Defining the non-scientific origin of science in a scientific way


I     The hierarchy of four sciences & an executive summary & concluding beyond the limits of this paper
II   Defining a science as the power to refer to reality

III The highest science is about the unmovable and immaterial reality

IV  Science as a finite experience of reality (absolute, hermetica) & of reality as reality

(object, philosophy (of science)) & of the limits of experience (subject, science)

V   Science fights against logic in order to experience

VI  Experience is always ahead of experience: seer, hermetic, philosopher, scientist & average man

VII Scheme of correspondences


The hierarchy of four sciences & an executive summary & concluding beyond the limits of this paper

A university can be defined as an institute at which one can study many sciences. What is many? What is a science (qua science)? In this short paper I will argue there are just four kind of different sciences and all other ‘sciences’ are either a combination of these sciences or belong to one of these four sciences. These four sciences are also hierarchically ordered, the lower science being the science of nature contrary to modern thought that only recognizes natural science as science. A real scientist with a longing for science will study all of the four sciences by translating truth (or ‘meaning’) from the higher to the lower sciences). The scientist the thumb that can touch all four fingers! The hand has got five fingers and I am not stating that the four fingers should be reduced to the thumb. A hand with just a thumb is not handy so the four sciences all have a role, yet a scientist may let a higher sciences enlighten a lower science.

A science whether there is one science or 23 sciences as a science refers to reality contrary to a game. Reality may be seen from the perspective of movement or the unmovable or from the perspective of the material or immaterial. If we make an analogy and say that a science is a subject and that reality is the object that the subject can experience, that is known, we also have to discuss the knowing or experiencing itself (of the subject). Experience from a scientific point of view, that is caught in time and space (that are both threefold), is threefold for in experience, that is each act of knowing, three ‘objects’ are experienced: the limits of experience, the object in its objectivity (the object as object) and thirdly the experience of the object and how the object is in itself. These three aspects of the one experience are the experiences of the empirical (moves in a game, objects in the world), the transcendental (rules of the game, the world-space-time) and the transcendent (origin of all possible rules, the player, the soul). The one experience of the experiencer (‘the player’) is the origin of science and all real scientist that do not merely ruminate, as Nietzsche correctly observed, by logical reasoning (or just make the better moves in a game than average man who are even more average), but really invent new sciences, like Einstein, work from this origin of science. That origin is necessarily outside the scope of science like the eye is outside your field of vision (using a metaphor of Wittgenstein), but is necessary to see. That origin is divine thus science is a divine gift and the according to the rules of science scientists must be atheist or to be more truthful a scientist can neither explicitly be a believer in the divine or a disbeliever for science is science. As a human soul a scientist can or cannot believe explicitly, but implicitly a scientist always is a believer if he is a genius (a human who has activated his or her inner djinn).

To summarize the train of reasoning in this paper: there is a limit of four sciences that are hierarchically ordered, sciences is about reality, reality is in essence unmovable and immaterial, science is the experience of reality, that experience is threefold and experience is beyond itself (experience transcendents itself).


Defining a science as the power to refer to reality

A science I will define by its power of methodological (systematic) thought that enables one to assert with reason that something within that thought or the thought as a whole is either correct (‘true’) or not correct (‘false’) in referring to reality. This is a very broad definition and flawed if one thinks a lot deeper, but for now it will suffices. This definition does exclude games for games to not refer to reality, but only to themselves, so playing games is not the same as doing science. Within a game, a set of rules, moves may be correct or not correct but these moves only refer to the rules and not to something ‘outside’ the rules. The definition may include mathematics if you believe a mathematical world, like the world out there (‘nature’), has an independent existence that is not dependent on our doing of mathematics, like a game only exists when we play it. Depending on your definition of philosophy this definition may include or exclude philosophy as a science.

This definition does not speak about verification (an objective method, meaning that everyone who follows the same method/rules will get the same results, in which one can know whether an assertion is true) or falsification (an objective method to know if an assertion is false) by comparing reality in some way with the assertion. If I would speak about this mathematics would be excluded being a science for mathematics as a science does not proceed by making coherent theories that must be verified or falsified by bridging the theory via a method to reality.


The highest science is about what is unmovable and immaterial

The different sciences are defined by different realities or different aspects of the same reality (that also could be named as ‘life’). If reality is defined (for the sake of the argument) as that what is experienced in sensibility, thought or a combination of both one could argue that reality may be defined by two pair of qualities, namely material-immaterial and movable-unmovable.

Infinite (beings, souls, angels) are immaterial and unmovable, yet (in some way logic cannot understand) they move the material. The unmoving beloved moves the lover from within himself to love and move himself to his beloved.

You have to try not to think in terms of a (dead) mechanical cause (without inner force) for if you do you would think that the beloved cause the lover, by touching him for example, to love the beloved. However in science one can ‘prove’ that objects are not dead without inner (life-)force and are being moved by other objects (postulating a first forceful mover that is unmoved).

The mechanical idea of causation is the result of logic that is projected on reality and according to Newtonian mechanical law an object that is twice as heavy will make a hole in the sand twice as deep, yet if you look carefully with the senses you will see that a better approximation is a formula that squares the ‘two’ making the whole four times as deep. The ‘squaring’ one can explain by saying the objects have inner force that wants to be attracted once it is itself attracted. (When the beloved, ‘gravity’, loves the lover, the object attracted by gravity, the lover is going to love the beloved even more). It seems only from a mechanical-logical point of view that concepts like ‘love and attraction’ are subjective primitive anthropological.

The Aristotelian science in which objects fall because they want to be near the earth is a scientific way of thinking. Leibniz was one of the first great scientist who revived this ‘primordial’ way of thinking and synthesised Newton and Aristotle.

This reasoning makes clear that theology is called a science for it studies objects that are unmovable and immaterial.


Hierarchy of Sciences Unmovable Immaterial Kind of cause (kind of natural science) Q & A Subject matter
Science of nature, chemistry, biology no no Mechanical cause (Newtonian science ≈ a material objects/particles in empty space) What makes the chicken in the egg grow? Warmth etc.! Objects in time & space
Geometry yes no Material cause (Relativity theory ≈ matter as energy/time that fills the whole space) What is the chicken made of? Fleshy stuff! Space
Algebra no yes Final cause (Quantum mechanics ≈ light as future) What is the chicken becoming? A chicken and not a lion! Time as pure inner movement without movement in space. Eternity in space = time
Hermetica studies relation between: theology (God), philosophy (world) & anthropology (humans). yes yes Formal cause The perfect (idea of a) chicken! (So the chicken is more primary than the egg). Subjects outside time & space.Eternity.


Science as a finite experience of reality (absolute) & of reality as reality (object) & of the limits of experience (subject)

Reality is both experienced and experience is an expression of reality (what you can easily understand once you substitute the word ‘reality’ for the word life), so in that sense one can say that reality is experienced and that experience refers to reality.

That implies that the experience of reality (or being) is always already an experience of reality as reality (being as being) and it implies also that our experience or reality is finite (for the distinction between a finite experience and an infinite reality is made), but that in each experience we also experience the limits of experience (for the reality we experience includes our experience but not vice versa).

That ‘implication’ may be hard to see, but what I try to convey is that the reflective moment of the ‘as’ in ‘reality as reality’ is related to the limits of experience and that a science is a reflective moment of reality (from one of the four perspectives). One could therefor argue that for infinite beings (that do not reflect) reality simply is (as it is and reality does not appear as reality). To state it differently: the experience the limits of experience (in experiencing the thought of the limit of experience, that is self-reflection or self-conscious can only occur in the slipstream of once consciousness/experience of reality. The direct experience of reality is first and then the indirect reflective experience of the empty thought of a limit is experience because direct experience is so rich that is overflows and makes the empty thought full.

Experience is a threefold. Experience is the experience of the limits of experience that is the most subjective aspect of experience, which is the side of the one who is experiencing, the experiencer. Experience is the experience of reality as reality, that is the objective side of the subject. Experience is the experience of reality as it is in itself, that is de objective side or what I would rather call the absolute side and is about the relation the subject has with the object, thus that what makes the relation between a subject and object possible.

Reality appears thus as subjective (projection of the subject on reality), as objective (projecting the objects on reality) and reality ‘appears’ as it is in itself (absolute). In the scheme down below it states that the natural sciences study the idea of God and an idea is a thought so God appears in the natural sciences as a subjective thought of the thing (as the essence of the material object). Scientist on this level may think of a thing as a smallest material possible particle or as a monade.

A monade being a smallest particle that is not material, but (how contradictionary it may sound) an immaterial thing, yet a thing. The idea of a monade was introduced by Leibniz who must have argued along the lines that a finite material length could not be composed of points as smallest material for a length has infinite amount of points and if the points were material they would have had length making the finite length infinite. If the points where mathematical they would have no dimensions making the finite length zero for infinite times zero is zero. These the smallest thing must be an energetic force with an intention (will) and perception, that is conscious. Leibniz therefore bridged the categorial difference between what Descartes named the ‘cogito’ that has to do with conscious and is not material and matter that is not conscious by saying that from the inside in a substance is conscious and from the outside material. The body does not have a mind or the mind is not just one quality of material body (as Spinoza probably stated), but the body is in essence a mind. If you look at an object from the outside in a spatial way it is matter and if you see the object from the inside, who the object itself perceives, the object is actually a conscious subject. Modern neuroscientist reduce mind to matter and that means that they must say that a length is made of infinite material points so that the finite length is infinite.

This monade is a thing and as a force it is not material. The immaterial ‘not material’ is not the real immaterial of the highest science for the real is not a thing at all.


Science fights against logic in order to experience

Direct experience occurs in sensibility by the senses when they are not disturbed by logic, as light is disturbed and split by a prism. The logic is based on the (contradictionary) idea of a limit (that one always wants to pass) and the logical understanding can be compared to the prism (and reality being the light). Science must free itself from logic by directing itself towards reality and not towards itself. When science discovers contradictions in reality it is on the right track!

Science of nature makes use of mathematics and mathematics is beyond logic in the sense that it is not-not-logical. In quantum mechanics all kind of non-logical things may appear namely that the same ‘subject matter/object of study’ has two opposing qualities. Take light for example that can be seen as an energetic wave (in time) or be seen as a material particle (in space). Even different sciences within the natural sciences (think of quantum mechanics in which everything is determined by a-causal coincidences, future events that cause events in the present (as in the final cause) versus relativity theory in which there is one eternal present cause that is its effect) may describe reality truthfully yet oppose each other.


Experience is always ahead of experience

The empirical is that what is experienced within the limits, the transcendental is what sets the limits by stating the rules in which objects can appear to us (rather than how they are in themselves) and the transcendent is that what is experienced outside the limits of experience. This experience is ambiguous or rather ‘am-tri-guous’, but certainly not logical (and not scientific if you are a layman an identify science with mere logic), yet it is the origin of science. It means science will always be ahead of itself meaning that it will always progress (in order to make our ignorance smaller as Karl Popper used to say).

This also implies that experience always is an experience of what is beyond experience. Speaking with the tongues of Heidegger, Kant, Aristotle, Plato and Parmeinides the following could be said. Man is always a head of himself and therefor man, the subject, can be in a world, in an experience, in which the subject is with the objects and can experience sensible objects. Being ahead of yourself is exactly like the cartoon Lucky Luc who is faster than his own shadow (thus faster than the speed of light).

Repetition via refinement makes the master: the soul transcendents itself therefor the soul can be in-the-world as an object (body) with other objects that are in the world and in which the body-object can see in a reflection both the world and the soul. The world being the transcendental framework in which objects can appear. The world the rules of a game, the objects the empirical moves within a game (the object world that is the board on which the game is played, the object pawn that is the body and the object dice the forces of nature etc.) and the player the soul. A player can be in a game playing with counters in a game because a player is always already outside the game. (We are in the world, but not of/from the world).

To state it in terms of time: the soul is already always in the future therefor it can be in the present world with past objects that the soul as human (mortal) body can actualise as phenomena in which that is what beyond the soul (God) can speak. I will not clarify what phenomena are beyond what I just said and also not go into the ambiguous object ‘human body’ besides stating (along the lines of Merleau-Ponty) that in the experience of the body we both feel the body possesses us, that we are the body, as well that the body is an instrument for us, that we (as souls) have a body.

Translated in terms of science. A scientist is always ahead of himself therefor he can do science and study scientific objects in which the science and the scientist are reflected. What happens in practice is that you get fascinated by the object forgetting that the object is a mirror in which you may see via the light reflection (that is the world) your own beautiful image in order to see further and beyond your image to the imageless divine (God and his angels).

If you forget a little bit you see yourself and become like a narcistic philosopher who can see himself everywhere. The highest form of philosophy is in India in which one states ‘That (world there) art thou (here)’. India knows the transcendent soul, but cannot transcendent this transcendent experience of the soul in favour of the angels of God and God. The philosopher peers, gazes, away from everything (hating everyone and being unfriendly only loving himself – that is why woman are (luckily) no good philosophers), not dwelling at objects neither with objectivity. The philosopher denies objective objects to have a faint feeling of the soul. The philosopher denounces science and is a ‘know-all’.

If you forget a little bit more you become a scientist absorbed in the light effect, that is the world. The emphasis should be on ‘effect’ to denote that a scientist does not get absorbed in the cause (God and his angels). The scientists looks to what is between objects and stares at objective effects. The world of the scientist is the world of naïve wonder as adventure.

If you forget more you become an average man who is bound to live be the rules that science writes in the heavens of what is possible and not. The average man stares at objects and is therefore ruled by objects. In the world of the average man it is about higher and lower objects, eat or being eaten, master and servant. It is a world of unfertile strive.

To forget means to be blind. To see is to remember and that is to see God in his omni-absense and see his angels (and djinn etc.). Only the man of God knows. The hermetic is the man that wants to forget the philosopher and become deaf for his talk of the truth (that is more truthful than that of the scientist). The philosopher causes the scientist to be effect and the average man is effected be the scientist. Be deaf for the philosopher, the scientist and the average man and one can hear the immaterial angels (and God who his beyond the immaterial) and this immaterial hearing is the origin of immaterial seeing of immaterial seeing and of matter.


Scheme or correspondences

The above scheme I limited for the sake of the argument. Below I give a version of a more detailed variant (without explaining or the correspondences, but with this paper, the key, you may know how to use the key and open the door will appear when you ask a question you are really interested in in the sense that the answer may change your life). These schemes must be considered as ways to capture time as the mirror-effect, the reflection of light (coming from eternity and reflecting to timeless mirror-objects), so they capture light as shining objects, golden rings, keep the light.

This scheme may therefore be treated like the world itself for all elements correspondent to the world and this correspondence is reflected in the scheme itself for the elements within the scheme correspondent by analogy. An analogy between elements means that the elements are identical and different at the same time. (With logic you may find the schema contradictionary because some of the same elements appear at different places in the scheme). This scheme contains more thought than the whole of Western philosophy and is the essence of Western philosophy of the white man. That essence is not philosophy and is not white, but rather black and African. This paper is a gift from the deepest forests of Africa to the Western world.

What may seem odd is that mathematics is identified with the senses or rather sensibility, the form of how the senses perceive. However think about when you did mathematics, maybe in high school, and proclaiming the solution after pondering on a mathematical question, you experience as a riddle, by saying ‘I see it!’. Mathematics is about a flash of seeing. Seeing may express itself in mathematical formulas or poetry.



Hierarchy of Sciences Unmovable Immaterial Kind of cause Q & A Subject matter Time Faculty of the soul Hand-thumb Analogy Element
Science of nature, chemistry, biologyMOVABLE no no Mechanical cause (Newtonian science ≈ a material objects/particles in empty space) What makes the chicken in the egg grow? Warmth etc.! Objects in time & space Present Logical Understanding Index finger Idea of God as experience of limits of experience. SUBJECT.Existence Fire
GeometryMATERIAL yes no Material cause (Relativity theory ≈ matter as energy/time that fills the whole space) What is the chicken made of? Fleshy stuff! Space Past Pure sensibility Ring finger World as the experience of reality as reality.OBJECT.Being-in-the-world Earth
AlgebraUNMOVABLE no yes Final cause (Quantum mechanics ≈ light as future) What is the chicken becoming? A chicken and not a lion! Time as pure inner movement without movement in space. Eternity in space = time Future Pure sensibility Middle finger World as the experience of reality as reality.OBJECT.Being-in-the-world   Air(wind,breath)
Hermetica studies relation between: theology (God), philosophy (world) & anthropology (humans). IMMATERIAL yes yes Formal cause The perfect (idea of a) chicken! (So the chicken is more primary than the egg). Subjects outside time & space.Eternity. Eternity Will & Soul Pink Humanity as the experience of reality. SUBJECTIVE RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT & OBJECT/SUBJECT.Co-existence Water




Submit a Comment

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Verplichte velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

De volgende HTML-tags en -attributen zijn toegestaan: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>