@fast,
This is back on the topic of electrons, but it also touches at the end upon psychology. This is Kojeve on what he calls vulgar science, as contrasted with a concrete or total science. I'm not saying that a total science is actually possible, but the ideal of it is far superior to the reduced ambitions of vulgar science. (My opinion.)
Vulgar science.....is carried out by a Subject who pretends to be independent of the Object, and it is supposed to reveal the Object which exists independently of the Subject. Now in actual fact the experience is had by a man who lives within Nature and is indissolubly bound to it, but is also opposed to it and wants to transform it: science is born from the desire to transform the World in relation to Man; its final end is technical application. That is why scientific knowledge is never absolutely passive, nor purely contemplative and descriptive. Scientific experience perturbs the Object because of the active intervention of the Subject, who applies to the Object a
method of investigation that is his own and to which nothing in the Object itself corresponds. What it reveals, therefore, is neither the Object taken independently of the Subject, nor the Subject taken independently of the Object, but only the result of the
interaction of the two or, if you like, that interaction itself. However, scientific experience and knowledge are concerned with the Object as independent of and isolated from the Subject. Hence they do not find what they are looking for; they do not give what they promise, for they do not correctly reveal or describe what the Real is
for them.
Generally speaking Truth ( = revealed Reality) is the coincidence of thought or descriptive knowledge with the concrete real. Now, for vulgar science, this real is supposed to be independent of the thought which describes it. But in fact this science never attains this autonomous real, this "thing in itself" of Kant-Newton, because it incessantly perturbs it. Hence scientific thought does not attain its truth; there is no scientific
truth in the strong and proper sense of the term. Scientific experience is thus only a pseudo-experience. And it cannot be otherwise, for vulgar science is in fact concerned not with the concrete real, but with an
abstraction.
To the extent that the scientist thinks or knows his object, what really and concretely exists is the
entirety of the Object known by the Subject or of the Subject knowing the Object. The isolated Object is but an abstraction, and that is why it has no fixed and stable continuity (
Bestehen) and is perpetually deformed or perturbed. Therefore it cannot serve as a basis for a Truth, which by definition is universally and eternally valid. And the same goes for the "object" of vulgar psychology, gnoseology, and philosophy, which is the Subject artificially isolated from the Object - i.e., yet another abstraction.
but no I really think in a way life's ability to evolve is more important, and the fruit of that evolution is proving very complex... it's a hard thing to distinguish if the cells that make up the human body are more complex than the brain. Just because we have a better current understanding of one doesn't mean it is less complex.
