|
Contents
Introduction
Rietdijk in Eight Pages
1. Most Recent Completing Ideas
1.1 Paradigm in Default
1.2 The Mother of All
Woolly-Headedness, Most Philosophical Error, and Irrational Ideology
1.3 Devaluing Truth, Good and
Evil – One Paradigm Explaining Basic Current Taboos, Repressions and
Prejudices
1.4 On Basic
Superstitions – More about the Paradigm
1.5 Causing Stirs
1.6 Anxiety is Your Private
Censor; Their Roles in a Coherent Social Theory
2. Formulation of my Core Theory
2.1 An Outline of Rietdijk's
Work: Coherence as a Core Concept
2.2 Jesus, Voltaire and
Prometheus: the Essence of Sociology - Current Orthodoxy that Keeps Waters
Troubled
2.3
Techno-Science,
Enlightenment and Happiness
2.4 Ten Main Points on Sociology
2.5 On Socio-Cultural Evolution
– Outline of a Comprehensive Theory
2.6 Evil, Sex and the Mechanisms
of Power; Machiavelli Now
2.7 Paradigms as Association
Complexes, and Powerful Instruments of Establishments
2.8 Social Evolution and Hidden
Agendas: a New Theory
2.9 The Jungle,
Machiavelli, and Socio-Cultural Correctness
2.10 Science,
Values and Meaning – Why Many Vital Insights Will Be Repressed or Taboo
3. Social Theory and the Enlightenment Way of Thinking: an Elaboration
3.1
The New Enlightenment:
Combining Voltaire and Prometheus
3.2 Manifesto: Continuing the
Enlightenment
3.3 Beyond Current Paradigm
3.4 Beyond the Brainwashing
3.5 Social
Science and Philosophy for Unbroken Minds
3.6 Why the Orthodox do not Like
my Ideas
3.7 Current Religious Orthodoxy:
"The Group" as Supreme Being
3.8 "Oneliners"
4. Some Special Subjects
4.1 On Reactionary Modern
Philosophy and Art
4.2 Our Unjust Legal Systems
4.3 Candidly, on Economics
4.4 Stop Cruelty Against Parents
of Seriously Handicapped Newborns by Allowing Them to Choose Active Euthanasia
4.5 An
Interview with Wim Rietdijk, by Paul Cooijmans
4.6 Letter to an Unknown Friend
5. Preliminary on Consciousness and Religion
5.1 On the Nature of
Consciousness: a Scientific Hypothesis
5.2 The Paranormal: Bridging the
Gap between Science and Religion?
6. On Rietdijk’s Physical Work
6.1 Four-dimensional Reality and
its Coherence - an outline of Rietdijk's theory on physics
6.2 Physics Enforces a New
Paradigm; Does God Play Dice with Destiny?
7. Rietdijk’s Main Publications
7.1 Books, Papers and
Contributions to Conference Proceedings on Physics by C.W. Rietdijk, D.Sci.
With an outline of Rietdijk's realistically four-dimensional theory on
physics
7.2
Books and Papers on
Socio-Cultural Subjects by C.W. Rietdijk, D.Sci.
7.3 The Scientifization of
Culture
Special attention to this book
8. Appendix: Publications in Dutch
8.1 Wetenschap als Bevrijding.
Socratisch gesprek met een gedreven maatschappij- en cultuurcriticus
8.2 God dobbelt niet.
Overwegingen van een religieus rationalist
8.3 Conceptprogramma voor een
politieke partij
8.4 Hoe
links tot rechts werd – en iedereen zijn visie verloor
Artikel geweigerd door Opinio
8.5 Wim Rietdijk op Wikipedia
9. Discussion Page
Seize the opportunity to contribute or oppose!
|
Introduction
Why Coherent Ideas about Society, Progress, Meaning, and
Partly even Physics, are often Repressed or Taboo
Rationalism and Meaning
One feature of our argument is that, partly via
something that has been called super-rationalism, we come to the idea of meaning.
Super-rationalism boils down to determinism – also based on some physical
disproofs of the “fundamental uncertainty and fuzziness” quantummechanics starts
from – and a deep coherence of nature and its laws. Such coherence contrasts
with current domination of concepts like chance, chaos and the above
uncertainty. From a number of demonstrations by the author in the physical
professional Journals it is concluded that Einstein was right in surmising
that – beyond our human observational horizon – both the past and the future
realistically exist, which implies their being just as definite as our
current here and now. In what follows, we will also find that this leads to
the conclusion that Einstein was right as well in his pronouncement: “The
most surprising of all is that the world almost certainly has a meaning”.
That
is, from a scientific point of view a strong case can be made for a universe
in which indeed “God does not play dice” (once more Einstein), not even
with human destiny and the evolution of mankind.
This is one among the major subjects elaborated in what follows. More
generally, the latter suggests from a scientific point of view that the world
evolves in the direction of expressing deep truths and values, also within
the scope of its having conscious and general psychological dimensions too.
Exploring these features may help us in reconciling science and religion.
Current Paradigm and Pseudo Religion
Modern thinking and culture in many ways emanate the
idea that
“The world is incoherent, fundamentally uncertain
and coincidental, man is partly `above the laws of science’ (think of free
will, irrational behaviour,…), values are basically relative, and so is human
quality (egalitarianism), whereas (as a consequence) progress is essentially
undefinable and elusive.”
All
of this amounts to what we may call the Relativism-Uncertainty (RU)
Paradigm. This posits a world, human life and destiny that
are largely beyond the realm of science, reason and any means of objectively
discriminating good from evil. Postmodernism, the fundamental uncertainty of
quantum mechanics, the idea that human life is largely a sequence of
coincidences, and that there is no hierarchy of quality and value among men,
as well as Riesman’s other-directed personality (conformism), are all closely
related to the paradigm, that is very dominant now.
All
objective criteria about value and (partly) truth being elusive, the only mainstay
remaining is man as he is, his errors,
prejudices and (partly genetic) inadequacies included. We witness the “religion
of Man”. Objections to eugenics and euthanasia, and again
egalitarianism, are concomitants.
Even multi-recidivists, chronic anti-socials etcetera are “of an equal
value” in such ambiance. Genetic engineering on man is taboo. Man as he is is
inviolable.
Social Evils, Irrational Power, and
why the Paradigm is Good for Them
When we see the overwhelming influence of
anti-rationalism, subjectivistic philosophy (relativism, existentialism,
postmodernism,…), incoherent (“abstract”) art and the idea of Wittgenstein
that science can do little to solve our problems of life, it is hard to
believe all of this to be a coincidence. Culture and ideas will not appear in
a vacuum but more often than not are associated with vested interests and
social forces. We will elaborate this in the following and discuss in more
detail what concrete interests and forces thrive on “fuzziness” and
uncertainty in a broad sense – that is, on troubled waters on the level of
thought, values and emotions – and the reasons why.
In
particular, we will discuss the major modern variant of censorship repression
and taboo amount to, which, more indirectly and veiledly than in former
times, frustrate independent and straightforward thinking – in philosophy,
social science and partly even in theoretical physics. (Again we quote
Einstein: “Fashion plays an important part in science, not much less than as
to the clothing of women.”)
The
state of matters sketched above, inter alia,
is responsible for it that, as to various major problems, the very essential
factors relevant to them are ignored, repressed, tabood or hushed up. We give
four concrete instances:
(a) As regards Third-World immigration into the West,
egalitarianism causes the repression of the circumstance that about all of
those immigrants come from countries in which the average IQ is 85 or less.
(See R. Lynn & T. Vanhanen: IQ and the Wealth of Nations, 2002.) The result for the countries of destiny can hardly be
anything else than “hereditary ghetto formation”. Additionally, our dogmas
around the inviolability of “man as he is” and his “goodness by nature” made
us repress what Machiavelli teached about rulers who usually disguise
self-interest by moral talk and ideology. (See also below.) This swept under
the carpet that leftist politicians and welfare organizations have an interest in many “disadvantaged” entering their countries, as future voters or
as clients. Hence much ado about “racism” and “discrimination” towards those
who oppose.
(b) With respect to sexuality, relativism and
egalitarianism repressed the evident fact that there is a great scarcity
of positively attractive men and
women, as to both inner and physical qualities. Further, until very recently
(that is, before the internet), the sex market was medievally inefficient,
people being largely dependent on chance meetings. Still, about nobody saw
the frustrating primitiveness.
(c) Though life after death is felt to be a real
possibility by several hundreds of million people in the mere West, we are so
irrational as to employ worldwide only about twenty fulltime scientific
researchers in the field of parapsychology. Again, this stems from the “fuzziness”
idea and Wittgensteinian exclusion of vital problems of life from the realm
of scientific thinking. That is, the RU error: “Truth is not detailedly
definite, coherent and scientific”. More generally, increasing fundamental
research to a multiple of the current exertion – say, from 0.3 to 3 percent
of the national product – should be the highest priority of our leaders
and a core of any
progress-minded policy. But it does not fit in the current “sceptical” climate.
(d) In theory,
most thinkers and politicians highly follow Machiavelli in his thesis that
rulers will hide much self-interest behind moralistic talk and manipulating
ideology. Very few, however, draw the logical conclusion from this: that many
social abuses, unenlightened ideas and taboos – far from only being
unintended consequences of well-meant policies – are nothing else but
practices or ideology that (disguisedly) serve self-interest, irrational
power, and generally what we call evil! Or, partly within the scope of our
“idolization of Man as He is” and concomitant “solidarity”, we repress the
idea that various groups or social forces, at least unconsciously, are
simply of bad faith, anti-enlightened,
pro-troubled waters (fuzziness) and disinterested in progress. For such
ideology serves major vested interests, just as their opposition against
clear and coherent reason (anti-Enlightenment) a few centuries ago was
(un)consciously recognised as a useful ideological instrument by nobility and
clergy in order to retain their power and privileges. Further, in view of the
moral level of a large majority, we cannot even exclude the possibility that
most current intellectuals, probably unconsciously, do not like clear and
straightforward theories, arguments and solutions because these leave little latitude
for now dominating quasi-deep irrational philosophy or details-mongering
social science. That is, for the massive verbiage and inanity of those many
who have nothing to say. Such “thinkers” prefer the RU paradigm and
fuzziness, as do vested interests more generally.
(A similar idea has earlier been advanced by Stanislav Andreski in Social
Science as Sorcery , 1972.)
Within the above scope, it is a vital socio-cultural
thesis of my work that, whereas in the past irrational power, censorship and
conformism were maintained by violence, dogma and convention, the latters’
modern successors in formal democracies are mainly troubled waters and
ideological manipulation made possible by them. That is, the RU paradigm. Hence present-day’s massive
relativism, “fundamental uncertainty”, scepticism about progress, and
irrational art. The former violence and explicit censorship as well as
current relativism and fuzziness equally undermine the primacy of reason and
the idea of progress based on knowledge and (human) quality.
In
this context, the basic antithesis, both in society and with respect to our
thinking about the problems of life – from sex and anxiety to meaning and a
possible hereafter –, is the one between
(1) Consistent enlightenment, continued into the
intimate and the unconscious, based on reason, rational values and progress
up to and including human genes;
(2) The complex of obscure bureaucracy and politics, and
unenlightened ideas such as the principles of the RU paradigm, represented inter
alia by subjectivistic philosophy, scepsis as to
progress, incoherent art, anti-intellectualistic education and egalitarianism
that even relativizes genetic quality.
Precisely as in the times of violence, jails and
open censorship, current unenlightened (reason-relativizing and
pro-fuzziness) ideas will serve interests: those threatened by the exposing,
demystifying and cathartic power of reason and rational values, which are
unrivalled in bringing things from their places.
In
later sections we will discuss in
more detail how such interests use the relevant ideas concretely. In
the process, a new comprehensive socio-cultural theory will be produced, also
related to a rather radically novel model of the physical universe that is
preliminarily elucidated below.
On the Relation Between my Physical
and Socio-Cultural Work
Such relation, referred to already, is based inter
alia on the fact that I refuted the RU Paradigm by
various demonstrations in the professional physical Journals. Something preliminary
about the relevant physical work:
(a) Four demonstrations from the Theory of relativity
that past and future realistically exist and, therefore, can neither be
fundamentally uncertain nor fuzzy in any sense other than what we experience
here and now. For example, see on the internet the word
combinations“Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument” and “Andromeda Paradox”. See
also Sect. 7.1 of this site on my physical publications.
(b) Four demonstrations, too, that such existing future,
backwards in time (“retroactively”), can even co-influence the present (just
as the past does by means of causality) within the latitude of the quantum
(Heisenberg) “uncertainty margins”. My hypothesis: such retroactive
influences precisely constitute Einstein’s hidden variable. (See again Sect. 7.1 for references.)
(c) Proofs to the effect that both retroaction and
nonlocality [the latter having been earlier demonstrated by others, inter
alia, in the famous Paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen (EPR)] make the world much more coherent and less “coincidental”.
(d) A physical theory about consciousness, including the paranormal.
This, again, contributes to the inclusion of both into a rational,
deterministic and even super-locally coherent physical and psychical universe. (This theory is in the process of being
published. in Physics Essays. Again see
Sect. 7.1 for further reference.) The theory substitutes both uncertainty and
reductionist locality by even nonlocally coherent micro and macro
determinism.
The above sketches some of the main ideas of this
website. It contrasts with current “orthodoxy” such as the RU paradigm and
political correctness. It consists of a number of essays that, inter alia, jointly constitute a coherent socio-cultural theory but can also be
read separately. This implies some overlapping as a concession to their inner
consistency.
Most
of my physical work has been recapitulated in Sect. 6.1, which also includes
more detailed references.
Partly summarising, we conclude to what could be
little less than the philosopher’s stone as to socio-philosophical matters:
Those in good faith have an interest in truth,
value, quality, man and the universe at all to be objective, clear, coherent
and knowable in principle. On the other hand, those who are not, have an
interest in troubled waters, fundamental uncertainty, chaos and everything
else kindred to the RU paradigm.
This
elementary antithesis virtually defines philosophical, cultural and social
controversy and struggle in a general sense.
|
