Brainstorm #1 – “The Disregard of Science to the Mind” – Philosophy – 12/31/2020

“Science is the discoverer to limitations, not what is unlimited, pertaining itself to the form, being so flawed as to be opposite from the mind.”

– Modern Romanticism

If science can relate itself to things so logical, then it cannot be for the mind. Not for the mind, because the brain would be of each thing so illogical that nothing of conscious awareness can be dissected, of another. When we are illogical, we understand ourselves, as we understand our imperfections. When we are logical, and only ever infinitely so, we comprehend the same in unlimited amounts of imperfections upon and within us, wanted by us to be perfected. We cannot perceive what another perceives, making of science the ultimate flaw that causes all others. That is, for what science perceives, is what it comprehends of itself. Though, how can a person dissect their own conscious awareness? A person’s awareness to what they personally notice, is branded only to themselves. They are the master to their own perception, though only to things so like them, being of what is flawed. What one can understand of science, is the aim to correct those flaws, though not by the discovery of what is unlimited, though again, by what is limited.

That is what reality conceives, upon the time when science cannot make something so flawed, more realistic than Nature intended. A scientific person might find that what is flawed, can be corrected so that quality can be labelled upon it as “pristine”. To the black and white photograph that was once grainy, there has been further improvements to increase the quality of said photograph. Though, can the same be applied to a human body? Is science’s aim to merely perfect the flaws of all things wrong with the form, so that nothing remains a fault?

If correction of flaws is the aim, then we can say science will discover more things limited of ourselves, than of things meant to be unlimited or perfected. Science will discover what will eventually become so brittle, than their aim will turn from “perfection of faults”, to the causation of evermore flaws. That is, science will soon, if it has not already, become the epitomized fields of deconstructionism. To then contrast what science does by opposing religion, is to then say it is something made to descend all beneath, rather than ascend all above. For it must be that to be “beneath” would be in Hell, and to be “above” would be in Heaven.