logos means word, doesn't it?
so each such science as sociology, psychology, theology means words on...
are the above examples really science, is it science to speak of something
and to name the world using concepts, rules, norms, values, images and even morals
conditioned out of our actual existing social conditions of living,
thinking and standards for science?
say, these are at best descriptive sciences and when accompanied by keen intellect
and constant questioning of the basic conditions and rules of these very sciences
combined with profound historical and anthropological knowledge they may not only
deconstruct consciousness and experience and leave us with skeletons
but allow us to dream of how we can go better about our and other's life.
there we have philosophy (etymology: love for wisdom).
i won't mention theology,
it is just words on God ..but God is immeasurable.
my opinion. i am allowed opinions.
mostly the -ologies leave us robbed of experience and innocence, adding to the crippling
pressures and negative pull of our personal, private and social life and roles.
they do not give "the truth" but truths, parts of a puzzle,the house has burned down,
home is not home anymore and we are not naked and pure but all we do and say and feel
will be called relative and shit.we must be ashamed of ourselves and feel dirty.
a modern way of being thrown out of paradise: paradise is not only utopia, it is seen as a
state of stupidity.
i question this result, very much so.
i don't know if it is correct to measure the validity of sciences by results though.
but are they necessary in this form?
all i read and hear is that everything is getting worse.
even this i do not believe at all.
it is just not getting better, it is turning different.
and we have enough 'badness' and global warming and catastrophes to strengthen this
opinion that the world is going to hell and that we are doomed and so just can do nothing
and must give up on humanity, on us, on each one of us.easy. but only half-education.
none of these sciences will lead anywhere else if not going together
with philosophy and an attitude which absolutely seriously questions attitude and the aims
of research and all the new naming making the process of descriptive and comparative science
boring, meaningless and lead to tirades and torrents of self-importance and doing stuff for its own sake.
when i read papers, books, i see that a new generation has long ago started
around the time of 1960 , intellectualists finding a culture in masturbating
negativism. i remember many found this 'cool'.
i don't.
let me give an example. sexuality and eros, two different experiences in human life
altogether. eros is out. you can buy it, no, you cannot! it is not new underwear, it is not
a golden ring, it is a nuclear and enriching part of our existence and experience in this life right here. It asks for friendship, freedom, love, affection and it gives wings to the soul.
love, analyzed so extensively, a skeleton only remains , a shadow in effect for the human soul
not better than the commercialized adverts for empty rituals, the sale of love itself.
love, immeasurable as a topic just thrown to the wolf of the intellectual
negativism: shit, romanticism, domination games between man and woman.
partnership of whichever sexes analyzed is not the experience of partnership,
work, warmth, giving,taking, staying in troubled times.
when nothing means anything for us anymore, we have lost life, we should better die.
what are we left with?
a bunch of New Age esotericists, fascists, terrorists, escapists, gurus...give me names, i call them.
the gap between science and values in intention creates religions, more abuse.
Marxism is a good basic analytic research tool but mainly a religion with a promise for God's kingdom to come on earth,
and the worst is that the more intelligent intellectuals are filled with despair of their findings leading them to judge themselves and all of us in a moralistic way. is this science and for what is it good?
are they the salt of the earth?
did i look for morals?
everybody or so it appears wants something 'special', the neighbour wants roses for Valentine, the intellectaúals after a period of suspectedly and rebelliously post-puberty free sex propagate non-penetrative sex or Tantra for pre-death entertainment or just a very 'special' relationship without obligations, burdens, heartache, maybe platonic, they define love from above not seeing any of it. after all, they wish to rule the world, control means to be free, and mainly they try to stay out of suffering and hurt.
they will not manage. and this 'special' is just a result of either emptiness or bad experience.
probably they all have gastritis and indigestion.
i started long ago to hate reading books..many books. open..start..feel disgust..put them away.
love, wisdom, kindness, patience and humility are the only values i see.
and all i wished to say is that descriptive and merely analytic sciences suffocate often even themselves and make no sense without inclusion of true values, true as i see. as i feel. as i know.
i mean to analyze may not necessarily need to mean that we can apply what we find
to limit and lead our experience of each other and of life. we should die from mere thought.
they can put away with all morals, that's ok to me. morals are social rules and bonds
with taboos, totems. they crucify us to our work, relationships, roles. they are tools of domination instilling in us the ideas of guilt and punishment. ideas of master and slave and Christian traditions.
away with them.
but i keep a passion for values, for life, for love.
of course there are some books, authors, passionate intelligent humans i can read.
but i don't trust in anyone writing. no. i wouldn't trust my own words.
tomorrow they may be different.
we need words. we need to think. this is ...as it is.
so. nothing against description, comparing: just to always ask what we are 'doing'.
In silence all flows. In words all is on the altar of the slaughterhouse.
and words do "do" ...they change experience. they turn ' being' into being so and so.
