Saturday, December 30, 2006

More on science and alchemy

(that's vegetation data 2) Was thinking about science, alchemy and power. Science is what was working of alchemy, the investigation of nature seeking for mystical knowledge has revealed to get it right sometimes; began to find the way to establish a communication with the material world by grasping the rules underlying it. So that transformation of matter was finally possible. Forget the dragons, jesus and all the other allegories: all we're interested in is the transformation of this bloody matter. The knowledge of what was called nature, but doesn't matter how you call it or what it is now, so that transformation and control over it is possible. So that we can get detached from it and go living in the Grat Nous, Nous in both greek (mind) and french (us) meanings.

The amorality of the cosmology of scinece, as opposed to the one of the alchemist, was only temporary. By relegating ourself in the Great Nous we thought separate our morality from the materiality, as it was matter of the mind, the soul but not of the body; while in alchemy all is embedded in the existent, the rules of the matter are the ones of the soul, on earth as in heaven.

The separation we made was temporary, i said. Yet the lithosphere and the biosphere are breaking into the noosphere (Great Nous) as we can no longer keep it separated. We call it "the environment", now. Can't forget the environment, can you? The Nous Spaceship just crashed on it.

Now, listen to me, the scinetific environment got up on the stage and is giving us lesson on how we have to behave, as a far too physical moral god. Now, good and bad are also defined on their effect on The Environment. Scientists are its monks.

Now, it seems to me that this scientific parabole had the meaning of playing alchemy right, in a purified version; forget the goal, play the rules right, and here you reach the goal. And the cosmology it created is not amoral at all. The Logos of science seems to grasp a lot of what is actually out there, and its voice is terrific at times. It was developed to accumulate power, make bridges, fertilizers and bombs, here it is now speaking again with the voice of god; the one the founders, the alchimists, were seeking for. Just to say that the scientist is a good alchemist, or that science is good alchemy.

In general, there's something wrong with someone in society speaking by the voice of god/truth in all the spectrum between immanence and trascendence.

So, in first place, i love that estimated error that comes along with any scientific truth, as the words of the scientific god are all like moons with a dark side.

In second place, you have to consider the pharisean temple where The Voice gets interpreted.

That brings you to the personal dimension of making the world talk; as if something needs to get interpreted is because it is open to interpretation. Science is still a mysteric language. As a scientist, you seek to make the world talk. Then you negotiate the meaning with the other phariseans, and work out the not so evident evidence. But beyond the evidence, there is the raw result, the raw voice that fascinates me.

In third place, i hope you'll never take me too seriously and that all i write can stimulate your thinking; in forth, I'll figure out one day the very point i was supposed to write about. Logomakonto, amen.


Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to Beta by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro