You might notice that I don't cite sources in texts that would otherwise call for citations if they were academic work. Well, I don't cite precisely because I don't want to replicate the academic model in this blog. This blog is for new ideas and, in that sense, it breaks with old norms.
When was the last time we changed the future? It wasn't with the invention of the iPhone, but 2024 years ago in Judea. (And you only have to reread the Gospels to see that no one needs to include references to found a new religion, even if they directly quote another source.) Indeed, there was nothing new for the future in the new technology of the iPhone. It was merely a modification of the present.
The future has always been heading in the same direction since the advent of Christianity. It takes prophecy to change the future, not science or technology.
So, can I be accused of plagiarism? Yes, but it doesn't matter. Those who know I'm paraphrasing know who I'm referring to. And those interested in reading more on the subject won't find any continuity with what's already been done in the sources. Besides, in all honesty, I've rarely found anything in the cited works that I found truly interesting and related to the work that quoted it. Furthermore, one chooses the quotation for the work one wants to do: it's not the quotation that chooses the text, it's the author who chooses their quotations. And I choose to do without them as much as possible, because my offering is unique: there's no prophecy department at the university. And I've never heard or read what I've been given the opportunity to discover.
Besides, citations are pretty useless when you have nothing to prove as an "academic." I'm not one, and I'm proud of it. I'm not going to import their stupid standards of knowledge-as-commodity, where you have to say who said what to make sure everyone gets their piece of the pie. That's not the ethos of scientific research; its ethos is communist. It's by pooling knowledge that we achieve breakthroughs. The current model is hampered by the capitalist structure, and I intend to ignore it as much as possible.
Also. I'm not here to engage in dialogue with the experts. They can quote me if they want to discuss what I say amongst themselves, but I put them in the dock: expertise is mostly sophistry. They're all alike. They speak the same way. They've fallen into a mold, they've acquired a style that ultimately trumps substance. And they've closed the agora to the public: now the debates are behind closed doors. And I, a poor proto-Socrates, have nowhere to speak.
Imagine, then, that knowledge today is structured in such a way that the average citizen couldn't contribute to it: they wouldn't have access to the latest articles because it would be too expensive for an individual to obtain them legally; they wouldn't be kept informed of intellectual events, and even less would there be a place for them if they decided to participate. So, if it's necessary to "take part in the debate" or "engage in discussion with other researchers," well, let's be clear that this norm only serves to reinforce their closed-door conversations. I say "their conversations" because they are not, and do not seek to be, inclusive.
For my part, and to conclude, I believe that among all the physicists waiting for an Einstein to come along and correct the paradigm of physics, well, there isn't a single Einstein! What I've seen in university departments is professors who invalidate their students until they speak like them. It's more of a vast invalidation enterprise that trains researchers… but there's no doubt that it doesn't often produce any real discoveries.
Therefore, I am not reproducing the university's "tested and proven" formula here. I am using this one, which is neither tested nor proven, and which even dares to contradict itself (because the law of non-contradiction is bullshit, and I will come back to that in a future article), and I wish you happy reading.
Leave comments