"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
My favorite line from “The Wizard of Oz”.
Why do dogs always bark at the mailman? (1) Because the mailman always leaves and the dog comes running back to you for approval, sitting in front of you looking up at you as if to say,”Ya see what I just did for you? I made that guy disappear, no charge. You know how you’re always asking me ‘Who’s a good boy?’, well there’s your answer, I’m a good boy, try to remember. The constant questioning is giving me a bit of a headache. Oh, yeah, I always want to go for a walk, too. The question I keep waiting for you to ask, you never do, and the answer is yes, it hurt and yes, I miss them. So the mess on the rug, you can call it an accident if that’s what you want to tell yourself. I digress. The point I’m trying to make is that stranger comes here a lot and if I’m not here, he never disappears. You humans sure do have trouble with your attention to detail.”
Scientists (nice segue) are a lot like dogs. Very loyal to their theories, their dogma (come on, you had to see that coming from a mile away), always running up to you as if to say “Ya see what I just did for you?” and, let’s be honest, they mess the rug a lot.
The thing I find so disheartening about science is it tends to make the world less magical and I’m now going to prove to you that it is, indeed, magical. Just the fact that we can understand,in a rudimentary way, how the universe, the world, and ourselves in it, works, is based on a “miracle” (consciousness) that we are nowhere near understanding. Unfortunately, the more we learn, the more people look at the world as just a process, and people are just part of the process. We are not just a part. We are the magic part.
I remember when the complaint against “communist”(really socialist totalitarian) states was the suppression of spiritual thought replaced with cold scientific facts that served the mission of the state to the lessening of the individual but America was different, we were told. I call those the good old days. Those pragmatic Americans have left out the socialism in our totalitarian state. Who says we’re not progressive?
Science, as currently practiced, is dehumanising, dictatorial, and, there’s that word again, dogmatic. Kurt Vonnegut,Jr. wrote at great length about the concept of the ethical scientist. One of this basic tenants was if a scientist could not foresee the negative consequences of his work or knew of negative consequences, the best thing he could do is stop his work and keep his mouth shut. To put it succinctly, first, do no harm.
Money controls the progress of science, at this time. Companies that do research and development do so to refine their current processes not to create new ones to the benefit of mankind. There were once heavily funded governmental r&d agencies (NASA, for one) but those have been diminished over time as not to compete with “free market” r&d. Lobbying, the influence of money, can not be overestimated in the destruction of our society, as it reinforces the status quo, the naturally stagnant nature of a society. So, diminishment of progressive thought through suppression of the arts and diminishment of independent scientific research; almost a pattern emerging. Who could possibly benefit? People invested in the status quo, ie, big business. Lobbying works to the detriment of all. Yes, all.
Science is currently preoccupied with undoing the harm it has already done to the environment. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle when there’s so much money to be made in letting it finish running amok. It hasn’t even considered it’s part in the devaluation of human life. Well, let me suggest science start considering it’s part. There are people that will take scientific theories and bend or distort them to their own ends and when that happens, the scientific community must call them on it.
The concept of social Darwinism is based on a misunderstanding of what Darwin said. Darwin proposed evolution proceeded, succeeded by natural selection; survival of the fittest was a consequence of selection creating superior mutations that would thrive and benefit the species. This process ignores the societal influences present in human development, rendering it inapplicable to mankind.
The people that are driving us to extinction are the most successful in American society. My question is are they the most able, the best adaption to the environment? Looking around I would guess not. That would argue that nature has deselected us and we are happily complying. I would also argue that the solution to our problems is out there but society has somehow managed to put its foot on the answer’s throat because that is how both nature (adaptive) and our society (reactionary) work. Science will continue to mess the rug because it’s been neutered as not to reproduce “irresponsibly “, but the repressive aspect of the neutering remains as does the anger. Nature has a sense of irony, it would seem, but as we all learned in school, nature is just process, so the process is ironic and we are part of the process, qed, we are ironic.
I suppose I could have just said that but that was so pseudo-scientific I couldn’t resist.
If science has made us ironic, who’s laughing? Putting it all together now, scientists are like dogs barking at the mailman, trying to make us think that’s why he goes away when the truth is the mailman is oblivious to the dog. If you went up to your mailman and said my dog makes you disappear, he would laugh.
So who is this mailman? He’s the magician behind the curtain. The real Wizard of Oz, not the flashy hologram used to fool the masses.
Individual spirituality is being driven from our society and being replaced with the false idols of commercialised religion, dogmatic scientific thought, and consumerism. We live in a totalitarian state that wishes to control us, to diminish us to part of the process, to make us feel we are not the magic we are, but can not control the very real state of reality. As we are separated from spiritual thought the decline of our civilization accelerates, to the detriment of all. Yes, all.
(1)Mailperson,if you must; you know, not everything is a gender slight. Sometimes it’s just idiom or convention and in the case of poetry, it can be as simple as a 1 or 2 syllable count. There is precedent and history involved on communication; I’m not saying political correctness is wrong but sudden changes in format or convention can distract the mind from the orderly flow of ideas. I work to consider us all as the same, as monads, and usually I Kant, which in this case means I can. (My first digression, 2 sentences in, I think a new record for me. Progress, always.)