Next: Elaboration 13.1
Up: Elaborations
Previous: Elaboration 12
Elaboration 13
Let us be clear about this subject of superstition (s) and rumours.
This with regard to common sense. Wells too, says clearly: "There is
no evidence of any magic or supernatural guidance in human affairs.
That can be dismissed from the discussion". (Phoenix) In general
daily life, as well as in science, a theory (is idea, is concept, is
notion, is knowledge, etc.) we hold as true, we let it dictate our
behaviour, as long as it seems the only one and the best one. But
this criterion also decides what is superstitious and what not.
Superstition is the adherence to-, and the practising of-, a false
belief (idea). This criterion then says that: when it is possible to
take a different idea as guide for our behaviour and in so doing we
eliminate a lot of effort, energy, murder, waste, time (even
teaching time), the original idea must have been a false one. It is
the old principle of natural parsimony of Occam. Not for nothing did
the old sages stress the keen observance of nature (reality) all
about us, in order to be able to form the correct ideas, live
therefore in accordance with nature, and ... live happy. Life,
ideation, is a continuous struggle for control of structures in
reality, and for control, one has to 'know', not believe in rumours.
The false belief, now, can be caused by spontaneous deduction, the
way all sciences have started and are doing still, but also, by
wrong standards in the community taken over criticlessly. Compare
e.g. the absurd inch, ounce, Fahrenheit, with an even absurd
ten-digital calculation system, the 60 digital planimetrical or
geometrical systems for calculation in decimal, etc. What effort and
unhappiness (in children) is it! Some false beliefs are internally
contradictious, e.g. the one part is incompatible with the other,
though they both taste so nice. Accepting the whole then, would
imply accepting at least one false idea. The paradox of J. S. Mill
for instance is such a one. It says that: a) one should be free to
form his own opinions and b) one should be free to express one's own
opinions (i.e. to others). The a) and b) are incompatible, they are
'either-or' forms taken into one. When a) is true, then b) must be
impossible otherwise one's ideas are formed by others. Similarly,
when b) is true, it is impossible to form one's own ideas which is
the a). When a) is true, it implies that there be no influence
(ideational influence, suggestion, communication, indoctrination,
(all synonyms for idea) ). Hence there can be no free expression by
others. I still have to meet with a sociologist who recognizes this
fact clearly, although Mill himself had some doubts which he
reasoned away because the whole, a) plus b) is such a nice concept.
At Mill's paradox, there is the superstition of the free will as the
base. Mill is careful to avoid this subject, as he explains in the
very first sentence. Naturally it would put him out, having no
knowledge about ideation. Will does not exist (what happens is what
the ideas decide), free will is therefore nonexistent too. It is
possible that baseless rumours are taken as real facts. They are
ideas about what was in reality while there was no such thing. They
are often taught from baby-hood onwards. Such a one was e.g. the
theory of slaves as non humans, or women being un-MAN-kind like.
Today, the actual slavery of religions, theologies, theogonies, the
beliefs in mermaids who don't like fishing, film-bandits that are
bandits (it is known that one got a beating while shopping in a
supermarket), etc. are all wrong ideas, based upon mere rumours.
Because daily life is brimful of these false beliefs, enormous
effort and waste, unhappiness, energy, time, and war, could be saved
by simply doing away with them (education). While, e.g. earth has
only one time, like all objects, we could save enormously by making
one standard of time, like the G. M. T. When such a time is
generally accepted and all other local times be done away with, the
saving in all factors that destroy earth is enormous. A duration of
14 hours, whether in flight or at rest, would always make it 14
hours later. Not only would paper be saved, all those conversion
tables, but actual desk-time work by personnel, possibly a tenth or
twentieth of the world organizations. Since the hour is only a name
for an idea, a real-, global-, time-fixed idea would make it
possible to have a man in Hamburg who has to rise and shine at 3,
and go to his office at 3. 30, whereas a man in Boston does so at
respectively 9 and 9. 30. It would do away with all the stupid
bi-annually meddling with the hands of the clocks that has to be
published in papers as well. Only by the deception of putting the
clock forward or back, the false idea must be induced that it is
later or earlier, and ... it gives a real gain in the yearly energy
consumption. Telling the people to start an hour earlier or later
would have precisely the same effect (energetically, physically)
since the idea would do it, and clever people would not suffer under
the clear fact that they are being stupidly manipulated. As it is
now, in Europe the police force is compelled to make up their
reports in G. M. T for two days per year because they could not be
correct otherwise, there being two 02. 15's one day, and no 02. 15
on the other. And ... one gets pardoned when there is a mistake in
the protocol of charge. The belief of a Sunday or weekend, shared by
all as necessity, too, is energy- and time consuming without
ideational necessity. It is based upon a stupid religious rumour,
and an absurd standardization of Caesarian, Georgian or Justinian
flabbergastery. When we look at our clocks themselves, a simple
analog or model for the earth's position with regard to the sun, we
see that it runs twice as fast. It is almost un-usable as working
model. While we count and calculate in a ten digital system, the
worst system thinkable, why not divide the day also in ten's, or,
when we use the far easier 12 digital system, why not make a clock's
face that is divided in 12 and turns once a day? My pocket watch
with its 4 cm dial, is readable from a distance of five meters,
while I use it at a tenth of that distance. On the same dial,
running half as fast, a single hand could easily do, at reading
distance. With a Nonius or Vernier scale, it would even be possible
to know the time up to a few minutes, amply enough for daily use.
Far better, of course would be a revolving disc inside a ring
instead of a hand. Children then, would no longer need lessons in
clock reading. Simply telling them that the disc rotates precisely
as the earth does with regard to the sun, would make them
understand. When thereby, we skip the date line on the globe, but
have it Monday over the whole globe when midnight or zenith has
passed the Greenwich meridian, it would even be possible to shade
the dark part of the earth on the equator and the diverse degrees of
longitude, on the dials. What stupidity has the child to learn as
date-line! On one side it is yesterday, on the other, it is tomorrow
(40.1). In general, when we develop a social
standard and cannot see that it is a stupid one, when we begin to
regard this standard as a physical fact (instead of merely a name,
an idea), we are superstitious at the cost of much energy, effort
and unhappiness. It is on a par with taking a rumour for physical
fact (gods, sperrits, etc.), and let our lives be ruled by it. Look
at the superstition of money (as physical fact). As soon as we all
refuse to believe in it any longer, it becomes without any value
(over the paper or metal), at the spot. It would be inconvenient,
true, we would invent some different money, but it remains an idea,
an agreement, and, when regarded as physical fact, a superstition.
The proper division of social science (mondial social science
naturally), is first in a personal ideative one and in a
co-operative one. This latter is divided again into a rational and
irrational one, or, in intelligence and stupidity. This latter is
almost taken up by the superstitions, divided into wrong standards
and rumours, etc. Since idea, ideation, knowledge of our selves and
environment always is binary, is in pairs, (the second pair is I -
not I) it seems logical to make all divisions as much in pairs as
possible. This would be valuable for e.g. the division of
information, for libraries and the like. Not a decimal system like
Dewy proposed, or an alphabetical 26 digital one, but a binary one.
Subsections
Next: Elaboration 13.1
Up: Elaborations
Previous: Elaboration 12
Ven
2007-09-11