Are modern techno-sciences, the technoscientific tools of the bio-informational (capitalist) model, magic? The question, as such, could be considered provocative. In the age of bytes and genes, what could be considered “magical”? Touch screens? Smart machines? Genetic redesigns? Insect-sized robots? Mapping brain reactions without them being expressed through speech or/and gestures?
However, the generalized use of pocket machines (for example today’s smartphones) or the generalized use of biotechnological applications (for example in vitro human fertilization), their proximity, affinity, the average social familiarity with hi-tech objects or processes, does not exclude at all their fetishistic treatment. Quite the opposite happens.
It is not merely about the fetishism of commodities—which Marx had correctly anticipated. It is about a generalized technological fetishism, primarily concerning all those applications that are constantly multiplying in the everyday life of laypeople. It is about a generalized technological enchantment, which will become increasingly intense as the distance grows between the knowledge of the “average user” of machines or processes and their operation, construction, historical origin, materials, and the intellectual background of all these “wonders.” Already, pocket tools are “magical”: they perform actions and miracles, doing so much more than users could ever imagine (or even ask for).
Commodity fetishism, in general, is located at one end of the consumer chain. At the other end is advertising. Advertising is the mythology about the attributes and capabilities of commodities. Therefore, if at one end there is the consumer, at the other end there is some team of specialists in mass culture, mass psychology, etc.
The fetishism of high-tech commodities, or even “non-commodities” in the direct sense (such as social media, which are offered for use free of charge), has additional characteristics. The magic of technology, from beginning to end, involves particular attitudes and specific ideas concerning high-level tools (and the sciences that shape this high level) and their value within societies. In the early links of the chain of enchantment, we find not only the specialists in promoting commodities, but also the professional ideologies of technoscientists. It is a core of professional ideologies that relate not only to the division of labor and power within capitalism (a division that is now unstable), but also to the legitimation of this division within the totality of social processes. The technoscientist specialist is not simply a bearer of a separated “knowledge” (the quotation marks are deliberate here), which can and should be critically examined for its partiality, privileges, or its (social) cost. This specialist is also a reproducer of an invisible (perhaps) yet coherent and unyielding system of appropriations—through knowledge (or ignorance); of hierarchies, standardizations, or exclusions of knowledges. Foucault would speak of knowledge/power. We do not dismiss this important approach at all. We understand it alongside a more traditional schema: knowledge/capital and knowledge/labor.
The fetishism of technoscientists, their theorems (usually arbitrary or conditional) of cognitive superiority because they are much closer to the Truth of the World (with a capital “T”) compared to any non-specialist, this cognitive fetishism of the first links in the chain, the peaks of whatever cognitive pyramid, this special fetishism runs through the entire chain of regulations and evaluations when it comes to objects and/or processes of technosciences. The consumer (the end user/handler/beneficiary) accepts not only the supposed excellence of the x or y application (device and/or process), but also the entire hierarchy of cognitive stratification, which the technoscientific specialists produce and reproduce in their favor. Maintaining the proportions, this is the same model as that of religion. There is a difference between “miracles of faith” and “miracles of technology,” and of course supporters of the latter mock the former (until quantum physicists prove that the former are also real). However, there is great similarity in the ideological functions.
Two things are meant (so as not to be accused). First, that it is a completely different thing from any knowledge its ideological (or, even more importantly, fetishistic) investment. I know in a documented way, it is important. Equally important is the not knowing. The ideology (and fetishism) of technosciences is to systematically deny the second. They present categorical Truths (with a capital “T”) even though those that can withstand being such are far fewer than those served. And of more limited power.
Secondly, the “non-expert” is not a knower, especially when they think they “know” because they surfed the cyberspace and picked up the nonsense that impressed them…
This report deals with the metaphysics of techno-sciences. It is not a complete guide, but an introduction. The occasion is somewhat old. However, it made a big impression in its time. And, for this reason, it is educational.
tao and physics
Five years ago, I had a beautiful experience. It was this experience that set me on a new path, and it was this experience that led me to write this book. One summer afternoon, I sat by the sea. I was captivated by the sight of the waves crashing onto the sandy shore. Nothing else occupied my thoughts except the rhythm of my breath and its correspondence with that of the waves.
Suddenly, I realized that my self, my immediate and ultimate environment, the universe, was following the steps of a magnificent dance. As a Physics teacher, I knew very well that the sand, the rocks, the water, and the air around me were nothing more than collections of oscillating molecules and atoms, which in their incessant motion interact with one another, constantly creating and destroying other molecules and atoms. I also knew that the Earth’s atmosphere is continuously bombarded by “cosmic radiation,” carrying molecules with excessive energy from the edge of the universe, causing countless collisions with air molecules.
All of this was familiar and understandable to me, since I had been studying theoretical physics for years. But until that afternoon, I had only grasped these concepts through descriptions in books, diagrams on blackboards, mathematical symbols, and equations. And suddenly, as dusk approached there at the edge of the shore, my theoretical knowledge became visible! Yes, I “saw” cascades of cosmic radiation descending from the sky, I “saw” air molecules colliding, I “saw” the interaction between the molecules of my surroundings and my body as they obeyed cosmic rhythms. I “felt” the cosmic dance within me, around me, everywhere. I “felt” the eternal rhythm of existence and non-existence, I “heard” the hum of the universe, and I “understood” that everything I had grasped was nothing else but the Dance of Shiva, the Lord of Dancers, worshipped by the Hindus.
I had already completed many years of study in theoretical physics and experimental research. But during the same period, I had become interested in Eastern Mysticism, and I soon realized its parallels with modern Western Science. I was particularly drawn to the philosophical issues of Zen, which reminded me of the riddles of quantum theory. However, initially, the perception of these parallels remained at the level of personal thought. It could neither be proven according to the demands of scientific rationalism nor become a tangible experience according to Eastern teachings.
As time passed, the indicative elements of these parallels multiplied. Thus, I was forced to move from mere suspicion to investigation. I took it upon myself, neither lightly nor excessively, to bridge the gap between analytical thinking and dialogical experience. My path was difficult.
At first, I used “dynamic plants.”1 They helped me understand how freely the human mind can move and “dance.” How effortlessly archetypal knowledge emerges from the depths of consciousness. I still remember my first experience with the “plants.” I used them after years of analytical thinking. The synthesis and vitality of the concepts emerged so vividly that I felt tears of joy, and like Castaneda,2 I wrote down my impressions on paper.
Later came the experience of Shiva’s Dance… Other similar experiences followed, which progressively helped me understand that there truly is a wonderful harmonic correspondence between Modern Physics and Ancient Eastern Wisdom. For many years, I continued to take notes, both from my experimental research and from my dialogical experiences. Some of these notes took the form of articles that were published. Eventually, all of them became a book.
…
This is the first half of the prologue of the book: The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Written in 1974 by Fritjof Capra, an Austrian-American physicist with significant studies and a research career in particle physics, systems theory, and quantum physics, the book was published in early the following year (1975) in the US by an insignificant publishing house, only to become a bestseller “by word of mouth” and subsequently go through 43 editions in 23 languages (!). The Tao of Physics caused a kind of “scandal” in its time: because it proposed similarities and analogies between the hardest core of the then pioneering theories of physics, essentially quantum theory, and ancient Eastern (Chinese, Japanese, and Indian) philosophies and metaphysics. For those, however, who were not scandalized, The Tao of Physics was yet another confirmation, and indeed an unexpected one (coming from a Western physicist at the forefront of research), of the superiority of Eastern beliefs/religions over the West.
Today, that book would be considered anywhere from indifferent to unacceptable (in our parts and beyond). In an era where physics is super-equipped, for example, with a large hadron collider (CERN), it seems inconceivable to associate it with metaphysics and mysticism—“Eastern” or anything else. The sciences overall, and especially cutting-edge technologies, those that is which produce more or less impressive applications, appear absolutely separate or even hostile towards what the average mind perceives as “metaphysics.”
It is not possible to provide a reliable summary here of the Tao and physics of Fritjof Capra—a book full of Western physics (including various excerpts from its sacred monsters, from Einstein to Heisenberg, and from Bohr onwards…) and, correspondingly, Eastern philosophies. Capra speaks more analytically from the perspective of quantum physics; and it is there, mainly, that he finds analogies with philosophies of harmony of the world, synthesis of opposites, etc. We will focus only on certain points that could contribute to an initial critique of the, let’s call it this way, “truthfulness” of the sciences, even if they are not merely theories or hypotheses but produce applications. Or, to put it slightly differently, on points that could contribute to an initial critique of the compact complex of techno-sciences, critically addressing their validity—a validity considered self-evident because they “produce” results (applications, technological achievements, etc).
Early in his book, Capra provides a brief retrospective of Western science:
Cartesian philosophy was not only of particular significance for the development of classical physics. At the same time, it drastically influenced—and continues to influence to this day—the Western way of thinking. Descartes’ famous formulation “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) led the Western human to equate his identity with his mind, ignoring his organism as an indivisible whole. As a consequence of Cartesian dualism, the familiar perception of most Western thinkers—and everyday people—was formed, that their true self is an isolated “ego,” hidden within their body. The mind was separated from the body, the brain undertook to control the organism in a suppressive manner, and this dimension brought the conscious will into conflict with unconscious instincts. Moreover, the initial Cartesian separation was extended, literally leading to the fragmentation of the human being. Humanity was divided into parts, hierarchized under the perspective of an arbitrary moral evaluation. The Western person saw his desires conflict in terms of his abilities, his expectations in terms of his subjective “beliefs.” He fell into the chaos of an ongoing metaphysical confusion, a permanent bitterness and disappointment regarding himself. He reached the point of approving one part of his personality and rejecting the other. He became proud of one part and ashamed of the other. He denied harmony and peace for himself and became a prisoner of disappointment.
This internal fragmentation of the human being, caused by the adoption of Cartesianism, also reflects the perspective towards the “external” world, which is seen as a collection of separate objects and events. The natural environment, from this perspective, is considered a complex of separate parts, each available for exploitation by different interest groups.
This divisive perspective subsequently extends into society itself, through the formation of different nations, races, religious and political groups. Thus, the belief in the existence of all these separate parts—within ourselves, within our environment, and within society—constitutes the fundamental cause of contemporary social, ecological, and cultural crises. This belief represents the curse of Cartesianism, which alienated us both from nature and from our fellow humans. It caused an unequal distribution of natural resources on a massive scale and generated global economic and political chaos. It stirred waves of violence, both spontaneous and legal, while simultaneously polluting and corrupting the natural environment to such an extent that every manifestation of life became sick, both physically and intellectually.
Thus, the Cartesian separation and the mechanistic view of the world had both beneficial and destructive aspects. They marked extraordinary successes in the development of classical physics and technology, but at the same time had devastating consequences for civilization, humanity, and the planet. Western science reached its peak in the last decades of the 20th century, thanks to the Cartesian separation and the mechanistic perception of the world. Today, we see it surprisingly abandoning its faith in fragmentation (of the “inner world,” the environment, society) and returning to the idea of unity as expressed by the first Greek philosophers and the religions of the East.
In contrast to the mechanistic view of the West, the East preserved and nurtured a purely “organic” perspective… In Buddhist philosophy, the mindset of dividing the perceived world into separate parts, as well as the perception of the self as a separate and isolated entity from the environment… is called avidya (ignorance) and constitutes one of the lower states of mind, which can nevertheless be overcome:When the mind is in a state of disturbance, it sees the world as a multitude of separate things. When the mind settles, the multitude of separate things disappears.
Here Capra makes a fundamental mistake. The Cartesian “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) caused a slow but dramatic revolution only to the extent that it did not imply presuppositions and limits on what “thinking” means.3 Otherwise, it was a “child” of the Christian hierarchy which, through philosophy initially and later science, shaped “Western thought”: the superiority of the mind and thought, the inferiority of the body. Because, while the “palaces” of Christianity (the intelligentsia, the higher and highest hierarchy, various orders, various monasteries) demanded from the simple faithful the “believe and do not inquire” (they supervised the masses of the “poor in spirit” and the “bodily weak”…), they themselves investigated; in ways that were compatible, even if at the limits, with their dogmas.
The distinction, the separation between “body” and “spirit”, and the hierarchization of “spirit” in a very high position (and of “body” in a very low one) preceded Cartesianism. It even preceded Christianity as an organized disciplinary religion. From many perspectives, it was a product of the administrative and military aristocracy and its courtiers, in various mass societies of the distant past (China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt). In any case, it was a metaphysical/ideological doxa, suited to the interests of various castes of intellectuals/priests within the power structures, already 2 or even 3 thousand years BC. The entire secular “economy” of both individual and collective Egos, which found one of its prophets in Descartes and which, in the 18th and 19th centuries, began to develop on one hand through scientific thought and on the other through the asceticism of the body and daily life (under the political and ideological hegemony of the then bourgeois class, and indeed its most puritanical versions), had and has theological, metaphysical, ideological (or however one wishes to characterize it) origins.
Whether this seems paradoxical or not, this origin is quite closer to the foundational principles of Eastern philosophies; much closer than one would expect if one were to mythologize the latter (which Capra indeed does). Even the excerpt from Buddhist philosophy that we reproduced above (as well as almost everything similar that Capra cites in his book) refers to the mind. Of course, it is a mind that is not only “logical” but also intuitive; a mind that is simultaneously thought and transcendent experience. Nevertheless, its seat remains there: in the skull.
It is correct that there is indeed a very significant difference between what (Western) religious metaphysics transformed into sciences (with physics and mathematics among them as queens), at least until the 19th and the greater part of the 20th century, and what the (Eastern) philosophies / metaphysics produced. However, the difference between what Capra correctly calls mechanistic and reductionist / fragmentation as the basis of Western science, on the one hand, and organicity / holism / inspiration as the basis of Eastern philosophies, on the other, should not be sought in the pragmatism of the former and the transcendental emphasis of the latter. This difference, its sources and causes, should rather be sought in differences in practical purposiveness of one or the other “philosophy.” And when we say “practical usefulness,” we mean usefulness for the accumulation of wealth, power, prestige, etc. On this issue, Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism always provides invaluable assistance.
More critical, however, is this: the question of Truth (with a capital “T”). Is there such a thing, a priori and from time immemorial, which therefore must be “discovered,” one way or another? Or is it a “constructed concept,” a concept theologically / metaphysically constructed, whose constructor is either science (in our times, the techno-sciences) or philosophy, but which never ceases to be a construction, always limited disproportionately in relation to the beliefs of its adherents; as if we were always saying it is small, much smaller than its radiance? Western scientists (at least until quantum physics and quantum mechanics in their full development) might have disagreed in everything with mystics, if it were possible for them to be measured against each other, but they would have agreed on this: yes, there is Truth in the world (in the macrocosm, in the microcosm…). Particle physicist Capra appears enchanted by this mystical version of the answer, back in the late (Western) ’60s and early ’70s, when thousands of other Westerners had also become fascinated by the distant East, even if they didn’t quite understand what exactly it was about (the exoticism alone was enough):
…
The Mystics of the East do not attempt to grasp reality only through words, symbols and ideas. Above all, they try to “feel” reality, through direct emotional experience. We read, for example, in the Upanishads:
Whoever hears what cannot be heard,
whoever grasps what cannot be grasped,
whoever sees what cannot be seen,
whoever tastes and smells what has no taste or scent,
that which has no beginning or end,
that which is at once the greatest and the smallest,
such a one shall be freed from the mouth of death.
The knowledge acquired from such an experience is called “absolute knowledge” according to Buddhist terminology, since it is not connected with distinctions, categorizations, hierarchies, abstractions—in other words, with qualities that characterize limited rational knowledge.
…
Capra appears enthusiastic. He gives no importance to the fact that the “absolute knowledge” (as if we were to say: Truth) he mentions is something like a “ticket” of exemption from something related to death (referred to as “mouth”). If, however, death (not as an event; that is inescapable; but perhaps as fear?) is, in one way or another, the cause (of the search? of the construction?) of Truth, then any mystical (Eastern) “absolute knowledge” / Truth, as well as any scientific (Western) truth, is nothing more than offerings and supplications at the altars of this fear.
There have been (serious) differences in the ritualistic, syntactic, and ideological aspects of these supplications. Capra insists that mystical Truth is “more true” than the (historically, at least) rational (of the Westerners):
The mystics of the East insist and repeatedly emphasize that ultimate reality can never be the object of a rational formulation or a demonstrative argumentation. It can never become the object of an oral or written description, since it transcends the realm of intellectual capacities. Absolute truth cannot be expressed with the limited instruments of intellectual thought, that is, words, whether written or spoken.
We read again in the Upanishads:
It is something that is not seen by the eye,
that is not spoken by speech,
that is not grasped by the mind.
Something that we do not know and do not comprehend.
How, then, could we possibly teach it?
Lao Tzu, who calls the “absolute truth” of the Buddhists Tao, many years before the appearance of Buddha, begins his teaching of the Tao Te Ching with the following phrase: “The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao.”
The fact that “absolute truth” cannot be transmitted does not mean that it does not exist! On the contrary. It exists as such, beforehand and regardless of who and how many will reach it… However, this is very well known in Western metaphysics / in Western religious mysticism: it is called “illumination”. “Divine illumination”. Personalized, and impossible to be transmitted as such.
Strange or not, a similar approach, certainly in a more pedestrian way, was shared among Western physicists and mathematicians of the 19th century. Not that “absolute truth” is not grasped by the mind; but that it is not grasped by the common mind. Not that it is not expressed in speech; but that it is not expressed in common speech. Not that it is not seen by the eye; but that it is not seen by the common, naked eye.4 Ultimately, Western scientists did not completely reject inspiration (on the contrary: in the personal diaries of many of the most famous among them there are such references to “unexplainable” and “sudden” inspiration that, as if by magic, solved many problems for them…). They simply wanted (and created) a coding of Truth that would fortify and secure them against adherents of “truth by revelation”—that is, against the priests. It seems that in the East, there was no such need…
In a way, it seems that Capra also recognizes our reasoning above (except for the last sentence; crucial from a political point of view!):
…Natural scientists basically use the knowledge offered to them by rationalism. For their part, mystics deal primarily with the knowledge of inspiration. But, in both the field of physics and that of mysticism, both kinds of knowledge often intervene.
…
Consequently: there is a common foundation (and there always has been, at least in what is called “historical times”): there is a Truth, from the foundation of the world, independent of us, which we can nevertheless come to know. From there, two different branches (at least two) emerged. For Western scientists, the search for knowledge and Truth—of—the World meant the dissection, the breaking down of things into ever smaller pieces, until (for now…) subatomic particles, bosons, etc. For Eastern mystics, the search for knowledge and Truth—of—the World meant vision, contemplation, some kind of empirical “Revelation”.
Western scientists originated (as we have already said) from a metaphysical tradition similar to that of Western mystics (though much poorer). And essentially, they never cut the umbilical cord with this metaphysics / theology.
In the presentation physics as ideology (an event of game over, at the Physics Department, on 29/1/14), under the title “the law of nature”, the following were supported:
… Apart from the idea of searching and discovering Truth through fragmentation [there was extensive reference earlier in this particular presentation], there is another one that lies at the beginning of the sciences and their development, and runs through them. It is the idea of “law.” Physics is full of “laws.” One would say that the Truth – of – nature is of a constitutional kind. [Which was perfectly suited to the political approach of the rising and revolutionary urban class of the time for organizing societies: laws constitutionally enshrined, against the arbitrariness of kings and the church…]
This idea itself, which seems commonplace, shows the origin of the basic conceptual foundation of the sciences from their great adversary, theology. For the latter, the order of the world was a product of divine wisdom, a product in some way of divine “ordinances.” The idea of “divine law” (which regulated the order of the world but, even more intensely, the order of human relations) was consistent, as it was framed by the idea of “divine justice,” of “punishment” (of offenders), etc. Law without a court and punishment cannot be conceived.Scientists moved the idea of “law” from the heavens to their observational field; however, they re-invested it with the supposed validity of the immutable. Indeed, the “laws of nature” are presumed to be even more inviolable than human ones, since they do not fall within the possibility of revision. And they are constituted as such by the repeatability of a certain result, in a specific process, provided that the same basic conditions always apply. But these “laws” do not constitute a kind of justification for each phenomenon. They are merely the statistically confirmed conclusion to which the scientists themselves arrive.
…
There is at least one guilty secret behind many of these laws, a secret that betrays the extent to which the Truths of physics are, ultimately, intellectual constructions. These are the well-known yet mysterious “constants.” From g (the acceleration of gravity) to h (Planck’s constant), from k (Boltzmann’s constant) to Avogadro’s constant, even to that endless π in the relationship between the radii and circumferences of circles, every time a “constant” sprouts, it is to cover a gap in (scientific) explanations.
Some theory (in its mathematical formulation) must be preserved, since the results it theoretically predicted appear to repeat in experimental procedures; however, it has not yet been fully explained, nor is it possible. Let us therefore “plant” a specific number (the “constant”) in order to save face and the theory’s credibility in the face of the demand for authority in scientific Truths.
…
The idea that manufacturers of “scientific Truth” (whatever that may be) promote for mass use, as Universal, General, High, and with the Power of “law”; the categorical statement that what is called science (as we learned it in the West) has nothing to do with what we call religion (as we also know it in the West—and others know differently in the East); these are entirely conventional, even fake. And they are intended for consumption by the lower to middle levels of the techno-scientific cognitive hierarchy. From students to mid-level (technical) personnel in research and professions. They are also intended to be adopted through the consumption of applications: if it works, why isn’t it Truth?
At the highest levels, far from the “general public”, the issue is viewed entirely differently. The Theory of Everything that many techno-scientific specialties passionately pursue is nothing more than a secular variation of the metaphysics of divine (omni-potent) knowledge. And it is not just one or two, but dozens, even hundreds of top physicists and mathematicians in Western science who have come to invoke (or believe in) the “existence of God.” Not as an old bearded figure—those are images for popular consumption. But as a “supreme power.”
Indicatively:
God is the creator of the universe and the one who freely shaped the laws of motion.
Robert Boyle, physicist and chemist, considered by many as the founder of modern chemistry.
The more I explore science, the more I believe in God.
Albert Einstein, the known.
It may seem paradoxical, but in my opinion science is a safer path to God than religion.
Raul Davies, physicist, Kelvin Prize from the Institute of Physics in 2001, and Faraday Prize in 2002 from the Royal Society.
The sense of wonder leads most scientists to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being… A Supreme Intelligence that dominates all creation and the laws of nature.
Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize in Physics 1979.
Every scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God becomes greater through every discovery about the world.
Joseph H. Taylor, Nobel Prize in Physics 1993.
The deeper and more systematically you study science, the more you believe in God.
Lord William Kelvin, physicist, with a secure place in the history of physics for his theoretical work in thermodynamics, the idea of absolute zero, etc.
Both religion and science need a faith in God. For believers, God is the beginning. For physicists, God is the end of all theories… For the former, He is the foundation. For the latter, He is the criterion of validity for all general laws about the world.
Max Plank – who doesn’t know this name;
Science is unable to answer how it is possible for matter to be created from nothing. We have reached the limits of our intellectual capabilities the moment we admit that since matter cannot be eternal and self-existent, it must have been created.
James Clerk Maxwell, physicist and mathematician. The history of science places him, not unjustly, in the same rank as Einstein and Newton.
The first sip of natural sciences will make you an atheist; but at the bottom of the glass, God awaits you.
Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1932, for his contribution to the creation of quantum mechanics.
God is a mathematician of very high order, and He used advanced mathematics when He created the world.
Paul A. M. Dirac, Nobel Prize in Physics 1933 (along with Schrodinger), one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. He theoretically predicted the existence of antimatter.
The metaphysics (up to theology) of Western science is rooted long before “things that work,” inventions, applications, and the technological wonders of the latest wave become the most basic parts of everyday life.
On the other hand, the fact that “things work” is not proof of Truths. It is proof of conventions that are (have become) strong. Within these conventions that have meaning-making value is also this kind of utilitarianism that serves the capitalist spirit.
“Things work” (without the public being able to explain how) even in the hands of sleight-of-hand artists. But there are many cases of “things that work” without a theory and some Truth with a capital “T” being necessary as a prerequisite. (Our many distant ancestors, archers/hunters, managed just fine without any science of tensions and trajectories).
Consequently, the fact that machines work (when and how they work in every historical period) should be disconnected from the ideological framework of their superiority. This would be (at the current stage of changing the capitalist model) a crucial initial act of disenchantment.
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #06 – 06/2016
- With the term “dynamic plants” the author means hallucinogenic plants. We speculate about various types of mushrooms. ↩︎
- Carlos Castaneda, a Peruvian who migrated to the USA at the age of 25 and subsequently studied anthropology at UCLA (University of California, in L.A.), became famous in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, thanks to three of his books (The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge; A Separate Reality; and Journey to Ixtlan). Castaneda wrote these books during his anthropological studies. There he described his experiences (mainly the “initiatory/knowledge experiences”) from his relationship with a Mexican Indian shaman, who in the books is called don Juan Matus.
Initially, Castaneda’s books were enthusiastically accepted, not only by those segments of the countercultural youth of the 1960s and 1970s who were “exploring” alternative (to Western culture) worldviews (usually with the help of hallucinogens – in Castaneda’s account of don Juan, the key substance was peyote), but also by anthropologists. Later, various members of the latter category criticized him for arbitrariness, even accusing him of writing fiction. In fact, since the issue of shamanic/Indian culture and knowledge became a subject of debate among countercultural (American) specialists, it inevitably entered the arena of Truth, of the True Truth, etc.
Shamans, like the indigenous populations of various regions of the world, do not write books; this is well known… ↩︎ - The cursed and excommunicated by both Christians and Jews, Spinoza, with his “Ethics”, had proven what it can mean (where it can lead) the heretical liberation of thought from religious taboos: to the proof of the existence of God with ruler and compass! That is, to the proof of the superiority of human thought against all theo-logies!!! ↩︎
- More and in greater detail in the series of texts thought and circuit – Sarajevo. ↩︎