KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 18 (to C8, Nixon, and to McCarthy)

( FUNDAMENTALISM )
by Glenn C Wood
1 December 2003, posted 21 December 2003

It would take too long for this comment to be posted as a TA. So, to keep the evolution tide at bay, I'm placing it under TA63 -- reaction to C8 (it could be appropriate for TA55 as reaction to C60, and in some ways a response to Maurice McCarthy's TA55, C74).

<1>
Karl Jaspers' responsible use of "evolution", the similarity to uninhibited or suppressed sneezing.

KJ had limited his words about evolution. The reason can be found in his General Psychopathology (GP), "Somatic Accompaniments of Psychic Activity," where an analogy can be found in a sneeze. "Attracting attention may increase both coughing and sneezing reflexes, particularly the latter, but they can also be suppressed for the same reason. (Darwin's bet with his friends that snuff would no longer make them sneeze: they tried hard, tears came into their eyes, But Darwin won his bet.) The suggestibility of "evolution" can also release inhibitions and give direction to basic urges (Basic urges such as "at certain times in situations that foster male communities and give them a philosophical importance, homosexuality plays an important part ..." GP). Encouraging contributions about evolution on the Forum, it was inevitable that one would make the connection to tendencies toward sexual promiscuity, the implications of the comments about the peafowl, none of which affirmations can be proven as applicable to a verifiable or falsifiable view of history. To express the assumption (see Rasmussen to Hontela TA55C60) that it can contribute to a view of history was bound to happen.

Evolution can be used similarly to the way the word God is used : to gain attention by declaring to a gang one's profane or religious compliance or subservience. Perhaps that's one reason KJ used Encompassing or Transcendence instead. Encompassing and Transcendence can be used profanely too, by using the words in an immanental rather than transcendental way. That's one reason I've objected to the abbreviated use of zero-derivation and mind independent reality. The abbreviations can suggest acceptance or rejection in general, a title of distinction, and distracts from the Encompassing and Transcendence of history. Evolution as a workable ontology is a profane expression in leftist educational gangs, and when one wants to fit in one speaks in a tongue emphatically as one might use foul language. That's overstated to make a point.

<2>
How zero-derivation really ought to work in the Jasperian sense and what HM and MM mean when near their best thinking

In Philosophical Faith and Revelation he speaks of ciphers of history. Progress, evolution, and eternal recurrence is discussed. They have rudiments (a fundamentalism base -- GW) in reality. When applied to history as a whole -- as a cipher -- evolution is impossible to prove; "as a matter of fact, it can be disproved (in this sense falsifiable -- GW). But they do express a historic sense of Being." He says that evolution carries the thought that I have my place in an unfolding entirety, in which progress is a minor factor, but a factor. I (GW) say to see evolution in this sense is seeing ongoing experience from a special objectivity, and that it is how HM and others ought to use a zero derivation thought process. But KJF contributors and the editor can make evolution a cipher, i.e. Being reveals fundaments in a Heidegerian sense . Maurice McCarthy's TA55C74 is diminished in value through a need to be aligned with "0-D" and its views on evolution; it's sufficient that he says: "You can always assume you know nothing and start all over again." When he suggests I don't understand "0-D" he probably can't identify with what I as toddler perceived and conceived when experiencing the sewing machine needle piercing my finger.

<3>
The use and misuse of divine guidance, the latter by students of the Anaximander school of thought, that man developed from animals.

Against evolution is the concept of divine guidance; that history is guided by providence, and can have the effect that we count on a definitive guidance. KJ, with philosophical wisdom, kicks into neutral (a sort of "0-D" without loosing the learned-ignorance grasp on Being) to avoid the pitfall of absolutism and radical constructionism, says: "To me Jeremiah alone seems to touch on the other possibility -- that God may also extirpate all he has shown" (See Philosophical Faith, Chapter on "ciphers of, immanence." referred to in TA51). Here KJ avoids the problems some religious sects have by an over confidence in their divine status. One such fallacy of religious thinking is seen in the sectarian phenomenon of Calvinism, and example of which is Robert H. Schuller, The Crystal Cathedral, a representative of the Dutch Reformed Church. He also represents one who has publicly stated that like the "Pope" -- aligning himself by association thereby -- he has no problem with evolution. In religious language Calvinism takes the form of "Once in grace, always in grace" or "eternal security." It is one of the quite proper reasons for the establishment of a sect that corrects that bit of poor psychology, for, one ought to "take heed lest ye fall" which is the spirit of the warning of Jeremiah.

Evolution as a rudiment carries the danger of being a fundamentalism affecting behavior. Observations of animal sexuality can enhance reflexes. Making an application to an unfolding in history, such as that a bird-brain decided one day to start unfolding -- with what is said to be a conscious success -- an apparatus to attract more females and successfully though creating a harms-way situation; that is the sort of appealing thing to students with surging urges. It's educators' irresponsible hypnotic suggestion -- with popular appeal -- that a sexual experience should be so valued as to risk life in time and eternity; it sends a dysfunctional message and replaces possible meaningful missions with perverted statemen. This sort of talk was avoided by responsible leaders like Moses, a responsible school master with rules regarding sexual conduct which would assist in survival, (circumcism being but a safety factor for females while promoting male promiscuity). The Mosiac law though didn't solve the problem of promiscuity but led to scapegoat sacrifices so that a variety of sexual experiences could be sought with less inhibition. So from the rudiment of urges influencing interpretations of the history of humankind comes a secular fundamental thread in "evolution."

<4>
KJ and religious fundamentalism, and evolutionists/ constructionists hopelessly await acclamation

As before said, KJ devoted little to evolution by comparison with his philosophical and psychiatric work. Fundamentalism to the evolutionist is known with absolute certainty to contribute to abnormal behavior. In his GP KJ mentions that "the statistical investigation of various faiths has given us the fact that the largest number of disorders are to be found among the fringe supporters of various sects. (In GP, "The Abnormal Psyche" p.728 -- see references at conclusion fo TA51)." He's referring to religious sects, but the form of thinking can be applied to fundamental evolutionists.

Those statistics are not surprising but can demonstrate that some sects can resolve disorders rather than enhance, such as in the case of John Wesley's ministry to the institutionalized. Jaspers does nothing more than mention the statistical work done. That such statistics have a negative connotation regarding religious sects is questionable due to complexity, for "The delusional experiences of a philosopher are distinguished by a wealth and depth of meaning while those of a simple person are more in the way of fantastic distortions of superstitious fancies." There are meaningful bible based sects that provide for the emotional needs of the latter, whereas established traditional churches search for the former to prop up tradition. For instance Catholocism seeks a replacement for Thomas Aquinas, pinning some hopes on Heidegger but Karl Jaspers' timely productions kept getting in the way.

In the face of those statistics KJ can still express the meaningful view that the Protestant ground carries more hope for man's survival, individually, because of independent groups. That refers to religious sects. (Future p 259). It is not surprising though that those hooked on evolution as a fallback will speak despairingly of fundamentalism, but upon forced reflection come to uneasily discuss the fundamentalism of evolution as though all the while aware of the problem but were above being affected, such as done by Nixon because of an affirmed novel constructionists perspective. Here the evolutionist create a solution for a problem inherent in the fundamentalism of evolution and expect acclamation for a construction which in fact was a limited decontruction of a faulty construction. The value of religious fundamentalistic thinking has been and is being tested in the America (see TA51). It is being verified and falsified in the American experience. AIDS is part of the American experience that falsifies evolution as a meaningful view of history.

<5>
Father Anaximander substituted for Father God

Finally, the problem of the evolutional view of history can be seen as starting with Anaximander. In as much as he is ground for justifying "0-D," and apeiron associated with something divine, this gives momentum to church-like missionaries of evolution. It is no wonder that Constructionists can be tempted to feel comfortable holding on to that historical thread. Moses observed -- see Genesis -- the same phenomena as did Anaximander only without the fundamental immanentalism. For this reason, especially when challenged, defenders of evolution chant an emphatic devotion to the zero-derivation, and agree to the editor's objections to mind independent reality. There's some deep feeling of satisfaction in hypnotically observing the peafowl-like colorful theory of Anaximander's evolution; it adds potency to basic urges; it continues that school tradition with admirable Jesuit like commitment -- where if the Church depended on evolution to survive in the traditional form they would endure burning at the stake.

-------------------------------------

Glenn C Wood