Science as Purposeful

I agree; the minds of the Scientific Revolution took another look at the natural world. {Peer} wrote: “The fact that Cohen describes Newton and his contemporaries as “rediscoverers” is in line with Cohen’s statement that the word “revolution” was first used as a technical term in the sciences.”

It was a revolution of thought, a reordering of the understanding of the natural world as well as humankind’s place in that world. However, the Scientific Revolution is a term that would be coined after the original participants were long deceased. One thing that I think may be a factor is that the “new science” wanted to be useful instead of just for appearances. In “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England,” Rose Lockwood addressed the concerns of agrarian farmers in the new world. Noting the calendar year and aspects of the heavens above, Lockwood said, “It is clear from the essays and poetry of the almanac compilers that the new science affected the ideas of New England puritans before the age of Jonathan Edwards.”[1] The New Englanders understood a need to consult science for direct application to their livelihood – crops. The Puritan mindset and Protestant ethic encouraged the people to tend the earth, and by turning to science humankind was able to up the produce of the earth.

Bibliography

Lockwood, Rose. “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England.” 1980. The New England Quarterly, 53.1: 76-95.

[1] Rose Lockwood, “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England,” p. 77.

Advertisements

Really…?

My MacBook, Archimedes, ate all my categories. And now it is self-selecting for this post. {gnashing of teeth} Trying to fix, hope it works.

ARGH…now…duplicity.

 

Science…Yes, please!

Good afternoon Fellow Wanderers…

Last week I offered consideration for Friedrich Nietzsche’s vivid thoughts, namely the ability of the Dionysian to reconstruct their own reality. Truly fascinating concepts – I carry them with me wherever I go.

This week, I want to turn fully towards science<> and take a look at the purely natural human ability to bend and shift the way we understand reality to roll. In that Quantum Theory exists, let us accept that many things are possible. …but I am getting ahead of myself.

I will begin with forum discussions from the course I completed in January 2016 – The History of Science in which we questioned “Was the Scientific Revolution actually a ‘revolution’?” {spoiler – Yes! the Scientific Revolution, though not fought in hand to hand combat, realigned the way that humanity understood truth and provided the scientific method, relying on empirical data over handed down stories {Nietzsche’s “add-on-liars” see previous post:  “Faith, Reason, and Consciousness”}.

Picture c/o:  http://www.studenthandouts.com/01-Web-Pages/BSA/201409/scientific-revolution-powerpoint-free.png

 

Quick Note: on Whitman and James

{originally written in message to esteemed peer from HUMN 555}

In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James noted Walt Whitman’s theory to personally refuse that negative factors hold any authority, but Whitman successfully led an optimistic life – success defined as fulfilled, he led a full life and saw challenges as experience. Maybe Whitman was a little out there, but he says “I am large…I contain multitudes” (Leaves of Grass, p. 67). He is evidence that human nature is malleable and apt to alter via subjective perspective. Aware consciousness is able to recognize the ability to alter one’s viewpoint and implement positive factors to improve one’s experience. {bows to Whitman}

#PursuitofOptimism #Dionysian

Is Compassion Restricted to Femininity?

Good morning Fellow Wanderers…

I completed my fourth essay for HUMN 571 this week, using Margaret Mead’s Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies as primary text with the assistance of Peggy Reeves Sanday and Francis L.K. Hsu as strong secondary sources. Once this session is closed, I will post my piece “Margaret Mead’s Hope for American Feminism,” but until then – my research presented interesting conjecture in regards to the abilities of human beings as separate biological entities, masculine and feminine.

The term “feminine intuition” has popped up throughout my life, but I had not – until recently – considered that this intuition is exclusive to women, hence, creating a proverbial chip on the shoulders of men whom are not, biologically, able to attain it. In this sense, “womb envy” may trump “penis envy.” Graver still as few are aware of biological indicators.

Do men have “masculine intuition” to combat the advantages in feminine consciousness, or are they immune to the pull of compassion? Experience says No, as I have witnessed compassionate males in action, yet…I wander…is compassion a choice? are males able to ignore their internal conscious easier than females?

Discussion much appreciated.

Works Cited

Hsu, Francis L.K. “Margaret Mead and Psychological Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 349-53. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Mead, Margaret. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. Ed. Mary CatherineBateson and Helen Fisher. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. “Margaret Mead’s View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies.”American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 340-8. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://lovelifetbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/question-mark-chalk-board-woman-thinking-e1430426978852.jpg

Defining Socialism for American Society

Political momentum rallies around socialism as if it were a new “ideal.” No, sadly, socialism is still, in 2016, an unrealistic enemy. Socialism is still the avenue which leads to communism. Why? Short answer:  because we are human. Human beings are selfish creatures. We’ve been conscious roughly 100,000 years, and consciousness will further improve over time. Socialism will not be the bridge to perfection.

Socialism invokes ugly “equality” in that everyone will – in theory – receive what is deemed adequate. The questions is “Who defines adequate?” If you think modern politics would improve with socialism, please – for the love of Reason – do a quick google search. In it, one will find the Bolshevik revolution; I recommend a quick read through.

There is no such thing as a “democratic socialist.” It is a socialist. Period. Socialism says that all citizens will receive equal distribution regardless of the amount of effort the individual exerts. That means that doctors will be paid the same as fast food workers. Equality, right? I think not. The doctor made himself better via education, but socialism will punish him for self-improvement.

Capitalism takes a good bit of heat for being aimed at the “elite.” I want to remind society that capitalism replaced the Old Regime, ending heredity right and creating a platform for each person to create themselves – why would society desert capitalism, now, when such progress was made. Capitalism, if reformed, will continue to provide a stable ground for the individual who wants a better life.

#SelfMadeMan #Capitalism #AntiSocialism

Picture c/o:  http://libertyalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/free-cheese-mousetrap-socialism.jpg

“Renegade” by X Ambassadors as Message to Dionysian Mind

Granted, Wagner, the X Ambassadors is not, lol, but… Nietzsche saw music as the best way for humans to express themselves or as an avenue to happiness. You asked about commercialism – combing through our text, I find it interesting that there is not heavy influence in capitalism, commerce, or materialism – only reference to seeking a pleasure filled life. However, there is a note from Bernard Williams in the introduction, that I feel supports my inclusion of the modern song; Williams said, “[The Gay Science], like all his others, makes it clear than any life worth living must involve daring, individuality and creative bloody-mindedness” (Nietzsche xiv).

Yes, the message I see in the song indicates that the lyrics are addressed to the Dionysian. It is a call to arms, so to speak. Another piece, “Am I Wrong” by Nico & Vinz from 2014, has a similar connotation where the individual rejects the modern understanding of right/wrong. One of the chorus verses altered from “I” to “We” indicating that one person’s concept became mutual understanding – “collective thought” (Nico & Vinz). Before the song hit the charts, Nico & Vinz were addressing the modern group “Anonymous”; the first time I heard it was when I was tagged on a link in Facebook from one of my groups. My experiment with social media is still on-going, so I have not been exposed to collective thought for nearly a year now – I am not certain that X Ambassadors is addressing the same audience as Nico & Vinz, but I can deduce relation. It could be a ploy on consumerism, but I do not think the average person gets the same message from listening to the song as few are well read in Nietzsche. If it is just for the money, all they got from me was $1.29, so I can live with that. The message is worth far more – it is one of hope.

Here is my breakdown of the song. Enjoy!

“Run away with me / Lost souls and reverie / Running wild and running free / Two kids, you and me” (1-4). The X Ambassadors are encouraging the individual to break free from the norm and to find oneself – to release adult hibition and return to natural carefreeness of youth. I sense dualism; you and me could be two versions of one person, or body/mind.

“… Living like we’re renegades …” (Chorus 5-11). The word choice of “renegade” means one who leaves one system of order or belief for another path – one can then create a new path for themselves.

“Long live the pioneers / Rebels and mutineers / Go forth and have no fear / Come close the end is near*” (12-15). These are the types of individuals, Dionysian for Nietzsche, who are brave enough to challenge the norm. Renegades can be comparable to the Overman or ManGod because they refuse to accept what is given so that they can create what they want. They are more human than human – more than the average bear. X Ambassadors ask the Dionysian to come closer because normality is nearing its end, society will need Nietzsche’s physicists to rebuild.

*I’ve listened to the song over 100 times now, and it rather sounds like they say “Come close and bend an ear” for line 15. Maybe it is just stage 3 madness, lol, of over-listening, but just in case, it still fits: gather the unique thinkers together to sort out the plan of action.

(Chorus)

“All hail the underdogs / All hail the new kids / All hail the outlaws / Spielbergs and Kubricks” (22-25). More Dionysians: Underdogs – those that should not win but will pull through despite the odds, New Kids – evolved thinkers with fresh concepts, and Outlaws – those that reject directed order and law. And finally, the dreamers of the future, modern artistic expression – directors and writers sculpt concepts into film and literature allowing the individual mind to imagine altered conditions for life.

“It’s our time to make a move / It’s our time to make amends / It’s our time to break the rules / Let’s begin” (26-29). X Ambassadors is prepping the Dionysian. Social media allows like-minded individuals to find one another over vast geological separation. Unique individuals, the physicists, realize that they are not alone, and that by uniting with other’s of similar disposition a new understanding is possible. Down with the old order, in with a new; le roi est mort, vive l’auto.[1]

“… Living like we’re renegades” (Chorus 30-35). Nietzsche’s belief that evil upset good in efforts to create a new understanding. Good did not change, it clung to what was “good” for the past – keeping society in stasis. But humanity, like existence itself, is static and must be able to change/adapt or species will not survive in the constantly evolving world. The opposite of adaptation is extinction. Nietzsche did not say there was no morality – he thought that societal opinion had morality wrong from the start. Good and evil were masks created to cover the true self. Evil looked for improvement, and many results are definitely good: modern necessities like indoor-plumbing, roads, electricity, and technology. However, Nietzsche was not expecting people to turn into cartoon villains – he suggested a closer look at human consideration for the term and expanded possibilities removed from black-or-white configuration.

 

Works Cited

“Am I Wrong” by Nico & Vinz, 2014.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

“Renegades” by X Ambassadors, 3 Mar 2015.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lyrics+renegades&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Picture c/o:  https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-SytFteQnYY/hqdefault.jpg

[1] “The king is dead; long live the self.”

#PursuitofOptimism #DionysianLifestyle

Dionysian Roll-On

it seems to me that Nietzsche’s Dionysian is comparable to Kierkegaard’s aesthetic, with the main difference being that the Seducer was viewed negatively while Nietzsche does not leave room for others to critique the man-god Dionysian. Or…Kierkegaard [in my opinion] did not like the aesthetic and sided more with Judge Wilhelm and ethics; whereas, Nietzsche was a Dionysian himself and was attempting to encourage society to embrace new concepts while letting go of past misconceptions.

The Dionysian was a man-god: a human person with exceptional abilities in which one utilized personal preference to shape one’s experience. Based on Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, the Dionysian movement encouraged participants to live fully and to try anything interesting that crossed their path. They were expected to experience severe misery because they were able to know the fullest joy. In a way, they were extremists – when they loved it was true, when they cried it was agony – there was no middle ground. Nietzsche said, “He who is richest in fullness of life, the Dionysian god and man, can allow himself not only the sight of what is terrible and questionable but also the terrible deed and every luxury of destruction, decomposition, negation …” (370). The Dionysian knew that they were creating themselves, and they were able ignore labels such as “good/evil” because, as gods, they knew that there could be good as a result of evil and evil from good intentions – it was not their playing field. Their goal was to experience, to live, and most of all, to create.

Aesthetic value is found in art and music for Nietzsche, here lay the true beauty of the human experience. Once Nietzsche stripped away the need for a god, what was the human left with…music. Art and music were the human engines of creation. I have loved Nietzsche for roughly half of my life. My motto used to be: Live one’s life as art! I still find pause with process, I see much beauty in the ability to express, not just the final project. I would pay five times as much for the same piece of art if I were able to watch the art being created before I purchase it, because later, when viewing the art, I would remember the moment the artist took his stroke or the scent of paint and mad creation in the air.

Overall, I see the Dionysian as opposite to moral expectations of the masses. Dionysian is very close to “pleasure living” with their concerns fixed in the present – they want to live life while they can because there is no afterlife, this is it. Now, I know Nietzsche gets attacked from every angle, but look at what he was arguing against – set belief aside and work with only organic natural possibilities – the religious belief system is not very believable if one is not raised with the message harped into one’s existence. Christianity, boiled way down, basically says that the physical life [the one each person actually lives] is nothing compared to the afterlife [the one we have zero proof or evidence of]; that living is just a phase before one can spend eternity in heaven. Please take a moment and truly consider this. Now tell me why it is that Nietzsche is the one off base?

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Picture c/o:  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/serpent_tribe/images/bacchanal_b4a_herm.jpg

Dionysian Origins

, I have not found a specific term to label Nietzsche’s alternative considerations, but he advised individuals to create themselves by experiencing pain and pleasure, allowing room for one’s own selfish concerns, and acknowledging progress to belong to evil intentions. Or, rather, asked for a redefinition/understanding of the terms “good and evil.” I think Nietzsche wants us to be honest and ask ourselves, “What do I think I want? Let us see…I’ll have to try each flavor, as I cannot rely on a universal demand to tell me I prefer lemon. I think I like chocolate better.” Here, duty would demand that lemon was the flavor and sucking a lemon tart was the moral thing to do. “Evil” urged that another flavor would not be as tart. Experience showed chocolate as personal preference. Evil encouraged change. {Imagine room full of stiff philosophers sucking on lemons, and Nietzsche stretched out with a box of Godiva. lol<>}.

Nietzsche saw the qualities of good and evil as motivating forces for humankind to determine their own path. However, the ability to improve fell on the side of evil and not good; Nietzsche said, “The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity… they forced men to pit opinion against opinion, ideal model against ideal model” (4). Real change were implemented by men of evil intent – the people who were not satisfied with current rule and used force to upend reality – while the men of good intent were attempting to keep life nice and easy. Nietzsche saw anything “new” as linked to evil because it disordered the previous good. Nietzsche said, “All refined servility clings to the categorical imperative and is the mortal enemy of those who want to deprive duty of its unconditional character…” (5). He saw duty as created obligation used as means to ensure that the average human fed the artificial system of society. He advised humanity to give up their moral high-horses and to recognize their own selfishness; Nietzsche said, “For it is selfish to consider one’s own judgement [sic] a universal law, and this selfishness is blind, petty, and simple because it shows that you haven’t yet discovered yourself or created for yourself an ideal of your very own…” (335). Selfishness is not all bad, as we have seen in previous texts this session. What matters is what one does with their selfish considerations.

The message I receive from Nietzsche is that we are all master’s of our own universes and not limited to strict morality as society understood it – individually, people are able to create themselves, and they do not need society to tell them how to do it. Dionysian pessimism was predicted for the future, in the hands of anarchists – those seized with romantic pessimism that extended their torture on the lot of humanity; Nietzsche said:

 

The desire for destruction, for change and for becoming can be the expression of an overflowing energy pregnant with the future (my term for this is, as is known, ‘Dionysian’); but it can also be the hatred of the ill-constituted, deprived, and underprivileged one who destroys and must destroy because what exists, indeed all existence, all being, outrages and provokes him (370).

 

Is this ‘Dionysian’ his term to replace morality? The becoming process was a path for unique and incomparable individuals who wanted to create their own laws as well as themselves, he said: “Sitting in moral judgement [sic] should offend our taste” (Nietzsche 335). Life was a process that required physicists to create reality.

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thank you for the picture:  http://content2.beyondretro.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/THE_DIONYSIAN_STILL_21.jpg

Faith, Reason, and Consciousness according to Herr Professor

{Peer} noted that faith and spiritualization, for Nietzsche, are separate from instinct. Let’s look for balance between faith, reason, and consciousness.

Faith:

  • in oneself – hard to come by; people spend too much time convincing their inner skeptic that the self is worth supporting; may require genius (284).
  • errors of – Nietzsche sees many truths exposed as erroneous and the weakest form of knowledge; to include: “that there are enduring things; that there are identical things, kinds of material, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in and for itself” (110).
  • cause and effect – Faith relies on belief, not factual evidence or empirical truth. It is an extended working of the imagination. Nietzsche noted that one’s belief would change dependent on experience; he said, “Before the effect one believes in causes different from those one believes in after the effect” (217).

Reason:

  • Nietzsche sees reason as clouded because humanity assumes too many false truths to really work out any hard-core expressions of reason.
  • e. How can one find reason in a soup of belief?
  • the add-on-liars – Custom, or handing down one tradition from a previous age and forcing it on a new age, results in people supporting false notions. Nietzsche said, “… one lied to oneself, inventing reasons for these laws, simply to avoid admitting that one had become used to them and would no longer have it any other way. … And that is what one does, and has always done, within every prevailing morality and religion: the reasons and intents behind habits are invented only when some people start attacking the habits and asking for reasons and intents” (29).

Consciousness:

  • The aware, knowing element to the human mind. The singular force inside each human that must determine what is true and how to roll through life.
  • {much notation present in forum discussions}

As displayed over these past weeks, I like to break things down to see how they may be connected. If one of those things disprove the other, then I cannot see how a bridge could be formed – though there may be a way, I just cannot kin it. Consciousness is dependent on being aware of the truth, and reason further addresses the truth to discover motivation and intent as well as process and expectancy of outcome. Faith is dependent on belief. One of these is not like the other<>. Truth and belief are nemesis, on a serious level. Truth requires proof, evidence, and empirical considerations while belief is secured to superstition, religion, mysticism, spiritualism, occultism (and Santa Claus}. While Yin and Yang balance the other out, Truth and Belief are not comparable – one makes the other false, not equal. Imagine Truth as a baseball field and you are running the bases. Belief comes into play, and suddenly the ground is made up of water. Try to continue running the bases. You cannot. The bases are gone. There is no balance because one cannot reason themselves out of the situation. The moment one realized it was water and started to swim, the mind was already twisting around “how in the world did this happen? If the field is a pool then why would my coach tell me to wear cleats?” There is no reason here, no logic to deduce. Anything could happen. Down the rabbit hole we go! Reason and truth do not live in belief.

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thank you for the picture:  http://ldsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IllusionofMind-1024×768.jpg