Finding out that Newton devoted much of his time to alchemy and biblically inspired mysticism was eye opening for me. This overlap between esoteric mysticism and the sciences isn't only a feature of the proto-scientific age, either. It continues right up to the present time. Jack Parsons, founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was up to his neck in ritual magick. Tsiolkovsky, who laid the conceptual foundation for space travel, was a cosmist - a really strange Russian mystical school. Then you have the quantum physicists, Bohr, Pauli, Schrodinger, Bohm, whose worldviews aligned rather explicitly with mystical takes on reality. The great cosmologist John Wheeler certainly falls into this category.
Once you know to look for it, it's everywhere. Even the practice of science relies implicitly on creative inspiration, which the best scientists cheerfully admit comes from they know not where.
And yet despite all of this, all of it remains hidden from public view, as though it is dirty and embarrassing. Like Victorians politely pretending that sexuality does not exist, even as it rages under the surface.
I'm starting to read Josephson's book right away, thank you. I searched for the book on Amazon and the Kindle version was so expensive that I started my free trial of Scribd just to read it and to try this platform. This whole discussion is amazing and simply necessary to understand the narrative of science and religion.
The battle was never between reason and religion, myth, superstition, etc. but between reason and dogma.
Humans have a biological need for certainty that comes from living in an environment where you really need to be sure there is/isn't a tiger in the bush. We then (generally) apply that to absolutely everything, which leads to binary thinking.
Humans also have a biological need for tribal membership, because when it turns out there *is* a tiger in the bush, you generally need a bunch of humans with you to drive it off or kill it.
The either/or leads to systems of thought that are "good enough for now" which changes into "if it ain't broke don't fix it", becoming dogma.
The dogma prevents lines of questioning because tribes form up around the dogma, and are defended as if it's an existential crisis (in ancient times, that sort of outgroup behavior was indeed that).
This combo of "it's either/or" and "toe the line" leads to tribes of "you're with us or else your against us" and "science/authority believers".
IMO we need to understand this and be able to surpass it if we are ever to embrace our birthright and become whatever it means to be truly "human". This will require embracing uncertainty, and harnessing our tribal instinct to create one that does.
A few points that arise in my mind in response to this project:
1. The roots of something valuable (the necessary condition of its value) are not necessarily themselves valuable, let alone ‘therefore’ valuable. For example, the history of suffering from infection makes penicillin valuable but this does not mean that infection is therefore valuable. (I am not implying that this is the argument being made in the piece above.)
2. Science is not equivalent to Reason/Rationality/Logic; science is a procedure/activity/trade that is subject to the laws of reason like any other activity. Most, (perhaps all) science contains irrational claims and premises, and as such is at least in part contrary to reason. One of the most obvious examples is the making of claims of ‘empirical proof’, or ‘scientific knowledge’ of reality; empirical/observational information is only evidence of some alleged aspect of reality, but never a proof, since observation is inherently subject to error, as is the interpretation of what we observe, and liable to possible future refutation. Science is at best only the truth of scientific record.
2. The revolutionary essence of the Age of Enlightenment seems to come down to Kant, and his formalisation of the concept of Human that includes all tribes/races/nations on accounts of their capacity to apply the laws of logic (often intuitively) to their own thoughts and actions. At this point humanity was universalised, and until then, as far as I know, the idea of humanity was still only subjectively determined on the vague basis of ‘likeness’ to oneself (anthropos). The Enlightenment is also Kant’s re-affirmation of the laws of sense as the fundamental structure of meaning and therefore morality.
As as Communication Studies grad, I love all this intellectual stuff! I just want to offer one thought, take it or leave it:
Rather than "understand," I prefer to "inner-stand" and to "comprehend." I do not like the obligation to — or even the concomitant feeling of — "standing under" any concept, conclusion, person/group, religion, or academic/medical/historical perspective.
Walk into Watkin’s Books in London and you’ll see belief I “spirits, telepathy, mystical connection and the like. “ is hardly dead. Indeed by sheer numbers if you include the non-western world it’s probably never been more popular. The question seems to be why is this not acknowledged?
Thank you Luc as interesting to learn about science against religion mysticism esotericism which used to be all combined but then was replaced if I understand you correctly. I see the sense of knowing our history to help with our gaining understanding of where we stand today. Based on where we stand today it sounds like we need major revisions alright!
The obvious answer seems to be that someone has gone to great lengths to stamp out these ideas from the mainstream. Why? Because these ideas, when correctly understood, are empowering. If someone wants to enslave people, weakening them is a good start.
In other words, it is A LOT easier to control people through fear and greed if they scoff at the idea of an afterlife and a spiritual realm - YOLO and all that. "Get yours while you still can, morality is for suckers!". And the fear of death has a lot less impact for people who are not materialists - thus they are harder to coerce.
It is no coincidence that all primitive cultures, bar none, had ideas about demonic spirits and mystical realms. Demons are real entities, and to know this makes it possible to defend oneself against them. Same with black magic, which is a big thing among various "elites". It is much more effective if people don't know about it.
Basically, predators have an easier time if their prey are unaware of them.
(various clips of demon-aided modern magicians gathered by an insightful observer - there are 12 episodes of around 10 minutes each - worth the watch!)
"...namely that history is often best seen as a multi-layered myth created in a certain period and then retrojected back into the past and our job is to “deconstruct” these myths in productive and intelligent ways, then I’m all for critical theory."
I'm with you there.
But as for purchasing and reading another leftist scribe, I'll pass, thank you. My eyes have rolled so much over the last few years, I'm afraid they'll roll right out of my head.
Jack Parsons, founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation, was a practicing Thelemite follower of Aleister Crowley.
Finding out that Newton devoted much of his time to alchemy and biblically inspired mysticism was eye opening for me. This overlap between esoteric mysticism and the sciences isn't only a feature of the proto-scientific age, either. It continues right up to the present time. Jack Parsons, founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was up to his neck in ritual magick. Tsiolkovsky, who laid the conceptual foundation for space travel, was a cosmist - a really strange Russian mystical school. Then you have the quantum physicists, Bohr, Pauli, Schrodinger, Bohm, whose worldviews aligned rather explicitly with mystical takes on reality. The great cosmologist John Wheeler certainly falls into this category.
Once you know to look for it, it's everywhere. Even the practice of science relies implicitly on creative inspiration, which the best scientists cheerfully admit comes from they know not where.
And yet despite all of this, all of it remains hidden from public view, as though it is dirty and embarrassing. Like Victorians politely pretending that sexuality does not exist, even as it rages under the surface.
The absence of myth is also a myth:
the coldest, the purest, the only true
myth.
GEORGES BATAILLE, “L’absence
du mythe,” 1947
I'm starting to read Josephson's book right away, thank you. I searched for the book on Amazon and the Kindle version was so expensive that I started my free trial of Scribd just to read it and to try this platform. This whole discussion is amazing and simply necessary to understand the narrative of science and religion.
The battle was never between reason and religion, myth, superstition, etc. but between reason and dogma.
Humans have a biological need for certainty that comes from living in an environment where you really need to be sure there is/isn't a tiger in the bush. We then (generally) apply that to absolutely everything, which leads to binary thinking.
Humans also have a biological need for tribal membership, because when it turns out there *is* a tiger in the bush, you generally need a bunch of humans with you to drive it off or kill it.
The either/or leads to systems of thought that are "good enough for now" which changes into "if it ain't broke don't fix it", becoming dogma.
The dogma prevents lines of questioning because tribes form up around the dogma, and are defended as if it's an existential crisis (in ancient times, that sort of outgroup behavior was indeed that).
This combo of "it's either/or" and "toe the line" leads to tribes of "you're with us or else your against us" and "science/authority believers".
IMO we need to understand this and be able to surpass it if we are ever to embrace our birthright and become whatever it means to be truly "human". This will require embracing uncertainty, and harnessing our tribal instinct to create one that does.
I may be wrong. ; )
A few points that arise in my mind in response to this project:
1. The roots of something valuable (the necessary condition of its value) are not necessarily themselves valuable, let alone ‘therefore’ valuable. For example, the history of suffering from infection makes penicillin valuable but this does not mean that infection is therefore valuable. (I am not implying that this is the argument being made in the piece above.)
2. Science is not equivalent to Reason/Rationality/Logic; science is a procedure/activity/trade that is subject to the laws of reason like any other activity. Most, (perhaps all) science contains irrational claims and premises, and as such is at least in part contrary to reason. One of the most obvious examples is the making of claims of ‘empirical proof’, or ‘scientific knowledge’ of reality; empirical/observational information is only evidence of some alleged aspect of reality, but never a proof, since observation is inherently subject to error, as is the interpretation of what we observe, and liable to possible future refutation. Science is at best only the truth of scientific record.
2. The revolutionary essence of the Age of Enlightenment seems to come down to Kant, and his formalisation of the concept of Human that includes all tribes/races/nations on accounts of their capacity to apply the laws of logic (often intuitively) to their own thoughts and actions. At this point humanity was universalised, and until then, as far as I know, the idea of humanity was still only subjectively determined on the vague basis of ‘likeness’ to oneself (anthropos). The Enlightenment is also Kant’s re-affirmation of the laws of sense as the fundamental structure of meaning and therefore morality.
Nice piece, Mr Koch, and I've bought Mr Storm's book on your recommendation!
What do you think of the increased scholarly attention given to figures like Eriugena and Nicholas of Cusa?
As as Communication Studies grad, I love all this intellectual stuff! I just want to offer one thought, take it or leave it:
Rather than "understand," I prefer to "inner-stand" and to "comprehend." I do not like the obligation to — or even the concomitant feeling of — "standing under" any concept, conclusion, person/group, religion, or academic/medical/historical perspective.
Nevertheless, I like reading your posts!
Walk into Watkin’s Books in London and you’ll see belief I “spirits, telepathy, mystical connection and the like. “ is hardly dead. Indeed by sheer numbers if you include the non-western world it’s probably never been more popular. The question seems to be why is this not acknowledged?
Thank you Luc as interesting to learn about science against religion mysticism esotericism which used to be all combined but then was replaced if I understand you correctly. I see the sense of knowing our history to help with our gaining understanding of where we stand today. Based on where we stand today it sounds like we need major revisions alright!
Hi there;
The obvious answer seems to be that someone has gone to great lengths to stamp out these ideas from the mainstream. Why? Because these ideas, when correctly understood, are empowering. If someone wants to enslave people, weakening them is a good start.
In other words, it is A LOT easier to control people through fear and greed if they scoff at the idea of an afterlife and a spiritual realm - YOLO and all that. "Get yours while you still can, morality is for suckers!". And the fear of death has a lot less impact for people who are not materialists - thus they are harder to coerce.
It is no coincidence that all primitive cultures, bar none, had ideas about demonic spirits and mystical realms. Demons are real entities, and to know this makes it possible to defend oneself against them. Same with black magic, which is a big thing among various "elites". It is much more effective if people don't know about it.
Basically, predators have an easier time if their prey are unaware of them.
This is interesting, in the regards:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mI7uHI1x09A&feature=shares
(various clips of demon-aided modern magicians gathered by an insightful observer - there are 12 episodes of around 10 minutes each - worth the watch!)
Have you noticed that the people with the most stuff including fame have dabbled in the occult? Elon Musk, Bob Dylan, etc.
Also, it appears the evil doers that perpetrate harms on others also have the most money, success and fame. Clinton’s, Epstein clients, etc.
I linked your piece here. Glad to see more people thinking about this.
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/the-magician-archetype
"...namely that history is often best seen as a multi-layered myth created in a certain period and then retrojected back into the past and our job is to “deconstruct” these myths in productive and intelligent ways, then I’m all for critical theory."
I'm with you there.
But as for purchasing and reading another leftist scribe, I'll pass, thank you. My eyes have rolled so much over the last few years, I'm afraid they'll roll right out of my head.
Instead, I look forward to your savvy analysis.
Jack Parsons, founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation, was a practicing Thelemite follower of Aleister Crowley.
Your comments a per pro the unity of religion and science reminded me of this author / work, which I have only just begun exploring. https://www.abarim-publications.com/index.html
💬 a battle between science and reason
🤔 *between religion and science/reason?