Scientism and our current social dilemma

We live in a fragmented world, a world dedicated to the atomization of understanding, a world governed by scientism rather than science. This is a world dominated by the left brain. It is a view of the world which is lacking in gestalt. Today I would like to discuss with you why scientism has become an ideological parasite. Scientism is the result of looking at things detached from the whole to which they belong. Therefore, today we are seeing many examples of the unintended consequences of our collective actions. The unintended consequences which have resulted from applying simplistic solutions to multivariate complex problems without using our right brain. For It is only in the right brain where gestalt can happen. The right brain allows us to bring together disparate things to form a living entirety.

Partly this is the result of modern man's rejection of the mystical. Spirituality and enlightened ascendance can only exist in the realm of the mystical. And our atomised understanding of the world historically is a recent phenomenon. We evolved over countless eons being informed by the mystical. If this did not serve an evolutionary purpose our love of mythos would not exist. Yet modern men reject such narratives. We have come to believe that by parsing the world into inanimate bits and pieces so that we can examine each piece as though it was not part of a larger hole that we can understand how things operate. This is what I refer to as scientism. But evolutionary biology, in specific human evolutionary biology, reject such a view of the world. The human brain evolved complex mechanisms of intuition that exist only in the right-hemisphere. It is in the right hemisphere the detached and disembodied can become embodied to present a living whole. One of the great problems in developing artificial intelligence is that we do not understand how our intuition operates, why it so often informs us correctly without us understanding the processes of how we arrived at our conclusions. Moreover, if we were to stop and try to explain how we make such judgments we would be unable to breakdown the processes to define them. Its would be like asking a brilliant jazz improviser to break down their improvisation into each note. The instant one asks such a question is the very instant when the artist would become soulless and mechanistic.