JASPERS’ WORKS APPLIED TO RICHARD DAWKINS’ (JUNE 5, 2006)
|
||
email me. Prefatory Statement: I’m wholly independent of any organized group in this Web Page endeavor. It’s a work in process. Correction can be made at any time. Utilizing iconology will be kept to a minimum while avoiding being iconoclastic. Today books by popular scientists might have offensive cover illustrations, such as making a Sistine Chapel Adam appear to be giving a finger at God, or a “John the Baptist” the same to the second coming. Uncouthness to impress the majority-bass will not replace reasonable pugnacious but punctilious words. This Page is a no-holds-barred reasonable critique of a powerful force and Richard Dawkins is an out-front point-person for its offensive. 1. My qualifications for this Web Page 1.1. First, my ad hominem credentials are above reproach. I have the distinction of having been censored from Herbert Muller’s “Karl Jaspers Forum” with the cooperation of some preeminent notables. The honor is equivalent to an excommunication for individualistic conduct beyond fixed duty by an institution with a questionable total universal aspiration. It amounts to a Dishonorable Doctorate. Richard Dawkins cannot equal my credentials for lack of reverence for positions and titles of distinction. But that is only because he might be restrained due to his earldom-legacy. That legacy includes a tradition of effective publicity that some could see as propaganda. That effectiveness strangely is restrained due to Charles Simonyi’s approval and support. Richard has an unofficial reputation for being arrogant—though I take that to be partly due to the stress that accompanies the Chair he occupies. Our confrontational style differs. His appears to be… intentional… misbehavior to avoid confrontation. Mine is a technique derived from professional Existenz/philosophical counseling. My thirty-second pause of pensive silence is more tactic than a militant stare and smirk. One of us is probably more honest than kind. One is more hostile than honest. Both of us are deficient in discretion but well matched in the worser part of valor. He might show up announced, and I might make unannounced visits to avoid contaminating the experimentation. 1.2. Secondly, Richard must genuflect with more sincerity than he gave to what he called an honest “creationist”. Wait, no, not genuflect but bend to pick up on the gauntlet. I’ve tried hard in the past and in the name of objectivity to avoid the word creationism, creation, and creationist; and to the word “evolve” or “evolution” retaliated with the word “evolutionism”. Moreover, I cannot be identified with evolutionism but with antievolutionism once the dichotomous arch is struck and thinking polemically begins. However, once polarity is first recognized straight out of consciousness, responsible decisiveness leans toward the means most conducive to freedom than bondage—unless lasciviousness and pathos epidemiologically overcomes the capacity for making reasonable connections. 1.3. Thirdly, there are no pecuniary ties here. I have no reputation to defend or establish. But I have the support of Simonyi’s product. I guess that is what the Word Program is that is used here. I don’t know whether this is ironic or intentional. 1.4. Fourthly, I’ve seen the light. I’ve arrived at the seat of infamy, i.e., Cranmer’s eternally flaming body at Oxford. His martyrdom has made it the safest place in the world for the most controversial figures and ideas. Anything goes for fear of raising the past and the dead. Dawkins would probably agree that there is no level of court higher than Simonyi’s Chair that Dawkins uses. It is the throne of last appeal, the D-Dayton of the Internet where the trial cannot be dismissed by judge or consensus. The gavel that can dismiss and end the dialogue is an intentional program. 1.5. Last but not least, I use Jaspers’ works but substantially with his approval in so far as I can determine. Jaspers is the epitome of humility regarding the limits of science. He is the one who elucidated the harm that can come when meaning at the limits of knowledge is forgotten and medium and purpose then make up a godhead. 2. Internet research results on Simonyi/Dawkins 2.1. Other than hearing the Bill Moyer’s interview with Richard, until several days ago I knew next to nothing about him other than there was at least one contributing to Herbert Muller’s blog “Karl Jaspers Forum” who deferred or referred to Richard as an authority on origins. 2.2. So I did a little Internet research and scooped up the following image: Richard judgmentally occupies a static chair inside a “necker” cube at Oxford University. The University allowed billionaire Charles Simonyi to buy it. Charles has also purchased a chair on a Russian rocket to the “International Space Station”. He is president and CEO of Intentional and has acknowledged being focused on the development of software to, it seems to me, sniff out words’ intent with the biblical acumen of dividing asunder thoughts and in-depth intentions. 2.3. The general impression given is that there’s a collaborating force with which one must come to terms. Richard encourages the popular view that his militant atheism is equal to and conditioned by the intensity of his evolutionism. Money means quick power and if a militant atheist is found to be too overbearing, Charles’ can carefully designate a gift to a Jesuit school. That’s hardly contrite enough for absolution from the billions earmarked for the propagation of a fundamental substratum essential to establish evolutionism as catholic enough to be…the…ersatz church. Still it was small cents for a bit of religious publicity propagating an exemplary humanistic ideal while propounding the selfish gene’s urge for power. 2.4. If consciousness-conceptualization interface-thinking is here correctly applied, it would be a program for programming capable of categorizing this paragraph and excluding it due to, say, the name Karl Jaspers, God, unless the words “evolution” Dawkins and Simonyi dominated. It conceivably propagandizes that there are two phyletic trees in the encompassing complexity of being. But the interface-biosphere tree only is accessible as the “absolute” discernment of truth, while excluding the winds of legacy whispering through the tree of being—which is in reality without beginning or end. Hopefully it is wrong to say that Charles’ metaphysical use of metaphoric language leaves philosophical wisdom and faith in an inaccessible area and humankind at the mercy of immanental tooth-and-nail absolutes. The suspicion though seems warranted due to the appearance of a conflict of interest in dropping the name of an anti-theist equal to the intensity of a dogmatic evolutionism that welds influence from a position Charles has invested heavily in. 2.5. From my critical perspective, it sounds, looks, scrawls suspiciously like a phylogenetic enticing programming. But according to Charles it is “absolutely” not programming language. To me it sounds like “P Programming” with the detection intensity of a canine-tracker determining which tree or pole of the fundamental primordial dichotomy to be predetermine as infectious. I’d like to be shown more wrong than right about what appears to be the singularity, the catholicity intent of Intentional’s programming. The free and protesting world waits for good news that the Anti-reason has not wholly yet corporealized. 3. The Issue: The Legacy of Philosophical Faith is excluded by the Legacy of Evolutionism’s Revelation 3.1. One can wonder if Richard and Charles have presupposed the basis for an interface that excludes the predispositional and preconstitutional side of conception and conceptualization, the greater part of historic reality. The exclusion is built into the interface explicitly…revealed…in Charles’ description of “Intentional Programming”. It seems the intentions are to create the ecology for abstractions. Right away the program is based on epiphenomenalism, i.e., abstraction is the extrapolation from a materialistic and profane doxology to a polluted disregard for the limits of thinking. Charles’ intentional programming’s special language is simplified for the masses by charismatic means. That is, he uses the personage of Richard. Immediately we have an ecological intentional disruption of communication’s ecology. The medium is poisoned. It’s programmed to exterminate theists and antievolutionists in the U.S.A. 3.2. Richard is popular at least for three things: First, propagating that evolutionism is confirmed by a European consensus and disdain for lingering abjuration and protestation in the U.S.; second, a preeminent bully-like atheism because he has the backing. Third, he is known for occupying the most influential Oxford chair, the ghostly historic ecological center of post modernity where the ecological imbalance of communication occurred; the atmosphere there is purified with the dust of unselfish genes, cells, and molecules (when it rains). The ghost’s smoke and aroma occupies the “necker” cube in the University’s square. 3.3. For Richard and Charles, U.S. recalcitrance, theistic bent, and constitutional caution regarding Chairs of distinction, are mere abstractions for immanental perspectives. By making light of them they can be generalized into an emotionless singularity for economic force, or generated into power for a “special purpose” or religious like vocation. The exclusion of the transcendental side is accomplished by ecological cleansing, i.e., through devaluating the individual by way of pheno-geneticism. The appreciation for the limit of science, for which Jaspers is known, is not found in Charles’ intoxicating meta-positivism that “all sciences of complexity are making big forward strides.” Of course he is not referring to meaning at the limits of science, but in context excluding…meaning…intentionally from the interface. The key idea here is the potentially dangerous supercilious use of the vatic/vectored faith in a manifest divine destiny. It is immanental catholicity at the level of intentionality rather than transcendental conscientiousness at the edge of consciousness. And Richard’s repulsion toward Catholicism’s intervention into his specialty may be more apparent than real; as the visit (5. below) to historic Oxford may show. When Catholicism uses the word “progress” one must ask if forward may be interpreted as backward--“necker-cubic” speaking. 4. The Appalling Concord 4.1. The Shock of finding points of agreement--I’ve not read Richard’s books, and will not purchase and thereby contribute to a well-propagated, well financed program bereft of historical uncommon sense. Nor will I be shamed into it, though not too proud to accept them as gifts. (The Library system is another taxing problem.) So, searching the Internet you can imagine my surprise upon learning that his criticism of the vatic “Proclamation” of 10-22-96 was measurably comparable in intensity to mine. I saw it as interference with the separation of church and state through mandatory education. He sees a problem too but he perhaps does not see that it is a dogmatic mess for which the Dawkins’ syndrome is largely responsible. Unwitting negligence respecting the political tactics of religious prelates and clergy is a prime sign of irresponsibility regarding the meaning of knowledge for the good of humankind and the environment. The thrust given to the momentum of catholicity-science (evolutionism) tends to show the unreliability of his oversight. His type of evolutionism-glossalalia precipitates stuff like the 10-22-96 proclamation. 4.2. Richard as militant witness to intentional programming—What Richard finds so distasteful about the infringement of vatic authority is in fact what tends to verify the plausibility of my proposition. That, the more dogmatic scientific certainty becomes the more dangerous it becomes as forces vie for it harvesting. The methods of clergy and prelates of the established politicized church can make the tactics of Richard and Charles look amateurish. Before Charles and Richard get the “intentional programming” in orbit there’s already an infiltration force circling waiting for the corporealization. That’s the way things are but hopefully not meant to be. 4.3. There’s another 10-22-96 critical agreement--He looks at primates, and finds logical conduct repulsive when the primates of church history revere “evolution”. But I find it logically harmonious that evolutionism’s glossalalria can so easily be adapted to a Gregorian chant. 4.4. Primate Concerns—Somewhere I have a record of expressing, several years ago, concern over the simian mistreatment (and gerbil too). In that essay a causal connection was suggested between HIV and SIV due to experimentation (lab or otherwise) but from the perspective of sexual perversion with humankind taking the initiative. Nietzsche and Jaspers’ wondering is still as justified today as ever, i.e., there are as many playful arguments for humankind’s simian descendency as simian ascendancy. But on the serious side of disease, the wondering is whether HIV is the cause of SIV or visa versa or just a principle of it-takes-two-to DNA tangle. Richard seems to want to grant not just humane rights but human rights to simian preservation. Perhaps he would build laboratories-habitats for simians for the preservation of whatever mutation might be genotyped through phenotypical cohabitation (the two forms of thinking here involve epi- and phenomenology). One wonders if and when overpopulation drives the team into an international space station, the decision to render theists into simian food would at least be joked about but with the intention that the suggestibility would be carried out by want-to-be team leaders clamoring for social position down on earth’s serfdom. 5. An aphoristic metaphor--The Oxford environment and we, here now, are there then 5.1. Thomas Cranmer is burning at the stake—Henry the VIII is dead and no longer able to continue to protect the protestant inclined Cranmer. Henry’s first living recorded child, bloody Mary, is burning Protestants. Remember, Henry’s marriage to his brother’s wife Catherine of Aragon was arranged when he was 12 through the efforts of his father obtaining a special dispensation from “pope” Julius II. It had to do with political connections with Catholic Spain. To fully appreciate the dynamics one must have a virtue historic worldview of forces--comparable to that of a weather-person’s. 5.2. At Henry’s powerful urgings Cranmer and like academicians (during a protesting interlude before academia became Catholic again) at Oxford had made their decisions on the matter of a reasonable standard to determine the morality of the marriage, and in effect, it was confirmed that the “pope” had no authority in that domain. It was the time of the plague spread partially due to the immorality of the lenient prelates and lascivious clerics, the immorality of which led to easily seeing the need for a standard of behavior, thus the reformation. At the time of the plague Henry was actually in the area of Oxford as was Cranmer. What had started to replaced Roman authority were the records deemed reliable as a standard and made reliable ironically to some degree by Rome’s capitalizing tactics. 5.3. As Cranmer burns, think this: shortly, Oxford will be under Catholic control and through a spin on events (look at the Internet history of Oxford University) Cranmer’s burning will be used as propaganda, i.e., a terrible price for one to pay for contributing to the rift in catholicity and preventing the one-world Church. Though there may be documents with his signature relating to his recantations…but now back to the scene and notice how he stretches out his hand to the burning flames and holds it there where all can see while repeating “unworthy hand.” … TO BE CONTINUED—This experience on the basis of here and now thinking applied to the past has far more aphoristic appeal and much more virtual reality than Charles’ description of a proposed “intentional programming” being too professional and therefore he thinks visual aids are needed to teach it. The visual aid chosen is the religiously charismatic aphorism “Dawkins”. The metaphysics of his evolutionism constitute the metaphors to make the complex dogmatically clear. My purpose is to show how the phenomenological method applied to meaningful connections and their specific mechanisms are conceptual tools that easily adjust to elitist Oxford-phenomena, and assist in making reasonable connections between forces. INTENTIONAL PROGRAMMING IN 1860-OXFORD 6. The relevance of Cranmer’s burning to Dawkins’ “Nice guys finish first” (and at this point I’ve only a guess as to what he means, for I’ve intentionally not pursued it on the Internet) is only to be determined if a more whole than partial Cranmer is examined. Guilt, limited thinking, limited feelings, suffering, conflict, and death are all involved to the degree that they are ultimate situations unavoidable but not sought by a nice guy. Cranmer’s guilt involved avoidance, i.e., avoidance at all cost even others suffering and death, and he sought life unconditionally too, i.e., others were expendable but he was not as archbishop of Canterbury. He was a nice catholic guy amidst the growing spirit of protesting. But his participation in the burning of “heretics” was insufficient to compensate for failing to kiss the big toe of the bishop of Rome when he was sent to plead on--biblical grounds--the King’s case regarding his arranged marriage with strings attached to Spain. When the big toe was extended for kissing, a beagle playfully bit it. The popularity of the anecdotal intervention in itself was sufficient to burn Cranmer. Whether Dawkins can get away with snipping at a vatic’s ontological leap of faith will depend on how useful he continues to be to the cause of “evolution’s” catholicity. (Catholicity has come into vogue within the last half century by intentional design along with the Catholic Church definition of “modernism”, and is propagated, like the word “modernism”, to appear less dogmatic than the word Catholic as associated with its historical stigmas. In popular current use “modernism” serves as a host carrier of the idea that the Catholic Church has been updated and therefore must be revered more reliable and not responsible for the past, and can be relied on to not repeat anything stigmatic. I use word catholicity with the stigma defensively remembered including the designed intention. I use it to mean any commitment to something universal enough to be imposing by whatever means including legislated duress with designs on those protesting. But if Catholic appears with high case “C” it specifically means what is thought of as the historical Holy Roman Catholic Church. Any form of the word catholic is therefore meant to mean a mission of a universal nature that proceeds from some dogmatic fundamental truth humanly conjured epiphenomenally speaking and material in nature and in application. The need for this parenthetical clarification is a good example of how nominalism v. realism can be made sense of.) (I use high case P on protestant only when referring to the historic group that still clings ideally or really to the Bishop of Rome with hopes of its reforming to be such that membership can be regained.) 6.2. The reality of propaganda by torture turned into a firestorm. The standard determining reality from nomenalism was raised to the level of demonstrative protestation. Propaganda, the tool of nominalism, was reverted to again to draper (pun-reference to John Draper below) the reality of the inhumanness to not only the special but the genus of humankind. In other words sophisticated nomenclature was used to draper over the realism of the flame. Nomenclature was back in the saddle fully knighted and overtly manifesting itself in Oxford—carried over from the Paris school due to the efforts of the Dominicans and Franciscans who were given to nominalism and against realism. What counted were the creedal words to control realistic protesting. (The Paris and Oxford school arose during the scholastic arguments of 11th century Nominalism v. Realism. It is the argument whether genus humankind is different enough to be not only an abstract concept but also participating in something real and unique. The realism/nominalism conflict was a consequence of a primordial comparison of phenomena and causal connections determined more from the perspective of either difference or similarity. The conflict is primordial, but emphasizing difference can be found in Plato, and emphasizing similarity in Aristotle, and both deteriorate into the doctrinaires of the Platonism of Augustine and the Aristotelianism of Aquinas, and supposedly dogmatized by iconolatry when the latter two were canonized saints. Then by a profanely sanctimonious sort of meaningless reversal Plato is made Orthodox for the East and Aristotle for the West but both incorporated in the Occidental dichotomous continuum through the reformation in Germany and the reformation in England. The nominalism/realism conflict has now come before the Simonyi Chair at Oxford where sits Dawkins.) 6.3. Selfish v. unselfish predispositions—The normal and quick response to burning alive those forces categorized as heretical (never the real reason), is that Catholics were also persecuted. But there’s a predispositional difference, such as with Tyndale who was multilingual and merely guilty of innocently translating the New Testament into English. Catholic prelates were in collusion to influence and obtain Henry’s approval for burning Tyndale. In-depth pressure and scheming was applied. But Tyndale was mercifully strangled before being burned, but the sentence was carried out near Augsburg more in the heart of protestant country where the executioner had discretion to protest the suffering. How much this mercy or proneness to inflict suffering is disposition and predispositional and how much the constitution is preconstitutional participates more in the unknown than known. But a bird’s eye view of as much as can be known raises suspicions. The disposition that would establish a policy of burning alive for suffering intentions and mass coercion, and cutting off the feet of American natives tends to show there’s been a shearing of consciousness, especially conscience if there ever was any properly inherited or properly taught. 6.4. Cranmer’s burning was paradigmatic--The burning of Cranmer was the historical gross-event determining whether England would be Catholic or exists autonomously. The concentration point of suffering was the pinnacle of the inhumane violation of the ultimate situations (an act devoid of any awareness of the limits of the mind, shaving off of any empathy, as though nominalism had finally triumphed over reality). Inhumanity to humanity was designed to maintain the force of catholic solidification. The public shame drove the catholicity force into only apparent remission. In the academic field the religious force of catholicity went underground where it was well acclimated. In the religio-political field, direct evidence of the force was known as the Anglo-Catholic movement. The movement identified as the Church of England (Episcopalianism) was the Catholic element’s overt effort to keep a foothold during England’s reformation movement. Though overt and nominal it was a sidewinder effort to make the Church of England allegiant to the Bishop of Rome. The backlash to the effort occurred within the spiritual continuation of the reformation movement in the form of the Low Church (High Church is Episcopal) in the Methodist movement in the south and Presbyterian movement in Scotland, and finally the Evangelical movement out of London. The Evangelical movement, some 800 ministers and laity, can be seen as an organized effort to break away from the conflict between nominalism and realism by concentrating on the practical application of the biblical standards of moral and ethical behavior. The side effect though gave free range to the dogmatism and catholicity of “evolutionism” which included the potential for harvesting by Catholicism, as it has done. It also gave the Oxford sophistic academicians the occasion to consider as mentally and intellectually inferior those not participating in the nomenclature game, and along with it came a disregard for biblical values. The disregard for biblical values as a standard was a boom for Catholicism for the bible was dispensable anyway. The disregard and disrespect fed upon itself and by being carried over into whatever vestiges of religious inclination remained at Oxford and comparable schools of established elitists. The forces against biblical values as a standard and substitute for vatic authority were already well underway before 1860 through the underground academia. New students were immediately disillusioned and shocked by the conduct and profane language of theological students. Darwin himself was one disillusioned from continuing preparation for the ministry (if I recall correctly). 6.5. The Cranmer-paradigmatic-punctilious event had to be decentralized by think-tank tactics. It had to be circumvented. Nomenclature was hurled into the effort. Huxley made absurd unrealistic written comments about his willingness to go to the...stake as Darwin’s disciple, verbalizing about his willingness to suffer for dogma like Cranmer and others. It was bravado in the face of the security paid for by those who were burned unwillingly. If empty bravado bluffs didn’t work then the Cranmer event had to be secreted by commotion. Prelates can be best and worse at such. Anything might be tolerated for Catholicism if it draws attention away from the Cranmer shameful situation--even making a secret pact with science if it could be dogmatized enough to be brought in sync with the dogmatism essential to sustain catholicity. It would take refined shrewdness, reverse psychology, parametric manipulations of dogmatic forces, and even creating a polarizing situation where science could be remolded and reduced to a heavy toothed metal for synchronization. But there had to be a ring of friction, well oiled to avoid squealing and smoke, an interface situation for synchronization of a slow gear here and a high gear there, a idler gear too and one for overdrive if needed. There could be none better to be used than Huxley. Huxley had already shown the need to prostrate himself before “Darwin’s doctrine”. Owens though was out of sync, and out of the ring and minimized Darwin’s doctrine—the “doctrine” was a theory he had thought of ten years earlier than Darwin. (Actually it’s a theory playfully entertained primordially.) Wilberforce was an orator and had also nominally committed himself to the subtle terms of the instigation. And he occupied an inhibiting reconciliatory position between the growing spirit of Romanism and the Anglo-Catholic Church of England. These three persons could be predicted. A catalytic but predictable quest speaker was needed; it would be someone who would solidify reactionary forces. A quest speaker should be acquired, a protestant of sorts, who could not speak the Oxford language and who could not be interrupted as a quest speaker. It would have to be someone who was inclined toward speaking his open-minded expressions on sensitive issues, someone like Draper. 6.6. The John W. Draper Bomb—Draper hailed from an area where Catholics in the 18th century were restrained by limits on property inheritance but by 1829 they were allowed to sit in Parliament and join the army (in a 2001 census Muslims were the largest non-Christian religion—Christian being Prot. and Cath.—but Mus. still at 2.78% --Jewish was 2%). Next to the Church of England, i.e., Episcopalian, the largest group in 1851 was the Methodist, and the Church of Scotland, i.e., Presbyterian of no consequence). Draper had studied at Woodhouse Grove, a Methodist school, then studied at University of London, and moved to America in 1832. Surely he needed no introduction and known to be an appropriate personage at a dedication of the bible-built science museum (plus the honor of being invited might mean a foothold in America, so a good show had to be made). He could be predicted to say things that would embolden Wilberforce in turn to say things with a dogmatic ring while leaning toward the protesting spirit in reaction to any dogmatic nomenclature that sounded like scientific dogma. Wilberforce could have been predicted to compete on Darwin/Huxley terms safely from the pulpit. But Draper could not be limited to predetermined rules of a conjured issue. Wilberforce could be predicted to make an attempt to disprove on material grounds by comparisons and similarity or differentiation that humankind’s origin is known, and by Darwin/Huxley terms prove it was not known, but known not to be materialistic because of differences. The uncertainty principle of humankind’s origin had not been established at Oxford, and the certainty principle at Oxford was being maintained and the metaphysics was showing itself in the growing arrogance of the natural scientists. The principle that needed to be maintained was that the origin of humankind, the thinker, was utterly unknowable, but the good cheer in face of uncertainty was part of that principle, and it was being ridiculed because biblical rather than vatican, though it was in fact as historical as Sanskrit verses. Draper had seen some light of reason, and he could be depended on to polarize the religio-politico complex because his reputation, real or not, preceded him. And…his vital role and meaningful philosophical wisdom could be dismissed as a boring and long speech that left everyone restless and irritable. Jaspers, via Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, had not yet made philosophy exciting and systematically meaningful again. Meanwhile, Huxley was lying in wait to ambush the unprepared and handicapped Wilberforce. 6.7. The point of mentioning Draper’s environment is to show that the early 19th c. census’ fractions were as available to the Oxford factions that were influential in determining who would be the quest speaker at the ceremony celebrating the new museum to house all of science from medicine to chemistry. It was a museum built with surplus funds from the University Press’s bible sales made possible by the high price Tyndale paid. The fractions of the census are nominal but yet indicators of the real and immeasurably charged atmosphere. There is relative certainty that the level of scrutiny (i.e., analyzing Draper’s image) was no less capable then as now, and if it needs to be argued, then it’s evidence for humankind’s current retardation compared to humankind’s past. 6.8. The decision to arrange Draper as quest speaker did not occur out of the void but in the midst of the conflagration still as hot as ever and therefore in need of distractible nomenclature. Only inexperience due to removal from the times and spaces would be the excuse for the naïve view that the issue was that dogmatic science’s time had come like the second coming. The philosophical issue was the implication involved in the dogmatic nomenclature that the origin of humankind had been found. Only nomenclature and an air of aristocratic concord could propagate that the fundament of ontological certainty now stands (like an abomination) in a bible-built building. If effectively machinated, dogmatized science could overcome the essence of science and religion: that truth cannot be localized in Rome or Oxford. 6.9. Draper saw the problem and could express it more objectively, i.e., that the conflict with science was coming from Romanism not from the force protesting the forces demanding compliance. 6.10. Huxley and Jaspers on Baer—Huxley “prepared to burn” for Darwin’s doctrine--Let us get it clear. In the Way to Wisdom, Jaspers lists “K. E. von Baer” and Darwin as suggested readings for a philosophical grasp, to comprehend the place of unavoidable philosophical involvement. The wisdom is involved in seeing that Baer’s exploratory research created a “magnificent vision of the world in its fundamental characters”. But Jaspers says of Darwin that he was Baer’s “diametrical opposite” because Darwin reduced this vision to a system of causalities, “which implies the destruction of any sense of authentic life”. Huxley also studied Baer with similar appreciation but became as one dissatisfied with being in a critical mode and needing to be a proponent of something materialistically simple and absolute, so Darwin was interpreted as something definitive enough to curtsy before, and in preparation for inspiration just before the debate with Wilberforce. Needing a submissiveness to doctrine, having the willingness to be nominalistic, being dialectically alert, and adapt at nomenclature, Huxley could have occupied a Chair for the propagation of the scientific fundament whose job description was to make sure this dogma was propagated effectively enough to be the base from which all science must proceed. 6.11. Huxley’s testimony establishes the Cranmer Punctilious event--What an interesting comment. Huxley used the likes of Cranmer’s suffering to show his attraction for Darwin’s doctrine. The attraction though was expressed nominally for he knew there was no chance he could burn. Prior to his public defiant reaction, i.e., the interruption of Wilberforce’s lecture, in the same note to Darwin, Huxley stated that he was preparing for the confrontation with Darwin’s opponents. Neither Huxley originally, or Owens, or Wilberforce thought that the origin of humankind was known, but Huxley was leaning toward similarities rather than differences for it was the prevailing winds of doctrine and dogma vortexing at Oxford. It was a display of a prey’s weakness that could catch the predatory eye. 6.12. Draper drops the Conflict-Thesis bomb on Catholicism--John W. Draper now from remote New York University presented his Conflict Thesis. It was a complex thesis with which only simplism could compete. As reality is complex, it is most representative. The invitation to speak at Oxford must have been taken as a compliment and perhaps the belated recognition of the value of his views. He failed to see that to speak at Oxford meant every other breath must be from the Catholic atmosphere. To only exhale protesting breath was sure to bring polemic response. The undercurrent was such that the last thing you could suggest is his thesis that “the intellectual development of Europe considered with reference to Darwin and others, that the progression of organisms is determined by law”. His paper at least showed how the Darwinian metaphor of adaptation and environment had entered what we call social and political science. The thesis included the argument that science and religion have always been in conflict, but that Roman Catholicism was most out of sync with science and protestant more a harmonizing attitude. It was time for Huxley to create a commotion of distraction, but it could hardly be used against a quest speaker from America, and it must appear to be only a science issue. 6.13. The Islamic fall out--Again, the real issue is not nominalism, not “evolution” or evolutionism’s nomenclature but rather the struggle of forces, real complexity v. the clearly reduced verbalizations. The issue, historically, involved the force of a written standard v. a foreign centralized vatic authority. But Draper’s views were threatening from another angle. His thesis tended toward not only the protestant but also Islamic friendliness toward science, and Catholicism served as a retardant to science. Oxford had now become the geocentric court of last appeal for the Inquisition with its seat in Spain to control the spread of Islam in an unbalanced tit for tat fashion. Heretics could no longer be legally crucified. But that law could be circumvented. After all, there’s no law against frying, only crucifying. Prolonged suffering was reflected in the Cranmer paradigmatic event. 6.14. Now the issue of authority begins to take more vivid form. If “evolution” can be effectively propagated, the general population can be talked into getting ducks in a row and the most “evolved” authority is the “evolved” institutional standard that has “evolved” the longest that counts as an argument, albeit a mistaken argument. The disputable reputable oldest “evolving” institution can also be further dogmatized by punctilious bouts of “modernism”, which is “evolving” too. Note! These previous forces are first class theorists, no less subtle, but only less dangerous due to the current technology. But now due to technology, the forces are more dangerous because technology is such that dogma through intentional programs coupled with the speed of light can overcome the due process of normal protesting. If catholicity due to technology can keep ahead of the right to protest, only suffering paradigms can bring about a restoration of a healthy state of rights. 6.15. Draper’s “Conflict Thesis” meets the falsification test--If Draper had need of more substantiation of his thesis, he could leave confident that Oxford had provided some proof that catholicity was a hindrance to science in that the polarization into dogma was an undeniable experimentation producing results. In other words, the debate was proof pudding of his thesis, for without catholicity there would have been no dogmatic conflict. What perhaps he did not see was that the issue was not the limits or absolutes of science but rather the issue was secondary to the need to distract from the paradigm, i.e., the Cranmer burning (and others) and the paradigm-shifting force of the New Testament and the spirit of the Old (especially the deaths of the prophets and Jesus). He would have to ignore the debate, as we must, in order to see what the distraction was all about. “Evolution” has never been the issue; it is a spin to distract from the historical conflict between something even more basic than vitalism and materialism. The issue is: acquiescing to the creeds of others or protesting the loss of freedom. Draper could now return and publish his book on the conflict thesis, “The History of the Intellectual Development of Europe”. 7. Recapitulation—Intentional programming--I’ve not yet read any book by Richard Dawkins nor searched anything on the Internet by Dawkins regarding “nice guys finish first”. Two nice guys, Cranmer and Tyndale, have been considered. The burning of Cranmer is a case of a nice catholic not being catholic enough. He was burned for participated in burnings with too much restraint and showing signs of empathy for protesting victims. Catholicity could only be realized if real burning or enforced nomenclature could put down protesting. When poor publicity regarding the Cranmer event prevented retaliation, “nice guys” with intentional programs went undercover and manipulated other guys into conflict over a doctrine in the name of science. Prelates instigated the burning of Tyndale and had no part in the mercy-killing tactic when he was at the stake. His apparent innocent purpose had nothing to do with the conflict of forces. He simply wanted, at first, to make the New Testament accounts available to all. What he made available in English were the accounts pertaining to crucifixions, biblical paradigms. Henry VIII had been under extreme pressure from clerics to intervene and put an end to the translations that could cause turmoil. Regardless of the best-laid intentions at programming, the Oxford University Press surplus funds from bible sales built the natural science museum and the programming continued to manipulate the ceremony, and it continues today. In 1529 Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of London, with Thomas Moore, schemed, purchased the books and burned them. The money they paid for the books, made it possible for even more books to be printed, thanks to whatever part Tyndale contributed. 7.1 Corrections to the above are welcomed for consideration. CONTINUE TO: SECOND CONTINUUM (JUNE 23, 2006), RICHARD DAWKINS V. KARL JASPERS ON CONSCIOUSNESS, FAITH AND MENTAL DISEASE THIRD CONTINUUM (JULY 20, 2006), PANDERING TO “MEME” THE MARTYR SPOILER FIFTH CONTINUUM (OCTOBER 17, 2006)—EPISTEMIC POSTURING OF DIS-EASED EMOTIVE AFFECTIVE STATES, CONSCIOUSNESS AND MIND: further preparation for handling objective research through epistemic triangularity; a special application of epistemology to torture-trends *The documentation here is meant to preclude the claim that ideas may have come from Dawkins’ works.
|
||