the existing deca, hecto-, kilo-, even giga-, light years. Astronomers seem not to like this although an occasional kilo-parsec can be found. Hoyle even uses negative powers of parsecs for distances within the solar system where light seconds (Moon) light minutes (Sun) and light hours (planets) would be more adequate. (But then, the clock, our time-calculation, is already a stupid system of 24 digit and 60 digit, calculated in ten digit). Some 50 or so year ago, one could read in physical study books that the English speaking kids would be delighted when the decimal system came to replace the usual non-system. Away with all fathoms, yards, feet, inches, miles, nautical miles, gallons, knots, degrees Fahrenheit, etc., etc. that have all their own peculiar ratios for conversion. How easy it would be for the children to use the liter of water that equals a kilogram, to convert tons per cubic kilometer that gives a rise of a temperature of degrees centigrade per liter times the square centimeter, an operation solely by scrapping or adding zeros! The reader can easily calculate in his head how much liter (or kilogram) of rain would be a rainfall of 5 mm over a square meter of roof. Simply make it in dm's, then 0. 05 x 10 x 10 is 5 liter. Compare this with 0. 22 inch, in square yards and pounds, a system which seem to be here to stay. What about scientists using a ten digit system to calculate in an angular system of one revolution being 360 degrees, ... without protest? True, 10 degrees and 100 degrees (centigrade) for a full circle is ackward, but this is all the more reason to advocate some 12 (or 18, 16, 8) digital system for BOTH arithmetic and geometry, and, of course, for the clock, calendar, zodiac, etc. All science is suffering from this absurd fixed-path thinking, if only for the costly teaching time in the schools. But the outstanding example of stubborn fixed-path thinking, of allowing no new ideas, is to be found in medical science, social science, and so-called psychology. Through the workings of anti-vitalists, of thinkers who believe that all living phenomena are explainable in physical terms, this must become pseudology indeed. When one denies life as life, i.e. as absolutely non-physical, one has to blabber words and theories with the factor life or mind inconspicuously inserted. After all, one has to show how knowing twice is impossible, that one can think twice but these are not two ideas. Giving (?) an idea away, one loses not but gains, which is unthinkable in physics. For a phenomenon like mind, that is solely time-dependent, not, like physics, time- AND space- dependent, every explanation in the latter's language, for the former, must be nonsense. Time is on the outside of the physical reality, and is therefore a characteristic of the whole universe (including mind(s)) (31.4). Pythagorise it as a fourth dimension, a length in time, just like calculating the sum of red apples and green apples by their light frequencies, is nice exercise, but seems not scientific. Denying life, in a living phenomenon is like squaring a circle. A Russell e.g. is such an anti-life, anti-vitalist authority. By the use of sham words that harbour mind, but look like physics, words like 'perception' (meaning idea plus re-ception) and 'physiology' (meaning physical mechanics BUT alive), 'meta-physics' (Aristotle) and so forth, it was possible to write a book about human knowledge without having a iota of insight in ideation (31.3). It is obvious that it is full of utter absurdities. More absurd and wholly un-ethical is the use of the word 'psychosomatic'. Doctors use it to give the patients the absolutely false idea that they know what is wrong with them. In cold reality, it is a synonym for alive, is a name, a definition of life. Yet another absurdity taken from physical thinking, is the idea that, in order to cure or help one, it is necessary to know the cause. It is called anamnesis or diagnosis and so forth. While the complainer only wants to be free from his asthma, allergy, migraine, compulsions, multiple personality, etc. the person he goes to for help, is interested solely in what caused it. His professional voyeurism not only digs up the most absurd dirt, but he actually induces it in the unfortunate sufferer (Salter). He simply cannot understand that it is perfectly possible, (therefore his duty) to help without knowing what the causes are, as he is used to in first aid. It is typical for the non-physicum, the idea, that the cause need not be known in order to help, nay, the sort of complaint itself, even, need not be known, although the name of the person might be helpful. There is plenty of evidence for this. Social science simply cannot be divided into a physical part and an ideational part, it is all and only, pure ideation. This is one of the unique features of so-called social science, when compared with the real mind-sciences. Social science of today should be involved solely with ideation because it is only in ideation that man differs from objects, other animals and plants. Imagine a man who studies motorbikes in order to get to know horses. Would not a schoolboy demand first that he explains exactly how the two are related? Ask any pseudologist how his beloved rats and pigeons are (ideationally) related to humans, and he will be unable to do so. Studying rats in order to know humans without knowing their fundamental ideasyncracies, is a million times more stupid than studying tulips in order to know rats. Secondly, socio means not the mere existence of other (living) humans, but their influence upon these others, their interactions (31.4). This too, is solely a question of ideation (physical interaction, i.e. influence by blows and kicks are out). No other science than social science ever avoids studying its subject matter, that what it IS about, so vehemently. This is unique, a social science without idea, without influence, without man as man. Aristotle, Tacitus, Cicero, but also Locke, Malthus, or even Goebbels wrote more about ideation 'in socio' than the highly sophisticated looking contemporary literature. Another uniqueness is that an invention in it, in medicine (chemo-anaesthesis), was already obsolete 25 years BEFORE its invention. When chemo-anaesthesis was invented, it was unnessary save for animal narcosis, because animals cannot understand our ideational commands and directions in order to induce a natural analgesic state of the body. In humans, since pain is ideational, the not feeling of pain is naturally done by speech, not by poisons, or even swindleric placebo's (31.1).