Both religions and philosophies have, so to speak, pounced on these fundamental problems. Religions accept fixed principles almost as rules of the game, while philosophies also question these rules. The latter one alone makes it possible to understand and realize development without restrictions. This is equivalent to the statement that in principle it requires several components both in the composition and in the description, but also in what works between the components and is called interaction today as well as in the possibilities of realization that we call freedom or more precisely degrees of freedom.
The sciences have certainly contributed to a more appropriate view of these issues, clearly based on physical understanding.
Be directed or choose freely
The physical world can be grasped and described in principle (i.e., adequately) through limitation to four dimensions by "trial and error" (experiment, measurement, and fitting). Even the mathematical description of simple oscillations already requires complex numbers. Time is shown analytically as an imaginary quantity and geometrically as a radial one-directional vector. Time can be measured either in arbitrary but well-defined units, e.g. by the number of undisturbed oscillations, or by the number of generations. However, the generation is exactly determined only in mathematical representations, such as the theory of fractals by B. Mandelbrot, which excludes external influences. In nature, however, each generation can be subject to external influences thereby becoming a fuzzy size. Through associated to time and thus also vectorial fuzzy system duplication initiating development, we could explain the emergence of three spatial dimensions alike the splitting of spectral lines in an external field. These are not unidirectional, but span areas between two poles said to be dual to one another being extreme values.
In the humanities, the concepts of being (ontology) and development (metamorphosis) largely correspond to the concepts of "trial and error" of the natural sciences. Both types of science combine ideas of different degrees of order between logic and complexity with ideas of selection and evaluation in order to capture life.
Trying to understand scientifically, very simple organisms evolve from chemical molecules by evolution of a cell that is unilaterally targeted for reproduction. To reproduction can therefore be attributed an imaginary character. From such a simple cell evolve after many generations three other parts of the body (extremities, head and upper body), to which can now be assigned real dimensions. Their activities also considered to be real allow selection and evaluations, which for their part can be tackled to understand culturally.
Culture, interpreted as a mediator between human beings and the world should equally exist in four dimensions. Religiosity, which primarily has basically to do with birth and death and thus with reproduction, would have to be seen as imaginary, while real manifestations could be attributed to arts, humanities and natural sciences.
In every real dimension, it is possible to weigh (measure) between two extreme values (duality). These extremes, in unfamiliar way to humanities scholars, could be identified with categories. However, it is not necessary to specify for every four-dimensional systemto eight such categories, but only seven categories, because the imaginary dimension just leads one-sidedly from origin to decay.
The idea of a middle way, originally derived from Buddhism, means to weigh in four different dimensions. It includes freedom of choice, which de facto arbitrarily selected system of dimensions and associated categories will be used. This may cause conflicts, which could lead to not orderly solvable issues called in mathematics singularities, especially by one-sided insistence on extreme positions. The imaginary component allows no balancing between genesis and decay and thus inevitably leads to such singularities mainly known as birth and death. Generally qualifying emergence as positive and decay as negative can not be justified by any arguments taken from nature and also not in life.
Discreet or continuous
The world and me - we are both peace-loving predators. There are, of course, other ways of describing this relationship, perhaps even an infinite number, but this one seems to me to be especially important as a scribbler here and now. Is that a belief or a fact, populism or science, nonsense or truth?
These terms are getting for us today - does that also tend to mean here and now? - more and more a notion of swimming. Swimming, however, has both an almost anumalic and a culturally evolved meaning - either the pleasure of moving in deep water or the property of light bodies not to sink in heavier fluids.
Basically, the simplest question in such a case could be whether these are strictly separate features or more or less continuous ones, but apparently this one is currently in my country - again here and now? - seldom asked, even rarer taken seriously and is barely answered. Perhaps the answer that, of course, there are smooth transitions, is so obvious that no one feels obliged to stay with it, and thus usually prefers to move on to the nowadays familiar capitalist agenda. But there are well known voices that equate capitalism with a predator trait and question it strongly.
Coming back to the initial question of the peace-loving predator hidden in the world and ourselves, the most important problem of the respective capitalism should not be its distinction to supposedly so terrible socialism, but its lack of peacefulness. Sure - Darwin has already long ago found that selection drives evolution, and selection is just driven by predators and not by peacemakers. But is that true?
I'm not a very believing person and Bible reader, but the story, which has probably kept my attention most in many ways, is that of the Fall and expulsion from paradise, but certainly not the one about so-called transcendence. Is it about the continuous, almost fluid transition between peacefulness and predator in man? This transgression is not clearly defined, has hardly developed all of a sudden and is subject to strong fluctuations.
When humans evolved from monkeys in thousands and millions of little steps from generation to generation, it may have been perhaps the most important issue in general, how the few strange mutants who initially did not even carry the name human, opposed the preponderance of monkeys, who increasingly broke off contact with them for reasons of competition. The communication of that time certainly did not only consist of the precursors of our language, but also took place with gestures and other forms of behavior. However, the further that communication was reduced, the more it essentially amounted to an assessment of peacefulness. The continuous aspect of the question got lost and turned into pure black-and-white or yes-no decisions. So something was lost and certainly not won. There began grim clashes between the monkeys and those mutants from which we finally emerged. People acquired very crucial and often victorious skills such as tools and weapons or well-developed language and discussion, and obviously used it often mercilessly to kill monkeys who had originally been their closest relatives.
We are still confronted here and now with this basically awkward situation. The usual reaction is the denial of the fact. People simply pretend that they are not animals themselves and establish a largely separate world, as if they were behind a high wall. But not only for modern scientific knowledge, but also for the legendary "good" common sense, there are no completely impermeable walls in nature and therefore also not for humans.
This is likely to be the basis of the bibical story of transcending the boundaries of the paradise, with the mysteriously appearing word "good" likely to play a significant role. This term was absolutized, which means being banished to the land of black-and-white painting and thriving there out of ontrol, but splendidly.
Animal or human
The clear implication for us, which emerges more and more clearly, is the necessary reduction of the idea of complete separation of man and animal. Humans are simply an animal species, but if this view finally prevailed, it would create a bigger problem than before and in any way with the own purpose. How do we want to deal with the tendency of predator in us?
It is not about whether we are a predator or not, but to what extent and how this can be influenced. This question is highly taboo thereby also providing an own advantage in selection. Man or even woman may ask the Pope or similar instances for information. Like any "good" military leader, they have consistently recognized that perhaps the most important prerequisite for victory, that is, successful selection, is a firmly indoctrinated ideology. But as Hitler and many other similar guys show, such is not necessarily the best tool for successful selection. Is there also selection by peaceful means?
Let's take a look at nature, which is currently being extensively pursued, for example, on culturally oriented TV channels like ARTE, namely, how peace-loving and predatory creatures thrive in nature. People secretly admire the predators, speak only of their particular beauty, but raise no voice when on the screen a rather ugly but well-equipped crocodile devours a seemingly helpless beautiful zebra. But now there are vegetarians who understand their food restriction as a manifestation of peace. Is that imaginary or realistic?
Can practical philosophy say something about such questions of inquiry, or is it limited to theory, and thus declared to be practically useless? At this point, the connection between the two questions considered to be important about the transition from peacefulness to carnivore behavior and similarly from animal to human should show a deep connection. But is the screen showing appropriate television broadcasts suited for presentating and fully triggering conscious action? In most cases, there is not much doubt. As well the simple, at any time possible switching out of movies perceived as stressful, as also corresponding surveys immediately confirm the opposite. Morality is proposed as an antidote especially by the religions, but also remains questionable, poorly substantiated and ineffective. Why can not the idea slowly gain a foothold, that solutions can be found in the field of philosophy? That would first of all require recognition and, as a consequence, new secularization.
So far, philosophy, especially in European culture, has been widely understood as a learnable teaching structure. This, however, has hindered rather than promoted the handling of these questions. Philosophy must be taken as a life task that includes both theory and practice, mainly and especially the immense field between these two, and thus approach taboo topics. These were categorically excluded by religions, especially the struggle for survival and the closely related issues of sexuality as typical animal characteristics in humans, and in general our relationship to animals. They are killed every day in the millions, for example, in slaughterhouses or by species extinction.
The not ceasing development of accepted animal properties of humans should be a particularly hot topic. The author since long-time liked to identify with a raven, which was usually only laughed at, what could be tolerated, but not illimitedly. We like to fly around through the world these days, but are threatened with gruesome death by the dwindling ozone layer and other environmental damages. So wings and thus the own ability for completely ecologically flying, would certainly be a worthwhile dream, like the not brand new one of Birdman. At this point many people will show up almost angrily and call it purely imaginary. But those who have read the philosophy of the raven a little more, what "usually", for sure, is not the case, would know the scientifically inspired reflections that could result from an initial imaginary state by splitting up into three real states. How could three space components have been created? Einstein already pondered how things could have gone on. Mass and energy can be transformed into each other in both directions, what may also apply to matter and communication or to body and mind. But even he could not prove everything exactly.