The nineteenth century also saw in this context a great conflict between language-oriented and experience-oriented philosophy. This dispute was, at least preliminarily, decided by the natural sciences with frequent success confirmed by experiments and in technical applications. Today, however, the natural sciences hit in very sensitive kind to the limits of experiments,- mainly for financial reasons, because the high financing costs are difficult to justify as well in the area of elementary particles as in space experiments. Often the fact is concealed that the tax revenues of lower income groups of the population are also used to finance projects, which have little evident benefit for them. It is just stated that these are not very able to decide and therefore their exclusion from such decisions could be justified.
Due to this social problem, considerations emerge as to whether one can go ahead by other methods. At the time, Einstein turned against the idea that natural science could be simplified at will. But this might not happen in the usual way by means of proving experiments, however by gradual adaptation of approaches which are not entirely speculative, but appear to be useful and could be taken from other, not completely unrelated, disciplines, provided there is good consistency.
Such approaches could primarily question a purely rational approach and involve structural or holistic understanding. A relapse into esoteric view must be avoided. If this approach can be formulated, for example, in new fractal mathematics based on relations between successive generations rather than on functional contexts in space and time, this would in particular include singularities at the transitions between generations. These violate the continuity and thus mean the explicit admission of at least partial disrespect for borders.
Dualisms (like between mass and energy or waves and particles) seem to play a large role and could be integrated into the axiomatics of the respective mathematics as a basis for a considerably simplified representation. The thus accepted duality of functional and fractal mathematics could, on the one hand, nevertheless involve a great simplification, especially in the case of complex processes. On the other hand, the transition from static to dynamic is emphasized not only in the rational but in all areas as a determining element. Accordingly, the singularities that are particularly important in fractal representation also include a strong dynamic aspect at transitions between generations.
Thus, not only the emergence, but also the vanishing associated with singularities, is of no less importance. Death, and all other forms of vanishing are therefore in equal respect necessary for development. Thus, it seems to be highly questionable to intervene in natural death. But, in the same way, death should not be fostered, either by wars between men or by slaughtering animals. In nature there is obviously an equilibrium, a kind of Middle Way between emergence and vanikshing, between birth and death, and thereby also dynamic proceeding.
It is crucial for us not only to go on from static to dynamic thinking but also get aware and accept the transition from static to dynamic point of view in all areas of life which favors the preference of meditation instead of fixed convictions. Attitudes are fixed, above all, in religions, which define firm beliefs. This results in a call for renewed secularization, which, however, must also be balanced.
New territory opens up, which may well have something to do with adventures, for these transcend the boundaries of the boundaries. The author is clearly aware of the dual nature of any development on a completely different side, by means of border transitions, commonly called adventures, used in fixed social conditions , which can be understood in a dual way, namely by functions in space and time or by fractals under the generational aspect.
On the one hand, functional differences in transitions from one culture to another, for example from one continent to another, can be experienced both personally and in social aspects, and in principle can be described in space and time. On the other hand, differences arising by the emergence of new generations can also be experienced personally and also can be read off in social context, but thereby boundaries established in space and time can break, which can basically only be understood by fractal view as singularities. One may think of taboos. Private and public relations are mutually interdependent and form a whole.
A clear conceptual separation results from the difference between growth and development that already can be noticed in everyday language use. Growth is usually understood to be functional and has to respect boundaries and the scope of validity. It leads to biological contact inhibition. However, development in the sense used here must not be subject to this restriction. It begins and ends with singular events, referred to as emergence and vanishing or as birth and death or even disaster. It is clear that this use of the word "development", which is bound to the transition between generations, is absolutely different from the almost regrettably well known usage in developmental physiology mainly referring to a single generation.
Apart from birth and death, there are also other singular events, such as the possibility of genetic mutations and catastrophic disasters. What role do these play in cultural developments? One can understand culture as a link or interaction between nature and man. Cultural developments are also be subject to mutations and catastrophes and thereby bring new forms of culture with them. Cross-border movements accelerate developments in the sense used here, while many other so-called developments, especially in the economic sphere, are therefore to be understood as growth processes and, as is known, more and more often encounter "limits of growth", which often is denied by euphorics of capitalism.
This underlines the claim that development and growth are fundamentally different but dually coordinated processes. This can have enormous significance for practical life and therefore also for politics. As a newly arising question, it is first of all necessary to consider whether the obviously associated principal limitation of growth to continuous processes within a generation can be circumvented. Is growth itself an invariable phenomenon or can it change principally and therefore develop itself? What is more serious is the principal possibility of conflicts by cross-border crossings in the here defined development from generation to generation. This applies, for example, to legacy conflicts and / or the impossibility of permanent fixing of influence over many genres. An understanding of such situations should, however, already contribute to resolve such conflicts by means of compromises or by the modern Middle Way and, above all, by meditation, as favored on these websites