THE DAILY BELL: BIG MONEY AND PUBLIC CONSUMPTION SCIENCE
This is probably one of the most important articles ever to appear in The Daily Bell, or for that matter, anywhere else, but we'll get to why I think this to be the case, after the article itself:
No, Economist (Magazine): The Real Problem of Big Science is Big Banking
The Daily Bell has put its finger on a central philosophical problem of modern "big science," namely, the promotion and evolution of a kind of "public consumption" science in each of the scientific disciplines that have, as their underlying connective meme, the theme of scarcity and zero-sum games, with "winners and losers." And this meme, in turn, has, as its underlying assumption, a commitment to philosophical materialism as the be-all and end-all explanatory paradigm into which all "science" must fit or conform. I think, as I compose this blog, specifically of the work of biologist, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, and its simple posing of questions that challenge those exclusively materialist assumptions with his hypothesis of a "morphogenetic field." Dr. Sheldrake asks a simple question: how is it that two groups of a species, completely isolated from each other, will transmit information to each other with no apparent means of physical contact? How does one group of a species on an isolated island transmit a solution or learned behavior, to a group of the same species on another island, and having no physical contact with it? This is not a merely hypothetical or rhetorical question on Dr. Sheldrake's part. It is something that has been observed. For his part in forming the question and offering a tentative conclusion - a kind of immaterial biological version of photon or quantum entanglement, but on a much more macro-scale of entire population groups - he has been villified, attacked, spurned, and in general, treated less than courteously by many of his scientific colleagues.
He has, in short, challenged the materialist assumption reigning in much of biology. And so it goes across the board.
Indeed, as a general statement, it could be asked why non-materialist assumptions or approaches seem so often to be challenged by "big science" and hence, more importantly, by Big Bank Money? Is there a connection between the two? The behavior of major money interests in promoting such memes in science raises the question of whether they are interested in real science, or only that science that tends to support their own cosmology, a cosmology designed to reinforce their monopoly on the creation of monetized debt.
I would, indeed, suggest that this is the real and deeply hidden connection, and it is an historical one. I have written often about what I have called the "Topological Metaphor of the Medium" and more recently about its almost limitless creation of "debt-free" information. As I wrote recently in Financial Vipers of Venice, we find the financial elites of the day busily engaged in the suppression of this version of the metaphor, and the substitution, in its place, either of limitless creation of fiat monetized debt, with all the sacrificial systems and ideologies connected with it in the suppression of the individual person and his or her creativity(the thing of real value), or the substitution of systems of bullion-based finance, again in an effort to impose limits and zero-sum games.
I would respectfully suggest, then, that The Daily Bell is indeed on to something, but would suggest that the roots of it go much deeper. Not for nothing did medieval and Renaissance Venice become the home of the original Malthusianism, and the first (wildly inaccurate) estimates of the "maximum carrying capacity" of the population sustainable by planet Earth, but also this corrupt oligarchical republic was the home to the suppression of that Metaphor, and its advocates, by the most brutal of methods (like being burned alive). It was home, too, to the original "cult of materialism", in its dogged defense and use of Aristotle. For those aware of the story the Daily Bell is so aptly exposing in this article, the story goes back, not just to JP Morgan's suppression of Tesla, but at least as far as the Middle Ages, and to the life and death struggle that Venice waged against the re-emergence of that Metaphor. It won that battle, but only temporarily... but that's another story.
See you on the flip side.
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
Ran into a suprising 10 minute interview of Russell Brand on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman.
If doesn’t take just google it
“Dr. Sheldrake asks a simple question: how is it that two groups of a species, completely isolated from each other, will transmit information to each other with no apparent means of physical contact?”
Makes me think IF we where created by another species, using their own DNA, we would “transmit information to each other”. Well, do we?
A great question Anders!
Speculating wildly; perhaps all the dumbing down/social control/hiding of knowledge links to this? If not controlled we might develop with extreme speed. That might be dangerous for us and/or others. Perhaps the breakaway group have their DNA “connected” ? Just speculating…
you are right.
re : ” the story goes back, not just to JP Morgan’s suppression of Tesla,..”
Excuse me for bothering to retrieve the 35 mm film copies of Tesla’s correspondence from UC Berkeley’s archives back in the early 1980’s… and reading much of it. Thus I learned that Morgan had no problem with Tesla. Rather, Tesla had no coherent business plan, and merely requested more money from Morgan from time to time — and not very much, either ( by today’s standards ). And Morgan obliged. But when he died, his accountants would not operate that way, and they cut off Tesla’s funding. Modern meme-engineering and neo-myth mongering has instilled the Morgan-suppression story, and no one has bothered to read the now-published correspondence ( 21st Century Books ), if only because T’s handwriting is difficult to read.
Well that’s a different take.
And it’s not unusual to find that the original documents (if verified) say something all together different.
What’s the exact title of the Tesla-Morgan correspondence? And who edited the book?
“A section called Nikola Tesla Correspondence uses letters and other documents from the Library of Congress Manuscript Division Microfilms of Nikola Tesla Correspondence to reveal hidden biographical insights.”
The 35 mm reels I retrieved were given to John Ratzlaff, who published them via his Tesla Book Company, which he sold to 21st Century Books. They don’t seem to publish that volume any more.
What was the title of the book published by Ratzlaff?
Found where to read the Ratzlaff book. Thanks. Hope it’s not missing from the source I found.
SHOCK & AWE Economics!
“Dress Resheasal for Government Privatization.”
guns and butter archives
RB, Thanks for that great Chossukovsky interview* … The US is being IMF’ed like a third world country … ‘structurally adjusted’ by Wall Street & the Fed. All national assets/resources/services are being privatized to service [phony] public debt … slick enough operation to possibly be part of the ‘breakaways’ economic machinations that Farrell & Fitts refer to: emerging technocorps capture the assets, legacy economies are left with the liabilities.
Upcoming Atlantic and Pacific trade agreements will ensure that nation states will be subordinate to global corporations, and may eventually disappear. The idea of a North American Union may be resurrected then as an economic entity once the US is structurally adjusted, meanwhile bureaucracies among the countries are being subtly harmonized. Amazing how it’s all happening so fast!
There’s another good piece in today’s Daily Bell: “Salon: One World After All” … as a meme ‘globalism’ is out … ‘internationalism’ is in.
oops: should be Chossudovsky
Taking the words right from lips. Couldn’t have said it better.
I used to read Salon when Greenwald was there years ago. Read his books. He was/is good. But, as with most who get ink, it makes me wonder whose behind him(& Salon). Still, the information is key, and readers like “us” have to try and separate the good from the bad.
No easy task.
To see your thoughts on the same page, in a manner of speaking, makes my day.
Thanks again, Margaret
Haven’t read anything till now by Anthony Wile. The mentioning of “Salon” just triggered Greenwald and my suspicions overall about the apparent “truth-telling” alternative presses.
As I’ve said before, for me,
they all sing in chorus – The Press Chorus.
“And this meme, in turn, has, as its underlying assumption, a commitment to philosophical materialism as the be-all and end-all explanatory paradigm into which all “science” must fit or conform.”
And “assumptions” cannot win arguments (against anyone conscious enough to actually think).
“Science knows much . . . . . but ignores, PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING.”
–wish I could remember who said that
Financial Vipers is too complimentary for these suicidal maniacs, whether they be the Venice Vipers of yesterday; or the newer transnational vipers of today, poisoning planet earth.
From whence have these midas vipers spawned; destroying not only themselves, but everyone & everything touched?
The Human race is so…different physically, even instinctively, and I cant help but think over and over, a house divided falls.
Very important post Dr Farrell.
although Dr Farrell, you might be missing Aristotle point, and that is he didnt have one, and he didnt have any ethics either., he just understood behavior, from a viewpoint of rationalization……something that is overlooked.
Kind of like in the shining, the overlook hotel.
of course you know that, so…..I wonder.
Your not going to believe this but I am currently reading Rupert Sheldrake’ book
“The Science Delusion” and believe it or not, just about everybody that Dr. Farrell has talked about in his books is mentioned.
For instance, Bacon, Bohm, Aquinas, Heisenberg, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, Nietzsche, Percy Shelley, and Rene Descartes. He gives mainstream academia an enormous shot across the bows and they deserve it.
I’m only about a third of the way into it, but, fellow members, it’s a must read.
Ah but does Sheldrake deal with Goethe’s color or Dayton Miller, two examples that are so much easier to approach than most of those cited above?
It’s also pretty clear from the engineering of transistors and flash memory that the Heisenberg principle is either wrong or only correct under limited circumstances. We can know the position and momentum of the electron simultaneously. (In complex terms Bohm is also making this point.)
Given that the DB is constantly complaining about scarcity, in their own terms, it’s a bit rich to see the DB complaining about scarcity memes being sold by big science.
I think the DB is both on to something, really unusual for them, and missing something: It’s not that official big science has nothing important to say, take genes; yes they code for things but real big scientists will of course admit that what turns a gene on is still big mystery.
What I find stupid, not too strong word, about official science is the inability to look at the basic research they like to cite: Looking at living cells under microscope can be as enlightening as reading the Michelson-Morely paper, or asking how magnetism is detectable say an inch away from a bar magnet? But that enlightenment challenges the received world view of big science.
Similarly the Daily Bell refuses to look at reports of alchemy going back at least 150 years and claims that gold is the only money.