1 - The ultimate goal of science is instinctual repression resulting from the same original sin. - IT belongs to the same case history as religion except religion was/is an wish fufilment and a distortion of a mystery which explains the desire of mankind in metaphors. Science as a sympton in the phylogentical timeline is the result of the individual becoming sicker - A process of eradicating the guilt and moralising the atrocities of the human will and original sin.
2 - Original sin is the resulting consciousness arising from unconsciousness ( Its birthpangs either being a mere 'freedom to rise', or an epiphenomenal phenomena arising from nature.) The attending guilt is the arising of the tension of consciousness - and the drive to eradicate the tension.
3 - The 'Will to science' is the perpetuation of the repressive instinct of society and the ever increasing anxiety and repressive instinct of the individual.
4 - The repressive instinct of the individual is the despairing element of consciousness - and its tension - the desire to be other than what it is, and hence, the despair of what it is.
5 - The essence of huaman nature is the denying of that human nature which is ego consciousness - namely, repression and censorship. Seen on a macrocosmic level the history of civilization has been the desire to cease tension and its root, thinking, via two means : Society relatively abolishing nature and labour and increasing the means of procuring pleasure, and science, the process leading to the cessation of the tension, despair and guilt : The ultimate instinctual repression : Transhumanism.
6 - The goal of this social engineering is the cessation of two main disharmonising tendencies of human nature and it's specific attributes. - The will to power and suffering -
Its a great post, and great ideas and formulation (although, surely, you should define original sin at the start) I'm not sure that I entirely agree about 6.
ReplyDeleteSo you say: social engineering is "the cessation ... of human nature ... [which one aspect of it is] the will to power."
The will to power of (a) the individual? or (b) the society
If its (a) fine, I agree.
But (b) to me seems fishy. Isn't social engineering a will to power in itself, but just the Orwellian/ Huxley scientific dictatorship?
So your reply I guess would be - well ... im talking about human nature here not society ....
but social engineering is the brainchild collection of certain individuals - just like a concept is a certain collection of propositions.
This would mean that social engineering and its adherents, proponents and its makers are exempt from science and social engineering, and thus it does not diminish their will to power. It IS their will-to-power
The end result, then, is a Borgesian paradox. Science (and by entailment social engineering) try to erase the human trait of will-to-power - agreed. But, science is the will-to-power itself (the weak man uses laws and regulations to devour the stronger man that would devour him without). This means that science doesn't erase will to power, rather - INCREDIBLY - the whole façade is a more sophisticated, "larger", and dangerous will-to-power. The will-to-power to not be devoured, and be the powerful pack leader.
ReplyDeleteSo, if anything, science doesn't erase will-to-power, it perpetuates it!
Yeah, you're right - I did realise that when I wrote it as I was reticient of using the words 'aggression, or violence' but really ' will to power' was my euphemism for aggression' : As you know, I believe (As Freud and Shakespeare found and believed) all humans are intensely aggressive even when spouting seemingly non aggressive creeds and beliefs, not that I lament this as I accept it as a fact of being human - As we are inhabited by an agressive instinct which we cannot control. Science also falls into this (as you've posited) but it specifically in the term of 'Social Progression' wants to erase 'violence' and 'suffering'
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to think what the end game of it all is:
ReplyDelete(a) With SOME Quantum mechanical interpretations the paradigm of Newtonian physics is being shattered, and this new paradigm and mode of thinking will become the new devourer.
I'm highly sceptical that a new paradigm that reveals all the truths of the universe (which it wont) will mean that human nature contracts out of the "life eats life" confrontation. Is that even possible? If not, (which I think likely) then the will-to-power battle increases further and further
(b) The Newtonian paradigm remains and science tries harder and harder to erase violence and suffering, and the will-to-power ever increases further and further.
The end result of (a) and (b) seems to be an ever-increasing will-to-power.
Or the will-to-power gets so great that humanity ends up devouring itself by ironically always trying to be the devourer
Yeah, I've also wondered what this new paradigm symbolises, its own mode of interpretation - Trying to eradicate the first conditions of life (namely, life eats life) and re postulate it in weird ideas of comsic harmony, or holarchy, and no seperation of man and the universe. This optimism is representative of serious decadence, and Nietzsche would be abhorred - as he claimed - mass optimism is a reaction formation of a weary man who needs a reason to being, or he who lies down low and waves his white flag.
ReplyDeleteEither way man will always try and devour himself because he is and always will be a devourer {as you've said.] But whether the marxists and the social engineers can create the 'new man' remains to be seen, but one only has to look at America and China, and England to see what a great job they're doing.
Science is self-reinforcing cycle of despair - It seeks answers outside itself, answers which are only attainable through introspection. IMO =)
ReplyDeleteYeah,I agree. The most valuable answers, definetly. He who knows not himself is a mere pauper, and he is despair. And that goes for Science aswell.
ReplyDelete