Brendan Heard and Iásonas Lupus
Classical science had a romantic conception of the world, a unifying pursuit of understanding dictated by values we have since lost.
Just as art and craft were once the same thing, now lessened by their bifurcation, so too were science, art, and theology formerly entwined. All were elements to a philosophy to life, a quest for idealism rooted in thought, observance, study, as well as a commitment to honesty guided by naturalist religious principles (virtue). As astronomy and astrology were once mutually encouraging twins, science was a workhorse to culture, and a foundation to art (such as the lost wax method), and a compliment to theology via natural philosophy, examining traces of the energies of the hidden world in the corporeal.
Post-classical figures, still imbued with classical spirit, had awareness of this. Newton was an alchemist, Nietzsche’s writing is so memorable because he wrote poetically. The proper scientist was culturally aware, and never without concepts such as naturalist strictness of aesthetics, hierarchy of beauty values related to goodness, and order as a prerequisite to expansion and enrichment. Being aware of one’s impetus and unrepentant of one’s bias is a hallmark of confidence. Confidence, reason, and austerity of purpose grant scientific enquiry its strength as a tool and vocation. With cultural awareness and lack of self doubt, this process is recognized as the patriarchal discipline akin to tribal cultural advancement. A genealogical expansion of idealism, inextricably linking it to mores and staples of culture. The artifacts of science were thus objects of art themselves, distinct indeed to specifics of culture. This romantic science worked towards artistic ends, such as advancements in music and colossal sculpture or architecture. And all were culturally entwined about, and succoured by theology, and the religious dictates (moral and mythical) of a defining culture. Philosophy was the speculation of religious impetus, relating it to science and observation, All were in service to the same master, and not split apart, and working against one other, as they are in dwindling broken form today.
The romantic, artistic and spiritually impelled science creates renaissance men. Liberal atheism-science creates effeminate scientistic pop stars with egalitarianism-excuses. It does not even, any longer, obey basic and fundamental rules of logic. The impetus, which is moral and conscious and essentially (essentialistly) numinus, is missing. And despite their smug self-approval, their science sees no purpose in itself, and no idealistic future to strive towards. Only the dismantling of the romance-science and strong purposefulness of the past remains to them. This they do via pseudo-science; lies promoting a mechanistic disorder to the world, told to appease a people who have lost their culture, but don’t know it yet.
In today’s science there are no mad scientists, no men becoming famous for autistic labour-intensive home-experiments. There are no madmen exploring occult territories of the universe in a scientific manner. Just sterile bugmen ‘science’ nerds who strip away the classical origins of the discipline iconoclastically, dividing the spirit, the body, and reason to achieve safe answers that promote a dead routine. The art of science has been neutered by artless, secularized, office-action-figure-collectors who have no concept of romance, exploration, risk, or heroism. Who create only useless convenience gadgets trying to feed from a corrupt system of economic growth.
True science is not only mythical, mystic, aesthetically-minded, and virile, it is potentially chaotic and rife with heroic risk. True experimentalists revive mammoths and sabre-tooths, or accidentally turn into flies in teleportation machines, or colonize of the cosmos via galactic empires of god-like noble renaissance men. Yes, some of these are fiction-ideas, but you see, without the imaginative or romance-view intermixed, the exploration-concept alone is sterile. It is excused with nonsensical mercantile reasons and egalitarianism (NASA gave us teflon) and the point of it all is lost in a fey, gutless, sentimental banality.
Romance-sciences requires cultural-facet-harmony and an aristocratic sensibility, not a democratic or neo-liberal one. When will the Argonauts space age commence?
“Science, that was going to save the world back in H.G wells time, is regimented , strait – jacketed, scared shitless, its universal language dimisnished to one world, security.” – – John Whiteside Parsons