 92. Knowledge (True vs False) |
All physically-based “knowledge” is either commonplace (and, thus, a matter of ordinary social convention) or (otherwise) “scientific” (and, thus, the result of the rigorous application of a discrete and discursive “method” of physical “knowing” of presumed-to-be-physical “objects”).
All metaphysically-based “knowledge” is either (as a matter of ordinary social convention) commonplace “religious” or (otherwise) either “mystical” or “magical” or in the mode of “metaphysical philosophy” (and, thus, in either case, the result of the rigorous application of a discrete and discursive “method” of metaphysical “knowing” of presumed-to-be-metaphysical “objects”).
Exoteric “science” is the application of physically-based ideas (or body-based presumptions) to apparent (or presumed-to-be) physical “objects”. Exoteric “science” achieves physically effective control over phys-ical “objects”— and human populations—by means of physically-based technologies.
Exoteric “science” achieves physically effective mind-control over human individuals and collectives by means of physically effective technologies, practical and consumer-oriented inventions, power-alliances with social and political institutions, the broad-scale ritual propagandizing of “scientific” myths, and the broad-scale persistent propagandizing of irreducibly “objectified” beliefs in such ideas as “rationality”, “materiality”, “objective certainty”, “progress”, “analytical reason” as an exercise superior to all other human efforts, the “necessary mortality” of nature, mind, and being, and both the “authority” and the “ultimate sufficiency” of “science” (“itself”).
Exoteric “religion” is the application of metaphysically-based ideas (or mindbased presumptions) to apparent (or presumed-to-be) physical “objects”. Exoteric “religion” achieves physically effective control over physical “objects”— and human populations—by means of (usually, conspicuous) exercises of prescriptive “social activism” and prescriptive “social morality”.
Exoteric “religion” achieves physically effective mind-control over human individuals and collectives by means of (invariably, conspicuous) social and political “moral performances”, power-alliances with social and political institutions, the public proliferation of “sacred enclosures” (such as temple architecture), and the broad-scale persistent propagandizing of “sacred artifices”, such as “religious” myths, irreducibly “objectified” beliefs, symbolic ceremonials, ritual re-enactments, “religious” art, and the authoritarian assertion of such ideas as “objective certainty”, “moral absolutes”, the “inherent integrity and reliability of tradition”, “happiness by means of institutions”, “blessedness” by means of “sacramentally authorized” hierarchies of “religious officials”, “faith” as an exercise superior to all other human efforts, the “necessary immortality” of the “ego”, and both the “authority” and the “ultimate sufficiency” of “religion” (“itself”).
The always first and most basic effort of exoteric “science” is to “objectify” (and, thus and thereby, to surround and contain) the “controller” by defining “it” reductively (or, in the conventional sense, “realistically”)—and, thus, as physical phenomenon only (or of the nature of “physical reality” only).
The always first and most basic effort of exoteric “religion”, and of esoteric “mysticism”, “magic”, and “metaphysical philosophy”, is to “objectify” (and, thus and thereby, to surround and contain) the “controller” by defining “it” idealistically— and, thus, as being (presently or, at least, ultimately) a mental phenomenon only (or of the nature of “mind” only).
All exoteric (or physically-based) “knowing” first “objectifies” the “controller” as “not-self”, by defining “it” as physical phenomenon only, and, then, defines “it” further (and reductively) as physically “external” to “self” (or to the exercised “point of view”).
All exoteric “religion”—and all esoteric metaphysical “knowing”, whether of a “mystical” or “magical” or “philosophical” or even, somehow, “scientific” nature— first “objectifies” the “controller” as “not-self”, by defining “it” as a mental phenomenon (or idea) “different” from “self”, and, then, surrounds and contains “it” by “internalizing” the “controller” as an idea within the “self-mind”. All “knowledge” exercised or presumed by a “point of view” within a totality is bound and limited by and to “point of view” (“itself”).
In every context wherein “different” modes of “point of view” (and, thus, of presumed “knowledge”) are separately but coincidently exercised or presumed— such as “scientific” versus “religious”, or exoteric versus esoteric, or physical versus mental—the thus “different” (or mutually differentiated) traditions (and “methods”) of “knowledge” always oppose one another, and always compete with one another, and always (and ceaselessly) stage de-bunking rituals, in order to “cause” doubt relative to the authenticity, honesty, integrity, verifiability, rationality, supportability, and ultimate verity of the “opponent’s” claims.
