Although Slack is definitively undefinable, can we come any closer to understanding it using science?
No, Pinklord, we cannot. This is not going to have anything to do with science except to remind you that if you take that method on as a singular worldview you are about as far away from achieving Slack as you can possibly be. Science has become the new authority on all matters, and those who cling to it as Holy Gospel are addicted to the possibility of power that their mythical certainties and absolutes suggest. Only “Bob” can be certain about anything, so the only thing you should even consider being certain about is “Bob”.
Absolutes and certainties are like anchors. They tether your mind to only the narrow field of experiences which validate whatever it is you are so damn sure of. The only prevention for this sickness is to make damn sure that you aren’t damn sure of anything. And the only way to achieve that is to abandon the pervasive and perverse notion of modern thought known in philosophy as realism.
Realism is the belief that the shit going on inside your head must also be going on outside of it. It posits an external reality outside of our experience, and arrives at this conclusion using bunk ass math. We can generally agree that our experiences are subjective. Since we cannot interact with any phenomena outside of an experience of it, all of the contents of our minds are entirely personal. Yet some people believe that agreeing accounts of experience somehow equal an absolute objective certainty.
If personal experience has an objectivity value of zero, you could add and multiply them infinitely and the sum would still be zero.
Consensus is an unreliable verification tool. We do not even know that our experiences are the same, just that we use similar language to describe phenomena. You cannot verify the contents of another mind because the only person that has access to them is the individual. It is possible we are all experiencing radically different realities, but that language allows us to believe we’re all on the same page.
Realists also appeal to induction and abduction, both of which sidestep direct observations, measurement and testing and rely on circular logic. Just because a phenomena repeats does not mean it always will, and just because some belief is justifiable does not make it an objective fact. It takes leaps of faith to build your premises on abstractions, and some seriously willful ignorance to fail to acknowledge the frailty of your starting assumptions.
Finally the realist will rest their case on pragmatism. This shit works, damnit, so it must be real. Placebos work. Geocentric maps of the cosmos were flawed, but provided working models of navigation and time-keeping. There are a lot of things that are not supposed to work, but do so very well. The appeal to pragmatism is an idiots brag of lacking an imagination.
I see SubGenii making realist claims all of the time. I suppose they think that their realism is in opposition to the old religions, and is a form of rebellion. This is an incredibly misguided falsehood. Not only is modern science and the realist worldview a direct descendant of Protestant philosophy, but all the old religions are themselves incredibly realist. The many marks of Abraham all believe in a literal creation of a literal universe that is literally ruled by absolutes and certainties. Realism is the single most pervasive norm of the modern world, and it provides the shackles from which the SubGenius seeks their Slack.
The alternative is philosophical idealism, the belief that all phenomena are mental phenomena. That we are minds, that the contents of our minds are experiences and that the products of experiences are personal knowledge. Idealism says no more than that. It does not tell us how the world ‘really’ is, and therefore how you’re supposed to fuckin’ behave, accordingly. There are no solid purchases for attaching our chains to. Pure fuckin’ Slack.
I am already groaning at the idiotic, but highly anticipated, scripted responses realists will offer. But let me make it clear, I do not give a fuck. I have worn your silly ass worldview and freed myself from it. It is not an inability to understand that separates me from realists, but a rejection of something I understood all-too-well for far-too-long. There is no need to defend your normative realist beliefs, because they have already infected every-fucking-thing in the world with pink i-dentity. Realism is winning, and winning hard, so you can take your Bobbie boy bullshit elsewhere, and you can keep your naive, literalist, authoritarian delusions to yourself.
And you can take my Slack when you pry it from the cold, dead mind of the second person experience of my idealized form!