On the schism between science and philosophy.
Which, on closer examination IS the mind-body problem,
and I would suggest, little different from the contradictions between science and religion.

So philosophy is the equivalent of psychology and religion?

It only seems so because of the schizophrenic problem that this narrative hopes to address. For it is the institution of science which has (for better or worse) separated itself, from any association with the mind; which it claims does not exist.

Science claims the mind does not exist?

Yes,
Institutional science attempts to diminsh the mind to nothing more than a passive observer, which makes it an epiphenomenon... redundant.

But that makes no sense...

Of course it makes no sense, that is the problem; but it does so, because institutionalism, is really Buddhism.

Now you make even less sense, because Budhhism is a religion!

Actually most interpretations of Budhhism are identical to atheism - or agnosticism on a good day. Budhhism is just atheism dressed up in the garb of religion.

But Buddhism in this day and age wears the overcoat of its cousin: Communism, which is not really Marxism, but state-owned slavery which is ruthlessly competitive on the capitalist market; specifically when it puts on the armour of Nationalism.

And that Nation is China. And its vehicle of conquest is the medical system; which has little to do with medicine, and everything to do with being a system of slavery based on learned helplessness.

Layers within layers... And as you can see, the METHOD of science is lost within the fascist monopolization of global multi-Nationalist trade.

So its the success of science which has left shells of its former self for all the hermit crabs of academia to inhabit. Intellectual squatters holding up the artefacts of conquest as ornaments, oblivious to their origin, value, and function. Instead they pervert the hallowed realms of truth with their uncouth motives.

Are you mad? Science is more advanced than ever!

No. Only the shadow of science has advanced: technology. Most of which is based on the science of the 1800's. True science has advanced nothing in 100 years.

But what of flight?

Not invented by scientists at the university, but by ordinary men. The evolution of flight has been a terrific phenomenon; for the Wright brothers were true phenomenologists, not scientists. Bernoulli tried hard, but achieved only inquiry, no success. Aircraft work despite weak comprehension as to why they work.

Where is proof of that claim?

Only the Americans, French, and Japanese understand flight, which is why they never put a ramp or a ski-jump on their aircraft carriers. All the others: Russia, China, Britain, India, Italy, Turkey, Iran - all use ramps which would work better if they started the aircraft at the top of the ramp, going downwards, then it would attain more speed...

But how? where? and when? did the fall of truth occur?

The French and Russian revolutions in turn.

I can recall standing before the exam center, in front of that iconic statue of Joan of Arc, outside Rhodes University's Great Hall. And I think of the ethical disaster that has befallen France... once the highest end of Western civilization. And I recall all the blatant crooking, and also the underhanded cheating that I observed in and around those so-called exams. The debasement of academia and the destruction of France and Russia into pagan mobs are all the same degeneration of ethical thinking.

It was at the time of Joan of Arc that my ancestors stopped speaking French. And instead picked up this common Saxon dialect. So I explore the etymology of that word: France, which just means freedom.

That exam process once haunted me. Yet now I smirk at how my thesis on gravity proves all their lies to be clearly known for what they are. Such idol-worship. Which is so corrupt that I wished I could rip that sword from that statue, and smite the entire Alumni. Not with pen. But with edged blade. Instead I have now decimated their sophistry with axiomatic clear logic. Yet all their answer is still filibuster.

Thus my hand itches.

And this is why the scientists wanted to split science away from the mind of man, for our philosophy meanders so haphazardly off-topic from its intent. But it must do this, because that is the complex shape of the terrain being described.

The abstraction of science from mind is only effective as a temporary reckoning; like closing one eye; to get a different perspective of an object in the distance. We ultimately need to be looking at the world with the I of IQ, and the ire, of EQ both, to properly regard the world.

But institutionism has become a frankensteinian monster, so debased from the idealistic motives of the grandfathers of science: Descartes, Newton, Galileo, that I can no longer call my own astrophysics algorithms, 'science' any longer. That word has lost all meaning.

For although it is called science when a person uses Newtonian physics, Newton himself, did not simply acquire his formulae in textbooks. His principles themselves were discovered in ways which defy textbooks. And it is now proven so, for if the philosophy which Newton used, was as easy as it is to print a text book, then Einstein would never have seen the light of just one day. Let alone 100 years of idol-worship and mass-murder, in the name of science.

For 'science' is the quackery of black-holes, Einstein, virology and manned moon-landings.
Uh-oh, I said it.
Conspiracy is the art of lies.
And institutionalist science has no point of reference for lies; since it has divorced itself from religion.

For what obligation do the 'scientists' have for being honest?
And since they have given up ethic for quick material gain,
what obligation do they have for not being psychopaths?

Is there even one example of a psychopath being cured by therapy?

And seeing as though the doctors have placed themselves as the seers of the day; the holy men and 'priests' of our society. What ethical structure do they propose beyond the Prussian schooling model of using the youth as cannon-fodder?

That model which defeated Napoleon and ended a thousand year Kingdom.
That which lines up the youth in ranks to be slaughtered at the command of their 'sirs'.

I think again of the statue of Joan of Arc, outside an African-British university. She was England's most lethal enemy. The ground she took from England remains French, even as France itself is crucified yet again to heathenism. And yet here her statue is, in the place of highest honor, beheld by her enemy. Her fight, all but lost 600 years later, yet her sword fights on within her mere image. Her French Monarchy dead for over 200 years. How her soul must burn in anguish.

I would set myself alight, if I thought it would help them
open their minds and hearts at the same time...

Then as the military industrial-complex flirts with world-war 3,
we shall see how the laws of physics ... meet with the physics of the law,
in the age-old testing ground, called war.

For nobody ever won a war without lying, and science is what empowers warriors, so that is why science has become an opportunists lie. But such is only successful due to the ignorance of the masses. Which is not to say they are stupid; rather their inability to embody truth, is a psychological cowardice.

And the collateral damage of that psychological war,
being the very words we use, our connection to Logos.

Alors. Le mot « science » est donc la dernière victime de la guerre.

Science is dead.

Long live,
phénoménologie.

But that too shall die,
that word too, shall lie.

Unless you open your other I.