top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

(174) Černý puntík



Science is intrinsically leftist: firstly, it says that we must start from first principles with no preconceptions, no reference to old books, no prejudices or intuitions—tradition is immediately excluded; secondly, it only admits quantitative evidence—the exception has no value to science, hence neither does the individual. If we start from these two facts alone, we have an atomised worldview that conceives a person as without roots to anything. The popular refrain “What’s your evidence for that?” grows from the scientific worldview—refusal to accept your own intuition or experience, deference to what will turn out to be a bureaucracy.


Science also attacks anything regarded as a superstition; and this amounts to an attack on the image, since the image is the process whereby magic occurs—the image is mimesis, as is the myth, and science is anti-mimetic; it refuses to accept that when I guise in a mask I become a god—it sits down and plays “skeptic”. “Could be, could be…let’s wait for some replicable evidence.” Remarkable one-off events (virgin births, resurrections, cures from leprosy) are inadmissible for science—if it doesn’t happen lots of times in a measurable way, it doesn’t happen at all for science; hence science is egalitarian—it’s about uniformity and mass.


We are locked into the scientific worldview, but it’s just circular reasoning: it a priori rules out anything based on quality, tradition, instinct, and intuition and then says, “We have no evidence that this can be the case.” It’s pretty easy to play dumb when your worldview excludes what amounts to art before you even start—how can you “see” if the only evidence provided is inadmissible to your worldview? To think in a scientific way must destroy traditions, must question that men and women are different, must break down races and nations—“I just treat everyone as an individual based on the evidence presented to me,” amounts to the scientific worldview applied to life; it’s also inherently leftist and democratic. It’s without value.

135 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

2 Comments


ttyborn12
Jan 15, 2023

I follow this, but if this is pure leftism then why are the anti-woke IDW science types at such odds with the woke left, why are very (pseudo)-religious, as noted so often? Which side deviates from which? Isn't the false religious furor of the woke what most characterises it? Confusing.

Like
738
738
Jan 15, 2023
Replying to

In real life, people aren’t discrete groups—the left isn’t homogenous and has internal disagreements within it. Really, contemporary Western politics is a dispute between two wings of the left. The “woke” left subscribes to a view that comes from Adorno that says classical liberalism and the scientific method have themselves become irrational “mystifications” that impede liberation (by facilitating, e.g., concentration camps and race science)—the “IDW” left defends an older iteration of “science as emancipation”; yet both are opposed to religion, hierarchy, and order—they just disagree on methods. I will post about this today.

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page