Kemo D. (kemo_d7) wrote,
Kemo D.

  • Mood:

Kemo's Church

The Real Knowledge
Good morning and welcome back to the last service for this year. So, why does humankind have so many successes in highly technical fields and so many failures in his cultural?

Ancient philosopher/scientists described a world constructed from earth, water, air and fire and decreed that pure knowledge came only from pure reason. As man's knowledge grew, the thinkers diverged into two camps: those who studied things (the scientists) and those who searched for the deeper meanings of life (the philosophers).
As the scientists progressed in their field, they quickly outgrew the earth-water-air-fire restriction, and as quickly discarded the notion that any real knowledge could come from thought alone. They continued to recognize the value of intelligence, imagination, reason and logic, but they had experienced many failures of beautiful thought when it was put to the test. They began to develop an increasingly skeptical attitude toward all unsubstantiated thought.
That trend continues to this day. Any scientist-engineer of today who voices an idea that can't be traced with impeccable logic to measurable fact will barely bring a raised eyebrow among his colleagues, no matter how wonderful it sounds. Today's scientists are still looking for the essence of our material world, and they have progressed down through the atomic into the subatomic realm in their search. Meanwhile, they have made good use of each knowledge platform developed during that search
The modern philosophers and social scientists (along with scientists who include ideology as a determining element in their analyses), are still mired in the pure knowledge comes from pure thought absurdity. Without knowing the source of human thought and its reason for being, they nevertheless place credence in its product to the exclusion of measurable fact.
They still believe that if a thought sounds good, it is good. They still refuse to base their thought on physical reality and to constantly test that thought with physical measurement. The biggest error they make is in attributing abilities to the human brain for which it was never designed.
Pure thought cannot come from a brain tainted with passion and experience. It certainly cannot come from a brain that ceased developing soon after developing fire and the stone-axe.
The human brain is a primitive machine, developed in and as an integral part of a complex and interacting set of instincts, some of which are now archaic and obsolete (even harmful in some cases). It is a useful tool under closely controlled operating conditions. It is a real problem the rest of the time and often downright dangerous.
How can one philosophize about man's ethics, if one does not consider the facts about his condition? How can his condition be discussed, if he has not been previously defined in terms referenced to measurable fact? Then comes the biggest question of all: What is man?
Mankind develops mechanical things with a straight forward clear-cut set of thinking rules, one that does not depend on, indeed is highly critical of, the product of mans thought. We allow no such set of rules, indeed we allow no rules at all, when applying man's ability to think to social concerns.
In the cultural world, if it sounds (feels) good, we swallow the whole idea, hook, line and sinker, especially if the idea is our own.

Kemo D. (a.k.a. no.7)
Tags: kemo's church
Comments for this post were disabled by the author