Skip to content
 

Universal Grok – why it is necessary.

Just as physical science in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had to be covertly performed under a politico-religious system hostile to anything which did not conform to its dogmatic metaphysics, those who investigate the nature of mind in the twenty first century, whilst perhaps not in immediate danger of flogging or being burned alive, nevertheless find themselves in a similar, and no less hostile, intellectual environment.
The enantiodromic inversion which installed a dogmatic physicalism as the new “scientific” religion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries continues to maintain its grip, not only within the halls of academe, but also upon the minds of the population at large. Like the peasants of old who had their religion doled out by a privileged and secretive priesthood, the modern populace is largely reliant upon a mainstream media soaked in the grimy waters of a political, social and economic system supported by and heavily indebted to a continuing mass belief in materialist dogma.
For the scientist or philosopher who refuses to be constrained by “ismatics”; who treats all facts as data for inclusion and inquiry and whose philosophy is not merely the result of an apriori set of mind for which it acts as an intellectualized system of validation, then the environment is indeed one of hostility, where the “rebel” academic suffers offhand rejection by a regime so entrenched in its own funded and fortified castles of intellect that it can afford to ignore any theory which does not support its dogmas, while the “non credentialed” thinker is completely ignored and left to beat his head against a stone walled intellectual aristocracy in which both money and celebrity are now worshipped above all else. Had Faraday (a bookbinder’s apprentice) or Einstein (a patents clerk) lived in today’s intellectual climate, it is doubtful their ideas would even have got a first hearing, let alone a second look.
Be that as it may, it is worth noting that, for the truly “scientific” philosopher, truth, or at least finding the path toward it, is the only worthwhile pursuit, regardless of whether its discovery or elucidation bring merit or derision, recognition or open hostility. Indeed, being a “dog in the street” philosopher has certain advantages. One can take all facts as data without their being first filtered through the “fact grid” of the dogmatic consentium, and one can engage with such facts and allow them to lead where they will, without the need to justify one’s scientific rigour to one’s peers or within a paradigm in which only certain methodologies are considered “scientific”. Little wonder then that the outpourings of academic philosophy are becoming more dubious and futile, straitjacketed as they are by the grip of a dogma just as primitive and intellectually bankrupt as mediaeval theology ever was.

In physics, even the recognition that consciousness limits the observation of microscopic phenomena has not in any way undermined the apriori materialist belief that “observation is king”; that microscopic phenomena “are what they are”. This is because physics, like the mind sciences, remains enthralled by and subject to the objective fallacy; the unquestioned idea that there is an imaginary third person view of the cosmos in which our purely human observations and beliefs about phenomena are perfectly objectified. Not only is this notion false, it entrenches an anthropocentric vision of the cosmos in which the limiting subjectivities of human observation become objectified as universal functions. Because of their subjective derivation, these functions are always paradoxical, and because of their relationship the edge parameters of human consciousness, they are always found at the limits of observation. Thus we discover “indeterminacy” in particle physics, “relativity” in motional geometrics and the strangeness of Hubble’s Constant and the need for “dark matter” to make our cosmological ideas add up.
The problem is that science, while perhaps rightly believing that we do not live in a human centered cosmos, does not recognize that the universe we consciously interact with; the universe we construct by observation, is indeed human centered; that it’s apparent microscopic and macroscopic limits and laws are set by the very nature of our own consciousness. Thus the objective fallacy produces a third person universe created out of the investigative building blocks of a past and ongoing science which does not understand that once these blocks have taken us to the edge of the known or the visible, they cannot take us beyond. To continue to build upon the paradoxes and fallacies created by our own subjective limits is only to build ourselves into a fantasy universe, where we unwittingly become subject to our own projected imagination.