The conclusions are drawn again from an elevated perspective. By writing this treatise we had a double aim in mind: On the one hand, for a contemporary intellectual elite in the traditional sense, we wished to expose certain main streams, elements, or characteristics which can help them gain a fuller evaluation of physical “results”, their permeation through the world, and the corruption of existence emerging partly from this process—an evaluation according to the highest and at the same time most profound level, moreover unchanging and perennial, that is, the traditional metaphysical perspective. We undertook this despite being more than aware that looking back down from the summit, the whole modern science at best appears as pathetic fumbling in the dark abyss or as “tinkering with māyā”, and as such it can be swept aside in a flick, together with all diabolic machinations. However, we are also aware that even thinkers of true spiritual orientation are not always at the level where this could be done with full confidence. In such cases another, more concrete aspect surfaces, namely that scientism is the harvest from the forbidden tree, and institutionalising it, has become the basis of a whole civilisation, claiming absolute position for itself, and vindicating itself as the peak of human intellect, which makes it a combatant enemy of real intellect. The present treatise can therefore also be considered a more detailed report on the nature of the enemy and its present status. Now, if some adherents of scientism—perhaps those who perceive the ever more quickly increasing crisis of modernity, either within modern science or without—are induced by the present treatise to start looking in the right direction for alternatives, its writing has already been of avail.
Forestalling some trivial objections and summarising our position we will declare: No, we certainly do not deny that modern sciences have achieved results, and that according to some special notion of truth these results have truth in them, and they are even very significant along certain directions. However—and now not even considering the otherwise probably most important problem as to what the price was, on a spiritual level for instance, to pay for these results—the topic, theme, concepts, results, and quite generally all entities of modern sciences are so peripheral that they are in fact all but non-existent, and hence their pursuit is a non-intellectual and oftentimes even outright Antichristly activity. Or more explicitly: scientism is a sect (comprising even counter-initiatic tendencies), modern science is a counter-knowledge, and its miscreation, modern technology, is a counter-realisation—exploitation for petty ends. But the most important point in our position, which prevents our criticism from remaining a purely negative one, is this: There is and has always been an alternative, and since here “alternative” means not that this intellectual possibility is against but that it is strictly above scientism, this alternative in spite of all contrary suggestions is just as valid today as it has ever been. For this very reason, as some have already written it before us, even in spite of all its clumsiness, modern science would not be very problematic if it limited itself to what it is suited for—that is, if it did not exhibit the marked diabolic tendency; and one of our further aims was precisely to sketch its legitimate boundaries. Obviously, in this case it could not have seized the position it usurps in the human world of our age.
On considering this legitimate domain, it becomes even clearer that physical theories do not have any real explanatory potential. Indeed, what kind of explanation of a phenomenon is it if some related quantities measured in experiments—which again involve hosts of working hypotheses—can be calculated by postulating certain hypotheses? In the treatise we thoroughly exhibit that the result of such a kind of investigation can be but an utterly fragmented “description” of even that plane of reality which falls within the horizon of physical sciences, where the individual sherds of this pile of fragments are crumbling away as well.
Everything we are saying about physics here pertains to an even greater extent to other “fields of science”, since these define themselves as originating from physics, in principle at least, and hence they inherit its conceptual foundations. However, as their subjects are even more particular than that of physics, often even these not exactly solid foundations are obscured by the ever increasing mass of information piled upon them. The thorough impotency of these fields of science is the more glaring, the higher the order of existence which constitutes the subject of the study. We will mention the case of living nature for instance, for the genesis of which all scientism can offer is evolution as the only explanation—which is hence to be defended tooth and nail. Another instance is the case of human beings, although, admittedly, during modern times, man has gone a long way in order to fit the scientistic man-view.
Did yet the objection arise that if we have stripped science of the attributes of a “romantic quest” undertaken by self-denying scientists for the sake of the whole mankind, and we have even endowed it with the attributes of a counter-quest, scientific activity can nevertheless still remain a good game, and why we do not at least let them play unperturbed? Our answer would be that this is of course a private affair of each, we would nevertheless draw their attention to that this activity even in this seemingly innocent form may easily become the “science” of losing Ourselves. The most striking evidence for this is obtained when examining what kind of men the allegedly great scientists are, or generally those who sacrificed most of their lives for its sake. Well, in the cases when we can indeed presume fully honest intentions, we encounter children, at best good and kind children, but generally rather aggressive, evil, resentful, undisciplined, and hysterical children. By the way, in the post-modern era this innocence, which should perhaps be more appropriately termed “sinful naivety”, can in most cases be taken for granted, since the brainwashing of long-long years, decades, or on the collective level even centuries for the sake of indoctrinating scientism, did not remain without effect. More generally, we will say quoting an inspired man that post-modern man is in fact already “beneath crisis”.
Nevertheless, a lingering feeling of uneasiness perhaps remain in many, and hence ever fewer still cherish the illusion today that the modern world is the world of peace, harmony, prosperity on all the levels of existence, and with scientism witnessing the crowning of intellect; and what we are doing with this treatise is to treacherously attack this paradisiacal world or one of its main achievements and propellants. The situation is of course the very contrary, that is, that the modern world practically since its outset has been gravitating, through ever more severe crises, into the abyss, but before crashing over the infernal floor of the absolute hegemony of quantity as the terminus of human history, it systematically exterminates the relics of the reign of quality, which it comes upon at any point of the Earth in the world of the 21st century.
During this our descent into the depths of modern science—the counter-Babelic-Tower of our age, being built downwards with the mobilisation of colossal resources—we have found great emptiness throughout, the same that we find throughout the modern world, with which they generate each other in a diabolic symbiosis. Our treatise concludes with the following message for the ever more numerous and ever more successful physicists and modern scientists of our age and all ages to come:
Our unchangeable, serene and perennial, luminous world—you cannot touch anyway.