repost: physics and the eonic effect…the legacy of scientism

Critiquing science is not acceptable in many circles and especially in a pandemic that can backfire. I am a great fan of physics and have tried to study its mathematical methods. But that is not our point here, trusting the science there is surely called for: we are citing the historical legacy of science as it emerged from early physics to related sciences in (bio)chemistry, etc….But then in the early nineteenth century this legacy spawned a kind of false ambition to extend science to all subjects, from biology to evolution, to psychology and the results failed in almost all cases. Worse with evolution, a fake theory emerged and no one in the science field could figure out that there was problem with natural selection, despite the warnings of the one scientist who dissented, Fred Hoyle. It is alarming there have been almost no others. For a century and a half almost the entire cadres of scientists made a myth of evolution in the Darwinian mode, a disaster that will perhaps forever caution any absolute trust in science and its pretension to be the source of all knowledge.
Marx fell into this trap and tried to make a science of history using a very reductionist model that was off the mark, as science. There can be a science flavor in psychology and sociology and attempts to advance in some fashion were often of great value but the results were descriptive and empirical methods, not scientific laws. It seems unlikely that this situation can be overcome. Who knows? But the reductionist scientism of the era of Marx attacking Hegel has proven a deadly perspective, especially in the way a system that rejected ethics became such a murderous horror.
One of the key failures that may suggest the resolution is the failure to understand the phenomenon of consciousness. That suggests the limit in the type of science emerging from the Newtonian era. This is hardly a novel idea, it has been said in one way or another over and over again, but scientists don’t really have to listen any more. They are showered with social power, money, prestige and the fictions of the history of science.

Source: repost: physics and the eonic effect…//Why are physicists almost as idiotic/dumb as biologists…?//God, Dark Matter and Falling Cats – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The mystery of Schopenhauer, one of the greatest philosophers in history

Update: I will have to pass for the nonce on the rest of this interesting essay with a useful set of books. The gulf between hoary transcendental idealism and William James is a challenge to a new kind of synthesis.
This is an interesting essay about which I might comment separately but I would take issue with the strange judgment of Schopenhauer as long-winded: he is one of the greatest stylists in the history of philosophy: His work clarified the work of Kant who has to be the one who is long-winded and posed a challenge to Hegel as muddled-headed and who is far beyond the realm of the engaging but shallow William James. The US has no philosophers who come anywhere near this. I would not otherwise pass judgment save to note that Hegel and Marx are notorious for their strange styles, where Schopenhauer is breezy yet profound about the core of transcendental idealism (poorly so named) with its direct assault on the riddle of consciousness, mind and the categories of perception. He took on perhaps the greatest challenge to clarity you could imagine and beautifully did the almost impossible. Unfortunately he was a conservative but with no influence thus on his basic and brilliant clarification of the greatest advance in philosophy since Plato achieved by Kant. He did not explicate Kant’s ethics however, his stance being somehow up in the air. Schopenhauer was the rival pole in the Hegel constellation and his ruthless critique remains important given the way Hegel, some think, cheapened Kant with his elimination of the noumenal to the handclap of the peanut gallery of American philosophy. Who can judge such figures? Schopenhauer was immensely influential in the later nineteenth century but is less considered now. That is unfortunate but his legacy endures because sooner or later the study of philosophy must exist in a Platonic universe. Marxists will protest this but consider the way Marx wrecked his great achievement with the cheap metaphysics of scientism. Hegel is also unsafe to dismiss save in relation to Kant. Marx rightly vented his fury at conservatives, but in the process triggered a futile debate over idealism.

“The intellectual life of man consists almost wholly in his substitution of a conceptual order for the perceptual order in which his experience originally comes.”[1] This is William James at the beginning of the 20th century. He was ruminating on the relationship between language and perception because he was trying to figure out how to convince people accustomed to a large amount of metaphysics in their lives that “pure experience” was much better. Radical Empiricism was his answer to long-winded perorations like Schopenhauer’s The World As Will. There is no need to posit an abstract entity beneath the world that we perceive. The directly apprehended universe is substantial enough. It does not need extraneous support.

Source: Control Over Capitalism or Techno-Feudalism Means Getting Control Over Language – CounterPunch.org

A Guide to using Capital as a door stop….//Reading Karl Marx for the First/Last Time

We have been critical of Marx in The Last Revolution because of the way his framework has confused the left and created a corpus of bad theory that even its adherents never really understand. Marx is much too complicated and those who penetrate that obscurity suddenly realize he doesn’t know what he is talking about. His theories of economic history have no foundation in science and give a false view of history. He was never able to complete his Capital and struggled to clarify his own thinking. The title of this piece gives it away: you need a guide to read him, and that means you need a new elite or priesthood to mediate your opinions or views. You can’t deviate from the doctrine and if you do you are dangerously counterrevolutionary, etc… Instead, we need a simple recipe approach to constructing socialism with an economy that can function, a clear path to a new kind of democracy, a Commons that can mediate socialist markets plus planning, a set of ecological foundation principles, and a genuinely neo-communist (we can no longer really use the term ‘communist’) system that guarantees liberal, civil, and economic rights. The Marxist corpus has failed every time it was tried. We need to start over. Marxists can’t specify what kind of society they want, and in their focus on the (undefined) working class declare war on all other classes and provide no escape route for general participation of all such. In Stalin we actually see genocidal class warfare carried out (in a totally incoherent fashion)…

This article is interesting in any case but once again it shows the overall confusion in Marx’s later works and most of all his view of the Commune. But all we really need is the Communist Manifesto. Beating the dead horse of Capital is pointless now.

As to the Commune I would take Marx seriously with his warning about the working class and revolution. The problem is this period is unique and never replicated itself as a model. What’s wrong? But even there we are confounded by dubious theory. The Bolshevik revolution shows how the infamous botched meme, the dictatorship of the proletariat backfired in the Russian Revolution and produced the infamous dictatorship of the Marxist bourgeoisie claiming to operate in the name of the proletariat, this from devoted student of the Commune, who ended banned labor unions and exploiting labor to develop the backward Russia. A more careful approach is needed to the issue of a working-class state. The reality is that a system run by an elite will probably always seize control in the name of the proletariat. The Commune is a mystery in that regard, and it is a real challenge to any student on the left, but it failed as it declared war on the whole outstanding culture and turned working-class power into a zero sum game. But is Marx really right? A safer approach would try to create a working-class foundation inside a liberal system with economic rights guaranteed legally. In any case the Marxist left has never really made sense of their own position and the later works of Marx aren’t much help.
The solution here might be to see that a ‘Universal Class’ of all classes has many subsets among them the various ‘working classes’: defining the working clas as wage laborers includes elements of all classes. A Universal Class must work in terms of the full ‘working class’, see its interconnection with all classes. There the distinct working class of industrial laborers might be a vanguard. In any case Marx’s class analysis is a muddle and finally incoherent.
There is a lot more to discuss in this article, but let’s at least hope to shock ‘marxists’ out of their complacent confidence in Marx’s theory.

The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures is a free download at redfortyeight.com sidebar
or the most recent version with a link good for a short period:
The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_version_5_2_22

Source: A Guide to Reading Karl Marx for the First Time

If the progessives and activist left are so radical let’s see them challenge the core social darwinist ideology of Darwinism…

This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their case, even as the Darwinists continue their ostrich fantasy of random natural selection. It is a remarkable deadlock. The design argument is very telling but its proponents over and over spoil their case by grafting their thinking onto Biblical theology and that doesn’t work. A true design argument needs a Kantian discipline, and, ironically, a born-again secular humanist framework, something Dawkins-dominated secular humanists could never manage. Here’s the crux: world history shows design and the emergence the Israelite ‘monotheism’ (parallel to Buddhism) a design as in the eonic effect sense but this won’t work with the degenerated theism of later monotheism. Cf. Decoding World History here.
The issue of design being ‘intelligent’ is ambiguous. It could be right, but we can’t prove it, and the standard of proof of the design inference is too loose to be trustworthy, the more so as the already theistic proponents cheat at all points on rigorous arguments.
Meanwhile Marxists, secular humanists, radical activists uphold the whole idiotic Darwinian ideology/pseudo-scientific terrified if they dissent one iota they will be canceled in the ugly domination of the Dawkins/Darwin racket. And it is a racket and the racist imperialist Darwin, more than Spencer, is the real perpetrator of the social darwinist legitimation of racism imperialism and, yet capitalism. We never see how the capitalist brand enforces the ideology via the universities, science orgs and biology pros, but that backdrop is clearly there: social viciousness is all too useful for keeping capitalism in place.

Losers on both sides, and especially sad with the Marxists who follow Marx’s hypocritical embrace of Darwinism after he realized his initial skepticism was going to be a problem, starting with the idiotic Engels who no doubt twisted his arm here. Marx was a coward on the subject he saw through from the beginning.
To be clear: the design argument is strong but you can’t use it to prove the existence of God.
The left’s confused embrace of Darwin shows how it is really party to the ideology it preaches against.

I consider this simple argument as a final nail in the coffin of Darwinian unguided evolution.

Source: Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists | Evolution News

The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures ….//version 4_23_22

The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_version_4_21_22
We posted today a criticism of Sanders’ neutered idea of ‘Our Revolution’, below.

Our perspective can be taken as ‘up in the air’, but it can at least be a reminder to not speak of ‘revolution’ is you mean the opposite. The whole left has been paralyzed in the last generation and we have lost decades to the shallow activism that goes through the motions of protest.

The issue is in any case to set the record straight: modern democracy arises via revolutions in the real sense.
We are waltzing our way to planetary oblivion with no real left to stand up to the thuggery of capitalist fake government

prior versions:
The ‘Last Revolution’ may be an unrealistic projection (but I doubt that) but it can be taken in the sense of virtual revolution and used as a modeling tool in the complexity of social systems. We should be able to review such models in many versions and to be able to see the limits of, for example, the American system as a so-called democracy.
Ironically it is more a critique of Marxism than the bourgeois capitalist state, but it is nonetheless a direct challenge to the frozen and slowly eroding so-called democracies of the capitalist era. The model can help to see beyond the empty mantas of sloganized ‘socialism’ as a cloud of abstraction. Between Marx and the Chinese communists the hopes for socialism seem remote. The modeling tool (the DMNC model) can help to rapidly expose both fake democracies and fake socialism. The Chinese brand is an especially dangerous brand because it ever gets the chance will liquidate all rivals or any attempt to alleviate its Stalinist signature.
You may not agree as to socialism, but at least the model allows an abstract consideration of possibilities.

________________
The issue of socialism is completely scrambled with its Marxist monopoly and yet the two must be independent. In fact, the association with Chinese or even North Korean Stalinism lurks in all discussion, especially for relative outsiders. It is hopeless to try and repair this. The whole legacy of theory is at risk and needs to be left behind. We have shown how easy it is to start over and focus on a practical realization of a ‘new socialism’ or our democratic market neo-communism. This format should be clear, carefully defined and failsafed.
From the new edition: Continue reading “The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures ….//version 4_23_22”