partial translation of v 3.1
partial translation of v 3.1
Philosophy has no clear or definable basis, but can only be recursively encircled. But to analytical philosophy could be added synthetical philosophy. Dynamic interaction is gaining in importance over static contraposition, and i.a. for processes of various kinds described by singularities, for modern law, and for considerations falling between philosophy and meditation or between theory and practice.
Recursive approach instead of confinement
Attempting to define philosophy
Methods of description
Costs of major projects
Growth and development
Description by power series
Four cultural areas
From statics to dynamics
About alternative philosophy
Philosophy and meditation
Problem and conflict resolution
Ontology and development
Specialization and versatility
Learning and competition
Good and evil
Forms of conflict
Meaning of experiments
Design Thinking and Hybrid Thinking
Philosophy as a building
Taking the future easy?
Superposition of base phenomena
Synthesis as an objective
“We cannot solve problems
with the same kind of thinking
that created them.” — Albert Einstein
Recursive approach instead of confinement
Metaphilosophy, the philosophy of philosophy, took place in former philosophy often called classical mostly according to the strict rules of rational logic. Sharp case distinctions were made, which corresponded basically to a black and white painting. Was the opinion really justified that philosophy is only rational thinking? Nowadays fuzzy logic also allows intermediate values between extreme positions (antipodes) and thus conveys a much wider picture, which roughly corresponds to the addition of gaudy colors.
The usual transition in natural sciences from three to four dimensions (space and time) can not be limited to the description of nature, but must also have general significance for philosophy claiming wide validity, because no one can maintain that natural sciences do not apply in philosophy even if they do not have to be used there daily. Both language-based classical as well as newer philosophy of sciences and mathematics, possibly using symbols or operators, are affected by this argument.
This refers to any kind of math being used or included. For scientific description of changes in time and space mainly classical mathematics of functions (algebra) is used, as well for analytical studies usually coupled with experiments, as for synthetic creativity, especially in technical form. Borders of the definition areas must be respected. Preferably such development limited by borders should actually be called growth for clear distinction.
The fractal geometry developed by Mandelbrot (1975), on the other hand, also describes transitions between generations, which are independent of borders and should be referred to as development in a strict but wider sense.
Thus, a clear conceptual separation of growth and development, which seems necessary, makes it necessary to look for a definition of the term development within the framework of classical ontology. A simplified philosophy cautiously named alternative, first proposed on the website ARS-UNA and more extensively mentioned in a following chapter, uses a recursive approach to axiomatic. Taking existence and development as dual categories according to the Einstein formula seems to allow the following four statements:
1. Existence (Being) develops.
2. Development exists (is).
3. Action links existence and development.
4. Reality is an associated imaginary dimension.
By functions the dependence on time can describe more or less continuously the reality thus defined and therefore not exactly determinable. Using fractals, on the other hand, discontinuous transitions between generations are mandatory. At the discontinuities (comparable with quantum transitions), singularities exist without spatial or temporal extent, but with an integral value.
Just as Euclidean geometry has been further developed to algebra and higher forms of mathematics, fractal geometry should also be further extended, which tentatively was called fractomatics and, de facto, has not yet been worked out according to own limited knowledge.
Four dimensions have to apply in general, that is to say also for the evolution of species. This has clearly to be separated from development as defined above, and means fixed developments and thus transitions between steady states. Cultural and humanistic areas must also be allowed for inclusion. Here terms of categories are possibly used that are meant to reflect structures of experience. In order not to be "lost in translation", it is important to draw attention to different understandings of what is meant by structure. Without wishing to discuss here many details, which asm matter of fact also could be important, or without admittedly being able to discuss them, this statement is de facto taken as a widely valid argument for recursive approach to basic concepts. Not only actual logic, but also the use of such terms as structure could only be possible in "fuzzy" way. On the other hand, this fact makes possible new extensions of the concept.
In the context of the considerations made here, it makes sense to conceive categories as extremes of dimensions. As examples, good and bad are cited as such categories of a moral dimension or right and wrong for the dimension üf truth. The latter quality was the subject of the first such version of expanded logic, especially by Lotfi A. Zadeh (1965, 1973). In a wider form, the natural constants of modern physics could eventually also be taken as categories. This possibility is not considered here for the time being.
The area lying between opposite categories thus becomes essentially equivalent to the scientific concept of dimension. Thus, such categories might be considered as opposite poles in a dual approach thereby made possible.
Attempting to define philosophy
Philosophy shows or has a vague nature. If we ask ourselves like journalists, who or what or how or why where or when is affected by the nature or can penetrate into the essence of philosophy, we are on unsteady ground and not necessarily able to reach at this point the lofty heights of love for wisdom, which according to the Greek linguistic roots may possibly constitute said being and provide its definition in a questionable measure.
Behind those six mentioned question words are hidden well-known philosophical orientations. Who or what includes, above all, the clashes between idealistic and materialistic positions, how or why those in moral categories, and where or when concerns scientific areas.
Generally, two options can be offered, between which a possibly difficult decision would have to be made. In everyday life, we not seldom tend to avoid asking philosophical questions without being sure about the underlying causes. Theoretical approaches are based on questionable axioms, and in practice, philosophy increasingly leads a reduced existence in the shadow of other disciplines. The more recent their orientation is, the clearer is this expressed, most of all in today's natural sciences, which in the last century has either been tolerated only to delineate the basis of individual disciplines or only been applied considering past times or the future, eg. historical topics or science fiction.
The word "or" used for pairwise oppositions provokes, with its absolute logic, the question of whether these are discrete or, in the sense of fuzzy logic, form extreme points of a more or less continuous interstitial area. Initially, discrete options were considered, which in recent understanding, however, also amounted to a restriction to a sort of black and white painting and were replaced by more detailed representations in accordance with the approval of shades of gray or even colors. Even without rigorous logical reasoning, it is certainly possible to say, with sufficient approximation, that the second possibility describes more comprehensively the facts in almost all applications. Using the sharper term "extreme points" characterizes the ignoring of interstitial points as extremism.
By confrontation between materialism and idealism this polarization has become as evident as between communism and capitalism. In moral categories, the same is true of disputes between believers and Darwinists. In natural sciences exclisive asking for "where" or just "when" could also be taken as kind of extremism. There must be intermediate solutions.
This is not only an abstract theoretical assertion, but might be of great importance in practice. In many human debates both in the individual private as well as in the political public realm the comparison of the seemingly irreconcilable positions of a spatially seen, thus static status quo with a historically, thus time-related dynamic attitude occurs not seldom (eg between Palestine and Israel). This can shed new light on such grim conflicts.
Methods of description
This is consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity that space and time can not be considered separately but form together four dimensions with three spatial and one temporal coordinates.
However, the transition from three to four dimensions is not limited to the description of nature, but must also be of great importance for philosophy as a whole claiming wider validity, first of all for mathematical descriptions, but also more generally for cultural dimensions considered in humanities.
Space and time dependent relationships understood as laws are described by classical mathematics using functions and generally have a limited domain. The so-called natural laws are not subject to this restriction, but generally valid, meaning not having any kind of restrictions by borders at anytime, which could be seen as an amazing fact.
The same laws apply to the tiny elementary particles as well as to the enormous galaxies, and therefore also to the entire intermediate realm, in particular to life processes and especially to human life in every respect, personal as well as public life. By means of classical mathematics these could in principle generally be described by functions in space and time. Expansive processes or their opposite (decomposition, contraction or other such processes) will both be called growth in our context.
The work of Benoît Mandelbrot (1975) has further revealed a completely different kind of mathematics in which new states are derived from states in the previous generation. These mathematical descriptions, in contrast to classical functions, are called fractals in their entirety, a term that was initially used only for beautiful-looking geometrical representations of certain classes of them. The counting of generations replaces the classical concept of time. When comparing functions and fractals, it seems sensible to take a coefficient newly added to the fractals in each generation as the equivalent of the coordinates of the classical spatial dimensions. Each generation is assigned its own dimensions. In another step, which is initially only intuitive but does not result in contradictions, we can even interpret these coefficients as quantum numbers in extreme cases. In a genesis, a new quantum number can be added in each generation, whereby the number of such equivalents of dimensions, also referred to simply as dimensions, continues to increase. At first glance, this looks like a completely arbitrary hypothesis, which, however, seems to have a good chance of being proven.
A closer discussion could easily be discredited as improper speculation and should not be done here. But for the linguistic understanding of great importance is that the term dimension in the already established to some extent mathematics of the geometry of the fractals is mostly used in a different sense, but which here seems rather misleading. For fractals can be used to characterize the transition from ordered to chaotic states. Often the value of an exponent, which describes the degree of complexity of a particular fractal description for a certain generation, is called dimension in that geometry. This practically indicates the roughness or smoothness and better should probably not be called dimension.
To generate new quantum numbers, for example, in a quantum mechanical description (and thus automatically in space and time), a minimum or threshold energy must be provided, which becomes smaller and smaller after more and more steps of development in the almost countless number of generations. In the realm of life, however, DNA transcription can no longer produce additional quantum numbers due to insufficient available energies. The way out of this dilemma seems to have been found by the natural process of evolution is the genetic code as a molecular transient fixation of biological states of living development, which accordingly undergoes new coding in each generation with comparatively lower energy expenditure.This should be broadly equivalent to the introduction of new quantum numbers.
Development is therefore the most important aspect of this novel fractal description, while growth is accordingly covered by the mathematics of functions preferentially named as classical. From such point of view, the fractal description is not subject to a limitation of its scope in space and time, while these limits must be strictly observed in a representation by functions. This restriction has probably only in rare cases been taken very seriously up to now, but it crucially affects the fundamentals and scope of all such descriptions. In the economic sphere, this was reflected in the recommendations of the "Club of Rome", without at that time clearly differentiating between development and growth.
Costs of major projects
Doubts about the largely uncritically accepted spread of description using natural sciences have been voiced repeatedly, for example by Fritjof Capra, but have not found general acceptance. To discuss the relevant positions in detail would go beyond the frame here. Easier access appears possible through the considerations outlined above. We may ask ourselves where the domain of space and time as basis of classical algebra may no longer be defined, and what one could do to come to knowledge beyond such limits. This may not only be meaningful for abstract and almost irrelevant aspects of our lives, but possibly open up completely new points of view going beyond the human area.
Today's scientific research increasingly invades extreme areas of space and time in branches, which are considered to be of particular importance in our society, and which are operated at great expense. This applies equally to the extremely small elementary particles, whose tiny interior seems hardly accessible to our understanding, as well as to the extremely large galaxies, for whose vast spaces, however, similar aspects apply. This also applies to the ever shorter times of still detectable energy transformations in the field of particles, as well as for the enormously long times associated with unimaginable energy transformations processes in the universe. Some results are completely unlikely, such as that the entire world is said to have arisen in a relatively short period of time or that some elementary particles should have an incredibly long life. From "what" everything may have originated, or if there was a "when" before, are basically taboo questions as well as the differently directed corresponding considerations, "what" in the end will remain and if one could afterwards still talk about a "when", They can not be answered.
However, this research puts a strain on human society in the social sphere in a highly questionable manner, which is usually measured only financially, but also affects other areas strongly. While grim distress and fierce conflict prevail in some parts of our planet, amounts of money unconscious to most people are used, which in principle could raise their serious concerns. It may increase the desire to question the acceptance of such internationally funded projects, such as the gigantic particle accelerators of CERN in Geneva or extremely expensive space companies (space stations and ever larger extraterrestrial telescopes such as Hubble).
The justification for such projects would in addition be a long digression, for example, to include comparison with just as questionable military expenditures or secondary benefits through practically exploitable incidental inventions. The only thing to be said here is that the natural sciences certainly have their limits, both in theory and in practice, so that the question should at least be permitted and perhaps even be very important, by what or how we could reach areas that may be beyond these limits.
This includes the progression of our cultural evolution, which in principle should be comparable to our biological evolution. The 2012 Japanese Nobel Laureate, Shinya Yamanaka, has shown that development seemingly can run backward using so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), meaning that earlier hidden developmental steps may be a useful new starting point. In nature, such developments are initiated either by random events or under the pressure of momentarily altered conditions. Some may only be useful in the short term and must be withdrawn under other circumstances. So, obviously, this realization is more general or perhaps even completely universal. Does it not sound familiar that we sometimes have to row back ourselves?
As important precursors of the natural sciences, which could be considered as a tactically conceivable recourse, religions and arts can be considered. These different disciplines differ fundamentally in their categories of evaluation. On the whole, we can conceptualize the areas covered by these as humanistic dimensions. Accordingly, religions preferably judge in the moral sense as "good" or "bad". Accordingly, the arts preferentially decide in the aesthetic sense between "authentic" or "fake" (not just "beautiful" or "ugly"). Natural sciences correspondingly are preferentially based on logical decisions between "true" or "false", which are linked to the concept of consistency.
These statements, in particular the conspicuous use of the word "preferentially", remained initially unquestioned. Take as an example "good" or "bad". A person or a matter was in the earlier understanding either completely good or completely bad, which was underlined by the coarse symbolization of angel and devil. Today we see this as black and white painting. Just as gray and even bright colors can exist between white and black, we accept similar moral nuances. Today common phrases such as "Nobody is perfect" or "Everybody is a little angel and a little devil" illustrate this. But also the logical intermediate word "or" loses its absolute character and can be multi-valued in the sense of modern fuzzy logic shifting towards greater complexity.
If we want to understand this in the context of space and time, boundaries must limit our realm of understanding, providing literally a framework. This means that only a finite number and thus discrete values can exist, even if they are perhaps indistinguishably close to each other. But these values form a continuum. On the other hand, if we accept a fractal view, the situation is completely different. There can be an infinite number of values. But at transition points between generations there have to be singularities that can be understood as being either positive or negative (for example: birth and death, creation and apocalypse, big bang and black hole). Therefore continuity does not exist here.
Fractal representation allows a seamless transition between ordered and chaotic states without any valuation, while purely logical and purely statistical descriptions are quasi-separate worlds in which there is no gliding transition between a man-made construction and a river, although for example under natural conditions the physical form of river banks obviously is important. Such transition between order and chaos has in the human domain the character of a dimension between categories in the same sense as the transition from "good" to "bad" in moral or religious sentiment, as well as between "authentic" and "fake" in aesthetic or artistic conception, and like between "true" and "false" in analytical or scientific thinking.
While the latter operates in four dimensions of space-time coordinates, we can accordingly accept as basis the four above-mentioned categories here consciously designated as being dual pairs with the positively understood qualities of goodness, beauty, consistency and order or with the respective negatively understood opposite qualities evil, ugliness, decay and chaos.
Growth and development
Growth thus arises from classical thinking and involves continuity and border respect, while development can be assigned to fractal representations and is characterized by singularities and border crossing. The fractal singularities are equivalent to the classical borders, whereas the fractal border crossing finds its equivalent in the continuous but well-controlled permeability of, for example, biological membranes and skin. This fractal way of thinking opens up completely new possibilities, which have probably not yet developed very much, but should certainly be taken into account in the current discussion about tight political borders.
Growth is represented in classical algebra by so-called power series of developments, which are a sum of functions with increasing powers. They thereby yield higher functions such as the exponential function. The latter plays a central role in the description of natural growth.
Accordingly, we may ask what could correspond to these power series in fractal description. The linear formulas by Julia (1925) show the importance of branching for development. Mandelbrot (1975) introduced quadratic terms in mathematical expressions describing fractals. The simplest one of such formulas yields two-dimensional geometrical representations of branching buds, for example the well-known Mandelbrot set, which today can be viewed on the Internet statically and in dynamic development from generation to generation.
The basic figure described by this Mandelbrot set is the heart-shaped so-called cardoid whose interior remains mathematically inaccessible, both in static representation, showing the so-called start function, as well as in the dynamic evolution from generation to generation. The interior is usually shown in black, reminiscent of a black hole in astronomy or of the inaccessible interior of elementary particles, perhaps not by coincidence. It is better not to be reminded of medieval paintings of the hell, which is often depicted in black.
With the introduction of the quadratic term, it has become possible to apply those fractals to describe natural surfaces by using only an astonishingly low number of coefficients, measured by the number of pixels otherwise required to depict images, for example, on the screen of a modern electronic device. By natural surfaces are meant, for example, landscapes or clouds, but also faces. But individual pixels necessarily fail to be shown in the fractal representation.
The transition to fractal representation thus implies the renunciation of strict logic typical of Western culture in favor of much faster reception of complex states, which tend to characterize Far Eastern culture. India and Iran are intermediate borderlands in this view. The conceptually clear and mathematically justifiable distinction described above shows that development and growth can be understood as dual, that is, different but related processes.
Description by power series
Not only two-dimensional surfaces, but also three-dimensional structures should also be able to be grasped, which requires the introduction of quadratic as well as terms of the third power into the fractal formulas. The development of spherical or ellipsoidal bodies requires the inclusion of such a term. Likewise, the idea of stars and elementary particles comes up. In principle, an infinite number of higher powers could be included. The term of a fourth-order potency has already been associated with a superfluid state inside those black holes.
Since no strict mathematical reasoning is possible at the moment, playing with hypotheses heuristically seems justifiable and should not immediately be dismissed as bad speculation. The state of a natural development in each following generation should also be such a mathematical power series derived from the state in the preceding generation. This generally would be a sum of terms with increasing powers starting with a constant. The latter could contain the essential constants of nature and basic effects and thus explain or at least describe the ubiquity of the laws of nature.
The first-order member must reproduce simple forking and thus energy dissipation, which is certainly an important part of any development.
The subsequent question of selection in each development can only be clarified with a second-order term describing surfaces capable of division. It should be noted that also energy is always represented by a quadratic expression. We should keep in mind the Maxwell's equations.
Directed selection and only thereby living organisms can be represented with a third order term as minimal requirement, which can be described as an important prerequisite for receptors on curved surfaces, for example. The emergence on the one hand of space and time, on the other hand of particles initially considered as mass-less (photons, neutrinos) and radiations would possibly require a term of at least the fourth order.
The emergence of forces described in a good approximation in space and time by the standard model of the theory of elementary particles has been extensively discussed including the addition of terms of even higher order, which give good fits. But nevertheless this still seems to be speculative. It may have to do with trying to connect the descriptions of elementary particles and black holes ,
Development would thus also be understood as a sum of power terms, in principle as inverse to any growth. However, this understanding essentially implies that basically only recursive methods are available, whereby all rational understanding of the world might be restricted in last consequence.
At the moment the idea seems to be interesting, to search for the hitherto unknown starting function by starting from a fractal representation already developed over many generations. This means a limitation to recursive procedures and thus the acceptance of a principal limitation of possibilities for knowledge at least by this method. The interior of the start function remains inaccessible anyway. This interior, however, is in everyday language birth and death, creation and apocalypse, or big bangs and black holes, all of which remain unsearchable within the respective system. In principle, it is always a hen-egg problem, which can only be examined from outside.
In the area of life, and especially in the humanistic sphere, it seems to make sense to focus especially on a clear conceptual distinction between development and growth. This kind of asking is closely linked, but not identical with similar questions about evolution and structure formation. The comparison of the two ways of investigation may lead us to simplified new insights, which above all could make it easier for us to understand connections between the completely different views of religion, art, humanities and the natural sciences.
A world view avoidingt extremism seems to be important. In general, it is about finding values between extreme positions. Humanistic enlightenment means a not necessarily harmless conscious search for them. In human life as well as in the whole of nature, four dimensions determined by two categories considered as extreme positions associated to the four main body parts appear to be a fairly consistent basis, namely good and bad as accepted in all religions (morality), authentic and fake as in artistic activities (also concerning beauty), as well as true and false in modern scientific thinking (consistency). In addition, the ideas of the new fractal concepts point to the importance of the area between order and chaos, which is fully apparent in practical life. For example, in societies "law and order" on one extreme side and anarchy on the other describe such extreme positions.
The individual and the communal task in life is thus a deliberate optimizing search for positions between the eight extremes mentioned, which reminds of corresponding ideas in Buddhism or even comes close to them with the traditionally recommended Middle Way, but is not simply identical with the latter, which can not be seen as completely free of extreme demands. Extreme demands, however, are called fundamentalism in common usage and seem to be very questionable in all established religions.
The equal significance of the spheres corresponding to the different human body parts should certainly be emphasized, namely head, upper body, abdomen and extremities, ie: intelligence and perception, feelings and sympathy, sex and power, as well as activities and mobility. Everywhere one dualism seems to haunt another one, which could be understood similar to Hegel’s dialectics. Dualism could correspond to a dialectical view, and inversely dialectics now could find a counterpart in dualism. The most important point, however, might be the insight that at key points in our search for understanding, we can only proceed by recursive procedures, beyond whose borders principally unrecognizable areas remain inaccessible. But this method should make it easier to venture into completely new and perhaps very useful areas beyond a hitherto mostly analytically driven philosophy, namely its obvious counterpart, a synthetic philosophy with a stronger focus on practicality accepting rationally less understandable terms.
Belief and religion have become questionable because our changing world requires faster customization. But the belief remains that the principles of nature are essentially simple. Is there a way that simply, beautifully, and with respect for our inner and outer lives, continues to lead us? Philosophy would be an option, but for most people it seemed to have become a complicated science. A populist, illicitly simplistic philosophy would be just as suspect. The solution could now bring a modern way with a new sense of modernity that does not simply mean something pertaining to the recent past, but rather own dynamic decision, which is not restricted to fixed points.
So we are less supplied by major centers of faith, but use our own decision cells not only in the head, but maybe even everywhere in us and can thus live both fitter and more frugal, or more drastically less exploitable and safer in less dependence.
The key to access could be to combine logical description and holistic understanding. If we take the two most significant results of physics a century or so ago and now use them as the basis of such a philosophy, we could possibly achieve a much simpler form of presentation. Energy and mass can be converted into each other according to the Einstein formula (1905). However, waves and particles have a dual nature, as shown by de Broglie (1925). Mass and energy and also particles and waves mean practically the same thing. If we accept the dual existence of mass and energy as the axiomatic basis in the natural philosophy from which we may proceed, we avoid the theme of creation and, moreover, do not immediately have to refer to space and time, which can not be defined without mass and energy.
Thus, not only do we have to accept the Einstein formula as the result of theoretical calculations, but we can now also use it as the starting point of new ideas. This should allow considerable simplification in the presentation, which could already be quite useful for teaching in school lessons.
Four cultural areas
We can regard religion, art, the humanities and natural sciences as the four most important areas in which the transition from the given nature to our influence-able life is reflected in the form of so-called culture.
Today we have arrived at a point where we seem to know and understand better what these four reasonably well-defined areas involve than we can more generally say about nature, life and culture. But to delineate the latter, it is certainly not enough to refer to some of these four areas separately, but we must look at them together, and with them the interdependencies and interactions between them. So this can not be a subject-specific task, which certainly gives a possible justification for giving philosophy a greater role again, after it had been pushed back by the natural sciences, above all because of the lack of experiments.
But since each of the four areas contains a multitude of aspects, it seemed unrealistic to want to find a common denominator for them in philosophy. In addition, this was made more difficult by the fact that the usual philosophy was mostly limited to a purely rational procedure, whereas in those four areas this was originally not the case, but was more and more enforced in today's sciences, for example by a contempt for intuition and condemnation of all speculation even when motivated by heuristics. It therefore seems that not only the relationship between nature, life and culture needs to be further questioned, but also, if possible, the essence of philosophy itself. But that may possibly even lead us to a better understanding of what mankind actually is and can do.
Living in Thailand for many years has made it very clear how much we as Europeans limit ourselves to the rational part of life. To think logically has a much higher priority for us, so that we often completely unconsciously keep away from holistic areas and thus, according to subjective impression of the author, avoid important experiences that have the character of experiments. At the same time, in many Far Eastern countries, philosophical questions can often be found in many points that are rather unexpected for Europeans. It must be astonishing to note that there is no word in their languages for philosophy and culture at all. These are circumscribed as temple service. Should we just take note of such differences or better challenge our own position? The decision in favor of the latter meant not only to see the love of wisdom in philosophy, as in the European tradition, but to ask if something else had to be done to penetrate new areas. To bring up something different - is not that the literal meaning of the word "alternative"? Thus, an alternative philosophy was called into action, which should more completely than traditionally cover as many as possible areas of life, but without falling into esotericism, creeds, fantasies or populism.
In each of the four areas mentioned above one can notice a predominantly emphasized human aspect. Religiosity emphasizes morality, so very much the conflict between righteousness and enforcement. Art seeks balance (harmony) between genuineness and fake to a similar extent, humanities are strongly confronted with the interpretation of the material world between being (ontology) and development, and natural sciences increasingly encounter complexity in the conflict between logical exact search for truth and statistical “fuzzy” holism.
Four prominent categories can thus be stated without demanding unambiguousness. The question arises as to whether other potentially selectable categories can in principle be deduced from these four, which may have been chosen with some arbitrariness. From the natural sciences, especially mechanics, the description in four dimensions is well known, namely with imaginary time and three spatial dimensions. But man is part of nature and thus should also be describable in principle with four dimensions.
The four areas mentioned above, which roughly outline what we could understand by culture, all have a very important task in establishing relationships between nature originally understood as unchanging (static) and now increasingly changing (dynamic) human life. However, this separation between initially purely static conceived nature and more dynamically interpreted life is relativized by our better understanding of the meaning of complexity today.
Low complexity is a prerequisite for logic. This, in turn, is closely linked to rationality. The basic links in it can be mathematically reduced to four logical operators. High complexity, on the other hand, is to a large extent practically synonymous with life processes. In this context, however, life is not just understood as human life, or perhaps even that of higher animals, but encompasses a much wider and probably unlimited range. Today we can also speak of life far away from the human sphere, for example in molecular or stellar processes, which also continue regeneratively. This view causes us more than ever before to ask questions about what is specifically human.
Myths have probably initiated this debate and can be seen in the humanities primarily as an early human confrontation between the material and the spiritual world. In the last past centuries, this finally culminated in dialectic between materialism and idealism. In scientific terms, they can be understood essentially as a description of what is called life, without immediately being able to define what it really is. The confrontation or interaction between the outer and inner worlds (nature and psyche), which Homer called the Janus-headedness of divine wisdom, can find a correspondence in the modern concept of duality. Between the notions of duality and dialectics, a reference can be seen by saying that interaction between dual states takes place, as does the dispute between dialectical positions.
Classical philosophy is limited in this respect largely to rational dispute between cognition and processing, which can also be understood dialectically or by dual interpretation. The concept of dispute finds a parallel in the scientific term interaction. Rationality can at leasr to a large extent be understood as a child of archaic myths and was increasingly attributed to the head, as it were.
However, to the other human body parts of the upper body, abdomen and extremities, dual conceptual pairs can also be associated additionally in a well-justifiable approximation, namely feeling and vitality, sexuality and power, as well as moving around and activities.
In rational philosophy, the parts of life that are perceived as animalistic are usually omitted. The associated taboo makes a clear separability of static and dynamic contributions (states and processes) easier or just possible.
Duality can thus be stated twice in different forms, first within the individual dominant cultural areas and then also with respect to our body parts, which would mean a total of four-dimensionality in each case. Since only three dimensions can be real, Plato came already with ingenuity to the sensation of the imaginary as a shadow world.
Dualities are formed as in dialectics from a pair of opposing but related assumptions of an analysis, to which, however, additional assumptions, initially accepted as secondary, are added.
Dualities, as in dialectics, are formed from a pair of opposing but related assumptions of analysis, to which, however, additional assumptions, initially often accepted as secondary, are added.
Examples can be very different. We can imagine left and right with a scale, zero and one with calculation rules, energy and mass with the Einstein formula, existence and development under influence of actions, and much more such dualities.
In principle, each of the two assumptions could be decomposed into two or more subclasses. This is the basis for general cladistics, especially those first observed in biology. The branches seem to be initially equivalent. There results an approximate, but not strictly symmetrical "family tree".
In quantum physics, however, it has been shown that it may well be that only one branch of the respective arguments can split into three bifurcations, while the other branch remains inert. The latter could be regarded as the primary
argument, and in some cases it is designated as imaginary.
The assumption first made known using this rational linguistic concept was the notion of an imaginary time here with intention mentioned as first one, and of a three-dimensionally splitting up real space. This not only allowed to describe the static states of the initial mechanics, but also the following ideas about steady dynamic processes such as vibrations.
Spectral analysis of atomic physics showed that a spectral line can split into three lines by additional effects (spin). The additional assumption was given in a systematic description by a further quantum number for the spin, which, as soon was shown and only should be noted here, could also have a half-integer value. With the addition of additional quantum numbers, further observed splits of spectral lines could be detected, and the broadening of these lines allowed conclusions to be drawn about additional properties, in particular the speed. Not all lines were sharp, but some widened (fuzzy). That this may be a general property of theories concerning dual arguments under influence of side effects has only recently become clear and is probably consistent with assumptions for fuzzy logic.
Natural development arises in principle through splitting up of initial elements and a following selection of the better adapted one. These elements can be both communicative arguments and physical entities, that is to say in humanities speech of idealistic or of material kind. First, this kind of system was used in biological evolution as a guiding idea. All plants should therefore be derived from a primeval plant, and similarly all animals, only hesitatingly including humans, from a primitive animal. Thereafter, the search was thought to go on for a primordial creature, from which all plants and animals descended together, and then for molecular units, which led to the formation of something alive, and finally for organic basic substances, which could have served as starting materials for these by forming kind of enzymes.
Calculations of the speed at which such developments are statistically expected to happen soon showed that they could not have occurred during the periods available on Earth. Today, there are increasing signs that important building blocks must have come to Earth with meteorites or meteors from space.
Systematics is thus generally built up in form of a hierarchical pyramid headed by leading elements, that is, either influences or physical units. These elements represent the axiomatic which can or must be assumed. But these can not or do not have to be proven, but rather represent a fundamentalist ensemble that can be chosen in one way or another and must prove itself both theoretically and practically.
Theory and practice can also be understood as a dual pair and are subject to the same criteria. It is important what the starting elements are and what additional elements are added by higher complexity to finally introduce the necessary dynamics into the initial statics. From a humanistic point of view, states therefore become processes.
Not only biological evolution, but also the development of law and, more recently, the search engines of the Internet are further examples of such hierarchical developments for which an axiomatic is desired. Already the division of the folders in a computer or the arrangement of bookmarks for the Internet in groups and subgroups with further branches give examples of the quasi ubiquitous desire for such cladistics with an axiomatics at the top.
In the description of nature, however, it has been found that a four-dimensional description with one imaginary and three real dimensions is largely applicable and sufficient, namely, first, through the space-time system of modern physics.
Since living beings, and especially humans, are part of nature, it must be assumed for reasons of consistency that human areas, especially those of culture, must also consist of categories considered to have one imaginary and three to be real, which “span up” dimensions. The imaginary part would be conceived as an initial concept, ie archaic concepts of states which may already exist in animals and which still contain a static understanding. As a result, splitting up has created process-related areas that contain strong personal development, ie, specifically, art, the humanities and natural sciences. At first this sounds very speculative, but it could be confirmed rather quickly and in many ways through consistency checks and consistent conclusions.
In addition, however, the human body that has emerged from biological evolution seems to have a corresponding division into an original "imaginary" part in the form of the abdomen, which in lower animals can maintain a life cycle with metabolism and multiplication in principle as with unicellulars. One after the other, limbs (in the case of unicellular organisms such as flagella), then a head, and finally an upper body with a separate area for energy supply were created (heart and lungs).
Four-dimensionality, therefore, generally seems to be an important moment in all naturally occurring systematics. This must include four-dimensional axiomatics at the top of these cladistics.
The introduction of axiomatics initially means a purely rational approach. Mathematical axiomatics for the description of nature formalizes dual interaction between operators (quantifiers and mathematical links). However, axiomatics can be understood more generally as a child of alternative philosophy if initially no limitation only to thinking and perception takes place. When limited to logic, four quantors (measurable quantities) and four logical operators are required. Since only three of them can be real (for example, three spatial dimensions), the fourth operator has to be imaginary. Logically, that is, with low complexity, only the succession of generations is available as imaginary quantor, while holistically, that is, with high complexity, this can be either time or creation or development. While logically negation is the only imaginary operator, holistically the second law of thermodynamics can assume this role.
Alternatively, it can be said that being develops, or instead that development just is (has a being). The relationship between being and development first appeared to be a dual myth. However, in modern terms, this can be understood as interaction between matter and fields, ie mass and energy (Einstein formula).
In principle, there must be a transition between logic and holistic in kind of a dimension, which could be continuous. At higher complexity, the logic collapses, eventually resulting in fuzzy points. Consequently, one is urged to gradually approach a limit at the edge of the range, that is to say something unknown, such as e.g. a higher (initially not yet defined) order. The simplest case is leaving linear systems when introducing quadratic terms. If the earth is no longer understood as a flat disk, then quadratic terms can be added, first of all meaning circles.
Recursion as a cyclical approach, however, does not have to result in circles, following a common misunderstanding, but can come up as a spiral or ellipse approching something unknown (similar to the orbits of planets of a star). However, causing disturbances can be possible only if the system is incomplete (at least partially open). Such kind of recursion goes beyond logic, which thus more generally can be seen as a at least patially open system, to which as its exterior holistic can be attributed. Therefore, logic and holistic can be understood in a dual way. In alternative philosophy it might be allowed, though not logically justifiable, to use wisdom as a generic term for logic and holistic together.
Is all life just a game? This sentence seems to be highly philosophical, because every single word in it can be questioned in many ways, and it also leads, “within it and outside of it”, to alternative ways to penetrate into secrets that curious life researchers may tempted to proceed in many respects. Should we perhaps first clarify the vocabulary, then look at the rules, and finally orient ourselves to what was before it or perhaps follows from that? Or is it just about here and now?
The majority of people care little about what is behind the rules of a game or simply of life. The rules seem to be predetermined, so they can not be changed anyway. So it might look like an unnecessary pastime to care about it. The rules seem extremely complicated and are therefore left as food to the caste of priests and professors.
But the assumption that it is all about brains, for example, has not yet prevailed in ravens. They arrogantly consider themselves the most intelligent ones of all birds, and feel equally superior to the big condors and small hummingbirds, and especially to those who can not fly at all.
So the rules have something to do with intelligence, but not just brains. Is it all about speed? Certainly the ravens are able to show fast pace. But hardly anyone thinks or feels what they are doing at night. They hide, are lazy and just shag, which is very important. But they are also artists, yes, flying artists.
Do the ravens, like the Buddha, simply search for a middle way between being highly mobile or just lazy, and between being artists or just “flying”? Similarly they use communication to seek compromises between closer and more distant places for their livelihood, and material preferences between delicious food and, if necessary, even what people dubiously call carrion. Whether these other bipeds also have a comparably good memory and antibody system?
Adaptability is of utmost importance. Does this not contradict fixed rules in a game? All that remains is to conclude that it is about the development of rules for rules, once again about a metasystem, a system that develops itself.
Fixed rules such as in a game of chess are therefore considered less suitable for life. Computer games, on the other hand, can be continuously developed. They adapt to the market. Is the market something like life?
Programmers know that an environment needs to be defined first and then follow the rules. They meet with language rules, without which no rules can be established. However, philosophers often have already established language rules, talk about ontology, being, states, statics, and care relatively little about their environment. Only recently has the dependency on language become more apparent, and the other side of life, of the world, of God and man, is becoming fully aware that everything is flowing, developing, a process, and therefore dynamic.
Corresponding agreements concerning language now also emerge like Phoenix from the ashes for the rules themselves and could be enlightening, - notions like instinct, taboo, law, axiomatics. All are said to be interesting, but the real exciting question is the one about the next step. Is it self-organization, the essence of metaaxiomatics instantly called for help? Will we return to the alleged beginnings of nature and at the same time to its end? The raven apologizes for using the expression “at the same time”, which of course is imaginary.
Human understanding, both directed outward and what man himself is, can thus be understood by limiting it to four categories, which span four dimensions between dualities as extremes. In order for duality not simply to restore duality, asymmetry must come into play. As the simplest asymmetric assumption, a first dimension could still be assumed without the property of duality, which must be irreversible, which would be tantamount to the term "imaginary." Logically, it could, as already said, be interpreted as the negation, but holistically as the second law of thermodynamics, which can not be proved as a purely empirical proposition. The other three categories, or the dimensions they define, must necessarily be reversible and are called real.
Thus, in classical mathematical description, above all in the physics of mechanics, four-dimensionality imaginarily contains time (arising and passing away), but in reality three spatial coordinates (positive and negative). In the evolving nature, imaginarily, energy can be understood, while in reality three partially still unsupported forms of mass ("normal" matter, dark matter, and dark energy) can be understood. In life imaginary, instead of the physical time generations (birth and death) and real, instead of the physical space, three areas of life (daily life, introversion and extroversion) can be generally conceived. In culture, imaginary enforcement and, in real terms, the three areas of enterprise (economy), life (ecology) and control (rationality) could be subsumed.
Initially meant as an illustration, it is also possible to identify an imaginary and three real areas in essential basic components of our lives. Water contains superfluidity, which could perhaps contribute to the concept of the "imaginary," and the three quite understandable phases solid, liquid, and gaseous. The human body includes the imaginary area in the abdomen (love or attraction and sex or multiplication) and three real areas, namely in evolutionary order the extremities (movement and activities), the head (perception and processing) and the upper body (feeling and fitness). This may at first make an unscientific impression, but it probably contains thoughtful and justifiable ideas.
Interaction and recursion
(Truth and poetry)
death is necessary,
Need is also life.
From statics to dynamics
Recursion generally seems to be a widely underrated practice not only in some mathematical realms, but also for gaining a deeper understanding of commonly taken for granted terms such as life. This becomes clear when we ask if we can talk about life in the macro world (relating to the earth or the solar system or a galaxy) or in the micro world (molecules showing mobility, atoms or elementary particles, which can already quantum mechanically be understood as interactions between particles and fields). This is also expressed in historical controversies, whether "the" life was created or developed. Thus, ontology is opposed to a philosophy of development, which de facto gives a central meaning to the concept of recursion. Emergence and development can thus also be understood as mutually dual terms. This may similarly be true for other such terms often accepted in unreflected manner such as, for instance, freedom.
As a major deficiency of the classical formulation appear the often inadequate definitions of the terms used. In particular, with the new theory of fractals, a formulation consistent with mathematics is becoming more and more prevalent in saying that a state in a generation n + 1 is a function of a state in a generation n. This results in a seemingly simple functional linking of processes with states, which however necessarily contains a singularity (eg birth and death) and thus goes beyond the classical theory of functions::
f (n + 1) = a + b * f (n)
which is also able to describes singularities, but does not seem to grasp its true meaning.
Thus, the concept of effect necessarily includes the transition from one generation to the next, however such a generation is understood. In the simplest and everyday case, it is based on time, which can falsely suggest continuity.
Because of said singularity, the transition from static state description to dynamic process description is necessarily mind-expanding, e.g. the transition from the image of a flat earth to the idea of the earth as a sphere. More generally, the quadrature of the circle and the like, e.g. also, the question of whether the chicken or the egg first arose, can only be described by the addition of an outdoor area in a partially open system involving external disturbances.
Such singularities and previously unconscious influences from transitions includung the outsideare are in principle captured by the term paradigm shift coined by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962).
is vaguely defined at first sight and primitive and has nothing to offer for learning. There is a danger that university philosophers will starve to death. In this respect, and not by chance, it resembles minimal music. You may not like it, although it does not mean contempt for any kind of so-called classical music, including Gregorian singing, which is even used creatively. The same applies to alternative philosophy, which has already been described as a minimal philosophy. But this will make it even more difficult to make clear their simple nature as beauty for mostly highly specialized professionals of questionably widely accepted peer review.
The new beloved child loves Homer as much as Minimal Music likes Gregorius. Both were somehow monks, but both only about fifty percent, because they also followed a then already secretly accepted middle way, which was not provided for in the doctrine of faith.
But we should not overlook a significant point mentioned above. You can not, or rather, it is not possible at all to learn such a mini-philosophy. The reason is perfectly clear to regular listeners of minimal music. You may have noticed that in those creations seemingly little happens. But in a second run, one can notice that in such music of recognized good quality there are almost never two equal bars.
Continuous variation makes learning virtually impossible. Here, learning takes on a different meaning, which involves much more than just rational perception and processing. It is music that is made of the whole body and for the whole body, so at least to dance and to express feelings and certainly also to make love is well suited, whereby thought, digestion, exercise and even work are not excluded. Attention! Such work could be fun and enjoyable. Important in any case is the slow but admittedly never completely possible approach to something unknown by just that recursion.
Philosophy and meditation
This other meaning of learning is obviously more captured by meditation than philosophy, which in turn seeks to just understand. This again raises the unresolved question of the possibility of universal definitions for these two terms, which are very dependent on local cultures. The emphasized rationality of Western philosophies and, on the other hand, the lack of rationality in the meditations, which originate mostly from Eastern cultures, make this immediately apparent.
A considerable but clearly limited number of philosophies as well as meditations can be stated. In the previous sections, the four-dimensional structure of the individual dimensions was highlighted and also the duality of the extreme values representing the presumably necessary but also sufficient four categories with their respective dialectic. This means a total of eight areas, as well for the types of philosophy as for the types of meditation.
The crucial difference between philosophy and meditation almost coincides with the difference between theory and practice, a little observed fact hitherto. In effect, this brings about much simpler definitions of these terms, about which one can agree quite independently of individual cultures. Remarkable is indeed that already the historical Buddhism with its eight-fold way seemed to have such a feeling.
First of all, it is possible to enumerate, so to speak, that one can conceive both a kind of philosophy and a kind of meditation for pairs of terms understandable by both duality and by dialectic. These are pairs of perception (cognition) and process thinking (processing), for feeling and body energy (fitness), for sex (tantra) and morality (power), and finally for activities (work etc.) and moving around (research and travel). On the one hand, these eight species can be assigned to four not necessarily clearly defined cultural areas and, on the other hand, to the human body parts.
Accordingly, philosophy and meditation can indeed be seen as a dual or dialectically understandable subjects, thereby providing completely new possibilities for insight. Likewise theory and practice can also be understood as a dual or cum granu salis as a dialectical pair. Not controversy over the definition of these terms is important, but above all the assertion involved, which even has the character of a hardly refutable statement that it generally does not depend on one-sided extreme positions, but the intermediate range must be explored. This means that neither exclusive philosophy nor exclusive meditation may carry us onb as far as rather a middle way between the two which is always to be redefined and understood in this sense as dynamic and modern.
Problem and conflict resolution
Conflicts in life can accordingly better be solved not only by philosophy or only by meditation alone but, loosely stated, require a mixture of both. Likewise, one-sided theory as well as exclusive practice do not bring about conflict resolution. Rather, such imbalances are likely to be the cause of violence, often including military conflicts. We have to learn to orient ourselves in the intermediate areas. This can not be the classical philosophy alone, but only a more advanced modern alternative philosophy, which means not simply a vague new form of philosophy, but the full inclusion of the intermediate areas in life.
Again and again, classical philosophy was accused of lack of experimentation, especially by the scientific community. Meditation actually can have the character of such experiments. However, reproducibility is only approximately possible given the high complexity that exists in life. Even the natural sciences themselves now have to come to terms with the occurrence of uncertainty. Only closed systems with a limited number of components have strict logic and are therefore completely reproducible. This does not rule out that even statistical results can be reproducible, but not completely strict. Smallest disturbations can already initiate new development.
Similar considerations apply to the relationship between theory and practice, except that here in general it is not simply about task-like problems in individual human life, but also about potentially dangerous social conflicts. Instead like in limited personal problems, here massive power and violence can be involved. The prevention and avoidance of any life-threatening violence is the core concern of all modern and thereby here dynamically understood societies. Ideologies are pure theory and dictatorship is pure practice. Both do not lead to the goal, but only such a balanced middle way can do it. However, the repetition of this term, sounding like a mantra at first, should not discourage, but emphasize the importance of weighing our own balance between theory and practice, from which ultimately the ability to compromise of an entire society emerges. So, above all, we need to foster these areas between theory and practice, where there are large deficits practically everywhere, both in one's own personal life and in any kind of social conflict. Investing here is likely to be the best possible means of preventing bad violence and thus the best way to foster conflict resolution. Balancing and finding compromises may mean the same thing.
Being and development
Well-known keywords of classical philosophy appear as one-sided positions in the proposed alternative philosophy, between which we also wish to take a position. With the proposed basic philosophical concepts, attempts are made to grasp situations as well as knowledge in a simple and as general as possible.way.
We can understand the word situations largely as a colloquial expression for being or existence. Initially, situations primarily concern the practice, which includes the meaning of having synthetical orientation. Knowledge describes colloquially to a greater extent a development. Accordingly, it can initially be predominantly attributed to theory while tending to be analytically oriented.
In all the above-mentioned areas, structure is probably the most commonly used general or extensively applied term for relationships. The term can be used both for situations and for knowledge and thus in a philosophically extended way of speaking for being (existence) and development. It can be used for both practical synthesis and theoretical analysis, but has an extra dimension over the definable terms situation and knowledge. It stands to reason to understand situation and knowledge as three-dimensional real concepts and to classify said additional dimension of structures as imaginary. Situations are represented three-dimensionally by Euclidean (vector) geometry, and knowledge is classically described by functional (algebraic) dependencies. Structures, e.g. natural structures like faces, clouds or rivers, however, comprise more than this and can only be approximated or partially understood through situations or knowledge. The additional fourth dimension thus characterizes structures and attributes uncertainty to them. Structures understood in this way can only be comprehended recursively, they are inevitably dynamic in nature and could be understood as modern in this respect.
Military and business strategists have been interested in structures, and in particular John A. Warden divided this term into five parts, - leadership, process, infrastructure, elements, and effect, which, in the language used here, need to be understood as five dimensions (or categories)..
However, general four-dimensionality has been made very probable in two completely different ways, both by attribution to the human body parts following from biological evolution and also to cultural domains following their evolution. Therefore, it is also probable that the term structure should be four-dimensional. The number of shares in the above mentioned listing can easily be reduced to four if assuming a lead process, ie by not segregating leadership and process. This also avoids possibly required statements about a god or leader.
Structures can be attributed to both cult-related and innovative concepts including many very different areas such as religion, philosophy, business or even fight. There is a separate assignment for each area. They are understood in the relevant current case as process, infrastructure, elements and effects. This can not and should not be investigated here in detail. In particular, cult-like concepts are supposed to have static character and to reflect a state of mind, whereas those innovative concepts mean dynamics and process thinking. It seems important, that said kind of thinking refers not only to a linear form in kind of blogging, but also to network-like processes and, moreover, to processes which go beyond exclusive thinking in the strict sense including influences from emotional, animal and activity-related areas. Only strictly theoretical systems can be assumed to be completely closed, while for all other cases this can not be shown. Dynamic processes (and thus all innovative processes) are continuous in simple cases and could be still close to static descriptions, but may also include possible discontinuities (singularities, interruptions), which can have immense significance in politics.
Specialization and versatility
Static situations are by nature fixed on a guiding process and thus have kind of a cultic character. In principle, this fixing of states can be made to almost anything, both in areas of nature and in human areas (sometimes already in higher animals). In the case of nature, spatial claims meaning territory derive from it in both humans and animals. In the human areas, corresponding claims can be made in all parts, which can be assigned to the four different parts of the body as well as to the different cultural areas mentioned above.
Territorial claims can be better enforced through mergers, which leads to herding or formation of societies. The associated specialization, however, arosen in the initial natural conditions and can not adapt quickly to changes under those static conditions. In the latter, however, unbound animals, which include predators, hunters, and even modern notebook nomads, have greater opportunities. These instinctively or through insight have a greater or even almost complete dynamic share, but in group or social cohesion it is rather of dubious value. In particular, extreme cases seem questionable, ie purely static or purely dynamically understandable cases. Such individuals are on the one hand fixed or unfree and essentially subordinated to a single goal, and on the other hand, completely unbound and thus irresponsible. At this point, is it again appropriate to demand a modern middle way, which requires constant own small course corrections and readiness for compromises?
In dynamic conditions, however, possible singularities are always the critical point. In static conditions nobody is plagued by such problems because they can not be foreseen there. But what can individuals in dynamic circumstances do to cope with it?
Singularities are constantly occurring in life in the form of birth and death, of new foundations and bankruptcies, of newly emerging territories, and others that are disappearing. We have to learn to work around this, which, admittedly, will never be completely possible. But may the reluctant word recursion be mentioned again?
Defining what is law in a certain area today seems to be a fundamental right of every country. This is secured militarily and criminally in often not exactly squeamish way, and who does not agree with or violates this will be tried and set "out of the game", either by military or by so-called law enforcement.
This procedure is absolutely human in the sense that it is fundamentally contrary to natural law, e.g. the animals are practically ignored. It is based on archaic principles rather not justified in modern terms, and mainly on Roman law in the western world. Natural law, on the other hand, is based, from today's point of view, above all on a mixture of Darwinism with elements which we can roughly call morals and which in some form already exist in animal populations, e.g. protection of kinship and support of important areas of life.
To change this situation could and should be the task of a simplified modern and in this sense alternative philosophy, which can be accepted on the one hand as being generally understandable and on the other hand as the basis for the above mentioned fixing of states.
The most important basis of such a philosophy is now seen in the duality of being and development. This is not about principles of faith as it used to be, but results from insights that can be regarded as generally binding and not only within the context of religious identifications. If one wants to create a new legal basis from this, then in any case a right to being and a right to development must be assumed. These two basic interconnected kinds of so understood right would have to be recognized as equivalent pillars of a new jurisdiction, which implies that mediation between the two types of fundamental right should be a primary and absolutely paramount principle of modern jurisprudence.
Religious communities of all shades are decisively involved in the cause of the vast majority of current events that are shattering world politics and private life of populations, as reflected in the grim daily news. They essentially serve local identifications and do virtually nothing against the almost invisible huge arms production and the associated trade, but are in many places even behind it. This should finally contribute to the consistent realization that all established religions have served as partners in tpower politics and should be eliminated as much as possible from the political business.
The feared vacuum in its place could be taken over by modernized philosophy, which can not be limited to rationality, although nothing should be objected to rational philosophy. But it is not sufficient and urgently needs to be extended by further shares, which were basically present in the archaic Greek philosophy and then, bit by bit, were turned off in often very obscure and even devious ways. Suppression of sexuality in particular, which religions developed almost regularly to support their own claims to power, plays an important role in this, as does the usually very reckless animal husbandry, which is almost never guided by respect for the life of other living beings.
A fresh wave of secularization, quite in the style of Lessing's times and ideas, but fundamentally renewed and modernized, seems imperative. Religiousness is certainly not harmful and should be promoted today as well as by Lessing's "Nathan the Wise". But where is there such a religiosity separate from claims to power? You can search it like pinheads. Everywhere religious representatives immediately appear in positions of power and make all kinds of demands without fostering any awareness, what mischief is done to them. This also applies to their own ranks, that is to say the power which is apparently indispensably exercised in media committees (TV) and which even still appears to be of benefit to a majority of the population. It continues on both wings of all major parties in the current terrible conflicts in the Orient and also in the distant seemingly so peace-loving Asia, where religious groups work shamelessly with dictatorships and cause just such mischief.
At the beginning of all religious organizations is the construction of so-called sacred buildings, which, however, above all create the property and power in the hands of people prominent in these organizations, that is, initially generally a priestly caste. While until then in early forms of society buildings were only built for protection purposes, which did not establish crucial personal possessions, this situation changed fundamentally with the creation of sacred buildings. This gave the people above all a sense of the importance of ownership. They learned from the beginning to cuddle. It runs like a red thread through all subsequent historical development and over time becomes a deep-seated, widespread war that still continues to breed today among supporters of different colors, most notably the red and black ones. Possession is the trigger of virtually all modern conflicts and so deep-seated that it just seems pointless to most people to even go into it.
To deal with this issue people have given much attention to the discovery of the completely different social behavior of the otherwise practically identical monkey populations on both sides of the Congo river having become so broad duringt the last one million years that it has become a barrier for the animals, so that very different behaviors could emerge. On the northern side resources were scarce and led to an aggressive behavior of the chimpanzees differentiating there, which lead veritable wars between them. On the south side, the separately developing bonobos had plenty of food and learned to resolve conflicts occurring there through frequent sexual intercourse. This seems to be biologically the more sensible method, because so always the fastest reacting partners come into play, which corresponds to the basic principle of Darwinian selection, namely that rapid reaction is a particularly important element in the struggle for survival.
Today, however, this element is systematically eliminated by the demonization of such direct sexuality by virtually all religious organizations.
Ownership has become the main defining issue of all modern production organizations nitially being seized simply by force, in particular by land grabbing, especially with the participation of the then leading elites in historical societies, which usually merged more or less seamlessly into noble and monarchist and later other public structures.
W§anting to set off today again at this point seems almost hopeless, but appears still absolutely necessary. This, just like secularization, can not happen all of a sudden, but only with caution, e.g. by slowly cranking up taxation and restituting ownership of common property in infinitesimal steps. This realization coincides completely with the worrying finding of an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, which to reduce appears to many people to be the most urgent need. A real balance between communism and capitalism has not yet been realized the slightest bit and continues to be wanted as a victory decided by both sides for themselves.
To motivate such a movement and to start it carefully ican be understood as a concern of alternative philosophy. Politics could therefore, as in the Platonic sense, once again be the offspring of a philosophy that, however, is to be changed in its consciousness. It basically provides clear guidance with the easily understandable and conveyable idea of a modern middle way, how as well related and also other conflicts could be avoided. This can only happen in ongoing, continuous gently widening interactions between private and public sectors, but it must also cautiously encompass the aforementioned areas without falsely showing up as guru, missionary or preacher.
Learning and competition
Emergence in small steps
Rational concepts, above all logical statements about states, for sure have advantages over mostly recursive approximations, especially because of their accuracy. This is largely independent of their nature. The description of an image by pixels allows e.g. the exact reproduction of each single point. The size of a picture is determined only by the number of pixels. However, a much higher number of pixels or coefficients are needed than for a fractal description which results from improving an initial generation-to-generation assumption but is unable to accurately render individual pixels.
States can be determined rationally. In philosophical terms, it means the investigation of existent being, which can be done with the utmost accuracy in the framework of statics while in this case renouncing dynamics. The addition of dynamics inevitably leads to a renunciation of full accuracy, but allows to capture the development of processes what constitutes the very essence of dynamics, modernity and learning. Determining and learning are thus fundamentally different categories, as humanists say, or different dimensions in scientific language.
Clearly conceiving this difference is of utmost importance in all areas between theory and practice. Pixel images represent states, and dynamics can only be created as an illusion by rapid succession of such images, which is the basis of television. Fractal images, on the other hand, can continue to evolve at any time, which corresponds to learning processes. In principle, every single image can be derived by changing or specifying a single coefficient from the previous image with minimal loss of time. This consideration is not only valid for images, but for all dynamic processes and their description. Learning is generally the addition of an "additional triviality" in a subsequent step and thus should theoretically be more effective, the faster these steps take place. However, this is only correct in a limited way, because each step also means an additional expenditure of energy, and energy is not available indefinitely.
Life emerges according to scientific ideas from automatons or immobile unicellulars. These first jump from one state to the next under energy change, which can be coded or described by quantum numbers or at low energies by genetic code. These states can in principle be detected rationally. The transition from static to dynamic description as a crucial step in biological evolution in nature is brought about by the transition from immobile crystals to mobile enzymes, allowing for learning and thus effective development. This is the basis for forming extremities, in the simplest case of flagella in bacteria.
The lower abdomen of higher living beings begins with unicellulars. So the first step following evolution is forming extremities. Then follows a head and finally a clearly differentiated body. These further developments of biological evolution can be understood as consequences of learning processes in the sense of Darwinism. The assumption of a statistical emergence of new states only by mutations could not explain the actual speed of evolution. Faster learning processes through transition from generation to generation are therefore crucial.
The trick of learning considered as being modern in the sense of dynamic learning now consists in the reduction of the generation time, which is no longer identical with the lifetime, but only depends on the energy input. Each individual learning step thus represents "simply" an improvement over the previous "generation" in learning, which is no longer necessarily related to birth and death and thus avoids the problem of highly destructive singularities. Learning becomes a practically continuous process, even though it is gradual. The individual steps need only to procede as fast as possible and with the lowest possible energy consumption. This is the decisive basis of all competition.
Every single step represents an initially infinitesimal small emergence. The higher the density of the involved components, the more this comes close to actual emergence. This is generally true, so equally for elementary particles, human creativity and astronomical super or kilonovae.
Of particular interest in the human field is learning as a biological process. This can initially be attributed to genetic recombination, which we now know can also involve the involvement of proteinaceous components that attach to the actual genetic material. Higher evolution has then led to the development of a special type of neuron for this purpose, the so-called mirror neurons. Details will not be discussed further here.
Average people in modern societies have conscience that in the fight for being assertive, it is very important to be able to make quick decisions. This is reflected in the many observers' incomprehensible high interest of mobile phone users to engage in "gaming" at every possible opportunity. These games on the usually not very large displays have an important, but usually not highlighted or even completely unconscious goal, namely to train fast decision-making ability, which is best possible in countless tiny individual steps.
The practical handling of complex situations may first appear to us as the most essential problem in difficult life situations and also in games that simulate them. But it may make sense to start questioning complexity in the respective environment. In the religious realm there may be concerned the wide field between inner stillness and outer infinity, in art between a single point and the full environment, in the humanities between the spiritual inner center and the material outer world, and in science between sharp logic in the treatment of simple mechanical problems and fuzzy holism in quantum mechanical field theory.
In general, it seems to be about comprehensibility, which finally leads to measurability in natural sciences. But what is comprehensible or measurable? It is not just about the potentially very high number of elements involved, but above all about the relationship, usually called interaction in this context, of each individual element with each other one. Thus understood the importance of complexity is seen in a wider context, which is closely linked to the idea of long-range action in a network.
Each element has in principle both material and kind of an ideal nature or point and field characteristics in modern language and has an effect on “Einstein's playground”. At least theoretically, it can mutually transform matter and energy into one another, immediately pointing out the inseparable connection between theory and practice. It not only exists but also participates in development.
Complexity is apparently much more complex than we seem to be able to grasp. In each of the above areas, which could well be differentiated, there in addition seems to be a certain human consensus on how we handle it. The religious answer may be humility, the artistic answer may be creativity, the mental position the making of references, and the scientific behavior may be characterized by verifiability. Everywhere there is a wide scope that can be understood as a leeway of morality, development or humanity or just as Einstein's playground.
The most important human "fact" may be relationships. Again, it may be true that the relationship of two persons is even more dominated by logic than that of three or more individuals or groups. Our society is relatively logically oriented in comparison with former times and with less developed countries and insists accordingly strongly on monogamy, thus on relations probably favorable for the society by involving only two persons. A undeniable higher proportion of people with more complex relationships can be found in Asian countries, which tend more to holism. To the same extent as we feel that the general network is growing, which means not only advantage, but also accountability, so-called poliamory relations can be observed more frequently here too, to which the author of these lines increasingly confesses.
However, since political conditions and private structures are certainly mirrored in each other, such changes are likely to be increasingly expected in politics, which may indicate an increase in the importance of diffuse political movements replacing more sharply defined political parties.
All this may initially unsettle peoples. It will certainly become more pleasing if the feeling grows that seemingly clear fundamentalism can actually does not help to avoid confrontation with networked formation of opinion. In art, the insight can increase for the astonishing fact that it thrives particularly well on the borders between lower and higher complexity. Spiritual wisdom will be valued more highly when acknowledging a diffuse nature. The natural sciences will also benefit from the insight that fuzzy relations have a much wider validity than previously assumed.
Not only simple and complex facts, but generally logic and wholeness can be understood as dual pairs. But even in the current discussion about human gender relationships, there is a trend from #MeToo to #ConsentMatters, reflecting a growing awareness for social nets involving mutual duality.
Good and evil
A Chinese proverb says in questionable translation: The good man builds bridges, the bad man builds walls. To bridges and walls as well as to tunnels and trenches will be attributed as well appreciated advantages as also bad or even evil disadvantages. Is the definition of what is called good or evil exclusively determined by the society concerned? Beware of the traps of the respective language! Good and evil, useful or harmful, right and wrong, positive or negative,- these paired descriptions of conditions prevailed in former times. But the languages continue to evolve with their societies. With the help of the mirror neurons we learn especially in our youth to give familiar words again and again small new twists, to adapt them to changing conditions. More and more we learn to get a feeling not only for static conditions, but also for dynamic processes. This is increasingly understood as modern, not just recent events.
The Chinese speak of Ying and Yang as dual states, which do not rank. But states and processes are not just ying and yang. Statics and dynamics are not equal. Body and matter are understood statically and described mathematically with scalars that are not directed. On the other hand, ideas and energy are understood dynamically and described mathematically with directed vectors.
Is the bridge-building Obama right or the wall-building Trump? Is the escape tunnel loving Merkel right or the German Secretary of the Interior Seehofer deepening the border trenches? Does the good man build bridges or escape tunnels and the bad man build walls or trenches?
Both evil and harmful as well as false include, above all, the black part of a black-and-white painting, limited to only two static conditions and thus negating the intermediate areas, which are called exploration, balancing, continuum, measurements, choosing and compromises. Biology provides us an idea. Positive and negative are equivalent, the negative electrons give us good electrical current. There is no higher development without cell aggregates, which are characterized by the formation of flexible membranes and controlled permeable pores. The membranes are formed by layered "trenches and walls", when we think about our not simply built skin or an onion. The pores, on the other hand, are selectively permeable "bridges or tunnels." Nature has learned this through judgmental evolution. A skin should be healthy and beautiful in our opinion. Does that not be valid for borders? So in the human realm, similar circumstances are likely to be suspected or appropriate, again in the personal as well as in the public or political field.
Likewise, neither in the microcosm of atoms and elementary particles nor in the macrocosm of stars and galaxies are there insurmountable walls or trenches nor any bridges or tunnels of any size. Instead of solid walls, even in extreme areas of nature, there are only partially permeable barriers and phenomena such as the so-called tunnel effect, meaning a partial permeability of pore-like structures.
These are not just scientific considerations that have no meaning in the field of humanity. Descriptions must be consistent across disciplines. If something is wrong in one of two interrelated areas, then something is generally wrong. In particular, the humanities and the natural sciences are divided by rational ghosts in numerous sub-areas, here religion, art, parts of anthropology, etc. and there physics, chemistry and biology, etc. But we can not expect that in one of these areas, for example an exception from an obviously general natural law occurs.
Good and evil almost never denote completely realized social extremes, between which a measuring or judgmental orientation could or ought not happen. One conclusion is that except in rare cases there are neither completely good nor totally evil people, so neither an angelic mother Theresa nor only diabolical Hitlers. However, development does not always proceed smoothly and continuously like slowly getting healthy or getting sick people, but sometimes leaps and bounds, what is described in nature with quanta and singularities and in life is called birth and death, arising and passing, or emergence and catastrophe.
States (existent conditions) arise and therefore evolve. Development, however, cannot be said to have developed, but is an existent condition (state). Between states and developments must act something what is simply called action (effect) today.
If we understand philosophy as a building, as kind of a construction, then three real legs (such as dimensions, categories, components or coordinates, without giving much distinction to the differences between these often questionably defined designations) are sufficient for a firm stand, namely states, developments and actions, just like the usual spatial coordinates for length, width and height. In the description of nature time is added as fourth imaginary dimension. In the philosophy here called alternative we could ascribe this fourth imaginary dimension as addition to reality, quite similar to Plato's idea of a shadow world.
Instead we could also axiomatically posit an imaginary dimension as starting point and then add states, developments and actions as real dimensions. The way in which we open up a concept of the world, axiomatically assuming it without possibility to proof this, seems to be kind of a religious and therefore not decidable question. For reasons of consistency, however, as with any description of nature, there should anyway be three real and one imaginary component here called dimension.
Real means in nature a description which is directed and reversible. This issue will not be detailed and justified here. In a philosophical account, this must apply equally to states in general, and specifically to bodies, including human ones. Material catastrophes and bodily death mean dissolution into arbitrarily small parts, which however form the matter, from which something new arises.
Exactly the same thing can be said comparably about dissipating energy and propagating ideas that arise and disappear again. Developments (processes) are also directed and reversible.
Finally, the same can be stated for actions, without wanting to go into more detail here about this rather abstract but also quite real part. Only the imaginary part can not be reversed. Time and reality run always one-way, not being real, but just counting or relying on narrative methods like hours, generations or sections in a blog or vlog. The same root of the words counting and recouning makes one think.
Matter and energy, nature and life, world and God,- are they "only" pairings? Could we ask whether those pairs are good or bad thoughts? Everything flows, everything turns like in kind of circles, everything results from recursion? So read this text from scratch? Or are all statements that contain the words “all” or "everything" wrong anyway?
Oh, Santa Philosophia, deliver us from the evil! But also different brands of philosophy come and go. So what?
No, neither Latin nor English, but the more holistic Thai language could possibly illustrate this:
máy (high-spoken) means a question mark.
may (middle voice) means sense or meaning.
mày (deep spoken) means not.
Let's try to say the simple sentence in Thai:
Does it not (make) sense?
This gives us a sense for recursively developing language, both colloquial and in specialized languages, including philosophy. As we know today, the development of language in children and even already in higher animals is greatly accelerated by mirror neurons. Thus, in each language, similar words develop relatively quickly in any language with a modified but related meaning of respective states and processes. The language and social character of society are closely related. Of particular interest, however, are discontinuities, in which something fundamentally new is added, which was the case especially in the transition from two to three-dimensional representations, for example Galileo's discoveries. Today, such a transition is starting again from three- to four-dimensional ideas, which can bring about comparable difficulties in the reception, especially in the general understanding of a society.
© Copyright and all rights reserved Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2019
Jan. 31, 2017