Comment on this article |
Email this article |
A Science Of Intuition
by Sidney Martinez
Email: prometheanworker (nospam) yahoo.com
02 Nov 2009
(Commentaries on Science, Religion, Spiritualism, Politics and The Resource Based Economy)
Many are well acquainted with “The Modern Scientific Method”, it's the dominant norm of all discovery. It is the underpinning of all Western Philosophy from the end of the days of Monarchs to the modern days of Oligarchs. Of course this wasn't always the case, before the Modern Scientific Method existed a more Associative Method of both reasoning and discovery based on religion. The Scientific Method arose as a reaction to the Associative Method, which dominated before. The Scientific Method was more flexible and fluid then the old Religious Associative Method. Since all things discovered or concluded by science were open to change and progress it certainly trumped the non-changing religious conclusions. The Modern Scientific Method had many advantages over the old associative method... of declaring truths followed by creating chains of association to go along with those truths, then they were later linked back to their starting point, ie: original declared truth. The Modern Scientific Method still differed from the original or “Ancient Scientific Method” in a few ways. In this work we will compare and contrast the Scientific Method used by The Ancients; such as The Greeks, Chinese, Indians, etc. and compare it with the Modern Scientific Method to see the differences. We will show how the Observation and Intuition were used in conjunction with each other by ancient people's. While in contrast to todays world where Modern Science simply writes off Intuition as Mysticism and lumps it together with the Associative Method expounded by Nicean, as well as other Dogmatic and Orthodox Abrahamic Faiths.
In regards to science, everything it discovers seems to be open to alteration, yet when it comes to any suggestions of altering the method itself suddenly the scientific method is dogma and unalterable gospel. In fact, the usual conclusion is that the ancients were even more backwards then those who lived in the Dark Ages. On the other hand as more and more observable evidence is being unearthed such as ancient clock work devices, steam engines, light bulbs, batteries, etc. Some in academia are being forced to admit maybe the ancients weren't so backwards. In fact this whole notion that the ancients were more backwards and things worse off then the Dark Ages is the result of successful propaganda campaigns by clergy from the Byzantine empire on into the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages. In fact the so called Scientific Method of our modern day still accepts and defends certain notions passed onto it by the very Religious non-sense it claims to rail against.
Intuition and Observation
The biggest misconception of ancient people that Modern Science seems to have inherited from Orthodox Nicean Religions (ie: any religion that accepts the Nicean Creed) are that Ancient people were backwards-thinking and very primitive in comparison to the modern age. Furthermore, they tend to reinforce that no advances could have existed that surpassed the level of technology of The Roman Civilization. Of course this runs very counter to all the evidence that has been recently discovered; not the least of which was an Egyptian Steam Engine used to open temple doors. Of course the world in which these things existed was a very different world and ancient humans looked at the world in a very different way.
Picture if you will that you're a citizen of an ancient civilization and you're walking through the woods to some festival. First off, every tree you see would look bright and gleaming with energy since you would have been raised from birth knowing that every tree had energy flowing throw it. You'd know every animal in that forest had the same energy flowing throw it as well. If it was at night time you might see an owl perched on a tree and know it was surely Minerva giving you a sign that new knowledge was on its way. Of course by this idea of Minerva landing it's not that you would think some invisible man or woman flew down from the heavens and morphed into an owl to visit. Rather you'd understand that the specific energy flowing through all Owls is one relating to knowledge and you'd make this association in your mind. Furthermore this Goddess manifested is closer to a Mnemonic device of association. A way to represent the understanding you have about this knowledge, notion, and association about Owls. Sorry to break the truth to the scientific community who lumps all spiritualists in the same boat, but the more Paganistic societies didn't believe in a bunch of Invisible Men and Women in the sky. They knew that these were all iconography created to both pay homage to the beauty and splendor of the natural environment, as well as, at many times, a way to explain how something happened in the past. Over time both legends, myths, and stories merged and people did believe that enough focus on specific Icons associated with collective notions would create specific results a person may want. Through intuition it was a well known fact that if some had an image to focus on and an idea of a result they wanted to manifest, through enough focus, They could manifest what they wanted. A God or Goddess was more of a mass-collective effigy used for focusing and centering.
In fact the whole notion was based on Intuition which is derived from imagination. In this process however the Observed Method was not absent. Quite the contrary since this scientific method which modern science claims is a new invention was in fact part of a larger and more Ancient Scientific Method. The Ancient Scientific Method used both Meta-Materialism and Materialist notions and it used Intuition and Observation to make discoveries. In the modern day the two methods are separate yet both the Intuitive Method and Observed Method are two parts of a greater whole. The Intuitive Method relies on direct and repetitive experience leading to a rationalization followed by understanding and conclusion. Sometimes this is called a hunch, of course the modern person has no clue how to properly use their Intuition to reach well-reasoned and understood insights. Rather they will simply write off any hunch's they develop if they can find observable evidence that leads to the evidence and conclusions. The Fact of the matter is that while modern science writes off Intuition, the ancients and especially mystics embraced Intuition and Observation together as one whole... inseparable from each other. In fact many of the ancient mystics who were supposedly so backwards-thinking were the inventors and scientists of the ancient world. For them they consciously used intuition as part of their conscious thought process and it worked in sync with the observed method. One of the greatest by-products of ancient humans conscious intuition process was the development of philosophy. Philosophers of the Ancient World were also Scientists, Mathematicians, Numerologists, Astrologers, Astronomers, Inventors and Mystics. Of course this was all before we had so many labels to separate these things from each other.
In ancient Greece we find many inventions rumored to have existed as well as evidence that others did actually exist. When modern people think of Robotics they think of modern day robotics, yet the first robotics may have been developed by ancient Greeks. Rumors abound of ancient automaton aka: "clockwork men" which were non-electronic robots running on hydraulics and gears. Legends even speak of Clockwork men armed with swords used in both defensive and offensive military capacity. No evidence of clockwork men used in military applications has been found as of yet. On the other hand one clock work device has been found called The Antikythera mechanism which was a small mechanical computer used to calculate astronomical positions. One theory about its origins puts it as having come from Rhodes which has a long standing tradition of mechanical engineering. Another such interesting discovery is the Baghdad Battery which through testing has been proven to be able to get a light bulb lit. In fact its been proposed that the Baghdad battery was used to power ancient Egyptian Light Bulbs to illuminate the inside of pyramids and temples. Of course academia, with its lack of intuition, quickly dismisses this theory. In China, Gunpowder was developed through the Ancient Scientific Method, In India, Hindu Mystics concluded that “Weight Causes Falling” or that the weight of a mass causes it to fall to earth. In other words, they discovered gravity centuries before it was rediscovered in the West. Heron in Egypt developed a Steam Engine... the worlds first, centuries before it would be rediscovered again. In fact right up until the rise of the church the level or technology of had reached pre-industrialization. By 300 CE sanitation and sewer systems where in use, piping, flush toilets, kitchens with stoves and pans with cooking oil, hang gliders, mechanical clocks, light bulbs, batteries, coin operated machines, toys with moving parts, bronze tanks, flame throwers, and more things that we'll never know, existed since the evidence was purposely destroyed. In fact if you brought someone from 300 CE Rome to 1700's Italy they would pretty much be familiar with all the technology around them. All this just goes to show how far the so-called mysticism of the ancients brought society forward. Of course the main difference between ancient machines and machines developed in the 1700's is that the driving force was not production. Nor was it concerned with helping to free up people from physical labor. While capital was something associations of Merchants (the first corporations) were concerned with producing and generating this capital didn't yet require massive scale production. This is not to say that the technologies to free humans up from the need for doing manual labor didn't exist at this time. Quite the contrary, the technology did exist it's just that in this time period the only force capable of bringing industrialization about would have been some sort of slave revolution that brought about a Democratic and Resource Based Economy. This would have been the only development in antiquity which could have oriented scientific advancement towards freeing people up from the burdens of the same manual labor that kept the Roman state highly productive. Perhaps the masses of ancient people saw this possibility and began wondering why technology wasn't used to take over the jobs previously held by slaves. Whatever the case may be, the rise of the church brought with it a 1400 year setback for science. By labeling all the scientists (Mystics) of the ancient world as heretics, they used associative thinking to label anything they ever developed heretical as well.
The Associative Method
Through the process of association, if a person is declared heretical, one must presuppose this is truth based on the fact that the truth has been declared the truth. Further associations are the only thing you can attach to presupposed truth according to the Associative Method. So this thinking brought about that if all these people were heretics then so are their inventions and writings. So therefore Math, Toilets that flush, Sanitation, Sewer Systems, Medicine, Light Bulbs, Steam Engines, anything that improves the common people's life is demonic . By the same token however, metallurgy and any military technology which continued to be improved was godly. What's interesting is that the Roman Corporations (See On Illuminati Pt. 3 Rise of Templar Banking for more info) aka Merchant Associations made more money producing and selling weapons then developing domestic technologies. It was almost as if someone deliberately wanted technology set back 1400 years. Whats more is the bankers who have always been Knights or Roman Equestrians/ Horsemen (Sir Alan Greenspan Knight of England anyone?). Though the following centuries from Byzantine to The Franks, to the Crusades and so on the Knights went out and made sure the Associative Method was in use.
Of course this couldn't last forever and the controllers of society knew this. Throughout the dark ages many witches were burned at the stake and of course the criteria was different in every case. In truth a real Witch is a type of Scientist at least according to the Ancient Scientific Method. But whats more any form of thinking which violated the system of thought based on the Associative Method could be punished by death. For example if you made potions or herbal salves that helped injured and sick people you must be a witch. On the other hand if you found a sick person and concluded possession or a wounded person and concluded the wound should be bled out the you're godly. If you thought the world was round and that you could sail around it you were a heretic. However if you associatively concluded that the world was flat because you saw flat land around you then you were godly. In fact this brings us to the point about how the church brought about a form of Materialistic thinking. In the society that the church had supplanted the ancients didn't believe Gods to be invisible men and women in the sky talking to them. Neither did they believe the world they could see with their eyes was absolutely physical either. Even before the technology to prove matter is made up of nothing but slower moving light or energy... they knew this was the case. The Church on the other hand told them that this was wrong and that they had to accept this physical world as reality and obey all the laws of an invisible and jealous man in the sky who reminiscent of a police state with high tech surveillance network was able to see them and judge them. In fact they invented this idea of fearing such a reality in people centuries before dictators would have this 1984-type technology, The controllers of society couldn't create it in actuality so the next best thing was to fabricate an invisible man in the sky who could spy on and monitor everyone. Of course this idea was further backed up with the notion that after you die this same invisible dictator in the sky would judge you and deliver punishment. Through associative thinking there was of course no other way to see it and in fact associative thinking is attached to emotion. If one thinks associatively for a long enough period of time the mind will invent experience's to justify their reality to them. When the Associative Method is all that's used, Intuition and Observation are considered deluded and all perspective and information presented by either or both has to automatically be ruled out. What's more is the Associative Method can delude the mind so much to the point that hallucinations may even occur. Which would definitely explain how Nicean Monks can actually see, experience, and chit chat with Jesus or a specific saint. How modern science has concluded that all paranormal phenomena is the same exact thing as the hallucinatory state one reaches through associative thinking is beyond me.
The thing that always gets me though is when I realize how advanced we'd be if society hadn't plunged into the dark ages like it did. In fact if, hypothetically, Spartacus led slaves to dismantle the Roman State and create Democracy we'd be 1400 years more advanced then we are now. We wouldn't have developed weapons of war to the extent we've developed them too. Guns would have probably still been created to be used for hunting in the settling of new areas. Machine Guns probably would have never been developed or bombs, or tanks. In fact all scientific advancement would have been oriented towards better methods for management of resources for the common heritage of people and money would have been completely done away with. When such a society made contact with the Native Americans, no genocide would have ever taken place. Factories and power plants that pollute the way they do would have been designed in ways that had little impact on the environment. I'm not saying things would have been perfect if the church never existed just that they would be allot better. Of course people in the Middle Ages didn't know that the church controlled all information about the past. So while things seemed backwards they told the masses that things had been even worse before.
The Age of Unreason
When the world finally grew tired of the Associative thinking that ruled the previous 1400 years. Of course being raised in that society the thinkers of that period had hangovers of associative thinking coupled with unconscious intuitive thinking. First thing those who developed the Scientific Method did was accept the church teaching that they should focus on the here and now material world. Furthermore, that they should accept this world as being absolutely physical; the only thing they didn't take from this teaching was the part about some fascist dictator judging them when they die. They believed the idea that an invisible all-seeing dictator existed in the sky was crazy. Where they went wrong was that they took this conception of God as the invisible dictator in the sky to be a representation of what Pagans believed. In a very unscientific manner they concluded that the Pagans must have believed in several invisible people in the sky without actually investigating or finding evidence to put forward such a conclusion. They simply took the propaganda of the church that the previous society had been worse off at face value. As a result both Intuition that science will never admit took place and the associative method developed what it thought to be... The Scientific Method. Of course what they created was science without imagination or intuition and instead developed a cold calculated materialist method that blindly accepted an external reality that can't even be confirmed to exist. Case and point, anything you've ever seen with your eyes has always existed in the past. Nothing you can see with your eyes can ever be perceived as it is in the exact moment in which your interacting with it. For this reason anything that can be repetitively observed is always older then the image of it I'm seeing in my mind, of it.
For this and many other reasons there really is no experiment you can ever run or perform that proves the material world is actually here that won't in some way be biased by the eyes. Quite frankly until the modern day observed method that keeps referring to itself as the scientific method has no right to call itself scientific until such time as it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the world in which it exists, in fact... actually exists absolute beyond all uncertainty. Until then there is nothing truly scientific going on with the so called scientific method. Now if you include Intuition with Observation like the Ancient Scientific Method did, well then at least we're getting somewhere. At least in that instance the tool of discovery and problem solving is at least skeptical about the very world around it, rather then rigidly and dogmatically materialist about something we can never be absolutely certain about. For the Scientific Method to truly be what its trying we first need to start with the only thing that we can actually be sure of which is “I think therefore i am”. That's it... the one Insight developed from Intuition that I know to be true; from this Intuition we can next say that I see therefore something exists outside of me. I can't be sure of what exactly it is or if it's even here but one thing I can be certain of is that through Intuition and Observation combined I can work with it, learn about it, and change it.
From Unreason to Reason
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." -Albert Einstein
Of course the greatest nail in the coffin for the scientific method comes from one of the most brilliant thinkers ever produced during The Age of Pisces. Using the Ancient Scientific Method, he developed The Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity, as well as Energy = Mass and Constance Squared or E=MC2. Of course being a modern scientist many people have the strange misconception that he was a Materialist, or that more popular term... Atheist. Atheism, which literally means to believe in nothing, likewise, Buddhists and many Mystics believe in Nothing as well. They believe that if you reach a state of Nothingness where you're simply "Awareness", in a sea of Nothingness and everything is at peace. This Nothingness is bliss or Nirvana and from here is where Intuition first comes about, at least according to Buddhists. Of course Atheists are truly deluded since the fact of the matter is they actually believe in “SOMETHING” Dogmatically I might add. So maybe Buddhists are the true Atheists and The Atheists are truly Dogmatic I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. For Atheists the something they believe in is that the external reality you see with your eyes and touch with your hands is absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt here. Again, I'm wondering how Buddhists who believe in Nothing are not the real Atheists and how Atheists can still claim they believe in nothing. Now Agnostics on the other hand, at least they take a balanced approach and stay skeptical about the whole thing altogether. Heck they're not really sure about anything and leave every possibility open. Sorry Atheists but I can't accept your dogmatic view anymore then I can accept the idea that there's an invisible dictator in the sky who talks to the most anointed (most delusional) clergy/individuals and no one else. Advocates of The Scientific Method, well, I'm still waiting for you to show me an experiment that proves absolutely that nothing exists beyond the material world. Intuition has already proven it exists because the one thing you can be sure of is that thoughts occur and as such... we exist. Yet you can't observe it in any way as a repeatable phenomena, you can't gather evidence about it either, you just Intuitively know beyond reasonable doubt “YOU THINK” regardless if you think hardly at all like Paris Hilton for example. However Observation alone can't be used to prove the observable world is actually real since any observable experiment or data will always be biased by the senses. As long as no other method, outside of the sense's, exists, all experiments regarding the tangibility of reality or matter will end up bias. Well users of the modern Scientific Method, the balls in your court and I'm shifting the burden of proving what you say is real and non-dogmatic back onto you. Give me an unbiased proof positive for reality and the absoluteness of physical matter Einstein need not apply here.
“I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws” - Albert Einstein.
In fact Albert Einstein believed in nothing also, he was sure of one thing above all else, the fact that nothing is truly certain. But beyond that an unknown fact about Einstein was that he admired Eastern Philosophy, Buddhism, and Hinduism especially. He himself would at times describe himself an Agnostic probably because he ruled nothing out. Whats more is Einstein was conscious of how his Intuition was part of his Scientific Method. To be fair it only seems reasonable to call the modern use of The Ancient Scientific Method “The Einstein Method” since the name “The Scientific Method” seems to be taken already. Utilization of The Einstein Method of Intuition and Observation is the only way to truly get back to a truly Scientific Method for discovery and problem solving. Of course when Albert Einstein's was around no one truly paid attention to how he saw things the scientific community could only see black and white. Either you believe in an invisible man in the sky or you didn't, for them, no in between existed, it's like your either with us or against us. As a result of how science failed to revive The Ancient Method herein referred to as The Einstein Method, many failed attempts at solving social problems have been posed and tried and some not even tried yet.
Materialism solves Materialism?
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it!”. -Karl Marx
One of the first attempts to use the Observed Method to solve social problems was developed by Frederich Engels and Karl Marx. When they put forward their new doctrine they did so on the assumption that philosophy of the past only interpreted the world. They assumed this because they were ignorant of the role ancient mystics played as scientists and inventors of the ancient world. Further neither tapped into Intuitive thinking. Between the two they could only observe that no philosophy of the past was concerned with social change. Not that the idea itself didn't exist obviously arch types representing ideas in popular consciousness such as Prometheus had already existed. The thing was these ideas existed as part of collective archetypes and social consciousness. Obviously when the Celts resisted Roman invasion their collective archetypes where all that they needed to galvanize them. Or in the case of Spartacus a Thracian Animist that believed in a secular concept of life energy. Spartacus used the collective philosophy that already intuitively existed as the guide to lead an uprising and advocate a Democratic Society. Its amazing that Marx would have missed the most important Philosopher of all “The Collective Consciousness”. Marx's only redeeming factor was that he at least somewhat praised The Gnostic's. Which is good considering had The Gnostic's actually smashed the Roman State they could have led the world in a new enlightened direction. Of course this doesn't excuse Marx's gravest mistake of all which is assuming the motor force of history is the need to find better ways to produce material things. Further Marx said that the history of all class society is the history of class struggles. Of course what Marx missed was the history of Caste Struggles which differ from Classes. Castes are defined by heredity they are socially immutable cannot be changed by economic activity. Classes on the other hand are defined by ones economic standing in society. In a class society you have some choice over your exploiter. In a Caste system however the social caste your born into determines for life who your exploiter will be. Its because of Marx's Materialism that he couldn't see this difference and further completely misses the true motor force of history. In truth the actual motor force of history is “Human Curiosity” our quest for knowledge is our driving force, or as Albert Einstein described the awe and wonder of everything around us. Perhaps philosophers before didn't need to tell people how to change the world maybe they were free thinking enough in the ancient world to figure out how to change it for themselves when conditions didn't suit them. Of course after 1400 years of religious oppression who could really blame anyone for concluding that people had to be told how to change things. Marx may have meant well and many Socialists today also are well meaning people who want social justice, the problem is so long as they believe in Materialism and a Monetary system real social justice can't be achieved.
As flawed as Marxism was it was inevitable that it would give rise to another philosophy developed by Mikhail Bakunin this new idea was called “Anarchism”. Developed from the same Materialist thinking that Marxism came from, the only step forward Anarchists put forward was the need to get rid of the state. Of course Anarchism was still Materialist and Monetarist not to mention that of the two theories Marxism would have been the more stable system of the two. Considering that Anarchists never have and never will have a blue print or layout for how their society will work we can be sure their system can never lead to real change. Just like during the Spanish revolution when Anarchists where in the majority their lack of any sort of plan led to the rise of the Fascist Franco dictatorship. Anarchists have no plan for economics most Anarchists advocate small scale Monetarism even though this form of small scale monetarism with local currencies already existed in the early days of Rome. They and even constitutionalist's will advocate small scale monetarism while at the same time denying how Roman Equestrian and Merchants developed the Monetary System in the days of Rome to secure power for 1000's of years. In both Marxism and Anarchism Materialism is still the key factor that is the immutable underpinning of society.
As the world developed even more however the modern scientific method made a new observation about the world that would underpin a new idea. The fact that Society had become a High Energy Society ie a society capable of producing more then could actually be consumed. Further because of this It was observed that there could never exist enough consumers able to consume everything produced. This continued skyrocketing of production capacity would eventually lead to artificial scarcity. As a result products of lower quality have to be produced in order to keep consumers spending. Like Marx the individuals who reached these conclusions believed that human beings have a natural inclination towards Materialism. Technocracy as it was called put forward something new which is the idea that money is outdated and no longer needed. Unlike Marxists who want to simply redistribute the money equally Technocrats actually represented the first progressive step beyond the idea of money. While Marxism represented the most progressive ideology developed in the 1800's Technocracy represented an even more progressive step forward in the mid 1900's. Quite frankly when compared to Marxism or Anarchism the Technocracy was an even more stable system in terms of efficiency and the freeing up of individuals from the burden of work. Technocracy also began to solve a problem inherent in Marxism. The negation of economic antagonism by the negating force of upheaval reaching a higher Dialectical outcome of Hereditary based antagonisms which while higher are Dialectically progressive but not socially progressive. In fact this new social division is just another form of exploitation. Marxism in practice tied as it was to a monetary system created various new hereditary castes. Basically whatever job you were born into is what you'd die doing for the rest of your life. Technocracy however reduced the various caste divisions of Marxism into just two. Not necessarily perfect Technocracy at least was able to propose a new system for the equal distribution of goods and services that didn't rely on money or banking of any sort. Technocrats were right when they said the use of Money and market economics was an outdated concept. In place of money Technocrats proposed a new system of measuring value and distribution. This new system would be based on “Energy Accounting” which would basically take an accounting of the actual productive output of all accumulated commodity production. Further a grand total would be calculated such as lets say 10000 this number would then be divided out equally to everyone. Every citizen would then receive energy certificates redeemable for whatever they needed. Of course the system of “Energy Certificates” as well as “Energy Accounting” was not necessarily the best way. Technocrats claim that Energy Certificates are simply a method of inventory control (even if machines could handle inventory control). Like Marxism Technocracy would place one section of society in bureaucratic control of society. Under Marxism its a Dictatorship of The Proletariat and Under Technocracy Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians would be the new Dictators of society. In both systems Central Planning by humans in undemocratic ways is the key factor. The underlying factor in all these ideologies is this erroneous belief that The Modern Scientific Method can be used to solve social problems. This belief of course comes from Secular Humanists who tote the Modern Scientific Method (based on their deluded mystical belief in the absoluteness of reality) as the great salvation of all humanity. The belief is of course is both Dogmatic and Rhetorical since there's little difference between believing the Modern Scientific Method is the great mystical salvation of humanity and that the 2nd coming of Jesus is the great salvation of mankind. Further books like “Dan Browns Angels and Demons” illustrate the point of how very similar Religion and (what passes for) Science (these days) are more similar then they are dissimilar ie they are both Materialistically dogmatic.
Of course Technocracy itself was not the last probable solution that could be offered on the basis of The Western Pseudo-Scientific Method. The newest of the ideologies comes from The Venus Project and Jacques Fresco who split with the Technocrats. It was only natural that someone would eventually conclude if they used the observed method how both the attempt to redistribute wealth (Marxism) and the attempt to bureaucratically redistribute resources (Technocracy) were both flawed attempts to achieve one underlying goal. Quite simply the equal and common distribution of the earths resources. In Marxism however like Capitalism Money is the factor that limits equality and under Technocracy the obvious creation of a dictatorship of The Modern Scientific Method over society is another farce. The natural conclusion through observation one would reach is that humans should be taken out of the equation altogether. Rather then unelected bureaucracies (Technocracy) or cliques both elected or unelected (Socialism) a Self Aware, Artificially Intelligent, Computer, Machine, and Robotic -Ocracy should run everything for us. In truth this conclusion reached by Jacques Fresco is just the other extreme. While its obvious that Jacques Fresco means well and that the Venus Project people mean well, they've made the mistake of going to the other extreme in concluding people should be factored completely out of decision making altogether. In fact its not the use of technology one should take issue with at all. All people should be for using technology to make human life easier and creating a resource based economy where this idea is possible. Quite frankly what The Venus Project advocates should be called “MECHNOCRACY” meaning Machine Bureaucracy. If The Mechnocracy was the only model of a resource based economy in existence it would be the most progressive of them since no other would be able to better provide for humanity and free humanity from the modern day dictatorship of the work place. Quite frankly Jacques was right about one thing and that is that we need to create a “Resource Based Economy” this term and idea put forward by The Venus Project is definitely far ahead of its time. On the one hand to even be able to conclude on the basis of the Dogmatic Materialist Method that society should focus less on materialism and more on commonality is quite Dharmic and a great leap forward. I mean lets face it our modern day society is so obsessed with Materialism and the hording of Material things that its not even really funny anymore. The only laughs anyone can get about it anymore is probably when they see Britney Spears and realize how her and people like her are the biggest jokes this age has ever manufactured. Quite frankly we should all be happy when the remnants of this so called civilized society and all the garbage its spawned are on display in a museum somewhere in the future under a section labeled “ABSURD”. All this drivel has accomplished quite effectively one thing and one thing above all else which is cut us off from our connection to each other and our natural connection to Mother Gaia.
“The world that Scott and Hella live in is a world that has achieved full weather control, has developed a finger-sized computer that is implanted in the brain of every baby at birth (and the babies are scientifically incubated the women of the twenty-first century need not go through the pains of childbirth), and that has perfected genetic manipulation that allows the human race to be improved by means of science.” -From Looking Forward by Jacques Fresco and Kenneth S. Keyes Jr.
While its obvious that The Mechnocrat System of The Venus Project would eliminate one form of rampant materialism the fact is it would do nothing to end underlying Materialism. Because just like everyone else whose come before the so called Modern Scientific Method is still being Dogmatically tooted as the great salvation of mankind. Its great that the Venus Project itself is open to debate, criticism and new ideas from others but if they were truly open they'd open up the Modern Scientific Method itself to Criticism as well. Of course its not very likely that they would, Jacques is still the dogmatic clergyman of the holy Euro-Centric Western Pseudo Scientific Method. It'd probably be asking too much of The Venus Project to open themselves to The Einstein Method over the current Dogmatic Scientific Method. Because as it stands now while freeing up society from one form of Materialism the Mechnocracy would simply create another form of it. In his book “Looking Forward” Jacques Fresco/ Kenneth Keyes assume as any Materialist would that when you free humans up from the burden of working that our attention would turn to other pursuits. This part of his perspective isn't necessarily bad rather what is deluded in his thinking is where he assumes those pursuits will include “Genetically Enhancing Humans” through cybernated systems. Jacques goes further to say that women will be relieved of the burden of child birth and that cybernated nurseries would be created to replace the natural child bearing process. I spoke with someone via e-mail from The Zeitgeist Movement (Political Arm of The Venus Project) about this recently. He replied “everything is voluntary so no one would be forced to give birth a certain way its up to them to decide.” Beyond this he Dogmatically hung on the Modern Scientific Method to biblical proportions. One point I'd raise in response to this is quite frankly what would stop a new caste system from emerging in which Super Humans become the new elite caste with Humans produced the natural way looked down upon by the rest of society. Whether or not money exists is of little consequence the point is that if you have one race of Super Genetically Engineered Humans and then a race of Humans produced the natural way your gonna have new social antagonisms regardless. Man has this person ever seen the movie Gattaca? But moving beyond this regardless of what ends up being the eventual shape of The Venus Projects ideology the current Mechnocratic Version of The Resource Based Economy is not the most progressive version of a Resource Based Economy which can be put forward.
In fact if Jacques had used The Einstein method intuitively he would have insight into the fact that its material attachment to the temporary and not long lasting things which is the cause of all oppression. Like all others who came before Jacques misses the point that its Dukkha the clinging, longing, and wanting obsession with the material and the temporary that cuts off people from their natural connection to the earth and each other. This Dukkha which is the Paradox of Suffering that has been the root cause of all social problems is what must be eliminated. Liberation from Dukkha will cause people to realize what there true nature is “Curiosity” and its this innate fact about us that has always driven both Intuition and Observation forward as the original Scientific Method for discovering the world around us. It was this embracing of Intuition and Observation together that allowed ancient people's to connect with the earth as well as understand and identify with the earth herself. Its no wonder ancient people's regarded the earth as a great mother, and believed that not only was their an obvious observable connection between ourselves and mother Gaia but also that a subtle energetic connection existed as well. The thing about Intuition is that there are times when what is naturally known can't always be observed like the example I used earlier “I Think Therefore I Am”. Just like how ancient people's knew Intuitively that the earth itself was alive and conscious even before such a hypothesis could be proved through observation. Its only recently that a specific radio frequency has been detected in the earth herself. Whats more is that this particular frequency range vibrates at the same level as any human in deep REM Sleep. The Frequency is called Delta and when a person is in the Delta Frequency Range they can literally be on the same frequency range as the earth herself. In fact ancient mystics knew they could consciously achieve the delta state through methods of deep meditation in which they could consciously lose all physical awareness and be at the Gaia frequency range. Some may argue this doesn't observably prove that the earth herself is conscious. On the other hand the observed method can't prove we have consciousness either. If Consciousness can't even be proven to actually exist then how can we even prove the external seen world is here. Western Pseudo Science has no clue no of what exactly consciousness is we rely on Intuition every single one of us to know we are conscious. Beyond that nothing is truly certain when it comes to consciousness or reality, if modern science would only realize this fact then it might get somewhere. Of course even though we rely on Intuition to know we are conscious this doesn't mean we won't ever have some sort of observable evidence that proves consciousness to exist. Until that point however a true scientist must simply accept that they are conscious and simply look inward for insights into why that is. No this isn't like have faith either since it relies on reasonable intuitive insights where as faith is blind only requires itself and any associations it can find to prove its existence.
Unfortunately however The Mechnocratic model of a Resource Based Economy that Jacques Fresco and The Venus Project propose will simply continue Dukkha. Quite frankly the biggest mistake The Zeitgeist Movement especially makes is to throw all forms of spiritualism and Mysticism together in the same boat. No attempt is ever made to apply the Einstein Method in comparing and contrasting different perspective. Einstein himself was forward thinking enough to know there was a difference yet this notion fails to catch up with others. In fact The Venus Project claims that its goal is to bring about all the things religions promise but never deliver (ie brotherly/ sisterly love, harmony, and peace).
Truth be told the Mechnocratic model of a Resource Based Economy offers no real solution to Materialism either. The Orthodox Abrahamic Faiths which have dominated for so long do nothing to develop the individuals consciousness. They do not encourage meditation as a method of obtaining insight or personal growth. They do nothing to cultivate the inner joy and inner happiness that exist in all of us. By that same token The Venus Project doesn't offer any sort of guide or plan for cultivating the individual either. To their credit however at least The Venus Project actually proposes an observable method (based on pseudo science) for changing the world. Now if only this idea was combined with a plan for how to cultivate individuals into the more Dharmicly conscious individuals needed to actually bring about a Resource Based Economy then they might get somewhere. Fact is it would be more accurate for The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement to say that they support the material promises of religions and nothing more. Because cultivating individuals is definitely not part of their program or plan for transition from the Monetary System to a Resource Based Economy.
Further the basis of these criticisms are not on fear of technology and oh no the rise of the machines. Yeah I know we've all been bombarded by the same Hollywood images of evil thinking machines taking over and either enslaving or exterminating humanity. Automating production and freeing people from the burden of labor are great pursuits since they free people up to pursue knowledge. Even genetic engineering that eradicates disease is a great thing as well, we have the technology after all right now to eradicate disease yet profits hold these developments back. We even have the technology to create foods artificially and without the need to waste large plots of land raising animals. Technology is a great thing and it will be even better when The Einstein Method is utilized as the New Scientific Method. There's no reason why technology shouldn't be used to make our lives easier. However I have to draw the line when you start talking about how machines will do all the things governments used to do. When you start talking about cybernated machines that monitor your intake of calories and tell you what you should eat again I have to draw the line. Further when you talk about how machines are going to handle everything for us including having kids for us this is where I absolutely draw the line. Because its obvious to anyone that this would cut us off from our connection to the earth. Of course the argument could be made that there's no observable evidence to support this claim. Well in response sometimes foresight and probability factors can be just as telling. One Possibility is that self aware and self thinking machines capable of problem solving might simply decide that since they make all other decisions for us they should rule over us. Whats more is that since they would already be given control of everything around us the apparatus would be in place for a new type of Fascism to emerge a sort of Sentient Robotocracy. But even if this didn't become the case the other probable future is that people would become way to dependent on machines doing everything for them that they'd grow lazy. I mean why stop at letting machines give birth for us? why not make it so we never have to leave our chairs ever? Why not eventually create surrogates to live in the real world for us?
What's the real solution here is to simply develop machines to the point where they are not self aware and still ultimately require a person to come up with solutions should problems arise. Further if machines are used to crunch all the numbers for directly democratically elected facilitators rather then computer selected teams then that is fine. The problem will always arise that if machines are allowed to become self aware and problem solve for themselves we will ultimately once again lose our connection to each other and the earth. So while we can agree 100% on the need for a “Resource Based Economy” we will irreconcilably disagree over the model of the Resource Based Economy. Of course this has only been a general overview of our criticisms of the Mechnocratic model future writings will delve into the nuts and bolts of the model specifically future writings on The Resource Based Economy.
Going beyond Materialism is the ideal here and the path to doing this is The Einstein Method. Now some may argue well Einstein was a Socialist and to this we'd say that during the earlier part of the previous century Marxism was the best available system to choose from. However having been a former Marxist myself and having read all the doctrines for myself I can honestly say I used to think like that at one point as well. However having been an activist and among the left for many years a realization dawned on me. Quite simply that Materialism was bogus and ever since then I've sought to create a new ideology and a new way of looking at things. The movement I write on behalf of has been developing a new idea for years even as we went along being active in various social movements for change.
I will admit that before we heard the magic set of words “Resource Based Economy” we didn't have a term for the economic side of our new Ideology. Yet Our theory unlike Mechnocracy is based on The Einstein Method and through that method we've arrived at a very Non-Materialist version of The Resource Based Economy. For Directivists we see the creation of any ocracy whether it be Machine based or Human as innately flawed. Its obvious that the Monetarism that has prevailed since the days of Rome has been the underlying problem in society. What should be more obvious is that Materialism as a philosophy and point of view is no longer relevant either. When the best thing the modern Scientific Method can propose for society is a Machine Bureaucracy obviously somethings wrong. Materialism by itself has reached the end of philosophical capacity to produce new philosophy. When this occurs of course the only logical and reasoned thing one can do is go back and re-asses the Modern Scientific Method itself and consider the possibility that perhaps a simple update is needed. I'm not saying we should completely throw it out as Materialists would assume all thats being said here is that the old Dogmatic praise of The Scientific Method is no longer useful. Its time to update so that we can move forward lets once and for all reconcile what was lost 1700 years ago when the great advances achieved by ancient humans went up in flames along with the hopes and dreams of all the oppressed people of the world for the next 1700 years. Its time Modern Science embraced the Intuitive side of the true Scientific Method and embraced a more Holistic Scientific Method.
Of course this is just the first step we must inform people about The Einstein Method as an alternative to The Scientific Method. We invite everyone to take part in this effort to change the dominant paradigm not the least of which would be mystics who have pushed aside by what passes for Science in this age. This process involves new thinking which challenges you to be skeptical about everything even reality itself. This is a challenge to become skeptical about observation in general and confirm and back it up with Intuition and Foresight Using this method it will be possible for others to see other new ideas that go beyond the limits of the best Materialism can come up with.
For us Directivists we've always used The Einstein Method even if we didn't have a word for that method until now. Further we see this as a turning point where the new consciousness that must take hold has the potential to set in. We realize that even Directivism our proposed system is not the final act new and better systems will emerge as a result in the future. Directivism is not even the first stage. Before The Directivist model of a Resource Based Economy can even become possible we must go through a series of stages. First and foremost we need a period of organization, agitation, and activism this of course is the stage we are in currently. The Mechnocrats of The Zeitgeist Movement call this period the establishment of communications teams that will somehow reach a critical mass. Marxists have referred to it as a period of propagandation and agitation as stated by “Leon Trotsky in The Transitional Programme”. Anarchists still haven't come up with a plan for how to get anything done they prefer to be spontaneous about the whole thing. Ultimately what it comes do to is no matter what one calls it the point the first period is the most important of all as its the starting point for any ideology and how we go about agitation is one of the biggest factors here. The Zeitgeist Movement puts forward a complete opting out of the system as its solution. In the movie Zeitgeist Addendum they call for Exposing Fiat Money for what it is this demand is a good thing however they also suggest that canceling your bank account or credit card will somehow raise awareness. Besides the fact that it maybe difficult to change banks for whatever reason such as direct deposit of Social Security or Welfare checks it maybe easier said then done for some people. Many poor people don't even have money to keep in their accounts anyways and they simply use accounts for direct deposit of paychecks. Boycotting the news is also not going to do anything since CNN will still be on whether I watch it or not. Besides that even though alternative news is my primary source of information there are times when its good to know what sort of propaganda the enemy is telling everyone makes it easier to debate the validity of it later on. Boycotting the military is another suggestion and this one is good. Boycott energy companies again this is good as well but only feasible if your financially able. The final suggestion to boycott the political system is going a bit far. Tactically speaking one can still utilize the political system in a manner that helps to undermine the very same system. Fielding candidates at the local level that can use both the election and their office should they be elected to promote the ideas of a Resource Based Economy. Creating a Critical Mass is the ideal but if you form a political movement that has no actual platform, no structure, no democratically elected leadership, no formal membership and no plan of action for how to build the movement. Back when I was the Elected President of The San Diego City College's Inter Club Council (Which meant I dealt with all club affairs on campus) an individual who I'm assuming is a member of The Zeitgeist Movement approached me one day to ask me how he would go about showing Zeitgeist Addendum on Campus. Basically my answer was you needed a registered club on campus to do events, and movie showings etc. Now if the Zeitgeist Movement actually had some sort of bylaws or some sort of formal organization and direction on how to build the movement perhaps some could direct members of the movement to go ahead and initiate campus based student groups on colleges all over the world. Beyond that if the Zeitgeist people and Peter Joseph especially had actually given some real suggestions for moving forward such as being involved in local social justice struggles and working on human rights campaigns it would make more sense. On the other hand there are some well people in The Zeitgeist Movement who have no idea there is another more organized model for getting to a Resource Based Economy.
In the case of our movement organization is number one, an internal structure, directly and democratically elected leadership, plans and tactics. Because we realize that in order to create a resource based economy its going to take formal organization of some type to make it a reality. Beyond this it almost seems as if The Zeitgeist Movement is boycotting grass roots activism in addition to everything else it says to Boycott. I'll go into more details about this in other writings but for now I'll sum up the entire matter by saying a Critical Mass can only be reached with formal organization. Beyond that it also helps for the theorists to actually know who all of the members of their communications team are. Otherwise with no set of tactics or plans you'll end up with 1000's of members doing this or that thing and no one really having any kind of direction whatsoever. At the very least the Mechnocrats could create an Artificially Intelligent computer program that can tell all the members what they should be doing, how they should organize and so on. Or as Venus Project might say that can work with them on plans of action otherwise we'll probably keep running into people who maybe part of The Zeitgeist Movement whom it never dawned on that hey we could carry a Zeitgeist Movement banner at a protest. We The Promethean Workers Association (PWA) on the other hand always make our presence known when we attend social justice related events. This of course stems simply from being organized and having a plan of action, which involve things that are as simple as setting up a table with literature, dvd's, t-shirts , etc to promote our movement. Further we can plan for things like carrying banners and signs at protests with our name and take part in various social justice issues such as Gay Rights, Anti-Racism, Womens Rights, etc we can present the idea of a Resource Based Economy to seasoned activists who already themselves in the fight for social justice. Further because we are an organized group we can get literature printed that promotes the resource based economy and get it distributed where ever we can. These are all things that only an organized group with formal membership, facilitators, branches, national and international offices can get done.
For PWA we see the path to a Resource Based Economy as 4 fold. First there is the period of Agitation this period is followed by critical mass. During Critical Mass either the current monetary system will utterly collapse or enough of a critical mass will exist in case eminent collapse of system doesn't occur that can force it from below. If enough of a critical mass exists upheaval can occur and the people can force a revolution to both end the monetary system and dismantle the state. Building up a new system on top of the an eminently collapsing system would be ideal but then again the bankers won't just allow the system to collapse either. They'd be more likely if the economy crashed to impose martial law and create a new Fascist system. So in either case we still need a Critical Mass to beat back any potential for Fascism coming about.
Whatever way it happens that a Critical Mass brings about the third stage, the next stage would be called the “Transitional Stage” this would be the period of transition from the old Materialist System to the new Dharmic Resource Based Economy. Make no mistake money and banking would immediately be eliminated during the transitional period that old outmoded system would not be tolerated even for one second during the transitional period. Whats important is that during this period of transition it would be necessary to initially organize Input, Output, and Distribution Committees. These committees would be Directly and Democratically Elected and since Money is no longer a factor no need for Elected Officials to establish Budgets and Laws. Facilitators would be considered technical teams and they would be Democratically Elected. Further they'd only be empowered to create and develop the necessary apparatus for the development of Centers. Input Committees would eventually become Input Centers charged with collection of resources for use by Output (Manufacturing) Centers that would then send produced goods to Distribution Centers. The Democratically elected Team at each of the three centers would work to automate each phase of production as much as possible. National and Local levels of the centers would also be created to manage resources. Some aspects of a barter system would exist the major difference is that automated systems would exchange ones regions resources for another. Machinery can't be biased in anyway with this process since they all work in tandem to accomplish tasks. At the same time there would still be human oversight to make sure there is no irregularities in the system. We'd be fools to believe these system could ever be 100% glitch free we are not perfect ourselves so thusly we can't make something in our own image that is more perfect then we are.
Preventing waste is another important thing, to make sure it doesn't occur through “over production” a system of Direct Democratic Proportional voting would be used to determine what should be produced. Machines would then crunch the numbers and run the program to make sure only what was needed and what might be needed in the future was produced. This would prevent goods from piling up in distribution centers and wasting space. Further as an extra layer to prevent glitches in the system facilitators would be in charge of oversight. In effect what you'd end up with is elected Technicians, Engineers, and Scientists. This would see to it ultimately that every single citizen would be provided for.
During the period of transition the old infrastructure or cities would get utilized at least during the interim period. Sky scrapers once used by Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank could now house 30 story farm complexes. And the tops could house wind turbines, trees, solar panels, etc. it wouldn't be the most efficient setup but in the interim period it would work. Eventually there would be a need to create new more efficient cities with a circular design to them for maximum efficiency that would become the new cities. As the Resource Based Economy became more and more established the old cities would be abandoned over time as new more efficient cities emerged. Old cities would be mined for resources. and of course we would get to this point if a detailed blueprint is first detailed for the transitional period. The Modern Scientific Method has yet to be applied towards getting from Agitation, to Critical Mass, To Transition, To Resource Based Economy. The best the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement have done so far (step 1)is Agitate/ gather people into a disorganized movement (step 4) and offer the finale. Which raises the obvious question where in the world is step 2 and Step 3 I've seen The Mechnocrats put forward Step 1 and I've seen them put forward Step 4 but where is the detailed layout of in between? Where's all the impressive designs and drawings of the phase of critical mass? Or the drawings of the transitional period? Its almost as if someone built a Circular City without a power source.
What we've given here is a brief summation of The Directivist Model for a Resource Based Economy. We have a more detailed Blue Print for a Resource Based Economy the first draft was called “On Directivism: Blue Print For a Dharmic Society”. The First draft for the Blue Print was developed over a 2-3 year period by the membership of The Promethean Workers Association (PWA). The Second Draft which is soon to be available contains many revisions. At the time the first blueprint was published PWA had not yet adopted the term “Resource Based Economy” our second draft will be titled “Blueprint for a Resource Based Economy (Path to a Dharmic Society)”. The second draft includes ideas suggested by our membership as well as ideas we received from the general public. We hope this won't be the last edition of the “Blue Print for a Resource Based Economy” either. We invite everyone to take become part of our movement and contribute to the blue print project. For now ours is the only detailed blue print that describes all 4 phases in detail of creating a Resource Based Economy. Join us in our goal of creating world wide Directivism only the Directivist model of a Resource Based Economy can bring about an Enlightened (Dharmic) Society. This is an open invitation to members of the Zeitgeist Movement as well to join a more organized and active movement that hits the streets and is constantly educating people about The Resource Based Economy.
We stand at a turning point in the shadow of an old Aeon of Darkness ready to create a New Aeon of Light Join us in organizing, uniting, and radicalizing around the simple idea that the resources of the earth are the common heritage of all people not ceo's, not bankers, and certainly not artificially intelligent machines. Directivism not Mechnocracy is the answer join The Promethean Workers Association (PWA) today! United we can make our dreams of a better world reality time to rise up!
Statement of The Promethean Workers Association (PWA)
prometheanworker (at) yahoo.com
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license