Pure scientists look down on psychology
What do we know?
Science and life
Religion once told us what was true. Modern man has, he believes, abolished God and now expects science to tell him the truth or at least give him clear guidelines for his actions. But now, among other things, Corona shows us that science knows nothing. If you were to make musically audible everything that scientists say about the current crisis, you would have a terrible cacophony, and no one could listen to such music for long without going crazy.
How do we look into the world, how do we see others and ourselves, how do we see life and, above all, from which point of view, from which perspective do we look? Where do we get our criteria for right and wrong from? In the corona crisis, we see that one perspective dominates all the others, namely that of science. Despite all the disagreement about what is really true, there is broad agreement that you have to know as much as possible in order to act reasonably correctly. And science should provide this knowledge, and there is also great agreement on this.
The perspective of science
The basic perspective from which modern man looks at life, at the world, at nature and also at himself, is the view from outside and from above. That is the perspective of natural science: the world lies before us, it is the object, the observer is the subject. He describes what he can see and measure there, outside of himself. This is called objective.
We are here, the world is there; we are above, life is below
This perspective has become a matter of course for us, even in everyday life beyond all science. When we talk about nature, we are talking about something that is outside of us; when we speak of life we do so with an inner attitude as if we were facing life - that we are life does not occur to us, that we are nature, much less so. When we talk or think about ourselves, we talk like about someone who is outside of us and with whom we have nothing to do - that we are this self, that we analyze, evaluate, praise and judge, in good and bad or Allocating light and shadow, which we drive and from which we demand performance or renunciation, and that whoever does all this, who talks about himself and does all this with himself, are also ourselves, almost nobody comes to mind.
At the same time, the perspective of standing opposite is one of standing over it: We see the world (including ourselves) not only from the outside, but also from above, we look down on it (us). For example, when it comes to saving the earth, those who talk like that are the great ones in their inner attitude towards the earth, the ones above, and the earth is like a child to be looked after and protected . And when it comes to how one can have a good life, then we don't ask life, we don't submit to it, we put ourselves above it and tell it how it should be. If it brings us diseases and other things that we do not like, then it must be fought and, if at all possible, "exterminated", and death must be fought and that would be the summit and highest triumph of man and his science to defeat and abolish. Instead of being an expression of life, as one of billions of forms in which it is shaped and expressed, we see ourselves as masters of life. It has to serve us.
That is the perspective of science and also the perspective of modern man. It has enabled man to distance himself from nature - external as well as his own, internal - which enables him to measure its external functioning and to understand it in this sense and thus to make it usable for himself. In doing so, she has given him tremendous power and a certain independence - "a certain" because we are not and can never be independent of nature. But we believe that we can master them with our knowledge and its application (technology). From this perspective it follows that one tries to measure, control and manipulate everything. You have to get the world, nature, life and yourself "under control".
Naturalists and conservationists also have this perspective. The only difference to those who do not care about nature is that they have a more "sustainable" view and thus pursue a different strategy of using nature. But they too are no longer in nature, no longer experience themselves as nature, but are inwardly above it. They mark the birds and map their routes to protect and preserve them. Just as the Chinese state records the routes of its citizens in order to protect them (the Chinese overwhelmingly see it that way), and in the same way as the Robert Koch Institute may soon be recording and tracking all of our movements using a “tracing app” to protect ourselves from a virus that science is completely divided on the dangers of which it is.
We are not facing nature, we are nature
With Corona / SARS-Cov-2, this nature, which has been relocated to the outside in all our thinking, hits us in the form of one of its oldest living forms, a virus, and shows us that we are not outside. If we were actually already "AI", artificial intelligence, algorithms or machines, which is what the whole science program amounts to, we would have nothing to fear from Corona. But since we - unfortunately? - are still nature, it is like with all forms of life: some can coexist, others not; the life of one rests on the death of the other; one is food for the other and thus potentially death as well. Corona reminds us of our nature and our mortality.
It is part of this nature that we protect ourselves from dying and at the same time see and acknowledge mortality. Both. Every living being protects itself from those who want to eat it, and at the same time being eaten or perishing is an inseparable part of its life, of its existence as a natural living being. If we don't want to die anymore, we can't live anymore.
How do we react to Corona now? First of all with a natural reflex: we want to protect ourselves. That is why politicians and governments who do this consistently receive great approval. The higher the perceived danger, the greater it is, and it crumbles as the feeling of threat subsides. What matters is the feeling, not the actual threat. Like all feelings, this feeling is entirely subjective and can only be influenced little by facts. If you hammer on it with facts - regardless of whether they are really well-founded or only half-true - this feeling closes, or people close themselves off and wall themselves in with their feelings about what is true and what is not. This then gives rise to religious wars. At the same time, the (alleged) facts are then used again as the basis of the respective opinion and also as the basis for media communication and political decisions, whereby everyone in turn draws on the facts that best fit his worldview.
What does science really know?
This is where science comes in again and the question of what we actually know, what science can and cannot do. Can she tell us what is right and what is not? Can she say what to do with binding authority? No, she can't. When science began a few hundred years ago to destroy the supposed certainties of religion and to gradually replace them, it was believed for a long time that it could give people a homeland, orientation and life guidelines similar to those of earlier times Religion could. Today it has long been clear that it cannot do this - and yet many still expect it from it, and the media and every politician who wants to be taken seriously never tire of invoking “science”. Even fundamental oppositions like Greta Thunberg call for people to follow science. Now Corona shows us that science knows nothing.
If you were to make musically audible everything that scientists say about the current crisis, you would have a terrible cacophony, and no one could listen to such music for long without going crazy. To prevent this from happening, one uses a simple trick - this applies above all to the so-called "quality media", which are something like the agents or priests of modern consciousness: one confronts those who are skeptical of the prevailing scientific view and referring to other facts (also scientific or also from practical experience), sidelined. They are - in the case of Corona this becomes very clear, but it also applies to other topics where scientific positions contradict the modern worldview - "deniers" or even "conspiracy theorists" when they doubt the validity (reliability) of the corona test and on it point out that it does not meet scientific criteria, question the interpretation of the official statistics and emphasize the fact that most of the dead did not die of COVID-19, point out the dangers of vaccinations or the (huge) economic interests involved and have entirely different explanations for the observable phenomena.
Of course, every scientist knows an incredible amount about his subject area, but what of that is real knowledge? Beyond the epistemological discussions, one can easily see that all so-called knowledge is not knowledge. Every scientist is based on different knowledge, every knowledge is based on basic assumptions that are not scientific, and nobody outside the respective subject and its respective specialty can understand the “knowledge” of the specialists. This already applies to scientists in the same field, but even more so to laypeople.Nobody can verify that what a scientist is saying is true. It's all based on convention and trusting science and its rules. And since all scientists say different, if not contradicting, words, the layman has no choice but to believe. That brings us to religion. Even if every single scientist is reluctant and protests against it: overall, “science” has taken on the role of religion.
With the Internet, we have the largest database of all time, the entire knowledge of all scholars of all time and all current scientific research results is in principle open to everyone, it only takes a few clicks - and what do we actually know? Who can tell what is right and what is not? Who knows what is true? Which “scientific” knowledge is clear, indisputable? The virologist Hendrik Streeck made it very clear in a panel discussion in Cologne: Virologists also do not know the truth about Corona and argue about it, and the same data set can be interpreted very differently. This does not mean that scientific knowledge is superfluous, but it does mean that one cannot expect the truth from science. But that is exactly what is expected of it, spread by the media and believed by most of the people.
After all, when it comes to the question of how to live properly, what is good and right, you are faced with the fact that no single scientist and no science as a whole can tell you this. In other words: As much as we may know and believe we know as a whole or in detail (!), In practice we know nothing.
Politics is acting in uncertainty
Corona is showing us that right now. Anyone who seriously deals with the - allegedly all scientifically founded - statements that can be read every day and also looks around the Internet cannot seriously claim that they know what is true. All of our knowledge is based on hearsay and belief. At the same time - in this case, this applies particularly to politicians - we have to act and make decisions. There is no scientifically based policy, that is an impossibility. If that existed, you would no longer need politics or politicians.
Angela Merkel's statement that there is “no alternative” to her refugee policy was the rejection of politics and has therefore rightly been heavily criticized. It may well be that there was no alternative for them, according to their view of the world and their character, but that cannot be said for politics as a whole. Politics is not physics. I don't want to imply anything to Angela Merkel, but on this idea of the lack of alternatives or necessity, “scientific socialism” was based, which in turn was based on Engel's “historical materialism”. That was and is the basis of legitimation of all communist dictatorships: the leadership is able to recognize the objective truth with the help of Marxist science and can therefore claim to be doing the objectively right thing.
In fact, no person, and therefore no politician, makes decisions based on objective facts, but rather according to his or her character, personality and belief in what is true and what is not. All action takes place in ignorance and uncertainty. When it is said that someone decides "to the best of his knowledge and belief", then that means exactly that: that he does not know anything and, with this ignorance, goes into the unknown. This does not only apply to politicians and not only in Corona times. That always applies to everyone. We always go into the unknown with every step we take in life. This is exactly what life is: going into the unknown. Anything else would be no life.
Do we need to know more?
What conclusion do we draw from this fact of not knowing? Do we take it as our reality? Do we stand by it and say: Yes, is it like that? Do we see that we have to take a different path to arrive at the reality of life? No. For modern consciousness and all who have their spiritual home in it, their inner position, the matter is clear: we have to know more; we don't know enough yet; we have to research more intensively, we need more facts, more empirical results and perhaps also better theories. This also applies to those who are no longer comfortable with the “rule of virologists” and who (which is certainly correct) want to see the primacy of politics emphasized again. We keep stretching towards the horizon. Certainly we cover many kilometers and therefore believe that this is progress, but as far as the horizon is concerned, we are treading on the spot. Nobody sees that the horizon always remains the horizon and that, no matter how hard you run, you never reach it.
The more we know, the better we can rule the world, the safer and, it is insinuated and believed, the better our life becomes. Is that true? Is that a scientific, empirically justifiable fact? That our life gets better the more we know? That there is less suffering then? More joy, more vitality, more pleasure in life? More "quality of life"? Less dissatisfaction, less greed, less boredom? Better relationships, more contentment, more love? Do those who know everything about sex enjoy it more than those who simply indulge in lust and follow it without knowing more about it than what they experience? Do couples therapists who know all about relationships have better relationships than ignorant people? Do we today have thousands of books about love, sex and relationships and are constantly informed in all magazines about what is right and how what works, happier marriages and better relationships than our parents and grandparents? Are doctors who know a lot about illness healthier than others? Are we today, in our knowledge culture, which has accumulated more knowledge than a person can ever absorb, happier than a tribe in the rainforest that this knowledge has not yet touched? I'll spare myself the answer, I think everyone knows it - even without science.
Science is doubt, not knowledge
Science is constantly looking for new knowledge. This means that she does not trust her own knowledge or, in other words: she knows that her knowledge is not really knowledge at all. It is always provisional, always hypothetical. If science actually got to knowledge, it would be finished. Then why should you want to know more? Who knows something, knows. This ends the search and the questioning. In truth, science does not want to know, science wants (and must) doubt. That is their program, more than that: it is their identity. There is nothing wrong with that, because doubt destroys false certainties, and that can be very useful.
Science is institutionalized doubt, but: it does not doubt itself. That is the problem: since it does not look at itself and does not doubt it, it has become a belief system. Above all, it is not doubted in the modern age that believes in science. It is a belief system that has taken on the function of the old belief systems, the religions and myths, and, just like these, is useful and meaningful in a limited sense, but neither contains the truth nor is suitable as a basis for a good life. Science is just a certain perspective with certain rules to look at the world and life.
She describes the world from this perspective. If you look from a different perspective, you see another world, and this is neither truer nor more untrue than the one that science describes. The scientific worldview is superior to its predecessors only in practical respects, and vastly. It is the fulfillment of the biblical commission to subjugate the earth. Thus, as Yuval Noah Harari aptly expresses it in a book title (Homo Deus), man has become godlike. He is now, or at least he thinks, his own creator. But that's just a belief, because if it were true, Corona would not be a danger. But you can look further than science, you can look beyond it. Then you can also see their limits and their dangers. The greatest danger is that science contains not only the potential but also an inner tendency towards self-destruction. According to its internal logic, is is the enemy of natural life.
Science leads to death
Science promises us (almost) eternal life and brings us death - perhaps the physical, the spiritual and spiritual certainly. Physical death lurks in the dangers of the technology it creates and is more or less aware of everyone - or should we say better: it is known to all. We prefer to keep this away from our consciousness: the dangers of the atomic bomb (which we have almost forgotten) and nuclear physics, biotechnology and genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, weapons technology, chemical and biological weapons and experiments. The latter is currently being discussed, although in the West people pretend that these dangers only lurk in China and Russia. In these dangers, humans are the weak point, they could - intentionally (war, terrorism) or unintentionally (human error) - destroy all life with the help of these instruments, which are all results of science.
That is the danger of physical extinction of life, and that danger is real. Banishing them is, in turn, seen as the task of science. That means: science controls science. The weak point, the human factor, has to be pushed back as far as possible, if possible eliminated. This is what artificial intelligence is used for, that is its actual purpose and its ultimate justification. Life is only safe with AI. The devil is supposed to be driven out with Belzebub.
That brings me to the second point: this program leads to certain spiritual and spiritual death. In lockdown everyone could see it: if you want to prevent death at all costs, everything stands still. In other words, life dies because you want to turn death off. That is the end product of science and its application, technology.Even if everything were achieved that one dreams of in the Silicon Valley and all other research centers (certainly also in China), mental and spiritual death would be certain, because it is the end result of scientific logic.
When the so-called human factor is eliminated, for example through artificial intelligence, life is no longer life. In the term “human factor”, the human being is defined as a risk, as a risk for a purely technically functioning world. When this risk is eliminated, everything human is also eliminated. Life would then be a machine life.
Life means going into the unknown
I wrote above and I repeat it here because it is central: we always go into the unknown, with every step we take in life. This is exactly what life is: going into the unknown. It begins with birth: it is a step into the unknown, a fall into the open. Where women crouch down, as everywhere in the old days, you can see it exactly: the child falls headlong into a world it does not know. Compared to the world in which the child was before birth, this world is immeasurably large, open and completely unknown. And it is full of risks that the child, of course, does not know about. If it knew what to expect and how dangerous life can be, it would probably cling to the womb with all its might. Children are so lively because - when they are still young - they approach life with complete openness.
The next big step is puberty. Again, the boy and the girl don't really know what to expect. But you have a lot of information about it - much more now than in the past - and that doesn't make things easier, but rather more difficult. Because now they run after the images with which they are crammed, the images about sex and love and all the others about the life of adults, and thus distance themselves from themselves and learn real life, their own life, their own sexuality and never know their own way of loving. The supposed knowledge of what life is blocks the way into real life. There is liveliness only in not-knowing. This has nothing to do with stupidity, ignorance or hostility towards science. None other than Socrates recognized and taught this - and was killed for it. Every high school student hears about it at school, but almost no one has understood it.
Life is always a movement from the known into the unknown, from what was to something that has never been before, something that is completely new. Every newborn child is a completely new person. But science strives to make an old person out of him by cloning an already existing person. This has already happened to animals. That puts life at a standstill. This corresponds to the inner logic of science: your results must be reproducible, the same result must come out with every repetition, only then is scientific proof provided.
However, life is opposed to this, it opposes the scientific requirement for repeatability - therefore all humanities and social sciences cannot meet this requirement and are not regarded as exact, not as “correct” sciences, no matter how hard they try to do so. However, the more they try, the more they become (like academic psychology) dead sciences that have nothing to do with the vitality of life. Hence, life - living movement - is the natural enemy of science. Unless the butterfly is killed and dissected, it is impossible to examine its components carefully. In order to be able to examine something in detail, it has to be “defined” (that is, literally “finished”, in the figurative sense then “determined”).
Life and science oppose each other according to their inner logic - life makes science impossible, science makes life impossible. They can only get along if science subordinates itself to life. But it will not do that of its own accord, because then it would lose its status as a modern religion, it would lose its promise of salvation. Every single scientist will probably admit that science cannot and does not want to assume this role, will say, I just want to research and not be a savior. But the whole scientific business actually depends on this promise of salvation. We only spend so much money on it because modernity expects it to be the ultimate overcoming of human misery. Since science will not disempower itself, there is only one solution: it has to collapse, it has to come to its own end and then be seen through for what it is: a useful tool that people can use, from which they can draw themselves but not allowed to be controlled if they want to remain alive people.
Look inward: see yourself in the mirror
If you really want to get to know life, you have to live it and look inward at the same time. Because life is not out there somewhere, outside of me, but inside. More precisely: I am my life. There is no other life than this “I am”, at least not for me. As soon as this "I am" no longer exists, life is extinguished for me. But looking inward does not mean that I simply turn my gaze from an external object to an internal object. In this case, I, the awareness that is looking at something, would still be outside. The inside is not the space of the molecules or chemical processes in the brain - that is also an outside. The real inside is myself.
One cannot discover this inside with science, let alone measure it. One can only experience it. So if you really want to know what “life” is, you have to be ready to live it. But you cannot live and experience it with others, especially not in books or films, but only with yourself. In order to experience it, you have to be aware of what is happening inside and around you consciously perceive. The other is necessary for this, but he is only a mirror in which I can see myself. He makes it possible that I can see and recognize myself. In every encounter with others I encounter an aspect of myself. This applies to other people and to life as a whole - everything I see in the world is a reflection of myself. You can also say: my soul.
Looking inward does not mean immersing yourself in yourself. It doesn't mean closing your eyes and turning away from the world. It means to see yourself in everything that comes across - including the corona virus that we are just encountering. The method that makes this seeing possible is not observation from the outside as in science, but perception. Perception is an internal process. You can also call it "observing", but it is a passive observation, a mental seeing, perception and awareness of what is happening. One simply lets into one's consciousness what appears without doing anything, almost motionless. All impulses, everything that triggers this perception in one (it triggers true storms in one), one in turn only perceives without doing anything. Pure perception does not evaluate anything, does not change anything and does not intervene in anything - not even in one's own actions. It lets what happens without interfering.
While science is focused on instrumental knowledge, on discovering the laws of the world or life, and then making something out of them, in order to apply and implement them, perception is not even interested in knowledge. One can gain a lot of knowledge from it, but if it is pure perception (awareness) it is completely unintentional. In this lack of intention everything shows itself to one. Suddenly you know. This knowledge is clear and unshakable. You don't do it, you don't strive for it, it just happens. It can be knowledge for the moment or it can be for eternity. There is no difference between the two, moment and eternity are the same. You can't explain that - you know when you experience it.
From this inner state, acting happens completely by itself. One is in harmony with this, because life also happens completely by itself. There is no one who makes life, first plans it and then implements it. Life also has no goal, no purpose - it just exists. Just like humans - we too have no goal and no purpose, we too just simply exist. We are only a tiny part or a special expression of everything that exists. It has become very exaggerated - if not to say: sheer madness - to believe that you have to and can control all of this. But it won't come to that. Corona is just showing us that nature has enough opportunities to spit in the soup.
15th September 2020
Copyright: Wilfried Nelles
Download as a pdf file
- What is Donald Trump's best idea
- What does the word dignity mean
- What are the scalability issues when using phpmyadmin
- How old is ramayan
- Why do most elementary schools not have lockers?
- How are the largest prime numbers discovered
- How can Africa solve its educational problem
- What are important components of the project proposal
- What is CSAT for IAS
- How quickly can you learn guitar acoustics
- Do animals have Deja Vu
- Is Python open source language
- What is Nietzsche's definition of poisoning
- What's banned in Texas
- What makes fat thicker than oil
- What are feminist arguments against egalitarian porn
- Get karma everyone
- Is there an informative site like Quora
- What do nipples look like
- What is the need for alternative fuels
- Killing Pumas Alligators
- What motivates people to be good
- What do football fans think of cricket?
- How to make dance costumes