Is science an expt in tidiness? was the question posed awhile back. The assumption is yes - via induction (Newton C4-C6) - but it is a universe that attracts the ego of acolytes via data-collection and analysis.
Science isn't so much wrong as existing in a false field (the mirror of illusions or electromagnetism) where straight lines supplant organic vistas.
Clearly, the fact that cars can be driven or self-driven) and aircraft fly and fans cool the body (via evaporation) and on and on are facts of nature that science has determined.
It's accurate, but I'm taking about induction which creates a false version of reality. All those appliances mentioned could be driven by AI (ie electromagnetism like NASA'S Ingenuity helicopter of Mars) and then you are in a universe if straight lines (ones and zeros).
The end product of that is Neom City, the proposed desert metropolis with flying cars (prev.) It's totally true, but only in terms of straight lines. The universe as a whole is balanced and with the mystical symmetry of the Zodiac (originating in Babylon, see Kari Hohn).
Wirh symmetry comes the intrinsic nature of fertility; the fact that living things are cyclical. With fertility comes the nature if dirt and decay.
Decay is intrinsically fertile, as was noted of the clean-smellinf compost heap of a garden or organic farm. The organic humus of the soil is the natural.killer of pathogens.
The cyclical system -of the organic universe - and the straight-line system do not exactly get on! Not content with their accurate physics, the ego of acolytes adopts an anal region because of the infatuation with numbers (see Grace Slick quote HB62/1).
Spontaneity and anarchy are suppressed because they are assumed to lead to squalid situations. But it is precisely squalor and the presence of dirt and decay within organic areas that enable a cyclical system to operate (see example of Pompeii P162).
A ghetto is vastly more activating interest than a shopping mall for that reason. Ancient Roman cities with the plebs and gentry were possibly far more ghettoised than we may think.
All this information is contained in science, it's just that there is a very selective appraisal of the data by acolytes like Dawkins(neo-Darwinism).
DNA can be analyzed by such methods, but proteins are vastly more difficult. They spontaneously fold in an example of symmetries in nature. They are the body's messengers.
Where spontaneity is involved, so is the metamorphosis of line. On a vastly greater scale, this is how morphogenesis occurs in the womb.
The best science can do is predict protein folding with super-advanced algorithms, but this leads to the trap that an algorithm is pure number (ones and zeros).
Science exists in a trap of numbers within a mirror of straight lines (originally Newton's knives or 'Optiks', prev.)
I'm talking about very basic features of reality. If you cross your legs there is a sense of fitness in the way one reclines on the other. This can only be the result of spontaneous symmetry.
If the universe we see and experience is spontaneous and anarchic in nature (see UVS website), that also means it's nor straight-line (number or algorithm). This is the active universe where fertility is the fundamental component.
A spiral is a fertility symbol as ancient as Newgrange in Ireland. I'm not saying new things; these are ancient truths scholars such as Kari John know far more than I.
The fact that science is so accurate - via induction - seems to fool the ego into entering the mirror of illusions (light, electromagnetism).
Outside of the mirror are the archetypàl processes actuated by Diana, huntress of the moon, the blood of the forest chase, the feminine principle of fertility.
With physical fertility also comes the psyche (spirit). The two are interwoven. Carlos Santana in an interview makes a similar quote, speaking of the early 60s.
'Santana's music is very spiritual and sensual.. The first thing we noticed is that the women move differently.'
What I realized, though, reading the interview was that he uses the same terms as do Kantner and other hippies on the ideal if 'unity' in a world shorn of barriers.
This is such a fundamental misconception of nature, where differences are paramount and also achieve similarity and affinity, that I think it's worthy of a fuller exegesis (next).