List of contents
- Entry
- The faith in the crisis
- Doubt and how to overcome it
The New Philosophy is a revolutionary philosophy with a universal claim. It practices the revival of the old, long forgotten questions of mankind. This philosophy asks these questions again and answers them with the proven evidence of the soul’s immortality and the existence of God. Thereby it creates a basis for the all of the sciences that is verified epistemology.
The basic idea of the new philosophy is that reality is exclusively made out of objects. Besides that, some of these objects have the character of a subject. That means that they are able to create feelings. Therefore the New Philosophy is dialectic. It assumes that discovery can only come from the combination of two components of reality: the side relating to the matter and the side relating to the sense of the objects.
Truth is not absolute. Therefore truth cannot be gained from itself. Thus those propositions that are supposed to build the construction of reality must be taken from the experienced based knowledge of the natural sciences and the humanities. On this basis a model that harmonizes with reality is created.
Those propositions that are considered essential are then classified as valid or true. They are also declared axioms or basic propositions of the New Philosophy. Thus the way in which the truth is established in the New Philosophy is axiomatic. As the reality can only be finite it is severely restricted to finite structures.
The New Philosophy confirms in its result the Eastern doctrine of reincarnation. That means that the actions of human beings have considerable influence on their future fate in later life. Any unkind or even just thoughtless, unscrupulous action that has a negative effect for other people results in a deterioration of their own karma and thus in a worsening of their own future fate.
That has effects on politics. As politics is run by politicians, therefore by human beings, political responsibility is now defined in a new, obligatory manner. Politics no longer means acting arbitrarily in a sea of absurdity, but it is now the designing of human fates which is in a karmic way associated with the politician’s own fate. One apprehends: by designing other people’s fate one always simultaneously influences one’s own fate. That will change the politicians’ actions completely.
When I consider today’s situation the idea of a completely muddled situation comes to mind. This impression is first of all caused by the creeping destruction of the world economy. At the same time there is the political danger of terrorism. If the terrorists succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, then: Good night, mankind! And there is no obstacle for terrorists not to reach this aim.
Why do we have this insane trend of making the rich richer, the poor poorer and to so provoke a revolt of greatest extent? The answer is simple: nobody feels responsibly for the fate of society. Well. Responsibility was never a particular strength of the upper class. Nevertheless there were fixed rules that restricted the individual’s activities. This is not the case anymore today.
We now live in a world of global liberalism: anything goes. Especially popular are those things that bring death and ruin upon the nations. Or those that bring profit, especially worldwide. Connected with that is a plutocracy, or in other words the domination of money, that is the basis for unrestrained action and has the death of mankind as a result. They don’t give a damn about morality. It is simply the enforcement of absolute egoism.
As absolute liberalism also includes forbidding other people this exact liberalism, the terrorists’ liberalism of course is not allowed. This now makes the terrorists resist the opponent in a corresponding manner. The result is a fight of the cultures.
If you ask yourself how this horrible liberalism was able to evolve, there is only the one answer: mankind can no longer positively answer the question of the meaning of life. If I say anything is allowed, that means: I have no criteria of assessment which could help me make a decision for or against an action. This has resulted in a great indifference of all values which implies the indifference of all people.
To kill or not to kill is now a question which cannot be answered from an ethical viewpoint anymore. Only the fear that my opponent could do the same or something worse to me bridles my action. And the license to kill in the James Bond movies is even depicted as desirable. How great that one may kill unpunished. But unfortunately not me! It doesn’t get any worse!
The great irresponsibility of the global liberalism therefore has its cause in the senselessness of existence. Most people accept this senselessness as a matter of fact. Once this absurd idea has been planted into the brain of a person, strange inner states arise. Those remind of the behavior of a schizophrenic believer. Only that this belief represents the unbelief. That in itself is somehow grotesque and perverse!
I hereby present a philosophy that gives us the certainty that our existence is reasonable, because indestructible, on the basis of an understandable concatenation of thoughts. I show that there is an arranging power that makes get welfare and blessing to the soul in the long run. One would think that people would consider such theory a salvation of all doubts and disillusions.
But this is not the case. The community of unbelievers is driven by an almost masochistic urge to avoid the search for meaning or even to confront it. And that even though they live without any intellectual perspective and glide through life like quicksand. They find this state completely OK. Yes, they even strive for conserving it with persistence and diligence.
That is not a hidden allegation. I remember an educated woman from Leipzig. She was once marked by socialist brainwashing. Therefore she was a convinced nihilist. We had a philosophical conversation, very private in the kitchen during breakfast. The conversation didn’t include any polemic and took place in a calm, objective atmosphere. Then I refuted all her arguments which argued for her nihilistic philosophy of life systematically. At some point she could not go forward or backwards.
One must have seen a person who is purely by arguments driven into a corner and simply freaks out. She yelled at me to stop with that nonsense! The whole twaddle is nonsense - from the outset. She would not be able to bear it and did never again want to be bothered again in this manner. I was baffled.
What irritated me was the impetuosity of her reaction. She would have only had to say that such discussion was unpleasant for her. And that she would have to think about the matter. No problem. Then we would have stopped the discussing immediately. However, it was not like this. She lost control over herself. For me the only explanation for this incident is that she saw her philosophy of life collapsing in front of her. And this in a way that no rescue attempt would be succesful.
However, what kind philosophy of life is this if it cannot be defend by arguments anymore. One shall forgive me my words, but for me that nothing more but a cloaca that one banishes into the dark sewers of the soul. There, the stinking slurry of the negation of existence can slosh back and forth. Nihilism as perverted belief in the own triviality – not bad!
Either way: For me, faith was unsuitable as a basis of a philosophy of life right from the beginning. I did not want to renounce the certainty of sense or nonsense of the existence. As religion did not offer any aid the only way to find out was taking matters into my own hands. I had to find out if an explanation for our existence could be discovered. And I had to find out to what extent this information was reliable.
At this point it was immediately clear to me that the only way to achieve deeper findings in philosophy was through the natural sciences. In particular physics and mathematics. I have never regretted the decision to study physics and mathematics in university. Physics supply the facts that are necessary for a conventional philosophy. Mathematics contribute the method to gain convincing results.
Physics at first presented itself to me rather consolidated and irrefutable. As if it was already equipped with the nimbus of highest obtained perfection. Ultimately, only detailed questions were left – e.g. the derivation of a ‘world formula’ that would shortly be discovered though.
If one compares physics to a hum being it would present itself to me as a person with great personality and authority. And with love handles on its beautiful body. To me, they seemed at the right place. I told myself: This is the way science has to be practiced. It had to be that ingenious, that reliable and illuminating all points of reality. It had to provide hold and support to the interplay of life.
Now, I have a quality that has to be referred to as very annoying. That quality is the mania of not accepting contradictions as God-given and acceptable. I like to poke around and also store the inconvenience firmly in my memory. For later. One could consider this unseemly. Which it presumably is.
As I had to recognize, there was a large number of inconsistencies that became visible within the fields of physics and astronomy. Because of this I got quite hung up on my initially euphoric reverence for the achievements of physics. Also, Einstein’s Specific Theory of Relativity was just fishy to me. You are so stupid, I thought to myself. You understand the theory of Galois. And that one is surely not considered to be easy. However, you cannot get used to the thoughts of this mega genius Einstein. What a loathsome situation!
In the cours of time more and more inconsistencies appeared in the theories of physics. So I simply had to try and systematically check the basic principle of physics for any contradictions. After that I intended to create a new basis for the physics. This did not happen without inner reluctance. One cannot nullify the basic principles of a science that one studied without being plagued by inner doubts. What if all the new thoughts turned out to be fragile?
Until now my constructions were primarily focused on the philosophical field. However it was already clear to me that this philosophy would end up in a direct confrontation with the established physical science, yes even with society. So I continued, slightly annoyed. And at some point I realized that, actually, there was no turning back for me. The whole thing represented itself to me as a clear either - or. Though I did not risk imagining at all that my construction could fail.
Luckily I noticed that my so seemingly ingenious and heretical ideas were not as new as I had thought. Especially in the field of the esoteric and Eastern religions, there were absolutely similar ideas. They harmonized in considerable extent with my ideas. Also the reports of Lorbeer and other insiders complied with my results.
The compliance was so considerable in some parts that it offered me support and protection against the inner doubts. It almost felt like a sacrilege to challenge the basic ideas of physics in this scale. Slowly but surely the certainty arose that the discoveries of seers like Lorbeer obviously represented a greater safety than those of the natural science. That was a very new experience.
Already in the 19th century, Lorbeer had for example predicted that there was a gigantic number of galaxies outside of our galaxy system. As late as 1910 the corresponding statement of an astronomer was depicted as absurd by the majority of his colleagues. That’s just the way it is in science. One does not consider new ideas until it cannot be avoided anymore.
Beside this agreement of my theory with esoteric traditions, there were still the contradictions in the valid physics that encouraged me to continue my investigations. This will be discussed in more details in the next section.
Beside this agreement of my theory with esoteric traditions, there were still the contradictions in the valid physics that encouraged me to continue my investigations. This will be discussed in more details in the next section.
Slowly I understood that this herd of humans to which I belonged by cruel fate leads a very phlegmatic life. Everything that requires real effort is pushed away as far as possible. What is even worse: this applied even if one is ready to examine certain thoughts. The stamina of people is so small that an impartial examination of my ideas does not take place. The subject is dropped before one reaches a result.
That reveals quite gloomy perspectives for the future of mankind. Because the problems of the near future will not be solved the simple way. It becomes a disaster due to the short breath of today’s generation. That is foreseeable.
A historical situation from the old China leaps into my mind. The Mongolians had overrun China. They rounded up a whole horde of women and sent them into the desert where they were left. Now there they stood with their crippled feet that were rendered useless for marching by binding them together. The women stood in the cold region and waited for their deaths.
Human society has intellectually crippled itself in the same way so that in an existentially alarming situation it hardly has the chance to survive the so-called challenge. Peace to its soul!