Universe and Time

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
428

Sorry, I worded that very poorly.
I meant to say, “All physical things have more than absolute zero effect upon physical things, but ONLY through time.”

429

Here you said that I should use the word “energy” instead of “spirit”:

Here you said “spirit” and “energy” don’t mix:

430

The conceptual realm has no movement or changing = concepts or ideas.
The physical realm is for all movement or changing = energy or behavior.

431

If the word “spirit” has really “become ambiguous”, then it should also not refer “to the physical realm”. In this case “ambiguous” means that the reference is not clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm and the physical realm.

432

That is why I said, let’s just not use it. When a word has become ambiguous, using it merely leads to more confusion and chaos. Clarity is important.

433

I think the Greek word „nous“, the German words „Geist“, „Vernunft“, „Verstand“, „Intellekt“, „Idealität“, „Ideal(e)“, „Idee“, „Begriff“, „Vorstellung“, „Konzept“, „Plan“, and others describe very well what you mean by „conceptual realm“. Strangely but according to what you said, the English word „spirit“ doesn’t fit very well, although its German translation is usually „Geist“. Nevertheless, I should prefer to follow your advice and avoid as much as possible the word „spirit“ when it comes to the „conceptual realm“.

„Nous“: „Vernunft“, „Geist“, „Denkkraft“, „Einsicht“.
„Vernunft“: „reason“.
„Geist“: „spirit“, „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „genie“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „apprehension“, „brain“, „sense“, „genius“.
„Denkkraft“: „think(ing) strength“.
„Einsicht“: „insight“ „inspection“, „intelligence“.
„Verstand“: „understanding“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „brains“.
„Intellekt“: „intellect“.
„Idealität“: „ideality“.
„Ideal(e)“: „ideal(s)“.
„Idee“: „idea“.
„Begriff“: „concept“, „definition“, „term“, „idea“, „notion“, „conception“.
„Vorstellung“: „imagination“, „representaion“, „idea“, „conception“.
„Konzept“: „concept“, „conception“, „draft“, „draught“.
„Plan“: „plan“, „map“, „programme“, „project“, „schedule“, „scheme“.

434

Realize that all I am saying is that because the word “spirit” gets used to mean two different things without making it clear which the author intends, I would prefer to not use the word when talking about very exacting things such as RM:AO. The word can be misleading.

435

Something to think about concerning the concept of “force” as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” and didn’t agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires “magic” because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.

This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called “metaphysics”.

And that is why I say that “forces” don’t actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don’t sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.

Both Newtonian physics and Einstein’s Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why.

RM:AO is all about “Why?” - the “Meta-physics”, the Logic.

436

Throughout his adult life Goethe, for example, fought Newton’s physics.

437

Ever notice how anyone who challenged the mainstream of his day, despite being right, ended up with a record of having mental problems? … just coincidence of course. Yet those who were actually wrong, are recorded as “geniuses” of their day.

438

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German “Zeitgenosse” (“time accomplice”, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton’s political power that made him and his “laws” famous. If he hadn’t had this political power, he and his “laws” would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.

439

What “other Faustian theories”?

440

The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn’t want to list themin my last post. In this case, it doesn’t matter wether they are “right” (“true”) or “wrong” (“false”) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, … and so on.

441

I’m not sure that I can discern a “Faustian theory” from anything else. It seems that no matter what reasonable theory one has, it could be dubbed “Faustian”. Can you give an example of a theory that would be something reasonable, even if not correct, that would be consider non-Faustian?

442

Yes, I can. The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, … means. This is even perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat’s texts because they indicate, although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka or Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, …). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevebted or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): “there wre the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren’t like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique / technilogy”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique / technilogy” when you look at the current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”). It is comkparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.

Visit the Faust museum:

Faust Museum in Knittlingen (Germany).

Knittlingen is also the place of birth of Johann Georg Faust (c. 1480 – c. 1541).

443

I’m not arguing with you but I need a specific example of a theory that is very “non-Faustian” and explanation why it isn’t.

444

Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, " speed of light " “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, …?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

That is my firm conviction.

445

I’m afraid that has already happened.

My understanding of Faust is that he was a character best known for his “dance with the Devil” (meaning skepticism, doubt, hedonism, and magic). He sought to understand the world, material reality (hence the physical sciences), certainty, freedom, and power. And being so focused, lost all sense of morality. My similar “dance with the Devil” turned out differently. In my case all doubt and magic got banished in the face of irrevocable certainty while any skepticism was/is invited, leaving me with an irrevocable morality (where real science eventually leads). I played the game differently (dancing to a different tune even though from the same “fiddler on the roof”. Perhaps I was just tone deaf. :confused: ).

It seems that you are distinguishing any verifiable theories or science as “Faustian” and others as religious (dependent upon handed down knowledge).

446

That refers mainly to the first part of “Faust”; in the second part it becomes more obvious than in the first part what I mean when I say: “Faustian culture”.

Please read Goethe’s “Faust II” or a review, respectively a recension of it. I recommend it to you.

You have to know Goethe’s “Faust”, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with “Faustian culture” and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s “Faust” or Spengler’s “Decline of the West” when it comes to really and well understand what “Faustian culture” means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

Such an absolute, categorical will to knowledge, thus a Faustian culture is in fact merely possible in landscapes with a “cold” respectively mild climate.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called “monotheisms” have their origin in this culture because in the territory of taht culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his “Faust”, but also predicted the future of the Western man.

Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture:

447

Yes, I think that one statement says it all. I’m getting the feeling that I should write a thesis on “Will to Ascension”, which probably sounds terribly religious to you. Realize that I am at a place wherein religion and knowledge come together into a synthesis that is neither.

If the Sun represents the source of all knowledge and the fires of hell (metaphorically), the safe haven is “on the other side of the Sun”, beyond it. What they refer to as “ascended” is a state wherein one has accepted all of the nasty truths of the world of Man and holds no ill will against it, accepting reality for what it is (a whole lot of noise). The problem is that the path to that haven (the “stairway to heaven”) is buried in the chaos of the horde, ego, and lust for power (thus lust for knowledge = flying into the Sun). And one must get past the Sun, going through it and out the other side. There is a specific way to do that which goes beyond the simple notion of “have faith and love thy neighbor”.