Until a thinking species has an intellectual tool to determine that an idea is right or not right, they can not create new and useful knowledge. And will be living in world mysticism and magic.
When one, individual Homo sapiens creates this tool, they — the specie — will begin to rapidly create new and useful ideas and products. If they do not apply it to an area of knowledge, nothing will really work in that area. It will be plagued by problems.
It is the application of this tool to our technological world that created all the incredible things available to us to use, enjoy and make our life better.
It is the failure to apply this tool to the knowledge related to our societal structure that has doomed to live in a world of mysticism. In which nothing works and, in the absence of technology, we would see that life is becoming ever-more worse. As we fail to solve any existing societal problems, and are plagued by new ones.
A thinking specie that does not apply this tool to their societal knowledge will drift inexorably — in a mystic, toxic fog of fallacies — toward non–viability as a specie. As we are doing…
The most important human being and most important event in the evolution of Homo sapiens was the
creation, dissemination, understanding and use of the method to determine if a hypothesis was right
or not right. Including the associated idea that there must mutually agreed, absolute definitions
for the operative words involved in the corroboration of the hypothesis.
Together, they can convert a hypothesis into a theory . Which can then be used to create tangible, working products. Such as a steam or internal combustion engine, a battery, a radio transmitter and receiver, an aeroplane. And our modern technological world.
This creation — the Scientific Method —was the creation, the product of Isaac Newton. It was, obviously, his most important product. Not his very important laws of motion and optics. But his statement, through the use of the Scientific Method, that “the universe is comprehensible”. We should therefore express our gratitude to Newton by referring to this as Newton’s Method.
Newton may not have been the first to use the tool and may not have originated it. But it was his usage of the tool to create an understanding of one the most basic and important laws of nature that highlighted the utility, the importance, of the concept.
Although it was almost 75 years after Newton’s death that the tool began to be used. Facilitated by the work of a remarkable young lady, Gabrielle Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, marquise du Châtelet. A French courtesan, which makes he all the more interesting, yes? More importantly, she was a renowned mathematician and physicist.
You can read about her at here. And see some pictures. She is rather attractive physically, as well as cereberally.
Her great accomplishment, making her also one of the most important individual to have ever lived, was to translate Newton’s Principia into French. Making it available to much wider audience. Latin was already beginning to decline in usage.
Until this tool became available, the thought of creating new knowledge had been contrary to what individual Homo sapiens had believed during the Dark Ages. Which were intellectually dark. And therefore physically, environmentally dark. As it could be dangerous to your health to experiment with new ideas. There would be no electric light for hundreds of years more.
Until individuals had the “leisure” time — time free from ensuring physiological survival — and a tool to determine rightness in knowledge.
With people believing they had discovered everything there was to know. And if God wanted them to know more he would have told them so. Maybe already have “given” them the knowledge?
But, sadly for Homo sapiens, they would continue to live under societal systems based on coercion. The system that had been in use since “the beginning of time”. And since then had never worked, yes? You can say it “works” when we have the same societal problems that existed under Pharaoh, the Greeks, the Caesar of Rome. The crowned rulers of the Britain and France. The uncrowned Rulers of America.
If we applied had Newton’s Method to our societal knowledge we would have immediately seen why societal systems based on coercion do not work. And would have swept away the mysticism surround the system. Which has converted it into a religion. With those who question its viability being accused of blasphemy, heresy, etc.
“It does work! It will work! All we need is more ‘reform’. New laws, better laws. More enforcement of existing laws”. If a system depends on secrecy and a political police to enforce the rules of the system, there must be something wrong with it, yes?
Let’s think about that. If we take a time period back to include the Greeks we might have as much as 2,500 of history, yes? But of course if we include the Egyptian civilization there would be about 7,000 years, right?
After all, when people were worried about the problem with the calendar in 2000, we were think about “leaping into the 3rd millennium”? But the cheeky Egyptian tourist administration people were touting the idea that they were “leaping headlong into the 7th millennium”.
Anyway, maybe we just take a figure of 5,000 years. And think how long an
“administration” or régime last. For American presidents is now only eight years.
In France it can be ten. But let’s say your are a king or other type of dictator. It can 20,
30 years. And 30 years was once thought to be the period of a “generation”, so let’s use
So we have 5,000 divided by 30, and in round numbers we have about 170 new “governments” and chances for “reform”. But there are many “countries” or national entities. Let’s say 50, although around the world it is something approaching 200? And we have over 8,000 chances for “reform” of our societal system.
And yet we have the same societal problems for that 5,000 years. The wars, terrorism, financial collapses, etc. And probably educational systems, since with better education we might prevent or eliminate these on–going societal problems.
So why don’t we? That’s the subject of this essay.
Continuing… Must you force people to drive a car, fly in an airplane, watch TV, use a computer? No. Because it can increase your quality of life. Can even make money for you if you know how to do it. But nothing in politics — the basis for our societal system — brings us happiness or increases our income or quality of life. If any of that does happen, it almost always means that it degrades the life of another thinking being. Many of them.
Please think of the products of politics: crime, depressions, famine, genocide, inflation, terrorism, unemployment, war. Plus failed education, healthcare and pension systems.
And now, think of airplane travel! When I was young and we had those old airplanes that had an engine with stick on the end of it. I think they called it a “propeller”? Those noisy, vibrating things.
I could walk up to an airline counter and say “I want a ticket to [somewhere]”. They would tell me the price (there was only one price between two points) and I would give them the money. The ticket was “as good as cash”. Good for a year. Use if or cash it in. And you could fly whenever you wanted, whenever there was a scheduled flight.
When I checked in I would hand them the ticket. The only conversation would be brief and of a pleasant “social nature”. Within a minute they would hand you a boarding pass and tell you about the departure time, gate, etc. Your bag or bags had already been checked and taken away (at no additional cost).
Security? They did not ask for any ID. More amazing, in those days I sometimes carried a .38 police special revolver with me. I would plunk it down on the counter, saying “Oh, and I have this with me”. Being busy with my bag and boarding pass (they had to fill it in my hand…) the girl would absent-mindedly say “Oh, yes. Please show it to the Captain when you board the aircraft”.
The usual response of the Captain was “Is it loaded?” Always interested in safety, I would have the cylinder open showing there were no cartridges in it. “No.” “Okay, why don’t you just keep it with you?” Although sometimes they would accept and ask me to collect it when debarking at the destination.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather walk out to my airplane and get on as I did, and have the noise. Than what exists now. And of course what exists now is caused by politics. By a societal system based on coercion.
It seems like I am drifting away from the main theme, but not, Let me continue with something else…
The high cost of things now as compared to, say, 15 years ago. Is caused by politics. The terrorist action known as 9/11. The terrorist act of George W. (Dour Leader) Bush in creating a war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now because of worry about all types of acts of terrorism, all shipping costs have risen enormously. The procedures, the paper work. And the cost of “certifying”” a product for entry into America. You must be able to trace everything in the product back to it’s original source. Even if it is some farmer in Cambodia, Thailand, China, Vietnam.
Because of this, something that should cost $1 costs $10. And all because of the easily preventable
9/11 and of Bush”s terrorist actions. Well? They did create terror, did they not? When a poor
Afghan or Iraqi farmer saw his house and family destroyed by an American?
Continuing with the main theme, you say “Politics can not and does not create all those societal problems!” If you think about it clear enough, rationally enough and long enough — using Newton’s Method to verify the ideas — you will find that these are in fact products of politics. If not, then where did they come from? They are an artifact, an expected result, of politics. Of a societal system based on coercion.
The thing that made all previous “civilizations” (national or political entities) fail.
A decade ago, as I watched the airplanes slam into the World Trade Towers, the first thought that came to my mind was “Hmmm. This is an inevitable result of democracy. Of a societal system based on coercion&rdqo;. Which I will discuss elsewhere.
Please think about this. Maybe apply Newton’s Method to some of the sacred “principles” of societal systems based on coercion. Of politics.
I intended to end there. But one more thought…
Earlier I mentioned definitions. You might apply Newton’s Method to definitions of operative concepts of politics. Such as conservative, crime, freedom, liberal, justice, liberal, etc. The “etc” is in case of think of something to add later…