Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm


Unread post by sharpstuff » Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:00 am

Note: As a learning curve, this essay requires some discussion, please.

If you remove any substance from a ‘living’ organism it may be part of that original but immediately must become something else.

We cannot, then, therefore make any reference to it as a ‘part’ of the original (since the original is now also a part of the original and deplete of its ‘wholeness’ and the removed ‘part’ is now a separate entity). Any results of ‘experiments’ or studies upon the removed part can (in simple) only be a form of conjecture as to its part in the original .

If, for example, let us make an analogy, say, making a fruit cake. We may work from a known recipe or create one from any several parts, which we call ingredients. We take those ingredients and mix them into a bowl. Now we have a ‘dough’ comprised of the ingredients all mashed up, therefore not recognised as separate entities. We then place this into a cooking vessel (e.g. a cooking oven, or even an ice-box) and after a given period of time we are presented with a structure (comprised of the individual ingredients but now not recognisable as such) which we might say is a complete object we will call it a ‘cake’.

Aside: So what we call ‘Nature’ has produced, in its way, the whole of the biology (so called) and including that which we call Man (the capital ‘M’ includes both sexes).

Back to our cake. If we now take the cake and remove a small piece of it, study it from all directions, place it onto a slide (which we need to prepare for microscopy, for example and already tainting it with any sort of compound so that it might be better visible) or we put it into our blender and thrash it to pieces, what do we have?

We have compromised our original cake by removing a bit or bits of it, to start with. What we are studying is the part we have deconstructed from the original.

What does our ‘study’ tell us?
Can we infer that the tiny bits we see under the microscope are cognisant of the whole?
Can we infer, that if we find what was left of a currant or piece of some other fruit, an artifact of some kind, or even a particle of flour (not possible, since it no longer flour as it was before processing), that the cake we have constructed is responsible for or causes, the whole process?

In other words, can any of those bits tell us how the cake was constructed in the first place? If so, may I ask how?

If we apply this thesis to the notion of D.N.A., R.N.A., alleged ‘germs’, ‘viruses’, ‘bacteria’ or any other conglomerations of ’particles’ (‘atomic’ or otherwise) can we rely on the ‘findings’ as a verifiable ‘truth’ in this World and base our living on it?
Upon the notion of D.N.A., R.N.A. there has been the notion and invention of ‘genetics’. That is, the notion that certain ‘substances’ they call ‘genes’ are responsible (whatever they may be but only conjectured) that ‘pass on’ traits from one organism to another.
From observations easily made (e.g. my progenitors were ‘artists’ therefore I am an artist) however, I cannot paint anything, or the opposite). It is obviously evident (from personal observations) that we ‘inherit’ or do not ‘inherit’ certain traits from the initial fertilisation of our being from our parents and prior fertilisations. However, we cannot claim that any particular entity (whatever it is) is responsible for either since we cannot find one except from speculation. In my view, at least, we can never ‘know’ how this is ‘achieved’.

Further, the notion that we can manipulate, in some way this process, is not possible since we cannot identify any agent to do so, since the means of doing so destroys the means of identification of the physical agent. Thus the notion of ‘gene’ manipulation (usually called G.M.O.) cannot be a viable theory or solution, let alone a reality, it is merely a ploy to substitute manipulation of ‘Nature’ by potentially poisonous substances without regard for natural processes which any decent farmer realising crop rotation works and so forth.

Having said all that and adding that notions of ‘dinosaurs’, ‘evolution’ and other such fanciful ‘studies’/‘tales of imagination’, fiction ‘science’ and so forth, we are still left with the fact that certain ‘traits’ are left to ‘Nature’ to determine outcomes about which, (to be frank), we can have little or no knowledge that satisfies, nor the grounds to verify such and speculation can be the only game.

It is a possible truth that all these notion of ‘germs’, ‘atoms’ ‘D.N.A,’ may be comforting notions for some reason or another but they really have no place in a world where our personal existence can only be survived within ourselves or with others for whom we care.

We are constantly blinded by what is called ‘science’.
We are constantly deceived by those who claim to know more than we do.
We are constantly deceived by those who wish to control us with all their machinations regarding any potential positive study (compare and contrast).
We are constantly blinded/deceived by what are called ‘elements’ about which we can have little or no knowledge. We are constantly blinded/deceived by unknowable, unknown ‘scientists’, ‘experts’ and the other paraphernalia of so-called ‘expertise’. Time to close our ears to this.

That humans are capable of explaining, in specific detail, anything at all, needs to be considered.

‘Theories’ may sound good on paper and the acceptance of them a kind of crutch for many to blame something else for their own lack of exploration, since they can often do little else, is very sad.

Be well.

Post Reply