civilisationReview

Descartes said, not too long ago, Cogito ergo Sum, or 'I think therefore I am'.  What he meant was that to think meant to question the means by which we get to know.  In other words, the methods, means, perspectives, tools, that we need to construct an accurate geometry of thought, and tool which will not fail us in our quest, or what was once, and quintessentially, a human quest to know and to lead an open-eyed, existence.   From there, the existing means by which people sought to know was questioned, from the pronouncements of the european version of the Catholic or Christian church, the elitist model of comprehending reality, traditions, customs, and so on.   Similarly, and therefore, it is scienfic, or rational, or logical, and therefore sensible. to attack white civilisation as the 'means to know'.  White civilisation has been for too long equated with 'the means to know'.  They determined the perspectives via a host of means, be ...

No source of information can be taken as credible unless it can continously fend off all contradiction as that is the only means by which a source of information can be deemed to be credible. In other words, there is no such thing as an unquestionable source of information.  Any party that claims credibility and demonises contradiction, hence, immediately ceases to be credible as they are attempting to remove the only means by which they can be proven to be credible. In the scientific field, the word that is used is HYPOTHESIS not 'falsehood' or misinformation. Without hypothesis, there is no science.   Terming a hypothesis or contradiction as 'falsehood', 'misinformation', etc, is illogical and downright nonsensical as that disables the very engine that drives science forward. Finally, there is no such thing as 'silly conspiracy theories'.  All ideas and perspectives give us an opportunity to test our beliefs.   I'm curious about differe...

There is more to science and reality that can be discerned by your 5 senses alone.  The wiser will know that one cannot know reality via their 5 senses, but rather, their knowledge of reality is LIMITED by their 5 senses.  When Edwin Hubble said, 'Science is the one human activity that is truly progressive.', he is simultaneously implying, albeit unwittingly, that all that it is the western definition of science ought to be what science is all about.  It also lays claim to the idea of 'human' and 'progressive', thus stating implicitly that their idea of 'science' should encompass ALL human understanding of it, and our path to progress in it should determine the direction of all humanity's pursuit of it.  And that is how an erroneous thought can be 'transmitted from generation to generation.' and has been.  When one claims a definition of something, one excludes all other definitions.  And if one has cultural hegemony, that leads to all others...

Stating that the absence of a rational explanation for something is proof that it isn't true, is like determining that the ocean is a metre deep because my ruler has a maximum of a 100 centimetres. The tools of scientific analysis by the west can only measure that part of reality that their particular historical experience has given them the sense to discern. Just because it works some of the time, doesn't mean it works all of the time, and especially when their particular historical experience has itself curtailed their understanding of 'all'. All tools are invented by a particular History, nourished by all the experiences it contains, and impoverished by all that it doesn't.  The 'reality' of the partial historical development of the west, determines the degree to which their tools of discerning reality is impartial. All tools are invented by a particular History, nourished by all the experiences it contains, and impoverished by all that it doesn't. T...