- Philosophy (ideas). It is when you think.
- Science (reality, world). It is when you observe and think why you do see what you see. Also techniques for observing and body of knowledge gathered in this way. Put a little plutonium in a frog, measure the time it takes to kill it, make a hypothesis, repeat it and now you can make a prediction, find out where that accursed double agent Worobyanin is hiding right now, the rest you know - that sort of thing as well.
- Art (definitions speak about humans expressing themselves, trying to stimulate (?) and convey messages)
- Religion (set of beliefs and modes of life)
- Art is difficult to define, and religion even more. Particularly definitions of art don't seem necessary to me and searching for religion at wikipedia, for instance, probably make clear to everybody that people don't agree as to what religion is quite so well as in case of science and philosophy.
- Thus philosophy, according to me, W.H., is essential if one wants to avoid errors when thinking and science is the expression of the basic urge to 'get' the reality right and not distorted. Art seems to be an urge to perfect and master something and seems to have alot to do with the beautiful. It is not limited to painting alone, obviously, but means the peak performance of a human being in any discipline. Also creations of nature are known to produce impressions of 'beauty' in some and could therefore be called 'art' of some kind. And man, a thinking being, is obviously not separated from the world but rather an integral part of it, thus knowledge of man presuposes knowledge of the world, hence need for science.
- Those three seem to be universally accepted (although the meaning of these words needs be 'redefined' in our heads thoroughly before talking about these categories can make same Work sense) but in case of religion there we meet passionate deniers and passionate advocates.
- One way out of difficulty may be to listen carefully to so called adversaries, because it is found that every time an atheist wretch spits out one of their set, rigid attitudes that are among the most wearied from frequent use, it is followed by self-justifying in the form, "understand me well, I'm not against ethics and humanity and goodnes, but I hate these lies and rigid, ridculous traditions and abuse and greed, and I certainly don't think I know everything etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.". Fine, that is why these so-called adversaries can tell us alot about what religion is, in any case more than so-called adherents.
- But there is another difficulty. There is basically only one music and only one chemistry and only one logic (I know, I know - listen, perhaps you leave this blog NOW and go back to your narrow specialized usless school of formal godelknowswhat), I said, only one logic, BUT: there are hinduists, budhists, christians and so on, and they are ready to cut each other's throats. Well, I don't NOT know what to DO with THIS difficulty, so what is left to me is to try to write some more lines before they cut mine. And first thing I'll write is that IMO, there is probably only one religion even if it does not appear so at the moment.
- Let's see if the gang of four isn't in reality a gang of only one. There should be some common ground as this system tells us that all four are stemming from one central something which could be called, perhaps surprisingly, psychology. (It is stressed that man is not complete and that it is about man as it could be or once will be, and thus that something may not be understood as some sort of science which studies the reality of sick or, perhaps, of exemplary 'top' 'samples' as if man was a stone that a geologist takes in hand.)
- We won't even need definitions. (That was the lucky part. And now for the difficult part.) For a start, we'll just need a thorough destruction of our unfortunate partitions of our broken concept pool - which we are probably used to call 'knowledge' - and getting under real influence of the Work, or the system, or psychology, or Christianity - indeed, we won't even need a fixed name. And to get under the influence one obviously has to begin to regard the notorious foursome as parts of a unity and try to get a better grap of this unity by means of them instead of staying with empty 'definitions' of the each of the four.
- THAT, the foregoing, is what I, W.H., mean when I say that, say, the Holy Bible is not a religious (or christian or catholic, God forbid) book. (This is enough to offend so-called believers.) Suppose you too were to suspect it is a part of a system that, in general, has been lost and forgotten, for some reason - wouldn't you begin to value it?! (Statements like this offend so-called atheists - each of them very, very sober and objective and trained and capable, as they are.) That is how it is, try to stick with this non-violent and gentle and gradual Work and, for some curious reason, offended people on all sides get terribly upset.
"But it was not real, genuine Science, it was the State, the State, who did it!!!" I would say so, yes.
- I hope you can make it to this point without difficulty? You just wait. You aint seen nothing yet. There are seven thoroughly revised and expanded editions of man and, in general, seven main editions of 'our world'. Things might get tremendously complex very soon. You'll get something more meaningful to get passionate about.
Q. You want to get somewhere, just want to get somewhere. . . Well everybody wants to get somewhere. Why do you need to call it System and what not?
A. Your trouble is not that I don't want to answer you. Your trouble is you cannot be answered. You don't even know what you are asking. In fact, you know absolutely nothing. I'd say you need to get somewhere before you come and ask, and I also know where. Just in case you will become interested.
