THE “KARL JASPERS FORUM” UPDATE 23—THE PARADIGMATIC KARL NOT ALLOWED IN THE JASPERS’ RACE—“NICE” GUYS TO FINISH FIRST
2. The moral physics--Other than an explicit avoidance of Jaspers there are more subtle rationalizations that distract from the paradigmatic, i.e., Jaspers. One can be found in Alexander’s (item 10.). There, a fundament is laid to establish a rationalizing complex-system engrossing enough to distract.*** It’s that “Constructivism” moral-imperative in the statement: “Constructivism must be considered as a way to forgo the dogmatism that prevents science from becoming more fruitful and productive today”. That sounds like one is trying to create a problem so that one’s feeling of being needed can be justified.
3. The preeminent school—The syntax looks commendable too. But immediately dogmatism is to be found in the “ism” of the fundament. The “constructivist” foundation is built on and built with materials only from a special and refined dimension, the complex Being limited to the “biological-physiological”. It’s a case of the excluded middle or means. Omitted is the essential ingredient, i.e., the psychological/psychopathological chair of antiquity, a primarily inherited predisposition to be self-critical; it is the psychi-seat of logistics, the interface-adjustable-tool with high-tech complementarity. It’s the unavoidable tool for proper maintenance of physics whether from the various perspectives of quantum mechanics, microbiotics, or humo-molecular biotics (pardon my glossalalia). The limited bio-physio dimension escapes falsification due to the predetermined excluded middle, i.e., means, and emerges as a preeminent school by a vatic-like dispensation of grace alone. The first school mentioned is the “constructivist evolutionary epistemology” and it serves as the minor premise in Alexander’s syllogism. The proposition is that dogmatism prevents science from being productive which is in reality is a dogmatism, as is the major and minor premise. The inference is a contaminated fancy.
4. The University of Constructivism--So, the “constructivist evolutionary epistemology” is more than a school; it is the Constructivism State University. What we have in effect is a holy universal epistemic requirement that must be met for acceptance. The student must have graduated tops from a mandatory-attendance system where evolutionism is taught with little emphasis on the better side of a constructivist principle. The moldable science of epistemology is no longer a falsifiable theory of knowing but a gnostic like revelation with a sanctimonious special micro-bio, molecular glossalalia borrowed from the empathetically charged science of medicine to aid the suffering. Evolutionism’s exploitation of sciences’ humane contributions is comparable to a saintly person whose life-long behavior gave comfort to the suffering and dying. The person’s behavior is so paradigmatic that it has the potential for developing into a competitive vatic-like school. To preempt this potential force, cleric or prelates-like officials are immediately engaged to jump on it and give a Saint Award from the Universal Church of Universality, an audacious presumptuousness that in less than absolute dimensions would be seen as pure but poor politics. The saintly behavior cannot be allowed to have been inspired straight out of a relationship with the unconditional imperative but must have “evolved” wholly depended on the Holy School.
5. Jaspers must be made to recant or burn--In the same way; Jaspers must be leaped upon and exploited to nip the budding school of the unconditional imperative. If it cannot be incorporated those who demand a quintessential intermediate priesthood must sever it from the direct theistic source. The toxic dogmatic inflammatory doxology is, for lack of a better word, evolutionism.
6. The charge against evolutionism, Chair-cleansing and venue detoxification--So, too, ignoble evolutionism is an authoritatively conjured interface, programmable only for corporealizing, and Oxford is the manifold distribution hub of its propagation. It is the locale where the paradigmatic still smolders, where precedents are immortally at hand for witnessing. Evolutionism is to stand lucidly before the judgment Chair currently occupied by Richard Dawkins. The ignoble means to establish a metaphysical-physical worldview is on trial. The literati-litigating course should include procedures that appeal to fair-and-reasonable-connections with Jaspers as an expert witness. And the charge is not only the abuse of children in a mandatory school system, but treasonous collusive conduct, battle-transgressions, while engaged in the historic-primordial struggle. But first, due process must be allowed so that the Chair can be cleansed of bias, righted, by tipping it less away from the psychi side of fair reason.
7. Back to the Dawkins’ Web Page—After a brief sabbatical we should move to the continuation of the new Web Page on Richard Dawkins’ fundamentalism. His popularity, regardless of his intentions, is a force we need to come to reasonable terms about. We need to come to terms with the endless talk about dogmatic knowledge. We need to take note of the blabbering that attempts to distract from the gnostic-like superciliousness of having a direct handle on the origin of humankind. The paradigms, those aware of the limits of the mind, must not be shrouded. And of course the paradigms of history point to the psyche-conscience chair in every individual where the transformation of consciousness is continued through legacies coming in from the periphery of consciousness. Evolutionism is an intoxicating and depressant agent. Evolutionism takes the good stuff of medical research and turns the stuff into a smart-alecky dirty bomb.
* Remember, Alexander is the one who knighted me by mistake, addressing me as Dr. Wood on an e-mail notification that comments were being requested for consideration for a festschrift to Ernst Glasersfeld. I respectfully declined the honor though saw the letter could have been exploited. I mean the note could have been used as verification of my academic status. I brought attention to the mistake but never received an apology or any rescinding notice, so perhaps the honor from the Constructivist Foundation is still effective. If Alexander is a constructionist it could be taken as a “whatsoever I have written, I have written”, for, it is rumored those of the constructivism cloister do not make mistakes. And it is true that one has yet admitted to being wrong to my knowledge.
**As in Dawkins’ clause “nice guys finish first”.
***I doubt that this is an intentional thing on Riegler’s part but rather he is most likely a victim of an at-large think-tank subterfuge.