Einstein's Ideas and Opinions Review and Commentary

Einstein's Ideas and Opinions Review and Commentary

Einstein Ideas and Opinions

(PD) Albert Einstein

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2021 — February 02, 2021

Ideas and Opinions, Albert Einstein, © 1954, Crown Publishers, reprint by Wings Books (around 1988).

I have had Albert Einstein's Ideas and Opinions sitting in my book shelves for decades, and except for the occasional glance at a page or two, I never acquired sufficient interest in its topics to read the book in full. Now, however, it is useful to include the title as book number two in a series of seven or more book reviews that sample Albert Einstein's opinions and theories.

The value of looking at Einstein's opinions is that they offer a general concept of how he tended to develop his own personal beliefs. An individual's belief by itself is usually of no importance to society, but the heuristics of how the belief was formed is important in how the individual interacts with society and himself. If an individual repeatedly ignores difficult questions while summing an opinion, then the opinion is not based upon an evidence of what the answers to the questions might have provided, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the trend of ignoring important facts would likely hold true in most or all other beliefs held by that individual.

As an example, William James wrote at length of religious experiences, and yet the biographies and his own writings suggest that he held no meaningful firsthand experience in any of the religions: he simply made stuff up and then claimed his inventions to be true academic facts. James' tendency to skip over hard questions was also applied to all of his known philosophical and psychological opinions, which simply resulted in the opinions being confused, incorrect, and psychologically damaging to society.

Today it is very common for well-known individuals to publicly claim that they are experts on religious topics, and yet the individuals have no meaningful experience with the religions beyond that of possibly having read a book or sat in a pew a few Sundays: the individuals are so profoundly ignorant of the topics that they sincerely do believe that no knowledge can exist beyond the act of memorizing words. A brief visit with the Dalai Lama does not instill within a person a fullness of an understanding of Buddhism, and yet still popular philosophers and Scientists do claim to know enough about Buddhism to form coherent opinions.

The error extends into numerous other fields as well, one example being that of a biologist who repeatedly claimed in front of government officials that she was an "expert" on the topic of electrical radiation in spite of her having no meaningful education of electrical theory, and it was partially from her testimony that the government declared that microwave radiation is not harmful to living organisms (ignoring completely the decades of evidence that microwave not only kills cells but also alters chemical structures). Years later the biologist learned a small quantity of what an electrical wave is, and she then recanted her previous claims as she admitted that cell phone radiation is indeed extremely harmful at the cellular level (while she again continued to repeatedly claim of herself as being an "expert"). The individual still does not know enough of transductance to grasp how serious the problem is, but the focus here is that societies have permitted themselves to be dependent on different individuals possessing different specializations, and when a group of individuals with specialized education agree on a topic related to that specialization, then society assumes that surely the individuals know what they are talking about. When the entire group is wrong, society is led to accept choices that are not merely incorrect, but also life-threatening.

If modern Scientists have claimed a knowing of topics outside of their own firsthand experience, then it is expected that the same Scientists' scientific theories would be found to have omitted similarly important elements that are necessary to sum a rational opinion, and that is precisely what has occurred.

It is, therefore, useful to observe where an individual may pause a research project to first acquire an adequate understanding of an equation before proceeding further, and to also observe where the individual jumps, skips, leaps, and dodges the difficult task of empirically validating an opinion. All humans make mistakes, Einstein was human, and he made mistakes, but that is okay. The interesting and useful thing is to observe which mistakes were made, why the mistakes were made, and to then compare how the behavior may have been applied within his professional work.

The most favored quality behind Ideas and Opinions is that Albert Einstein is said to have personally proofed the manuscript himself prior to publication, which if true, should result in the reader being given a better perspective of Einstein's true opinions that have not been unduly contorted by a publisher's bias. Too, the book was originally published a couple years prior to Einstien's death, so the book ought to reflect mature opinions, those of which Einstein had roughly seventy years to reflect upon and to make corrections of any youthful errors.

"The cult of individuals is always, in my view, unjustified. But there are plenty of the well-endowed… It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few of them for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular estimate of my power and achievement and the reality is simply grotesque. The awareness of this strange state of affairs would be unbearable but for one pleasing consolation: it is a welcome symptom in an age which is commonly denounced as materialistic, that it makes heroes of men whose goals lie wholly in the intellectual and moral sphere. This proves that knowledge and justice are ranked above wealth and power by a large section of the human race. My experience teaches me that this idealistic outlook is particularly prevalent in America, which is decried as a singularly materialistic country."

The first segment is generally agreeable, that the public admires Einstein without a valid reason. Repeatedly the public invents its heroes and villains, and regardless of the individuals' worthiness of holding the titles, the public remains the sole judge of who will be loved, and who will be hated. I could ramble at length on this topic, but surely the reader is already more than aware of how the 'cult of individuals' has not only shaped society, academia, politics, and Science, but has also permanently altered the nature of the Abrahamic religions.

Regardless of a man's successes or failures, the general public alone dictates public opinion. As the public today places full trust in Scientists' opinions about religions — in spite of the public knowing full-well that the Scientists have never had a firsthand experience with any religion or philosophy — so does the public place full trust in Einstein's opinions regardless of Einstein's lack of experience.

However, the second segment of Einstein's opinion is not agreeable. As repeatedly seen in Cosmic Religion, when Einstein spoke of a topic he would then invent an explanation that was not accurate nor relative to the topic at hand, but rather the invented 'explanation' was aimed to support the previous claim regardless of the explanations being incorrect. An example is of Einstein having remained steadfast in his desire for racial and nationalist goals, but the 'explanations' for his present opinions were invented and twisted to meet the day's events — sometimes pacifist, sometimes militarist — which left the explanations to be contradictory and false. Most — if not all — of Einstein's opinions showed the trend of his holding four general standards: [1] racial nationalism, [2] a full faith in Science, [3] a propensity to claim a knowledge of topics that he held no knowledge of, and [4] to philosophically invent sophist explanations and excuses for the purpose of allegedly 'proving' his first two standards to be valid.

It is very common for humans to invent beliefs on the fly that contradict what the individuals had been saying the moment before. An intriguing — albeit disturbing — observation is that many of the individuals actually change a portion of their memories to support the moment's needs. I do not have enough experience observing the phenomenon to give a confident answer, but on the surface it appears that the individuals possess a form of memory that is adaptable and can reconfigure itself to agree with whatever emotions that might rise from the unconscious mind.

I have not yet observed individuals with stable emotions to exhibit the reconfiguration of memories, but the individuals who do not have control over their memories — whose emotions arise unwilled from the unconsciousness — exhibit the reconfiguration almost continuously. The change of memories usually results in the individuals' opinions changing to suit the moment's needs, and though the opinions may appear to be very rational to the individual and to other individuals whose memories also change to support the present scenario, the opinions are bizarre and aberrant to individuals whose memories remained steady.

Without my investing excessive time into further researching Einstein's opinions, for the moment I am leaning towards the suspicion that he possibly experienced unwilled emotions (those that drove the emotional desire for racial nationalism), and he then made the error of philosophicalizing (spinning) learned knowledge to become the invented 'proof' that his emotional desires were valid truths. The errors would not have been important if Einstein had merely made the errors a few times, but all or almost all of his opinions were accompanied with the same behavioral pattern. This is a problem because if all or almost all of his opinions were formed upon inventions that attempted to qualify his unconscious emotions, then it must be asked: were his mathematical conclusions formed upon the same patterning?

My own occupational 'hazard' for most of my life was trouble-shooting electronic circuits, an occupation that requires mental patterns that actively search for faults while verifying which components are functioning correctly. Depending on the type of circuitry, often there is zero tolerance for any fault or so much as a weak component. The mental patterning always demands 100% accuracy, and nothing less is acceptable. There is no excuse for a lack of knowledge, no excuse for guessing, no excuse for public opinion, no excuse for inventing assumptions, and no excuse whatsoever for failing the 100% accuracy: the voltages have to be exact, the inductances have to be exact, the sine waves must be as near perfect as possible, and all other attributes of each circuit have to be as 100% correct as is humanly possible.

Perhaps the biggest difference between expert trouble-shooters and 'by the book' trouble-shooters is that the experts intimately know the nature of electricity and how it behaves within different circuits and materials, whereas the 'by the book' technician attempts to solve unknown problems mathematically without first having a knowledge of electricity itself. As 'by the book' techs spend years attempting to solve a single problem — and philosophers spend thousands of years trying to solve a single problem — the qualified tech is able to walk in and solve the problem within hours and without the assistance of schematics and wiring diagrams.

The differences between firsthand knowledge and education are dramatic: education can never replace experience nor the need to actually think and analyze accurately. The example of MIT graduates not being able to rationalize how to make light with a battery, wire, and bulb is not rare, nor limited to MIT; it is extraordinarly common within countless examples in all fields and all universities throughout the world. The inability to think has become the accepted norm, perhaps largely due to the schools preaching the belief that memorized knowledge ia all a student needs to learn, and the student does not need to understand anything, which has been the trend of all universities since universities were first formed, including the universities that Einstein and all other popular Scientists attended. It is expected that Einstein would have followed and believed what he was taught to believe.

To me, my chosen mental patterns cannot accept the carelessness and inaccuracies of philosophy's inventions, nor of Einstein's inventions of topics that he knew nothing about. If an individual wishes to voice an opinion outside of their professional expertise, then fine, no problem, but when the individual begins claiming that their professional expertise is proven valid by the individual claiming an unknown topic proves the person's accuracy, then that is a problem and reason enough to ignore all of the individual's claims entirely.

"It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and reverence from my fellow beings, through no fault, and no merit, of my own. The cause of this may well be the desires, unattainable for many, to understand the few ideas to which I have with my feeble powers attained through relentless struggle."

Humans tend to admire an individual who appears to hold a knowledge beyond what the observer knows, and so it is to be expected that the public would interpret Einstein as admirable for his allegedly possessing knowledge that the public cannot fully understand. But there are limitations of what the public can accept: when the knowledge so exceeds normal human reasoning that the new knowledge is interpreted to be as if supernatural magic, then the public turns and hates the individual while claiming that the individual must be stupid for not having the same beliefs as the ignorant man's.

The general public knows what elementary mathematics is — the average Joe on the street can add, subtract, multiply and divide — and so the average person assumes that higher mathematics must simply be the same thing that the average person does, but more of it. Einstein was and is admired by the public because — in part — the public believes that Einstein's mathematics is the same mathematics that the public uses. Very similarly, Einstein's opinions suggested that he too assumed that individuals who master religions, philosophies, and other skills must merely be doing the same things he did, except more of it.

But when a man applies a four-dimensional 'mathematics' — one that the public cannot begin to grasp — the public violently denies the mathematics to be possible because the average man cannot invent the belief that he understands what a four-dimensional thing might be. Ridiculously, the public demands that if a four-dimensional 'math' exists, then the user should be able to describe the fourth dimension with one-, two-, and three-dimensional terms: and the public never grasps why the demand is absurd.

An example that illustrates sharp contrasts between popular belief and reality is when a man heals another man by touch alone. The public reacts angrily and violently because the man is doing a thing that the public does not and cannot comprehend, and too, the public assumes without evidence that all forms of non-scientific healing must be religious-based fakery. Little different than any other society or culture, Science is a closed system of faith, and no tolerance is permitted for any knowledge that exceeds the system's own. Science insists — without evidence — that olfaction must be the physical touching of molecules to nasal receptors, and any man who disagrees — with evidence — is simply hated for not behaving with the same behavior as society's, and for not believing the same beliefs as what society believes.

It is normal, expected, and usually useful for a culture to hold firm the cultural preferences that enable the culture to flourish, but just because a culture survives, it does not infer that the culture's beliefs must be true.

As a means of entertainment, I can stand at a distance from an individual as I hold an object in my hand, and without touching, enable the individual to taste the object more strongly than if the object were on their tongue. The act is not supernatural nor mystical, but rather a simple knowing of how to create the effect. The contrast here is that Science makes claims that are rarely ever presented through empirical firsthand experience, but the man who heals can heal without a reliance on Scientific faith. Healing a serious infection takes less than one minute without physical contact and without any medical device whatsoever, and the application has been repeated numerous times on different individuals: the effects are real, the results are real, the methods of application are real, but the public cannot accept the acts because the public cannot relate the effect to their own knowledge, and too, the public sincerely believes that all knowledge can only arrive from Science. And it is here that Science has faultered with items like the Michelson transference experiments, which if contrasted to the 'distant taste' effect, illustrates that Science's conclusions were based upon incorrect assumptions, the same assumptions that the theories of relativity were formed upon.

For the moment, the errors of Science are irrelevant, but what is relevant is to observe how the theories and opinions of Science and Einstein's were built upon educations of words, without the understanding of firsthand experience.

"This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in fours to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; unprotected spinal marrow was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how passionately I hate them! How vile and despicable seems war to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press.

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds — it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in the alone, I am a deeply religious man. …Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thought."

Wow. If a man told me those words, I would silently turn and walk away, to never again associate with the dangerously unstable fellow.

When reading the book's first paragraphs I was quickly reminded why I never finished reading the book: Einstein's world and mine are fully different. In Einstein's world there was the constant placing of blame upon others for one's troubles — while never accepting one's own responsibilities — and never was there attempted a viable solution for the day's problems. In my world the focus is a constant search for solutions, of my accepting all responsibility for all of my life. Einstein's era believed that world peace was possible by treaties and military force, but no effort was given to create a philosophy of peace that needed no treaty and no military. Einstein's era was as the doctor who treated symptoms while ignoring the disease.

Without hearing Einstein speak the book's words, it is not currently possible to know which emotional emphases he may have placed upon each word and sentence. Were the words spoken in jest, or mono-toned, or perhaps with bipolar-like octaves? Very few humans speak words that agree with the emotional content behind the words, and so on the surface I cannot positively sum what Einstein implied with his words, but, nevertheless, the general theme behind his opinions does give cause for concern.

Did Einstein ever become a soldier? Biographies say no. Did Einstein pronounce judgments on the military that he had no firsthand experience of? Yes. (The "how passionately I hate them" quote appears to infer that Einstein may have experienced unwilled emotional outbursts without being self-aware of the how and why the emotions arose, which appears to infer that his opinions were formed relative to the unconsciously-sparked emotions, which infers that he was an emotionally-reactive 'thinker', which in turn infers that his opinions were not thought-out rationally, but rather the opinions may have merely been the reactions of inventing explanations whose equations were based upon how the unconsciously-formed emotions reacted to the moment's scenario. In his later years Einstein repeatedly changed his opinions about the military, which further illustrated that his opinions may have indeed been unconsciously-reactive emotionally-based and not based upon evidence and conscious reasoning. But still the opinions and possible causes are unimportant; what is important is that the opinions show a continual trend of summing conclusions while ignoring the need for evidence.)

Did Einstein ever become a Buddhist? No. Did Einstein pronounce judgments on the Buddhism that he had no firsthand experience of? Yes. Did Einstein ever become an accomplished Christian or Muslim? Biographies say no. Did Einstein pronounce judgments on the Christianity and Islam that he had no meaningful firsthand experience of? Yes.

The Scientific method demands empirical evidence, but Einstein's opinions were formed without evidence, which is a direct contradiction to his claim of supporting the faith of Science. This is a serious problem that cannot be ignored.

The pattern is obvious in all of Einstein's opinions; Einstein invented his opinions upon what he wanted to believe relative to the moment's emotion, and not upon firsthand empirical 'Scientific' evidence. It is very normal for normal humans to change their beliefs and even their memories to adapt to the present scenario's emotions, which appears to force the sum that Einstein was a normal man, and of the same 'herd' that he belittled.

In Cosmic Religion Einstein had opined that fear was what awakened religious ideas, but here he added mystery to the equation. If he had lived longer, how many other elements might he have added? The problem is not with his opinion, but rather with the absence of actually having a knowledge of the topic itself. Similar to philosophy, when a question is presented, it is not an understanding that is brought into focus for the answer, but rather the given answer is merely the creative rearranging of bits of knowledge into a form that appears rational if an individual were to know nothing of the topic itself.

A general theme throughout all of Einstein's opinions appears to revolve around three primary elements, [1] his personal passion for mathematical Science, [2] his desire for a Jewish nation (racial and nationalist biases), and [3] his apparent distaste for the two main things that he believed kept him from attaining his desires: religion and militaries. Most all of Einstein's opinions changed and adapted to meet the moment's need to blame someone else for his own problems, and his opinions were intolerant and insensitive to other people's feelings.

Parallel to the Cosmic Religion book's opinions, Einstein claimed that he knew what the "most beautiful experience" was, he claimed that he knew that "the mysterious... is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science", and that "whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead". Einstein went so far as to invent the claims "It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion" and "the most radiant beauty".

I am stunned when a man claims that he knows what thoughts and feelings people had thousands of years ago, but many men today do make the claim, and too often it seems as if most of the men have all been of the faith of Science.

No person today knows how religions were born, and people today do not know what thoughts and emotions people had thousands of years ago. The "engendered religion" claim is a carelessly wrong invention — possibly formed in part as the philosophical reasoning applied to an unconscious emotional anger that blamed religion for his lack of happiness — and it sets a sour tone upon all other opinions in the book.

Within all religions and cults there is a common tendency for some individuals to claim that they have discovered the 'perfect truth'. When an individual claims to be in possession of the one true truth — especially when they invent a classification noun like 'cosmic' — it is a sufficient cause to immediately walk away and create a distance from that individual; their beliefs are not mature. The error of the opinion is relatively unimportant, but the carelessness of the mind that created the error will likely lead to serious future problems. It is best to walk away from the individuals so as to prevent one's self and family from suffering the future problems.

"Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thought." Wow. Einstein attacked the very cores of humane behavior, and yet society still accepts him as its champion. Perhaps Einstein was fully rooted in a three-dimensional mentality that could not fathom the possibility that there exists things in the universe that Science does not yet know of, and everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, but an opinion that sways with the moment's winds is merely an opinion that has no weight nor root.

Individuals who have mastered their chosen paths, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or something else, theirs is an experience that has never been recorded in books, and never is it believed that an individual's current experience of beauty can be the ultimate beauty. The accomplished men and women who live secluded from society have experienced and achieved far more than what Einstein memorized from books, and his words were not merely useless, but also destructive; far more emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually destructive than a war with guns.

I sincerely do want to be tolerant of Einstein's opinions, and if he had been but an unknown face in the crowd then his opinions would not have mattered, but he was held up as the champion of Science, and now the public is led to believe that his inventions of opinions must have surely been valid truths: the public did not walk away soon enough.

Here I want to draw another contrast, to illustrate a difference between Einstein's world and another. Among some individuals there are ongoing 'research projects' that are focused upon the aim of attaining higher qualities of one's own inward self. The aim is not for a knowledge to be written with words in a book, nor to appease a philosophical or religious belief, but rather the aim is to achieve and to experience the highest levels of inner beauty that the individual is capable. Einstein's culture only cares for mathematical sums that are never experienced firsthand, but the other culture's self-demand is the firsthand experience itself. Einstein's culture invents explanations of actions, while the other culture experiences and understands the actions firsthand. Einstein's culture is as a young child imagining that they know what love is, while the other culture knowingly and purposefully walks within the sensations of love.

Einstein's culture continues to war and to create weapons that kill and maim all living beings while never does the culture add value to life. The other culture, having understood some of the benefits of creative inward natures, has created methods of healing and communication, and the value of life is enhanced with beauty, limitless happiness, and a recognition of some of Nature's natures that cannot be recognized without the firsthand experience.

In 1998 I marveled at an observation that was of a beauty beyond all that I had previously imagined, but there was an oddity that puzzled me, and I never understood what the oddity implied until recent months when the answer was finally made obvious. The answer was of the kind that spawns awe and an intense happiness accompanied with tears of a loving appreciation for the thing of beauty. This one thing, this one thing, all by itself, it alone is worth the whole of my life having waited for its appearance: to me, ten seconds of the experience is worth more than an eternity of Einsteins, and I would not trade one breath of my life for any other result. To me, Einstein's world is silently empty and without value.

Einstein's world is society's world; they are intertwined, and neither hold the potential for bettering life. For other cultures, however, they know that they are not accepted in Einstein's culture, and no attempt is made to change what cannot be changed. Opposite cultures cannot coexist; either one will die, or both will die as the people assimilate into a culture of compromises. The culture of Science has no capacity for compromise, nor does my culture possess the potential to compromise, which is okay as long as both cultures are kept at a distance from the other.

The artist may paint what he feels, and the mathematician may measure what he wishes, but my choice is to experience the things firsthand, to understand by becoming the things, and I am pleased for my choice.

For the man who intensely cries with a happiness for another person's happiness, what evidence can there be that a mere belief in Science could equal the emotion? For some of us, life is to be experienced, to walk where no other man has ever walked, and for that man the idea of wasting time calculating imaginary numbers is deemed to be an unfathomable misuse of life itself.

And this is among the reasons why I never finished reading Opinions and Ideas when I first bought the book: the book's opinions are nonsense, of perpetual contradictions, and have no relevance to Reality.

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."

The quote appears to be rhythmed upon the general Hindu/Buddhist ideas that are often repeated in books. The Hindu/Buddhist idea points towards a type of distinguishing of the I from the me, which is an act that may help some individuals attain a degree of self-awareness, but the idea does not relate to the I that already exists, and never can Einstein's invented knowledge-based claim be true. I am I, I have always been I, and I cannot liberate I from I; nor do I want to. Just because someone makes a claim, it does not infer that the claim must be true, and though a man quotes words from religious text, it does not infer that the words must relate to you, as if all humans were identical and required to follow the identical same path to achieve an identical same goal of which there is no other option.

In one culture the value of a human being is weighed by their caring, kindness, compassion, sympathy, gentleness, honesty, accuracy, aware concern for others, and an externally flowing love for all things, all of which create an emotional tone that is beautiful to experience and to be near. To hear the individual's emotioned voice is as if listening to the songs of Nature, a firsthand experience that is not possible in Einstein's culture. The 'liberation from the self' quote is deeply disturbing and frighteningly aberrant to individuals whose aim is for quality inward traits.


The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire for personal independence — these are the features of the Jewish tradition, which make me thank my stars that I belong to it."

A knowledge unlived, of what value can the knowledge possibly be? A knowledge of peace is not the firsthand experience of peace, nor can a knowledge of a song be the firsthand experience of feeling the emotions that accompanied the song when first heard.

Some songs are a part of my life, events that mark my existence, and no quantity of knowledge can give the experience of life.

Knowledge is for the philosophers and the Scientists; their knowledge arrives first without it being carried further into one's own firsthand experiences, but for another culture, the firsthand experience occurs first, and it is the experience itself that gives the knowledge and understanding of what the thing truly is to that individual.

One man desires a knowledge that never touches his heart and can never sum to an accurate belief, while another man chooses an understanding of firsthand experiences that opens the heart and mind. It is each man's choice which he prefers.

The Consciousness article contains an additional reference to the Ideas and Opinions book, which is, in my opinion, the most important reference of all.

To me the book is a collection of philosophicalized opinions about topics outside of the author's personal expertise. For myself, once again I was unable to endure the agony of reading the book's entirety, but the book does have interesting sections worthy of at least a curious glance, and the book's continual contradictions are useful as a guide when investigating Einstein's theoretical interpretations of physics.

Nevertheless, there is no rational reason why anyone at any time should permit themselves to be polluted and permanently psychologically scarred with aberrant ideas, whether the ideas are forced into memory in philosophy classes or any other. If an individual wishes to read the book, then fine, it is their choice, but I found the answers I was looking for, and at least for the moment the answers are sufficient enough to proceed to the next book.

Before entering into the next book's topics, there is one item that I want to place on the table, that of the difference between imagined beliefs, and firsthand experience. The female biologist apparently could not feel radiation, and she apparently believed that radio waves are as the curved two-dimensional lines as what she saw displayed on oscilloscopes. If the lady could feel 'electromagnetic force', then she would have known of the densities and fluid behaviors within electromagnetic waves, and she would have never believed that microwave radiation has no effect on matter. Einstein apparently also could feel nothing beyond the most elementary, and he too assumed that nothing can exist beyond what his numbness permitted: "let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thought". Apparently it never entered Einstein's mind that these might be very strong reasons why an individual may interpret the plausible existence of consciousness beyond organic life, and the reasons have nothing to do with any religion or philosophy, but rather are based solely on what is perceived firsthand. Whether Einstein was blinded by his hatred of religion or for some other reason, his denials only served to give evidence that his math could be no more useful as a two-dimensional line on an oscillosocpe.

It is frustrating, a highly frustrating thing that the individuals with the very least qualifications — the Scientists — have become the self-proclaimed experts and authorities over all things in the universe, including firsthand sensory perception. The individuals can feel nothing beyond gross inputs, but still the individuals insist that they sense all that can be sensed by all living beings. The next book's physics is based upon an absurdity that is so utterly obvious that only within full numbess could an individual believe it to be true.