next up previous
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 up previous
Next: Elaboration 13.1 Up: Elaborations Previous: Elaboration 12
Ven 2007-09-11