Ascetic & scientific methodological posturing

On a January evening in 2009 while reviewing some notes [in Tamil Nadu, India], I revamped a thought that concerned the adoption of a rule or code of discipline on the part of an ascetic artist in contrast to the tenets of a scientific researcher. In adopting methodologies, both the ascetic and the scientific worker deliberately assumed rhetorical and procedural posturing. In primary contrast to the scientific rule, the ascetic tradition retained recognition of its analytic agency's inexorable breach of the feigned restrictions embedded in its organisational hypothesis that clearly, if tacitly, attested thereby the excessive veneration and ultimate collapse of both its theoretical blueprint and impracticable execution. The corresponding natures of these dissimilar approaches were furthermore brought into crisp relief through the typification of their signature provisos: hypo-thesis and hyper-thesis, respectively. At the very core of religious venture resided the assumption or article of faith that discipline and practice delivered one over to a preconceived realm of transmutative good. In contrast to this, the analytic colleague was logically committed to roll with the hunch as a formerly supplanted now superseding task to be thoroughly self-vetted for its hypothetic constancy. Inbuilt further to this technical charge was the correlate systematic obligation to formulate predictions, hypertheses if you will, and to posit notionalities conjecturally inferred exteriorly to the ordered set of freely given data. This summoned at once a modal array of distilled-order (tertiary) activants and accelerants exemplifying (notably), discovery, invention, dispersion and birth (poiesis).