There is obviously “conflict” or “disagreement,” since to say otherwise will always be to introduce a conflict or disagreement between “no-conflict” and “conflict,” but the dialectic or antinomy1 arises within any real existing Athens or Jerusalem as well as between their concepts, as the Jerusalem within Athens vs. the Athens within Athens, and so on (and so on). The ideologue, including the ideologue of scientism, will be defined by a combative declaration of the non-existence of any authentic conflict on the level of the idea: There would be the true discourse of science (likewise race, communism, liberalism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) in conflict with varying manifestations of untruth, including all supposedly “complex” views or sets of views, but familiarization with the truly true discourse by the “woman in a hijab” will reveal its contingency, or the actual complexity, uncertainty, and inadequacy of its own finally and inalienably assertoric truth claims: Old Mecca behind, New Mecca ahead: Scientism or technologism, mistaken for science or technology, so the worst science and the worst technique, the most exclusionary and least consoling of revelationisms, annihilating all values including its own, conspicuously unconscientious in regard to itself, aggressively failing to supply the deficits widened by its own exertions.
- Another set of conflicts: Is it a dialectic, or an antinomy, or a complementarity, or a paradox? Is it a simple conflict or a complex conflict, and how dare you say it’s simple?! [↩]