sC is concerned primarily with revealing more ‘objective’
(which can be translated into ‘normalized’) lenses and
understandings of the mechanics of ‘everything that is’
and ‘much that isn’t, too’. Even a brief glance
at human history reveals that sC and pHilosophy were both born from
a unified garden that generously and recombinantly includes elements
of common knowledge, art, and what we now refer to as spirituality
Simplifying this vastly, we can say about sC that
it concerns itself with the ‘how’ aspects of the questions
of relation we devise and encounter. Its sibling, pHilosophy, is
primarily its opposite — conserving an more direct relation
with questions of meaning, and ‘why’. Both are ‘rather
more mechanical’ or abstract versions of their unified parent:
cK/sP/aR.
o:O:o
The formative history of sC is infinitely fascinating,
in part due to the sufferings and intrigues of its youth and rise
to common sovereignty in terrains relative to how human beings credential
and shape knowledge, themselves, and their planet with technologies
of knowing and implementation.
Since its earliest emergences, sC has been in constant
co-creative evolution in concert with all the other gardens. It’s
birth was marred by an almost instant polar-combative relationship
with sPirituality, primarily due to sP’s preference for a
generally accurate poetic metaphor over a superficially
factual pseudo-mechanical one. This was and is the rebellion
of a child against its sources — not without merit in many
cases, but certainly not the best strategy for either sC or sP.
sC, optioning resources and momentum from its competitor-sibling
pH, was able to eventually escape this persecution to some degree
by successfully effecting the more solid establishment of a set
of defense-modes. These generally involve ever-more incontrovertible
presentations of ‘verifiable’ ‘evidence’,
as well as whole organs of method, abstract theory, proofs, commentary,
&c.
o:O:o
It’s very difficult to mark in Time the ‘common
emergence’ of sC as something akin to its modern form, perhaps
because we cannot say if our ancestors considered and experienced
their mechanical understandings as being more formal than poetic.
It appears the opposite is true, that the ‘sCience’
of the Egyptian and their earlier precursors were ‘propoetic’,
and thus they were organs of cK/sP/aR that were primarily concerned
with method — but not with abstraction from sources. This
is a truly fascinating potential undisclosed to us in our experience
and understandings, that the re-solution of science lies in its
free recombinance with its true sources and relations, all of which
are elementally magico-poetic. These sources and their children
need never be in overt opposition, for all of them are actually
a single garden. co-emerging.
sC in modern human experience is largely the servant
of Commerce and materialist logics of assembly and relation. In
this position, its vast potentials of the generation of entirely
new modes of itself, and new modes of learning — are largely
silenced, and pressed to the benefit of elements in our human cogniscium
which would see our world, our cultures, and our peoples reduced
to the willing slaves of highly artifacted ‘versions’
of our gifts and opportunities. In effect, the miseries inflicted
on sC in the name of ‘progress’ and ‘commerce’
are so heinous that its modern children are born deformed, and crippled
in such a way so as to serve the preservation of tyrants, and the
acquisition of terrain so as to utterly fail to qualify as ‘progress’
in any but the most abstract, and thus inhuman, of domains.
sC, driven and supported by the wrong species of social
or cognitive momentum, is amongst the deadliest forms of knowledge
on our world. The essential mechanicality of its metaphors and positions
cannot be established without discarding 99.9999999% of what is.
By optioning the extreme narrowness of focus made possible by this
overwhelmingly speculative first step, sC creates lenses with which
we can attempt to reduce phenomenon to predictable results based
upon maps of pre-established science. This is an extremely dangerous
game, because it leads us spelunking into terrain we’re creating
as we travel — and these terrains are often in the opposite
direction of the results or understandings that we purport to seek
in entering the caves in the first place. In fact, merely beginning
this process, and placing high precedence upon its revelations and
outcomes — can actively destroy, forever erase, or radically
negatively alter that which we sought when we chose this tool of
solution.
In short, sC is in fact a miraculous garden of potentials
and knowledge, yet it is easily converted to a plague that could
silence a living planet — especially when it exists at the
mercies of momentums whose goals are more related to terrain control,
copying, caching, and mimicry than they are to any organismal or
sentient progress.
Sentient progress sustains the thriving intercreativity
of all participants, relations, connectivity, and its nursery —
first, before any other goal. Anything which copies itself, or dramatically
aids in the furiously exponential copying of artifacts — real
or theoretical — caches our cognitive and ecological and energetic
momentum, effectively robbing us of every possible domain of real
progress, while wearing the symbols and value-associations that
mark it as ‘the best and greatest transport to progress’.
This mimicry is not a root aspect of sC, but is instead
the product of its the competitive and mimetic environment it emerged
into at its dawning. Since many other organs in the mesh were already
acting and proceeding mimetically — sC was forced to join
the masquerade of impostering in order to survive, and accrue the
momentum necessary to establish itself in bold opposition to the
poetico-magical or control-hungry tyrannies of the Church and State.
Not that all religions or states were tyrants — but in relation
to science, in general — they were. sC represented a direct
threat to every possible form of extant authority — and thus
anyone with half a wit left could see that it had to be muzzled
and brought to bear in support of existing symmetries.
Though it has invented and in some cases honorably
sustained an incredibly well-credentialed position amongst our existing
ways of knowing — its practitioners are, in many ways, far
more vulnerable and trapped than those of the arts:
Commerce and Human Bureaucracy rule every element of the resources
and community of sC. This crippling circumstance is, in the large,
responsible for the misapprehension of sC academically, in its practitioners,
in its products and in the general shapes that it must congrue with
in order to gain co-operation resources from its own and other gardens,
participants, transports, and relations. sC has never had the essential
liberty to become what it was born to be, precisely because of the
necessity of muzzling it and bringing it to the service of powers
opposed to its goals.
Thus the sC we experience now has almost nothing in
common with the real shape or promise of this garden. Silenced,
forced to act as the slave and soldier of momentums it would never
voluntarily associate with, sCience awaits a day of liberty, when
we will at last have the opportunity to gaze unhindered by codicil
and argument at an ever-more unified body of its potentials and
organs.
Selected noticings about this garden:
Of all the gardens sC is the most formal, and is considered
to be the most objective and ‘true’ path to ‘fact’.
Fact is considered an incontrovertible position on the elements
and relations of a real or theoretical circumstance, and sC is the
arbiter of what the shape of fact is, as well as acting as sovereign
in the domain of credentialing fact.
sC is an organizationally motivated garden. It concerns
itself with naming, definition, classification and deconstructive
modeling. Valuing overt relations which are easily tested, sC attempts
to re-create a ‘secondary model’ of the universe, organisms
and relation which is ‘more accurate’ than the models
would have access to with sensing alone, in the absence of sC. While
many amazing toys and technologies certainly arise from this game,
the conceit is absurd: that a single way of knowing can be ‘more
accurate’ than the informally adept and anciently evolved
gardens and beings it arises with(in).
sC posits a potentially (and likely) false starting
position, and negotiates this into reality with demonstrations of
mechanics and artifactual produce which serve to mollify our desire
to understand ‘why there could be objectivity’ in the
first place. Though we can all understand objectivity from a theoretical
perspective, we are also somatically aware that this position cannot
be real — since no ‘objective’ organism exists.
Organisms are definitely not objective in any
sense of the word. Mechanism is, but requires organisms
to exist or have meaning, and those are highly charactered individuals
and assemblies. sC’s objectivity-conditioning obliges us to
value an extremely impoverished terrain as having true precedence
over charactered observation which naturally doesn’t
exclude the identity, circumstance, and character of observes, contexts
and histories. The peril of positing objectivity as real is obvious:
as sC becomes ‘more true’ in common agreement and experience,
its organs are constantly at labors to enforce this false ‘character
removal’ upon aspects of thought, logic, experience, culture
and personal identity. Thus it is we find ourselves ‘increasingly
diagnosed’ with ‘errors in our sentience due primarily
to our own activity’ by extrinsic systems, experts and ways
of knowing which have neither understanding nor prowess as regards
our actual natures, experience, reality and universes of relation.
o:O:o
sC has been assembling itself formally as an objective
knowledge-way only for about 300 years. The separation
of sC from its precursors in sP and pH is an event of extremely
recent origin. Of that period, only about the last 100-150 years
‘look much like actual science’ from our current perspectives
as a species. In the past 50 years, the face of sC, its products,
character and transports have been entirely rewritten, almost from
scratch in many areas. This has a vast set of expanding effects,
the sum of which are notoriously difficult to notice or predict.
While attempting to enable us to better cope with our organismal
reality, sC is actually the primary architect of most if not nearly
all of the threats our species face, moment-to-moment, on nearly
any scale we may imagine. This is truly the garden of ‘The
Sorcerer’s Apprentice’, and our relations with and around
this garden are the most crucial to deeply understand and liberate
from their anti-organismal, and often anti-cognitive history and
circumstance.
o:O:o
sC provides access to technologies primarily through
the application of limitation and specificity elements from pH.
The result of this is highly function-specific understanding, which
values access to mode and method to the degree that meaning and
potential damage of application are completely set aside, except
perhaps as afterthoughts.
This results in a situation where a given technology,
acting as an organism in its own right, begins accruing cognitive
and physical and energetic terrain far its due — to the degree
that it becomes a mimetic threat permanently replicating in the
biosphere, its proponents, its victims, and the human cogniscium
in general.
Because ways of knowing, and their children are constantly
at pains to acquire survival, they must consistently re-copy themselves
into new forms and expressions, while remaining unchanged in their
essential desire to dominate terrain and replication resources.
This desire is borne forward through the devaluing of anything that
would allow this process to be revealed to the hosts and victims,
and thus it tends to accelerate geometrically at any scale, or in
any population-sample.
The acceleration is in many dimensions: cognitive,
experiential, physical, energetic, contextual and even semantic.
The gardens where we assemble and value meaning are far too delicate
to subject to such an overwhelmingly adept terrain-predator. While
sC holds forth many valuable toys of access — its outcomes
thus far have proven largely omnicidal. Perhaps this is primarily
due to the fact that it must apply to the gardens of Commerce, Government
and Militarism for its sustenance. This unfortunate relationship,
which has proven ever-more deadly to organismal reality on Earth,
must be resolved now, if our species, and our science...is to survive.
o:O:o
sC is the most alien and non-organismally friendly
of the gardens in terms of its actual functioning, output, and the
understandings it implies and asserts about the nature and meaning
of cognition, living worlds, and ‘what we are’.
