KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 22 (to C19, Muller)

ALPHABET LETTERS IN MY SOUP
by Adrian van der Meijden
22 December 2003, posted 18 January 2004

<1>
EOP

I shall play it Baconic. Yours, like all others, is a compromise, not a GUT, if that's what we are into. It fails being a theory by failing to account for the gap between the unitive and the partistic. Defending a POV I consider anybody's right, short of insisting they have it right. And that's where the grand argument is stuck, at a shift from GUT into a GUP. When in doubt everybody appears to remain stuck where the doubt starts.

<2>
VIZ. the historical predicaments are: NEWTON: gives us objects in space, leaves motion to god. MAXWELL: Discovers electricity, mapped in quaternions; which are not objects. EINSTEIN: Tackles motion that "dis-covers" time dilation which conflicts with absoluteness of time and denies equivalence of local with global factors. BOHR [quantum]: Consciousness is entailed on the action, which denies a mechanical clockwork orange or the random as encompassing all action. That spells the end of the mechanoid theory mongering biz.

THAT firmly places space and time as subjective categories, including form, as apperceived by our sensorium. Our world-model is founded on form, space and time and without such a unified world grid our society cannot be said to be consistent in its collective ways. Science cannot resolve this issue since its tenets forbid a shift from a static into a dynamic version. Our society imagines it cannot operate unless individual and global consciousness is denied, which is undeniably impossible, because without consciousness we don't need a physical world. All this to-do switches the detached observer into the participant observer which makes nonsense of the 3rd person collective vs 1st subjective on which all social authority games are based and self authorised by a monopolistic government, denying everybody the right to make any changes.

<3>
Deconstructionism is merely a conceptual rescripting of the also failed many universes proposal. To which D. I don't subscribe, thank you for that contribution to my welfare but it does not fit. Despite all which Newton is not a theory, unless the rules of what makes a theory have been changed lately. The misplaced belief is that we cannot have a society without a collective illusion about what is real. I merely adopt the principle of: "When in Rome behave like a roman" in a very narrow localised sense and leave the content of my egghead fluid, unfertilised by portents of extraneously inserted *belief*, after the manner of Carroll's Father William. This is all surrounded by much the same rhetoric as attached to the Jesuitical: "Are you a believer in God?", for which old man Huxley coined "agnostic" to declare the issue undecidable. AND that is where it has been stuck since. Personally I don't mind whether the universe is predictable or not, I just live here.

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

Adrian vd Meijden