The Cult of Scientism and Nikola Tesla’s Aether

Scientism, or aether?

Scientism, or aether?

By: Jay

The Reign of Scientism

I recently watched a BBC documentary titled “The Atom: The Illusion of Reality.” In Part 3, the host delves into the last few decades of quantum physics and makes some interesting admissions relevant to subject matter I discuss. The most significant section of the documentary deals with quantum electro dynamics and Dirac’s discovery of the equation that demonstrates anti-matter, and Feynman’s further contribution to this idea. QED posits that space is not a vacuum, but instead exhibits a never-ending cycle of energy that flows in and out of existence, that is borrowed from the future. While that is a complex idea, the main thrust of this essay is not to speculate on that question.

What I want to focus on are the presuppositions of the scientists involved in the documentary, as well as a telling example in the figure of Lisa Randall, how this relates to philosophy of science, and in turn how this is directly connected to pseudoscience that is propagated by the usual establishment suspects, to the detriment of all. After explaining the usage of the particle accelerator in measuring electrons, the host states about the Stanford linear accelerator:

When the physicists [measured electrons in the accelerator] they got their first confirmation there might be a deeper set of rules underpinning the particle zoo. What they discovered from the way the electrons scattered and from their extremely high energy, was conclusive proof that protons have internal structure. In other words, protons were made of more elementary particles. Here were Gell-Man’s quarks….For decades people were confident that the components of the atomic nucleus – protons and neutrons were absolutely fundamental. And now for the first time there was evidence of something deeper. The quark is a tricky and elusive beast. There are six kinds of quarks: up, down, strange, charmed, top and bottom. Also, quarks never exist in isolation with other quarks. This makes them impossible to see directly. We can only infer their presence. Despite these caveats, quarks brought some semblance of order to the particle zoo. In recent years its allowed us to concoct a simple, yet powerful description of how the universe is built up. Basically everything in the universe is made of atoms and is built of quarks and electrons. That’s it.

The ironies in this statement will not be lost on regular readers. For several years now I have written against scientism and analyzed presuppositions and worldviews. What most specialists and scientists in their respective fields fail to understand due to their specialization is the nature of worldviews and how they work. I don’t mean to devolve into psychologism, but I mean instead actual epistemology and metaphysics. Those trained in sound philosophy can easily see what’s at work here, as we unpack this astounding claim, and suffice to say this host and the documentary summarize the standard, mainline approach to these questions you would encounter (as I did) in mainline academia and universities.

Let’s analyze – the first problem with this statement is the question of the scientific method itself. Almost the entire academic world has, for centuries, been under the delusion that the “scientific method” is the best and only reliable means for arriving at an approximation of the natural world. Religion, speculation, emotions, etc., are all lumped into a similar dustbin, giving us no useful data relevant to science. Science, the argument goes, relies on some amorphous form of “reason” (though none of these pragmatists have any idea what exactly reason itself is), that provides us with calculable, generally mathematical results.

These results of the experiments thus confirm or refute any given theory, by some probabilistic approximation. Empirical science can never give absolute certainty, as that is something impossible. Instead, positivistic science and empirical research can give us the highest likely scenario about a given phenomenon, so long as the data lines up with the theory. In the words of one of the scientists in the documentary, “Shut up and calculate.” Allusion is generally made to some assumed belief of the ancient world, such as that Aristotle erroneously thought x, y, z. Thus, they gloriously proclaim, the empirical scientific method is the only reliable source of knowledge about the external world, and computers and iPods prove this to be so. The assumption there being that the Dark Ages was one of rampant superstition, while the scientific revolution brought man out of his self-imposed bondage, and into the light of reason, as Kant famously said.

"M'lady!"

“M’lady!”

Such is the mythology surrounding scientism, and its incorrect narrative of how history has progressed and how the scientific method is the only reliable, all-encompassing Rosetta Stone of gnosis. In reality, the global standardized university system is an epistemic cartel dogmatically committed to enforcing naïve empiricism and reductionist materialism, as well as centuries old, outdated “mass consumption” physics. Granted, not every “scientist” is party to this conspiracy, but without a doubt, no one graduates to international prominence without passing the qualifications of the Royal Society’s Holy Office of scientific inquisition. Nikola Tesla and his classified and confiscated work is a perfect example of this international materialist/monetarist control – but more on that later.

Continue reading

Philo Sophia: A Pretentious Essay

Milla.

What do you know?

 

Dedicated to MJC

By: Jay

It was a dark and stormy night and as I lay upon my couch, I fell into a Cartesian Meditation.  I thought about thinking out loud and thinking itself.  I thought, to think is to lose the flow of thought as thought translates into word.  And I thought about how man’s mind and his ‘nous‘ is the meeting place with God, and how God is present in the stream of thought, and how we have a stream of thought.  I thought about how a whole world can be opened by a book and how different religions participate in a different geist, and how an atheist limits himself in thinking there is only one way things can be analyzed and how under the guise of free thinking this was actually a limitation.

And I thought about an old girlfriend, and how she would have no concern for these things.  Then I thought about why I thought about an old girlfriend and how that isn’t interesting expressed out loud.  And I thought about how superstition is mistaken for religion and how people think that is a justification for rejecting religion.  I thought about a number and how a number is something mysterious, even thought it has the cloak of being purely rational in the Enlightenment sense of rational, where everything is subject to quantification and how great it was that number itself is not subject to quantification.  And I thought about how the idea of subjecting everything to quantification itself cannot be subjected to quantification and how a presupposition is a hinge upon which an entire worldview turns.  I thought about how the mind is a train that can be turned on a faulty presupposition to continue down a wrong track for one’s whole life.

And I thought about how the look of early 20th century trains were something that fascinated me as a child, but not now.  And I asked myself, “Why did I like a train as a kid, and not now?”  And I thought about time and the passage of time and how it is the rate at which we experience light in our frequency or wavelength, and how philosophers speculated about time, thinking it was a constant, but that it is not.  I thought about how people thought time was a kind of substance like “space” and how Aristotle defines substance and how even Descartes used substance and people misunderstand this, because it meant something different than it does in the modern era.  I thought about how people think it means a gooey, gelatinous, semisolid thing, when it meant essence. And I thought about how no one cares what essence is and how idiots in philosophy classes think it’s something cool to say but don’t know what they’re talking about.  I thought about how essence was something a medieval theologian thought about every day and how now no one cares what that is, or metaphysics.

And I thought about how big corporate bookstores sell metaphysics as witchcraft and Tarot and how silly it is to think that is what metaphysics is.  And I wondered what it must be like to be the person who thinks that is what metaphysics is and then I recalled my ex-girlfriend again and that she probably didn’t count as a girlfriend, and that she wouldn’t care about any of these things.

I thought about intimacy and we can only have an approximation of what the opposite sex experiences in intimacy and how that was analogical.  We speak of God analogically and that is Thomistic terminology, but that most people misunderstand this because Thomas Aquinas was wrong, yet no one cares about this nowadays.  I thought about Socrates and the Apology and the dialogues and how funny it would be to walk through my own hometown to ask artisans and politicians what “justice” and “wisdom” are, in the ideal sense, and how they would have no idea, and how the average reader of this post will take “ideal” in the colloquial sense and not the metaphysical sense.  And I thought about how everyone would say “justice” is relative to whatever they want it to be, and how it was no different in Socrates’ day.    I thought about how pretentious the philosopher is and was.  I thought about how we exist in an era of knowledge like none other, but utterly lacking in wisdom and how the Internet represents infinite knowledge, but without the form and meaning wisdom provides and how this was damaging and useless.  I thought again about how our thought process turns on a faulty or correct presupposition like a train on the tracks.

Continue reading

Featured Image -- 5070

Desolation & Redemption

jay008:

By: Jay

Originally posted on The Soul of the East:

In the course of what is now titled Continental Philosophy, three figures stand out as preeminent thinkers able to probe the innermost depths of the human psyche in a way previously unknown since perhaps Shakespeare: Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche and Fyodor Dostoevsky.   These three were more or less contemporaries, and all shared a similar fascinating interest—that of tearing down the ideological idols of their day, and in particular, the facade the individual post-Enlightenment “modern man” conceived himself to be.  While these men certainly had differing worldviews and would likely have debated such grand topics as the precise meaning of God and man’s relation to Him in the universe, they shared a similar distaste for hypocrisy, lies and falsehood, and made it partly their authorial iconoclastic goal to tear away such veils.

Francis Bacon had made it his goal as an early Enlightenment luminary to tear down what he perceived…

View original 3,168 more words

JaysAnalysis Featured on The Rundown Live

 

The Rundown Live was gracious enough to interview me for their podcast and local radio show.  In it, we discuss Plato, philosophy, globalization and transhumanism.

Webster Tarpley – The Venetian Conspiracy

If you’ve followed Jay’s Analysis the last few years, you’ve been aware of my argumentation ad nauseam against scientism, materialism and empiricism. Today I came across a lecture by Tarpley I had not seen that argues many of the same points, but extends the origins of modern scientism back to the Venetians. Included as well are the connections to the intelligence intrigues of the time, up to Bacon, the British empiricists and Bertrand Russell. Readers of my blog will be aware of the suppression of platonic and Theistic worldviews. Here is the basis for that thesis.

Introduction to Hidden Metaphysics, Part 1 – Jays Analysis

In Part 1 of this discussion, I introduce metaphysics (the branch of philosophy, not witch books), and explain why it has been suppressed in the West. I argue that a special metaphysics is the basis for highly advanced technologies, while the masses are spoon-fed garbage relativism.

See these articles for referece:

“Aether Returns to Oust Dark Matter”

“Unified Field Theory”

“Energetic Aether Metaphysics”

“Numbers Prove God”

Energetic Aether Metaphysics

The Egyptian/Pythagorean tetraktys, an image of the fundamental structure of reality, psychical and physical.

The Egyptian/Pythagorean tetraktys, an image of the fundamental structure of reality, psychical and physical.

“‘Everything that is in motion must be moved by something.’ Gregory of Nazianzus, responding to Aristotle’s identification of God as a “fifth element” alongside the traditional four stoicheia, asked: ‘What is the force that moves your fifth element [aether] and what is it that moves all things, and what moves that, and what is the force that moves that?” -Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christianity and Classical Culture, pg. 66

By: Jay

Modern science is very much interested in the question of quantum mechanics and yet still dominated by the reductionist, physico-biological model of reality.  The spirit of dissection and quantification has resulted in numerous, amazing discoveries surrounding the sub-atomic level of reality, which no one can deny.  We learn that at that infinitesimal level, the interaction between mind and matter is much more nuanced and mysterious.  The action of the observer appears to affect the result of the experimentation, especially in regard to examinations concerning light itself, which gives evidence of being both a particle and a wave.  This dialectical, sneaky manifestation light produces suggests several things in my estimation that call into question the current reductionist models of reality, suggesting ideas much closer to older, ancient models, where fundamental metaphysics was based around principles like Eidos, entelechy and tropoienergeia, telos and aether.

One of the central areas of research for quantum issues is CERN, the European Institute for Nuclear Research, and a central figure in nuclear research is of course Wolfgang Pauli.  Readers will recall that I have cited Pauli in past articles, but in this article I want to focus on other elements that relate to philosophy, Platonism, Theism and metaphysics.  In light of recent responses from atheists, it will be especially pertinent to consider the fact that the endeavor of quantum studies from the mind of Pauli and his inspirations were, in fact, based on Pauli’s hermetic and Platonic presuppositions and speculations.  I think that the electromagnetic forces in “nature” are unified by the very things that Pauli was looking into that pointed to older models of reality, especially aether.  And when we consider that perception is an active, energetic presence that subtly interacts with its intentional objects, we are back at metaphysics, like Pauli.

Indeed, a survey of eastern patristic metaphysics, sharing much with Hellenic and Egyptian metaphysics that preceded it, demonstrates numerous insights into how we might construct different models that integrate and harmonize these disparate and seemingly unrelated sciences and topics.  In the case of light, we have what appears to be a contradictory amount of evidence: is it a wave or a particle?  In similar fashion, all reductionist models of reality end up placing particularity in the subject mind of man as something foisted upon the objective world, with no way to bridge that gap.  Since reality is monistic (all one type of thing), in the atheist/materialist view, we have with these sophists a return of the ancient atomists (I am aware that atomists had a more sophisticated view than mere materialism).  Similarly, with both Plato and Aristotle, all reality is reduced at some level to the One or Monad, making temporal reality an emanationist iconographic manifestation of copies of that fundamental reality.  For Plato it was the One, for Aristotle, Prima Materia, etc.  Modern scientific endeavor owes much of its heritage to Aristotle, of course, and in that respect, we should consider a fundamental error in Aristotle that remains today in all his monistic successors.

Continue reading

Numbers Prove God

The Divine is the highest of Infinities.

The Divine is the highest of Infinities.

By: Jay

When considering the question of “proofs” for the existence of God, the history of argumentation has often been lacking.  The dialectical relationship of the empirical/materialist tradition debating with the idealist/Platonic tradition is a perennial feature of the history of western philosophy.  Modern “New Atheists,” for example, are eager to pounce on flaws in the so-called “classical proofs,” as if these were the b-all, end-all of the question of rational certainty for the divine.

The chief problems with the “classical proofs” are that: 1) They do not prove what they set out to prove insofar as they are (classically) based on an empirical theological method that stems primarily from Aquinas, 2) The arguments themselves are non sequitur, where the starting points of the proofs do not logically necessitate the conclusions, and 3) The philosophical and theological assumptions implicit in the arguments are not consistent with the theological beliefs about God in the biblical system.  These three majors flaws have led to centuries of debates that were often fruitless and have allowed overly confident pseudo-philosophers and “scientists” to presume that these matters are bound up with medieval superstitions that were heroically suppressed and refuted by the rationalists of the Enlightenment era.

Ironically, this narrative itself is a modern mythos presented by the “New Atheists” and the average run-of-the-mill academicians.  The modern materialist apologists are themselves buried in a faux dialectic that ignores, suppresses and misses the real issues at hand.   It should also be remembered that ancient and medieval thinkers had not asked questions that would later be raised, and in particular, I’m thinking of more foundational philosophical questions that never entered the mind of the medieval man.  Areas of philosophy and physics that developed in the modern world, like subatomic research, phenomenology and linguistic and semiotic research were not within their purview (obviously).

With such being the case, we can assess that the classical proofs are not necessarily terrible, but flawed due to the fact that they were posited with certain presuppositions.  But what happens when, over time, philosophy and science (and theology) questions those assumptions, and asks how do we make sense of these principles themselves.   For example, all medieval thinkers utilized Ancient Greek principles of logic and geometry.   Numbers, logic, and geometric forms were assumed to be the case: It never entered Roger Bacon’s or Photios of Constantinople’s mind to ask, “How is it possible for logic and numbers to be.”

In other words, the medieval mind didn’t consider things from a meta perspective.  There is logic, but what about metalogic?  Logic functions, but is there a higher level logic to logic?  What are the necessary conditions for the possibility of logic to be at all?  One could probably trace out a deeper connection between the artistic forms that were created in different periods and the development of 3d perspectivalism on a 2d surface, compared with the philosophical and scientific questions that began to be asked in that period.  Were the developments in optics and the study of light influential on the Renaissance portrayal of 3d perspectives?  I’m sure they were.   However, it had not entered the mind of medieval man to think in meta or transcendental categories.

It is true that ancient and medieval man posited transcendental arguments: Aristotle presents one for the law of non-contradiction, as well as filling out a more specific consideration of the different categories, which do match up in certain ways to Kant’s categories, so it’s not correct to say the medievals had no idea of what a “transcendental” was, or what a transcendental kind of argument was.   It is correct to say they did not consider the various sciences and arts from the perspective of how they are possible – what the necessary conditions for the possibility of those things to be were.  When the secular scientistic revolution occurred asking a lot of these questions, western Theism marched confidently along professing the same old, tired arguments that were unprepared to meet the level of questioning the revolutionaries were asking.  Western theology was ill-equipped due to its own assumptions about God’s existence being strictly the same as His essence, Actus Purus, an absolutely simple monad, with all human predicates equalling the divine ousia itself.

Given those kinds of theological presuppositions, it was impossible to meet the onslaught of Humes and philosophes that were merely forcing the western theological assumptions to be consistent.  If God is an absolutely simple First Cause, and this (and the other “proofs”) is the extent of the “rational” evidence for His existence, then it doesn’t follow from that premise that the God presented in the Bible is that Deity.  Perhaps the First Cause is the impersonal Being of Greek thought.  Perhaps the First Cause is the theism presented in Mohammedanism.  Perhaps it is an unknown First Cause of the Enlightenment deists.  It should be evident that this argumentation as presented is useless (and actually harmful) to anyone who professes the Bible in whatever capacity, since these views are not the Biblical view, especially since Thomists, Muslims, Deists and Greek philosophers have all used this  bad argumentation. Continue reading

JaysAnalysis Interviews Author James Kelley

James is the author of Anatomyzing Divinity, published by Trine Day.

James is the author of Anatomyzing Divinity, published by Trine Day.

In this interview I was privileged to speak with author and researcher James Kelley.  James has published Anatomyzing Divinity and Realism of Glory to date, and has expertise in numerous subjects, from philosophy of science to literature to theology.  James explains his thesis on western esoterism and alchemy as a result of the Augustino-platonic tradition and absolute divine simplicity.  From there, we explore the nature of the papal system and church history, to Anglo-mystical imperialism with Elizabeth and 007 John Dee, as well as various ideas about the association of espionage and hermeticism.  Get Kelley’s Anatomyzing Divinity here.

To download the MP3,

Right Click and ‘Save As’

For JaysAnalysis’ other interviews go here!

Veteran CFR/Black Op Spymaster Confirms JaysAnalysis

By: Jay

It’s important to chronicle your successes to be on record, as well as shutting the mouths of all the naysayers. Veteran intelligence master, Dr. Steve Pieczenik, gave an indepth analysis that corroborates my own research last week on the Alex Jones Show. Dr Pieczenik, of course, knows the topic firsthand, but readers will recall that the analysis is the same as my own of April 3, 2013, when I posted this article, arguing it was largely a theater operation.

Plato, Nietzsche…sounds like I’m on the right track.