The Blackberry Walk

I am now a graduated certified NEET. I'll try and keep to my one a day rule a little tighter... Worldviews and metaphysics as a concept has always fascinated me. With but a few different beliefs about reality's structure, and different axioms with regards to epistemology, a uniquely novel view can arise. Everyone wears the tinted glasses of a worldview, whether conscious of it or not, and sees the world through that nuanced perspective. Yet some worldviews are simply better than others. Any worldview - take Freudianism or Marxism - can claim, once stretched and twisted - to be able to explain everything; yet these worldviews have their limits. Granted, anything can be understood and explained through these frameworks, but the usefulness of the worldviews differs greatly. Freudianism can and has been used to explain the workings of current events, the course of history, and the like, however the explanations and analyses it produces don't have the same explanatory and predicative power of a superior model. It's not to say the worldview is wrong: just that it's less, or smaller. G. K. Chesterton puts it poetically, when he writes in Orthodoxy, 'Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that [the] mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large.' What I'll dub Chaos' Law is a predominant worldview today. At root are small forces and modicums of matter - atoms and energy - which evolve a kind of emergent phenomenon through the chance of quantum calculations. The universe begins with the Big Bang, wherein matter and energy was strewn across an ever-growing cosmos; some of this matter, congealing in a kind of soup, emerges the first signs of reproducing life; and through a reflexive process, evolves into conscious man of today - conscious man merely being a neural network reinforced by stimuli. The whole process described involves a kind of chaos: the forces of the universe were such that stars and planets happened to form; the congealing soup emerges by chance due to chaotic forces, and genes propagate in the chaos of adaptation; the neural networks work and rework themselves through chance interactions with the environment. With the scientific worldview, Chaos rules. There are laws - the laws of physics - which are held as a kind of Platonic universal, but the force, the spirit of the system, is randomness, chance, and Chaos. Never forget that science is not intuitive; which is to science's benefit. These unintuitive theories have been crafted by some of the greatest men to have ever lived to try and account for the complexity of how the world operates. But a simple goodness of fit to nature doesn't make it true. Truth is something higher which must not only accommodate sister Earth, but the whole family: both worldly and heavenly, visible and invisible. As I'm sure I've iterated many a time on my blog, science is blind to the majority of happenings: it is no universal method of discovery. What then is Natural Law? In contradistinction to Chaos' Law, Natural Law is not esoteric, but rather aims to describe the world as it appears in relation to man, rather than in relation to complex scientific theories which claim to explain everything. In short, Natural Law relies on common sense over scientific knowledge. The theories of science appear to explain everything, in a similar way to how Freud or Jung appear to explain everything; science is but another pair of glasses through which to look - not the final word on every topic. As we discussed earlier, science is a narrow circle which appears infinite despite there being wider circles on which to travel. Where science has slipped the leash most in terms of common sense is Darwinism - something I know first hand, having been obsessed with evolutionary Jungianism over lockdown. If you ask a question someone smart doesn't know about mankind or nature, it is as easy as can be for them to invent a fiction about why such a trait has an evolutionary advantage, and hence explaining why it exists today. Buried in my mind are so many worthless facts built upon the foundations of unfalsifiable Darwinistic speculation, that it's tricky to restrain myself when they bubble up in conversation. We enslave ourselves to the narrow circle of the scientific model without realising a greater, more holistic, circle exists for us to travel around. Whilst Chaos' law is matter-centric, Natural Law is man-centric; instead of seeing the world from the perspective of small emergent forces and particles, reality is seen as you see it: through the sense and experiences of life. Instead of love being a mere chemical in the brain, love is a fundamental force of the universe. Things are what they are. The box is a box - it's material may well be cardboard, and you could look deeper to find molecules of cellulose and lignin - but it is primarily a box. The distinction made may sound silly, but to place the identity of box as being truer than the identity of the atoms and molecules which constitute it is crucial. Science is the up-skirting of sister Nature; the iconoclasm of all of reality, and hence the blinding of man to God. Chaos' Law sees emergent phenomenon being the conductor of reality, wherein small forces become great effects in a bottom-up model. As a result we look down on the world looking for answers. In realising that the form, the higher aspect, is more real than the constituent parts, we realise the truth of the top-down vision of reality, and we can finally look above us to find what or rather who governs its order. In coming to the Natural Law, certain things people like to see as 'lifestyle choices' either become obviously right or wrong. After all, when recognising the higher forms and patterns of reality, we see the patterns by which man is meant to act; man isn't a Chaotic mess, or a blank slate - we have a way we're meant to live. [matter->mater->mother->earth; pattern->pater->father->heaven]. Chaos' Law is chaotic, directionless, and unpolarised, giving little guidance to man's action; whilst Natural Law has a polarised quality, dictating how man should be. Where Chaos Lawist sees existential terror, the Natural Lawist sees clear path and meaning. That does not mean to route is easy, however. The licentious liberty under Chaos' Law is a far simpler life than the strife of trying to follow the Natural Law from which we have fallen. The scientist only has one eye, only observing bottom-up emergent phenomena of matter - and even then many of the most common phenomena are forgotten. Whilst those who follow Natural Law have both their eyes open, able to see the bottom-up of emergence and the top-down of imposed patterns. Many a woo-woo New Age spiritualist implores you to open a third eye; but I hope after reading this I've convinced you to open your second.