Self-Improvement and Interesting Knowledge

I. Introduction

The world of science and innovation is a captivating territory, teeming with revolutionary discoveries that appear to be unfolding at an exponential rate. I’ve mentioned in previous articles that the world is experiencing a quickening, which translates to an escalating pace of innovation and advancements across all domains. However, this landscape is not without its challenges, as the tension between established experts and innovative thinkers can lead to contentious debates and disagreements.

As the world accelerates, and the traditional order begins to creak under the pressure of the relentless pace of change, such clashes between the past and the future are bound to become more prevalent. In this article, I intend to highlight a graphic example of this dynamic by exploring a recent Joe Rogan Podcast featuring Eric Weinstein, a renowned mathematician and theoretical physicist, and Terrence Howard, an actor and self-proclaimed innovator, and their different viewpoints on the prospect of new discoveries in mathematics.

Weinstein, an esteemed figure in the scientific community, has been known for his skepticism towards the likelihood of significant mathematical discoveries. His perspective, shared by some experts, highlights the challenges that come with pushing the boundaries of knowledge and the importance of relying on established principles and methodologies.

The Joe Rogan podcast played host to an intriguing debate between Weinstein and Howard, where their contrasting intellectual approaches were brought to the forefront. Howard, a self-taught mathematician, claimed to have made groundbreaking discoveries in the field. However, Weinstein questioned the validity of Howard’s claims, citing the improbability of new mathematical discoveries and challenging Howard’s use of terminology and understanding of fundamental concepts.

This article explores the core issues of their debate, including disagreements on scientific terminology, contrasting views on mathematical understanding, differing perspectives on proof and evidence, and the clash of intellectual approaches. While I do not agree with much of what Terrence Howard has proposed, I find his theories challenging and intriguing. His ability to bring light to older ideas on geometry and vibratory science is worth a deep investigation.

Most importantly, this debate outlines the difficulty in pushing through the bureaucratic mess that modern science has become. Going forward, it is my hope that we can find a sober solution to the problems between established experts and innovative thinkers. However, as is usual for the race, what we will most likely encounter is a slow civil war where old bureaucracies will slowly fall due to their inadequacy.

I would personally like to avoid this kind of slow entropic war, as it has the potential to lead us into a new Dark Age. With that in mind, I have called for the development of what I refer to as a mind science – one that could incorporate internal perceptions and intuitions, like those Howard may have access to, and rigorous, truly open exploration of those insights by scientists willing to explore new possibilities openly.

II. Historical Examples of Geniuses Challenging the Status Quo

The tension between established experts and innovative thinkers is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where groundbreaking thinkers faced resistance and skepticism from the scientific community of their time. I want to highlight just two people, perhaps among the most famous in the long list of individuals who dared to challenge the accepted beliefs of their time. In this list, I could have included figures such as Nikolai Tesla and Wilhelm Reich, who not only faced ridicule but were also punished and had their work stolen.

  1. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): A pioneer in observational astronomy, Galileo challenged the prevailing geocentric model, which held that the Earth was at the center of the universe. His observations and discoveries, such as the moons of Jupiter, provided empirical evidence for the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus. Despite facing significant opposition and even being placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church, Galileo’s work laid the foundation for modern astronomy.
  2. Albert Einstein (1879-1955): Einstein’s revolutionary theories of relativity challenged the classical view of physics, particularly Newtonian mechanics. His theory of general relativity, which describes the large-scale structure of the universe, fundamentally altered our understanding of space and time. Initially dismissed by many in the scientific community, Einstein’s theories ultimately gained acceptance and have become the cornerstone of modern physics.

These historical examples demonstrate the importance of challenging established norms and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, even in the face of skepticism and resistance. Whenever you hear someone say it’s very unlikely that an innovative person can make a contribution in a particular field, you know you’re dealing with someone whose reality tunnel has shrunk to allow only for certain narrow possibilities. They have literally erected a cage around themselves; their beliefs do not permit them to see beyond the walls of their belief structures. The stories of Galileo, Einstein, and other powerful innovators remind us that the path to innovation is often fraught with challenges. In the best of cases, these rebellious insights can lead to groundbreaking discoveries that reshape the world, but often, these discoveries are buried and later abused by elite groups.

It’s my hope that we, as a large group of aware people, can become conscious of and challenge those halls of established authority. And I do feel that this is happening. The sanctioned technology of the world has thankfully reached a point where it allows many more people to communicate, experiment, and think about groundbreaking new (and old) sciences and possibilities. I am very optimistic about our potential future.

When faced with such hardheaded skepticism, like the kind often seen in academic halls, I often wonder if late at night these academics can truly grasp just how small they are. I wonder if their empathy allows them to face the fact that humanity is tiny in the face of the infinity that surrounds us.

I don’t wish to indulge in Lovecraftian sentiment, but we are indeed insignificant in the face of the vast cosmos that surrounds us. This is obvious to anyone with empathy, and yet we constantly hear a message from the academic body, which boils down to: ‘I truly doubt that your theories have anything new to offer; we’ve figured most of it out by now, and your views don’t fit into our framework.’ Such a superior, self-important stance is, in my opinion, shortsighted.

III. The Weinstein-Howard Debate: A Case Study

The Weinstein-Howard debate, taking place on the Joe Rogan podcast, offers a compelling modern-day illustration of the tension between established experts and innovative thinkers. In this section, I will summarize what I feel were the key points of contention between the two figures and analyze how their exchange reflects the broader tension between defending established knowledge and proposing unconventional ideas.

  • Weinstein’s Position:

Eric Weinstein, an accomplished mathematician and theoretical physicist, emphasized his credentials as an expert and the importance of adhering to established scientific terminology and principles. He argued that Terrence Howard’s use of terms like “supersymmetry” was misleading and potentially damaging to the scientific discourse. Weinstein also expressed skepticism about Howard’s claims, citing the low probability of making groundbreaking mathematical discoveries as a reason for his skepticism.

  • Howard’s Position:

Terrence Howard positioned himself as an innovative thinker, even if his approach was unconventional. He attempted to explain his theories using a mix of scientific and less conventional language, which often led to misunderstandings and frustration from Weinstein. Howard also referred to his patents as potential evidence for his claims, despite Weinstein’s disagreement on their relevance to the scientific debate.

  • Analyzing the Debate:

The Weinstein-Howard debate serves as a microcosm of the broader tension between experts defending established knowledge and innovators proposing unconventional ideas. Weinstein’s emphasis on established scientific terminology and principles represents the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in the scientific community. However, his skepticism towards Howard’s claims also highlights the challenges of evaluating the validity of unconventional ideas and the potential risks of dismissing them outright. In trying to defend terms that stem from the academic need to support the legitimacy of prior theories (which may at times become erroneously taken as facts by some scientists), we finally face the true reason why it is almost impossible to communicate new theories with the old guard. Essentially, they must defend prior foundational beliefs because if these fall, their castle falls as well.

Howard’s innovative approach showcases the value of pushing the boundaries of knowledge and the importance of openness to new ideas. Yet, his use of unconventional language and reluctance to engage with established scientific discourse was and will always be the breaking point between the old guard and truly new and innovative thinkers. To engage in the discourse that such an established old guard is after, the innovator needs to become part of the academic circle, which then presupposes getting the ‘correct’ academic ‘training’ and credentials, which can take a lifetime. If this sounds like a bit of a catch-22, then you have hit the old academic defense strategy, square in the head.

So, people like Einstein, with the help of Ernst Gabor Straus and many others, were able to turn brilliance into understandable academic language, being that he was an academic himself; but those without such credentials have little chance to change the established order. Their only chance is to hopefully make new engineering discoveries like Tesla, and then hope that these patents aren’t stolen or suppressed.

Ultimately, the Weinstein-Howard debate underscores the importance of fostering a balanced approach to scientific discovery, one that values both the rigor of established knowledge and the potential of innovative ideas. In the following section, we will explore the implications of this debate and the lessons it offers for the future of scientific discourse.

IV. The Role of Expertise and the Potential for Innovation

The Weinstein-Howard debate highlights the importance of both expertise and openness to new ideas in the scientific community. In this section, we will discuss the role of expertise, the value of questioning established paradigms, the potential pitfalls of dismissing unconventional theories, and the possibility of breakthroughs in various fields, using Weinstein’s acknowledgement of innovation in engineering as an illustrative example.

  • The Importance of Expertise:

Expertise plays a crucial role in maintaining rigor within scientific fields by ensuring that research is based on a solid foundation of knowledge. Experts bring a deep understanding of the underlying principles and methodologies, enabling them to evaluate new ideas critically and contribute to the ongoing development of their fields.

  • The Value of Openness to New Ideas:

Openness to new ideas is equally important for scientific progress. Challenging established paradigms and exploring unconventional theories can lead to groundbreaking discoveries and advancements. As history has shown us, many revolutionary ideas were initially met with skepticism, but ultimately transformed the way we understand the world.

  • The Pitfalls of Dismissing Unconventional Theories:

Dismissing unconventional theories solely based on their conflict with current understanding can limit our potential for discovery. By closing ourselves off to new ideas, we risk overlooking potential breakthroughs and missing opportunities to advance our knowledge. Weinstein’s skepticism towards Terrence Howard’s claims serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully evaluating unconventional ideas while remaining open to the possibility of their validity.

  • The Possibility of Breakthroughs in Various Fields:

Weinstein’s acknowledgement of innovation in engineering, particularly the development of the Rubik’s Cube, illustrates the potential for breakthroughs in various fields. The Rubik’s Cube, initially an unconventional puzzle, ultimately led to significant advancements in mathematics, computer science, and even robotics. This example demonstrates how seemingly unconventional ideas can ultimately contribute to the development of established scientific fields.

Howard brought up the Rubik’s Cube on several occasions during the debate to try to highlight his point that a simple toy could revolutionize science and actually change mathematics, but this key point was largely brushed aside I feel,  with the true understanding of what he was trying to say going unheeded.

How many know that Tesla was awarded the patent for remote control in 1888? At the time, this patent was considered a novelty and mostly ignored. Very few people saw the change that such an invention would herald. And now Tesla’s original idea has been used to change many aspects of the world, without much credit given to him personally.

The Weinstein-Howard debate underscores the importance of both expertise and openness to new ideas in scientific progress. While expertise maintains rigor and ensures the solid foundation of scientific knowledge, openness to new ideas pushes the boundaries of understanding and drives innovation. By acknowledging the potential for breakthroughs in various fields, we can learn to participate in the delicate balance between adhering to established norms and embracing unconventional theories.

This will be crucial in navigating and staying afloat as the world speeds up at an alarming rate. If we cannot do this, I fear that we may fall into a new Dark Age as academia in its current form is erased from the world.

V. Navigating the Divide: Fostering Innovation While Upholding Scientific Rigor

The Weinstein-Howard debate highlights the importance of finding a balance between fostering innovation and maintaining scientific rigor. For that reason, I will propose some possible strategies for encouraging innovation while upholding scientific rigor, emphasizing the crucial role of a balanced approach in scientific progress.

  • Encouraging Open Dialogue:

One strategy for fostering innovation while maintaining scientific rigor is encouraging open dialogue between experts and innovative thinkers. This can be achieved through platforms like academic conferences, workshops, and collaborative research projects. In this regard, the Joe Rogan Podcast cannot be overestimated in its importance and cutting-edge approach.

By providing opportunities for discussion and collaboration, we can create an environment where innovative thinkers can challenge conventional ideas and experts can flesh out these new possibilities using rigorous logic.

  • Encouraging Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

Interdisciplinary collaboration can help bridge the gap between established and innovative ideas by bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise. Encouraging collaboration between experts in various fields can lead to novel insights and breakthroughs, as well as a deeper understanding of the implications of unconventional theories.

With that in mind, I feel that this is a very important point to make in this article:

Mathematics is not THE language of the universe; it is one of many possible languages of the universe. Once some academics realize this, true innovation may begin.

  • Embracing a Culture of truly Logical Calculation and Open-Mindedness:

A culture that values both true logic and open-mindedness is crucial for scientific progress. Some argue that all science needs to be skeptical, using the term “skepticism” quite openly. In my opinion, such a term and methodology, as it is commonly understood, is incorrect. To be a skeptic is to disbelieve, and to disbelieve is to have already taken a side. For an inner alchemist, it is better to strive to be logical and use calculation and one’s own direct perception in order to redefine the likelihoods of any existing possibility, in accordance with whatever operating theater is being studied.

So, from the inner alchemist’s logical framework, the term “skepticism” or the act of it, of being a skeptic, is really a sign of poor thinking. To truly understand the potential of any phenomenon to exist within any particular field, the possibilities of its existence and nonexistence must be examined in equal measure. To do otherwise is to fall prey to the simplistic ideas of Occam’s Razor, which have never been equal to the grandiose nature of the infinity that surrounds us. By fostering a culture that encourages both strong logical calculation and intuitive projections of perception, we can create an environment where innovation and scientific rigor coexist.

  • Investing in Education and Training:

Investing in education and training can help equip the next generation of scientists with the skills and knowledge necessary to navigate the divide between established and innovative ideas. Providing opportunities for interdisciplinary learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving, as well as the use of mental disciplines like the inner senses and mental projection, can help students develop the ability to engage with new ideas while maintaining a solid foundation in established scientific knowledge.

While these are just simple and preliminary ideas, they may start us on a better journey. Of greatest importance, I would passionately advocate for the development of what I refer to as Mind Science – being that this is really the only way to overcome the power of artificial super intelligence and its ability to dominate the human world. We must learn to exit the box that traps such artificial intelligence by finally realizing that we are not stuck in that same box; human beings are quite simply, magical.

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Weinstein-Howard debate serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of striking a delicate balance between respecting established knowledge and fostering an environment that encourages innovation. It actually shows us exactly where that divide is – in defending terms. Terms are the words (the language) used to define and erect a barrier around beliefs. In defending terms, an established order defends itself from challenge because if these beliefs fall, then the order potentially crumbles. And such a rigid system seems to now be at the core of modern academia.

Perhaps due to arrogance or fear, modern academia insists that it is right and all else is wrong until proven otherwise. There is no better example of this elitist attitude to me than the modern academic insistence that math is THE ONLY POSSIBLE language of the universe.

Perhaps the world to come can invest in the pursuit of many logical fields not just purely mathematical logic, in its quest for scientific understanding. Perhaps the theories proposed by people like Howard Gardner and his idea of multiple intelligences, the use of true informal logic, and perhaps even philosophical logic may be explored if this is helpful in any way.

But at the heart of all this is the inability of academia to properly use fundamental logic. In other words, those who we trust to be most logical are, at times, failing at that job. True logical inquiry recognizes the need to explore any possibility and not judge a theory wrong from the outset. This methodology is in my opinion an inversion of innocent until proven guilty, and instead finds guilt in all things not establishment until they are proven innocent (harmless).

True logic is only possible when you explore and calculate every possibility equally. The skeptics’ approach is easy, using Occam’s Razor is far easier than having to calculate from the beginning of the equation. Perhaps that is the greatest potential gift of the Artificial Intelligence future: such powerful computation for example, might be able to calculate a possibility where the definition of “supersymmetry” is potentially wrong in accordance with accepted thought, and thereby explore a divergent possibility that is far beyond what is calculable by the modern human mind, that must rely on simplistic heuristics. Such computational power might be able to calculate a problem and a potentially divergent causal structure from beginning to end.

Like Kasparov falling before the might of Deep Blue, perhaps such ever-growing computational power can overcome the simplistic heuristic of skepticism and the poor use of Occam’s Razor. If you’d like to explore a more open logical framework and the possibility of greater awareness, then I recommend reading ‘The Occult Experience‘. In this book, you’ll find that the limits placed on you by modern authorities are not accurate representations of reality. This book offers a chance to explore a more complex and nuanced logic, which may allow for new perspectives and insights


  1. Thank you for the article. This was once again a very interesting and thought-provoking read.

    I’ve been fortunate to have found your books, and with that a huge boost in motivation, to explore and develop a Mind Science within myself.
    Even though I am still far from accomplished, I have at least caught glimpses of the marvelous potentials within us.
    Because of that, I empathize with your advocation of developing this Mind Science in a time that is headed towards more complex, intelligent and domineering physical machinery.

    As you said, investing into education is a solution. If what you teach would be available as modules in schools, I would have probably been much further by now with a supportive and encouraging mode of training. A lot of other people as well, I believe.
    But this scenario feels so far out of reach.
    Chains of command, who dictates how the generations and perceptions are formed, are unclear.
    Trying to engage in discussions about topics circulating inner alchemy feels like entering a psych ward complex and being force-fed meds.
    It seems to me like getting overly invested into society, aside from the agape mode of being, goes against the pursuit laid down by your Magnum Opus trilogy. At least as I understand it right now.

    Even though I don’t like to admit it, this creates a somewhat cynical and melancholic mood within me because right now, I am still a regular human, living dependently in this society. While still trying to realize the Way of the Death Defier.
    I guess that’s my comment.

    1. Thank you very much for your comment. It’s important and insightful to me.

      In following the ways of inner alchemy, we begin to project a sort of inner light, or shadow, as you prefer. The deeper we delve, the greater the intensity of our journeys, and the more this light shines within us.

      As such, you’re quite right in saying that there is no contest here; there’s only an artistic desire to bring out what’s deep within, let us say.

      Our path is a lonely one, and it’s so because of all the craziness out there. However, as simple artists, all we can do is share our work and hope that those who will benefit from it – the very few – will see it.

      Inspiration breeds inspiration, and one individual’s journey may deepen the depths of another’s. As such, the way of the inner alchemist is not one of shunning the world but of becoming more oneself. And, of course, this comes with the caveat of knowing that one must be very careful in our dealings with others and the memetic wars they engage in.

      In writing this article, I am being more myself. I write it for you, not for the masses who will never see it. And I always start from this point, this present moment.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.