Contrary to scientific tradition, I would like to write this joint paper with you as a discourse; a correspondence.
What I would like to show, to possible readers, is the notion of Science in the Making.
In fact, I want to steer clear from science as belief; and thus, from any belief in science.
Science is a mental construct, which we create, together.
Rather than selling the public a shiny wrapped theory, I invite all into the kitchen.
I wish for people to see, sense and smell the sweat of the mind in sciencing.
Yes, the acrobatics in the scientific circus is fine.
But how do you know how good it is if you do not see how wrong it can go.
In my mind science has gone wrong to the extreme.
Planetary pollution was invented, designed, created and executed by scientists.
The utter irresponsibility, of scientists playing god, by pretending to be ‘outsiders’.
No, all we do always has effect, including every fart we let go and all we think.
Susie, I would like to invite you into writing a book; as a life performance.
We will need to find out what we can find out in the process.
We will be working raw ideas like crude diamonds, unpolished.
We will experience, and show, all uncertainties that science is based on.
I am fed up with quasi-pseudo-scientists, pretending to be scientists.
I think of those dogma-bashing fundamentalist, claiming they can spot what is ‘unscientific’.
As the saying has it: “It takes one to know one”; thus I call them unscientists.
And consider their work unscience: emotional dogmatic character assassination.
I am weary of the pretence that such unscientists muster; as if they know what is true.
Science studies the unknown; and has no claim on truth, nor on knowledge.
Scientific ‘facts’ are artefacts always; conditioned by our own involvement.
And all we knew and held to be true is already invalid.
I talk to people about the famous Axioms of Euclid (Euklides); all of which are wrong.
It was good that he postulated them, and thus was able to explore them.
But now, having explored them, we know all of those axioms to be false.
”A point is universal; a shortest line can be curved, … parallel lines intersect in many ways”.
In this case, I would like to explore the nature of connectedness.
People looked at that in the form of a boundary, a line or mark of distinction.
Others looked, instead, of the relationship involved, by connectedness as a line, or extension.
In fact, we find that any boundary is, at the same time, a separator AND a connector.
A Fractal is an example in case. Is it a separation, as seen in a bifurcation?
Or is it a connection, and represented by ongoing lines?
In a Fractal we find ‘a bit of both’; we find both in combination.
But what does it mean; are we dealing with mathematics or with … our involvement?
Susie, at this moment in my development of these ideas I’d like to ‘play the ball to you’.
Are you willing and able to muse a bit on ideas of meaning and implication, involvement and creation.
Perhaps you are willing to skip words like “Ontology” and “Phenomenology”; and instead describe what they describe: our different modes of sensation and participation in creation.
And, perhaps, offer our co-readers some understanding of what you mean by a Fractal.
Later, after your musing exposť, I would like to relate Fractals to Cell Division.
At that time I’d also like to sing your praise in formulating the “Time Fractal”.
I can then help the reader understand how it helped me to understand our Soul.
In fact; we can now explicitly describe Live, Life, Consciousness and Health; the (former) Blind Slots of Science.
A toi, O Susie…