Frauds and their Behaviour, Part 7
“Even if modern physics or other branches of science declare that behind the colours there is vibrating etheric substance, it soon becomes obvious that what is thus assumed to lie behind the colours is something added by thought. Nobody can actually perceive what physics declares to be vibrations, movements, of which colour is merely an effect; nor can anybody say with certainty whether there is reality in what is alleged to lie behind the sense-impressions.”
Rudolf Steiner, 22nd March, 1910.
The point of this short post is to discuss the nature of reality. In the course of my life, I occasionally meet scientists of various flavours: physicists, botanists and International Relations Managers. Well, the latter wasn’t actually a scientist, and he hadn’t studied it beyond school, but because of the way he thought, he reckoned that I couldn’t be a scientist because I wasn’t saying the things he wanted to hear. Anyway, my point is that when speaking with real scientists, if the subject should wander to the likes of atoms, I ask them to point to one – which is absurd, but nevertheless, it shouldn’t be a problem to actually point to one, given the fact that scientists believe that the world is made of them, and that there are so many of them.
The problem is that they’re so tiny, you just can’t see them… which is of course, is the crux of the problem. Whilst chemists and physicists actually point to some very real phenomena, their manner of describing what is going on is by no means as real. In other words, there are other ways to describe what is taking place before one’s eyes. More importantly still, because all these people have been trained in the scientific mode of thinking, they all believe the same things. Oh, and my International Relations Manager thinks he thinks the same things too, even if he doesn’t because he doesn’t understand the mathematics that they do, and so can’t solve the equations (which, by the way, I can).
You can begin to see that the scientists agree with each other because, well, it’s kinda nice to be in the club, and the International Relations Manager would be happy too, if he could understand what they were talking about. I mean, as a trained scientist, I had a few problems understanding what a few guys were nattering about – they were chatting about the new (and now defunct) LEP tunnel at CERN. That’ll tell you how long ago I was lunching there, but that really is another story. The point is that not all scientists understand the same science.
Well, if we did, physicists would understand botany and botanists would understand International Relations. Well, she claims to, because the International Relationship Manager is buying her Martinis, and if she agrees with him and tells him the things he wants to hear, he’ll buy her another.
So, they all share a common ability to believe in things they can’t see because it’s been proved mathematically, on paper. The evidence is there. What’s more, in the same lecture (see above), Dr Steiner gave us a clue about materialistic thinking, when he said “We perceive the red of the rose; delight in the rose is an inner experience; perception of the red colour is an outer experience”. In the terms of this post, the evidence that is written down for the scientist – even the evidence the scientist writes down for himself – is an outer experience. In other words, it is ‘objective’.
Put this the other way around, and the scientist who is objective in this way is not being reflective. He isn’t employing his soul to delight in the boring black biro jottings on his work pad. It might evoke some kind of enthusiasm, but what quality does this have? After all, the whole point about one’s soul is to perceive the quality involved in the things one perceives. The scientist simply doesn’t have to because it’s Unscientific. What’s more, our International Relations Manager, who can’t understand what’s being said isn’t there to disagree because he’s in the bar downstairs with the botanist.
Using alcohol to dull the perceptions of the outside world rather than delight in them.
It is the external nature of the perception involved that is the important element; after all, if it’s outside one, one cannot have any control over it. Well, you can if you are recording the data yourself, but if someone else has done it for you, then you are at their mercy. Well you’re not because he’s a friend, and we all trust our friends when they all share the same terminology. And the International Relations Manager is a friend even if he doesn’t understand the terminology, because he buys the drinks.
More importantly, it is the externality of that evidence that is the problem: it has to be perceived by the senses. And nothing more. The scientist is cold and apathetic because he hasn’t engaged his soul – but then, he can’t because he can’t prove his having a soul. You can begin to see that he’s driven himself into the cleft of a stick, or he’s up a creek and he’s forgotten that he has a paddle.
Now when he hasn’t any inner reflections on the things he sees, there can be no real opposition to them. In short, there’s nothing to stop him from looking into the mathematics, creating another intricate set of equations and
proving that the moon is made of cheese use statistics to prove the Higg’s boson exists. Well, it amounts to much the same thing in the end, doesn’t it? I mean, how many teaspoonfuls of Higg’s bosons do you want in your coffee?
If these things are real, they do need to be a real part of the world we live in – and this is where it kinda gets problematic. The scientific community have satisfied themselves that the boson belonging to Mr Higg does actually exist, but we have done so using a sleight of hand and some deftly notated mathematical formulae. The problem of how many there actually are in a spoonful of sugar that you’re going to put in your coffee simply doesn’t arise because you can only isolate one of these bosons using a colossal piece of equipment several times bigger and vastly more powerful than the now defunct LEP accelerator.
Because you don’t need a Large Hadron Collider – which is the new toy at CERN – because reality can be detected by using one’s own ability to reflect on the things that one sees oneself. This activity in itself will lead one to a self-imposed limitation. That is to say, the more one is able to reflect on the reality surrounding one, and the more one delights in it and the less one needs to know how many Higg’s Bosons there are in a spoonful of sugar. You’ll be enjoying the sugary coffee instead.
Infinity From A Different Perspective.
In our modern day and age, scientists have a concept that they call anti-matter. The sort of stuff that has positive electrons and negative protons, that kind of thing. In short, it is a very neat – indeed, exact – “turning around” of the scientist’s thoughts.