next up previous
Next: About this document ... Up: Elaborations Previous: Elaboration 71


Elaboration 72

This book is perhaps unique in several respects. First is that what it says is contradictory to the wishes of practically everybody on the planet (5 billion). Secondly are the contradictions with everyday opinion and knowledge, that it contains as for instance: the fundamental IRrationality of mankind as basis for sociology, the statement that most complaints (asthma, epilepsy, etc.) are easily to be cured, the rejection of all economics (especially world-economics), the adoption of a fundamental general ethics, the right of suicide which followed from this, the notion that science is impossible when superstition is allowed, the statement that copyrights are anti-scientific, that democrazy is antihuman, that will is non-existent that ideas determine behaviour (all behaviour), etc., etc. It is unique because everybody may reprint every part any time, the book is unique in that it contains so many novels and other sc. fic. in its reference list, and, last but not least, it has an elaboration on this reference list, in our case on Russell's 'Human Knowledge'. That book, as said before, contains so many nonsense theories, but, it seems unique too, because it also harbours one statement of the same author that is absolutely correct and very fundamental for 'Ordening Theory'. A statement that we seldom will find expressed in other works. How is this possible? Why can the same writer, who shows absolute ignorance of 'Ordening', who skips in our ordering the whole non-physical part, all life, why can he make a statement that says clearly that structure, ideation, order, is non-physical? First he says: "It is to be observed that 'here' and 'now' depend upon perception; in a purely material universe there would be no 'here' and 'now'." It means that it is only (part of) perception that has to do with structure (here, now, truth, etc. are attributes of structure), and pure physics not, in other words, structure is not IN the physical world, only in a mind, hence, is synonymous with idea. Then, Russell contradict the same, very true theorem by e.g.:
What an asserted sentence expresses is a 'belief'; what makes it true or false is a 'fact', which is in general distinct from the belief.
Since a fact is solely a statement about a structure (here, now, true, etc.) it cannot be distinct in any sense from a belief, both are fundamentally ideas. As a true anti-vitalist, he maintains that facts and truth are physical while in reality, they are pure ideation (the 'pure' even can be omitted, in the pair: X / Not-X, the two are of necessity pure). The reader may wonder why I do not make any remarks like that on Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'. Well, in that work, it is hard to ascertain whether a particular statement is Russell, or is indeed, a report by Russell of somebody else (Plato, the Sophists, Sceptics, etc.). See for instance (page 137):
... and ethical disagreement can only be decided by emotional appeals, or by force, ...
Does Russell agree with the contents or not? Clearly it is half nonsense, half true. True is it in so far that ALL ideation is fundamentally emotive ('meaning' is defined as emotional value), therefore ethics likewise. Nonsense in so far that basic ethical science, without emotion, is possible, nay paramount (the rights you have are those you grant to others, the duties you have ..., etc.). Besides, our book here, is not so much concerned with who is right, and who promises the most absurdities, but with what we are going to do in order to save our lives, our kids, the ants and rabbits, the very greenness of the planet. When a work is in the reference list, it is not to indicate that everything in it is true, and up-to-date knowledge. It is only there because of some (partial) usability for the reader. Even in good hypnodynamic works (like Orton, Erickson, Kline, etc.) downright nonsense may be found. For instance, with regard to hypno-criminality, it may be maintaining that by hypnosis, one cannot make people do things that go counter to their deepest convictions or feelings, whatever that means. It is a soothing theory but wholly false. The reader himself who is by now familiar with the Elaborations, knows it to be nonsense. Wyndham's 'Willed to will', ranges over ALL aspects of ideation. But then, the reader is also familiar with the (later) phenomenon of Nazi Germany, the S. S. , and the even later beat-syndicate and its extortion of billions from-, the mutilation of-, the poor kids.
next up previous
Next: About this document ... Up: Elaborations Previous: Elaboration 71
Ven 2007-09-11