The romanticism of scientific rigor.

Javi James
Jun 30
6 min read

This is not a reductionist article, much less a philosophical one. What I'm doing here is laying out, in precise terms, what is probably already implicit in logic, and even more so in physics, but which perhaps, just perhaps, is being ignored.

First, I want to propose that you don't take an initial stance, only that you read with an honestly impartial vision. Leave room for internal questioning, because the only absolute is love, as a cohesive force.

It seems that scientific rigor abides by convention under a paradigm as interesting as it is foolish — in a certain respect. This foolishness lies in the very structure of its rigor. Because conventions are what limit the focus, ultimately cornering discernment, like a neurophysiological maneuver. However, and ambiguously, those same limits are also what allow for transcending into a disruptive style, since without them there would be no limits to break, nor Nobel prizes to award. This paradox is what gives life, because without it there would be no experience. So I correct myself, and say that rigor doesn't lie in the structure, but in the obsessive stubbornness of upholding that structure of rigor.

This attitude belongs to a mental state in entropy. But as thermodynamics describes well, entropy is just one of four states. In Vedanta, that state is recognized as a mechanism of action, but only if well managed. Otherwise it's a prison. In physical terms, if entropy isn't used as a mechanism of action, overheating will begin to burn everything down. But what does this mean?

In neurophysiological and then sociocultural terms, this overheating produced by the foolishness of science means mass mental manipulation, because any structure that attempts to become a prevailing paradigm subjects the individual to what in natural law we know as "diminutio capitis" — altering their discernment, the individual feels diminished before the structures, feels fearful, and believes they need external validation.

But wait, to be fair, we could consider that no such manipulation exists, but rather that it's the individual's own lack of discernment that determines whether they are manipulated or not. So this dual game is something we'll always find in every aspect of life. And guess what, it has a physical logic, it's not philosophy. We'll see.

Given the above, one could say that this conceptualization of the obsessive stubbornness of the scientific paradigm is relative, since while in one respect it would constitute a limitation — in the effort to maintain order and a certain coherence — it would also invite disruption. It would be something like a necessary evil. It's a rhetoric that occurs constantly.

Beyond structures, paradigms, and conventions, what allows for evolution is the very neural function of the individual in a process of optimization, as a unit of consciousness experiencing singularity. And look how beautiful that is, because that same function is what places blocks to be transcended. So far, this article sounds romantic, but we're only now getting to its "rigor."

Now I want us to conceptualize, to put things in order. If conventional science requires measurements and demonstrations, it's because it seeks external validation, to contrast against. There's a need. It's what consciousness does — it seeks contrast to understand itself through its reflection. So, with this logical reasoning, I'd like you to identify this science as exogenous science. It studies parameters externally, rationally, analytically. An intellectual approach of segmentation.

In parallel, we'd have what would be endogenous science, which studies internally, emotionally, reflectively. An intelligent approach, absolutely empirical. An example of this science is the Yoga Sutra, which has taught for thousands of years how to activate and master internal bioelectric engineering.

Notice this: exogenous science has published hundreds of papers and studies on this endogenous Yogic science, granting it a certain place through neuroscience and quantum physics, but with some reluctance, because as they apply their rigor, it remains something exogenous — they remain in search of validation. And of course, since endogenous science doesn't have the rigor of seeking validation, only of self-validating, there's no compatibility with what's conventionally agreed upon.

What's endogenous is what invites you to become your own lab rat, and after being your own experiment, you'll only be able to share a small percentage of it. Perhaps 5%, with luck, because experience is untransmittable. And that is the only real thing. What we call reality may have a predetermined, even agreed-upon configuration, but the collapse of those individual experiences is what ultimately gives it its plot, more or less dramatic — that's for another article.

Studying circumstantial processes the way exogenous science does is beautiful, and for me, it's an art, but as in all art, there's the work and the artist. The work is what's seen. And what's seen is only a small part of the potential used. That potential is the artist. So, to claim that only the work should be called science, and that the artist should be denied as science, is more than an absurdity — it goes against the laws of physics, and I'll explain that now. But first let me tell you something else: this doesn't just mean that the artist is part of science, but that they are "the first science." Therefore, the work is the secondary effect of this first science, it's the product, it's that external thing we work so hard to study. And the endogenous? Do you study it? Keep in mind that to study means to apply. Interesting, isn't it?

Let's go to physics. We now have two elements: exogenous and endogenous science. At first glance, incompatible. But according to Watt's law, they can become power. If the endogenous is potential (V) and the exogenous is what flows as current (A), the product of this is true power (W) — V · A = W. It's a simple equation, validated by convention, just as exogenous science likes it. And notice something: the order of the factors would alter the result. Electric current flows from a potential, which we know as electrical voltage. Without an initial potential, there's no current. You plug an appliance into an outlet, because that's how you're requesting that potential — or does the outlet on the wall ask the appliance for electricity?

Once this is understood, we know that the correct order generates power. In Yoga, this is known as kundalini, a system whose stabilization requires great discipline to master. But what I want to say is, if there's no order, there's only dissonance, electrical noise. And that's what we see in everyday life: dissonance between sciences. They should simply acknowledge each other openly, and that coherence will generate a powerful change in humanity. What does this imply? That as sovereign individuals with discernment, we don't submit to diminutio capitis. That is, observe yourself when you feel you're waiting for someone else's validation, and especially if you're waiting for the validation of a fictitious structure, such as a governmental body, an institution, or a political, religious, scientific, or economic paradigm. These last four paradigms represent the four mental functions of consciousness, and mastering them is what Vedanta has tried to teach for thousands of years, in a more endogenous than exogenous way.

I say observe yourself, because that will enable the reflection that lets you stop and reconsider. Understand that diminishing yourself is not natural. What's natural is to adopt a syntergic neural field — that is, coherent — and where there's high coherence there's no fear, no threats, no instinctive biological response controlling your system. Limbic brain prevailing over reptilian brain generates coherent results in the neocortex (validated by exogenous science — ha). This reflection shouldn't lead you to confront what at first seems to diminish you, but should lead you to learn how to interact with it. Getting angry at a system places you directly in the position that system has already predetermined by algorithm. Dance between the predictable and the hack, like true power, like strands of DNA.

In conclusion, we could say that failing to understand the order and synergy of duality narrows the probabilistic margin of experimentation, and with it, that of theorizing. Because if, procedurally, the experiment excludes the experimenter themselves as the first sense, then from the outset there's already a clear physical and logical penalty.

We've reached the end. I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks for reading. And remember… nothing personal.