Deceptive Frameworks & Overlooking the Numinous

real 3

Science has the same problem in itself than any other spheres of research/application. The same way that, in philosophy, a single principle or category (ism) does not suffice to explain the universe and our various experiences, science is stuck with frameworks that are functional on certain levels and dysfunctional on others. Of course, this also applies to language as we have previously seen but my main interest in this article will be to support the claim made by Myatt that science does not (yet) have the capability/willfulness to account for the numinous aspect of beings and the κόσμος. We shall also see why science itself became a category and a very valid one at that and still successfully expanding but still imperfect. The aim here is not to shun science and progress in any ways but rather to show that there are aspects of it that are problematic and unsatisfying when it comes to certain things.

We shall start with a quote from David Myatt:

“Furthermore, there is not only a distinction between a living being and a thing, but also the distinction regarding the assumed separation of beings. As a finite emanation (or presencing) of ψυχή, a living being is not, according to its φύσις, a separate being; as such, it cannot be ‘known’ – its nature cannot be understood – by external causal observations or by ‘measuring’/describing it (in terms of ‘space’) in relation to other living beings or to ‘things’ and/or by using such observations/observational classifications/measurements/descriptions to formulate a theory to characterize a ‘type’ (or genus or species) that such a living being is regarded as belonging to. For its φύσις is manifest – known – by its acausal relation to other living beings and by the acausal interconnectivity of such beings. Such a knowing is numinous; that is, an awareness of living (and often dependant) connexions and of the unity of Life beyond the finite, mortal, emanation we, as an individual human being, are. In personal terms, the error of applying causal time, and the perception derived therefrom, to living beings is most evident in causal abstractions, and in what we may refer to as the dialectic of egoism: of ourselves as one distinct, self-interested, human being contrasted with (or needing to be contrasted with) and often opposed to (or needing to be opposed to or seen to be opposed to) other humans. Thus, for millennia we have manufactured causal abstractions and identified with one or more of them, saught to bring them into being; as we have opposed other abstractions and especially those humans who identify with some abstraction or whom we have assigned to some abstraction, such as some group or some faith or some nation or some ethnicity or some ideology regarded as ‘inferior’ to ‘ours’ or as ‘bad’ compared to ‘ours’. Similarly, we humans have for millennia often felt compelled to place our own self-interest, our welfare, before that of other humans – and before the welfare of Nature [8] – just as we have been often compelled and often are still compelled to strive, competitively or otherwise, against other humans in order to establish or reaffirm our personal identity, our difference from them (or their ‘inferiority’ compared to us). Thus has there been, and thus is there, hubris and suffering. Thus has there been, and thus is there, a lack of appreciation of the numinous and a lack of understanding of our φύσις and that of the φύσις of the other living beings (including other humans) who share this planet with us.” David Myatt, November 2012

The equation is simple and repetitive:

  • A subject is imbued/inspired by a newly discovered category/mixture of categories.
  • A new framework is built according to newly discovered category/mixture of categories.
  • This framework is fusioned to the “I” or the “Ego” of the subject and its functionality is then tested/compared/argued (…)
  • Obviously, on certain levels, it will fail which thus leads to the next common reaction.
  • The subject will humbly discard his framework as insufficient, building another one consciously or unconsciously over time/Pathei Mathos OR will stick to it and defend it even though it is stagnant for a variety of reasons, namely anxiety, pride (…)
  • The result of all of this equals division, arrogance, conflict, sometimes fanaticism and war but also acts of ignorance.

In my eyes, Myatt, Heraclitus, Goodman, Wittgenstein and maybe even Spinoza (and surely many others) are ahead philosophically not because they built a better framework compared to other philosophers but simply because they admit that there are problems that we simply cannot tackle for now be it in science, languages or any other spheres. For Heraclitus, it will be a radical relativism and the consciousness of movement and alteration. For Myatt, there exist certain wordless expressions that are beyond definitions. Goodman will insist that we have to go through a process of reconceptualization/precision (…) Most of the time, their detachment or their looseness to their framework is more convincing than anything else.

Christian Culak, an excellent friend of mine formulated this in a very precise way in one of the points of his “Eihcophe”:

“The tool of language is constrained to one’s lexicon, as well as interpretations of its semantics. This constraint is a problem in communication of mutual understanding. Language works for what is functional (such as “hand me a guitar pick”), but it fails in abstractions/theories/concepts (such as “what is a soul?”) and also fails in attempting to transfer experiential understandings. This is why I do not objectify Eihcophe – because you, the reader/interpreter, will not understand this theoretical framework (as I do), for language is an inefficient tool to understand an understanding.  We have reached the limits of language. Philosophy is dying in communication, but is flourishing individually.”

Link to Christian Culak Eihcophe: https://christianculak.wordpress.com/

Lets now move on to the general scientific framework and how it proceeds to establish recurrent generalities. To better express this, I will rely on Nelson Goodman well known “Green emerald example”:

“Typically the scientist will not be considering a single hypothesis but will be looking for which hypothesis is “best confirmed” by the available evidence. The grue paradox shows us, that if we eliminate induction as a means of justification, for every hypothesis that is confirmed by some body of evidence, there are an infinite number of alternative hypotheses inconsistent with the first which are all equally well confirmed by that same evidence. Thus, based on the empirical evidence there is no justification for regarding the evidence as ever confirming one hypothesis more than another one!

This is a “paradox” because of course scientists frequently make judgments that the evidence confirms one hypothesis more favorably than another.

Here’s how the paradox was presented by Goodman:

Take as our example this time the hypothesis that:

“All emeralds are green.”

Clearly this hypothesis is confirmed by observations of green emeralds, i.e. its “positive instances.” Now consider a rival hypothesis:

All emeralds are grue.”

Here “grue” is a new predicate which is defined as the property of being green before the year 2100 and blue afterwards. Thus this second hypothesis that all emeralds are grue will be confirmed by any observation of a green emerald before the year 2100, because “grue” means by definition being green before 2100. Of course, since all observational evidence available is before the year 2100, all the evidence we have confirms the grue hypothesis exactly as much as it confirms the green hypothesis!

Of course picking the year 2100 is absurdly arbitrary; we could have picked any date. So, in effect, there are an infinite number of alternative hypotheses (each of which would have the emeralds changing color at a different future date) which are all equally well confirmed by the observed positive instances of green emeralds. Since our justification for accepting a hypothesis as confirmed is the empirical evidence, it follows paradoxically that we have no rational justification for picking one hypothesis as better confirmed than an infinite host of alternatives!  Obviously, this does not reflect what really is the case in science. The hypothesis that all emeralds are green is in fact considered highly confirmed and accepted by all mineralogists, whereas no one believes “All emeralds are grue”.

Why do we consider “green” as “reasonable” but “grue” as utterly “absurd”?  The reason seems obvious: no one has ever observed gems changing  color on an arbitrary date in the past, so no one has any grounds  for expecting any gem to change from green to blue in the year  2100. But to say this is just to say that we expect the future  will resemble the past (the principle of the uniformity of nature),  which is of course the heart of Hume’s problem of induction. No doubt science proceeds on this assumption of the uniformity of  nature, but our task is to justify it. Yet the only way to justify  it is to reason from the evidence which we have accumulated from  the past, and that of course is to assume the very point which is  at issue, namely the reliability of inductive inference from the  past to the future. We must conclude that the confirmationist has  not escaped the problem of induction.”

We can see just how important this is and why science became a category of its own, separated entirely from anything remotely “Occult-Esoteric” (alchemy being an exception in past times). Just like language, there is this parallel procedure, this natural alteration that occurs slowly but occurs nevertheless. Just like a maturing organism. Science, just like any other spheres is moving forward but in the shadows, capable only of gathering what it sees nearby (field of observation). There might be a grue emerald somehow, somewhere but according to current framework, it is not probable and not functional to think so. Fair enough this makes sens causally, just as much as language makes sens as a utility tool but still does not have the power to find a universal definition for any concepts. In the light of this, I expect primarily two conclusions:

  • You hold on to current limited tools (language, framework, human perception) and keep on trying to create new categories/ism like most philosophers did in the past or elaborate previous ones.
  • You admit a certain relativism to things or that certain questions cannot be answered. Thus leading you to explore various philosophical stances without fusioning seriously with any of them. The appreciation for wordless expressions is thus brought back and Pathei Mathos becomes central.

Of course, there are many problems that we could talk about, namely the fact that I am trying to accuse a fallible framework (science) with another fallible framework (language) with another fallible framework (my human perception) or the relativism that exist even between commonalities or even the lots of problem that arises in Logic and systems of definitions. I also realize that my conclusion might be unpleasant for many individuals and that some of the readers will think that I am spitting on thousand of years of philosophical conceptualization but I can assure you that it is rather the opposite. My (fallible) suggestion to go back to a life of experience(s) and appreciation with an open mind/interest for all types of knowledge is as honest as it can be.

Again:

Furthermore, there is not only a distinction between a living being and a thing, but also the distinction regarding the assumed separation of beings. As a finite emanation (or presencing) of ψυχή, a living being is not, according to its φύσις, a separate being; as such, it cannot be ‘known’ – its nature cannot be understood – by external causal observations or by ‘measuring’/describing it (in terms of ‘space’) in relation to other living beings or to ‘things’ and/or by using such observations/observational classifications/measurements/descriptions to formulate a theory to characterize a ‘type’ (or genus or species) that such a living being is regarded as belonging to. For its φύσις is manifest – known – by its acausal relation to other living beings and by the acausal interconnectivity of such beings. Such a knowing is numinous.” -David Myatt

This is not a “STOP” to philosophy, it is an open door to both passionate occult interests/practice and philosophical studies in various spheres. But it also encourage empathy, humility, to the respect of other life forms and maybe even, to hold certain illogical beliefs just for the consideration and appreciation of the vastness of the universe. Some things are just better without words weighting them down.

-Beldam, 128 yf

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s