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: About this document ...
Up: Elaborations
Previous: Elaboration 71
Ven
2007-09-11