Archive for January, 2010

Holism in Broad Sense. About the Conventional Holism Failure

Posted by on Friday, 29 January, 2010

Evidently holism does not constitute a “syncategory” being a vulgar approximation of genuine living wholes.  Even though explicitly aims to synthesis (a limited synthesis, undermined by ample analytical aspects ) and has great merit in recognizing and promoting of emergence and emergent properties ( specific, integrative, new features which did not exist at the part stage ), the traditional holism remains within the real world, belonging to explicate / unfolded order of the world in Bohmian terms. Indeed any holistic approach fails the “syn” moment of authentic genesis due to assumed acceptance of Cartesian modal decoupling ( either real or possible ), this is why the holism does not appear from possible but rather from stable parts, whose interaction is leading to an abstract entity; by comparison authentic totalities = syntegrations, deriving from synthesis, are not constituted from parts but rather subsystems, subtotalities….these being unable to exist by themselves, in other words they do not precede the whole. By contrast with holistic entity (which can be divided / dismembered )  the living wholes (syntegrations) are principially   indivisible ( however they can be dismembered but then they completely and irreversibly lose their “ live ” defining features ).  It is interesting to follow how the analytical connotation of the holism have been perceived – more or less accurately – by different thinkers:

Emil Cioran: “ the whole thing should be seen not named ” ( to see in a hermeneutical meaning ).

Martin Heidegger: “ If we try to scrutinize the rock by breaking it up, then it will never show the opening of its intrinsic content. ”

David Bohm: “ The classical idea of world’s separability in distinct but interacting parts is no longer valid. Divisibility in elements ( particles and fields ) is just a vulgar approximation.  We have arrived to a new order, radically different from the order of Galilei and Newton: the order of indivisible totality.”

I have been asked here in America ( where separability is deeply rooted ): how can we reflect a genuine living totality without altering it? Simply: we are not going to reflect it !  Since reflecting constitutes an extrinsic sequential procedure ( implying separation = death of the whole )   the alive totality should be seen in hermeneutical meaning ( through word and non-word ), we can simulate it on computers ( the infographists being our contemporary pre-socratics having a real respect for individual existence ), we can love it ( love in broad sense = coherence ). Two decades ago I have corresponded with David Bohm ( at Birkbeck College – London ) praising his non-classic concepts ( implicate order, holomovement,  wholeness ) which he appreciated; as soon as I criticized his rheomode project ( kinetization   through verbs of discursive noun centered language ), as being disproportionately insignificant by comparison with holomovement  he chose to be silent.  My conviction was and still is that at the generalized level (holomovement, wholeness) we need a new non-Cartesian form of communication or a language in broad sense such as the general non-linear theory of oscillations – synchronization, coherence and resonance being applicable to existence in broad sense, or equally to the Bohmian holomovement.

The rheomode  project as well as traditional holism belongs to the same modern methodological Cartesian arsenal, slightly improved.

Whilst the time of all holistic entities is exhausted by duration, the syntegrative time extends much beyond duration, including the potential time which precedes and succeeds duration itself.  Just now, in the new  ( syntegrative ) context  the real / possible connection gains historical and ontological relevance: not just the houses are build from bricks, but equally the bricks ( as project, idea ) are made from houses. In his works ( 1980 and after ) dedicated to indivisible universe and holomovement Bohm ceased to start from parts – component of the whole ( according to the traditional holism ) – but from the whole to the parts – in other words: in Syntegration the synthesis precedes and controls analysis, considering parts as some abstractions of continuous flux ( holomovement, implicate order ), this flux being governed by the holonomy = the whole’s law, or in Bohmian terms: “ Everything is to be explained in terms of forms derived from this holomovement.”

A syntegration of great mathematical and physical relevance is the category of “ the set of all sets ” – a sui-generis set, in broad sense, essentially different from its holistic analog (a set of sets) through unicity, indivisibility, nonlocality. The set of all sets constitutes a sine qua non piece of the new non-Cartesian conceptual frame: aiming to wholeness, it is highly compatible with the essential requirement  of holographic universe – each particle to be constituted from ALL.

Fig. 1 Genesis in broad sense of every real: from pre-history (a) to quantum inseparability / entanglement (d )

R ( E ) = real, explicate horizon; P ( I ) = possible implicate horizon

Conclusion:

The distinction between holism and syntegration is a fundamental one, involving some profound re-conceptualization and correlatively the opening toward new comprehensive and organizational horizons:

  • For instance the syntegrative time ( time in broad sense ) is no longer reduced to duration but it comprehends:

1.  real pre-history = unfolding or decoherence ( Fig. 1 a, b );
2.  conventional duration = the history itself of the real;
3.  the real post-history = potentialization or re-coherence.

Quantum inseparability ( Fig. 1 c, d ) involves a new type of connection ( synconnection ) between potential states of the two subsystems; to note that after the interaction is disrupted, these two do not become parts even in case of their biggest separation into Euclidian space. Moreover the real systems are not completely isolated, not even in total lacking of any local ergonic interactions: their weak non-ergonic integration is irreducible ( dotted line , Fig. 1 b down ) representing  a residual original coherence, most likely a  syntegrative relic of the early universe; in the case of local interaction this residual coherence amplifies, taking the form of a synconnection, leading to entanglement / nonlocality.

  • Genesis in broad sense and Syntegration, implying synconnection of any real with potential – possible justifies the non-traditional methodological view in which something exists before it is given: lasting reality around us, is not a random one but rather a tuned reality ( according to M. Heidegger ) any emergence representing a progressive fulfillment of a potential project / design or as per Roger Penrose: “ something that already exists ”. In the new context, which could be seen by some  as pseudo-scientific, everything becomes a matter of grad ( Bart KOSKO ) in the sense that life, consciousness, finality, individuality, etc are gradually realized under the control of Whole.  More details in section “Alive in Broad Sense. Physis Situation”.

Synthesis in Broad Sense. The Harmonizator

Posted by on Tuesday, 26 January, 2010

The traditional development category conceived as unity and struggle of contraries, centered on the conflict between A and its opposite (anti-A) proved to be non-fundamental, being unable to surpass the level of a primitive and precarious organization.  It is no wonder that Hegelian dialectics, binary,  without any passages, based on the elimination of the weaker side, has systematically failed in forging of some abstract, non-authentic totalities. Following Hegel, N. Bohr has definitely collapsed into an antinomic complementarity ( his slogan being: contraries and not contradictories are really complementary), finally leading him to serious methodological- conceptual derailments, for example the explicit negation of a genuine, distinct quantum reality.

Some Romanian thinkers, especially Lucian BLAGA, Stefan LUPASCU and Constantin NOICA- all being Bohr’s contemporaries- have perceived more accurately the minuses of Hegelian dialectics / synthesis, looking for alternative elaborations , more constructive, compatible with the edification and functioning of some genuine, alive totalities highly specific for our contemporary knowledge. Following this Romanian tradition I have elaborated the category of synthesis in broad sense ( synthesis with harmonizator ) briefly presented for the first time at the International Congress of Logic and Methodology of Science held in 1991 ( Uppsala, Sweden).

X

Harmonizator ( H ) represents the active milieu of the alive wholes  of any nature, being constituted from totality of  all  neutral states ( real and / or potential possible ) in relation with the contraries A and anti-A:

H = (non – A) – (anti – A)

At limit, if ( non – A ) = ( anti – A ) the harmonizator becomes zero, leading to the classical Hegelian situation (Fig. 4 a).

By contrast to the Hegelian synthesis the new synthesis ( with harmonizator ) answers to some key requirements of non-Cartesian knowledge, assuming among others:

  • Authentic complementarity between A and its contradictory ( non-A ), acting as an efficient generator of authentic, alive totalities by promoting a new, integrative logic: both / and;
  • Surpassing binarity: the fundamental, interconnected  character of contemporary world imposes taking into account the interconnectivity of all phenomena and not just the two of them;
  • Overtaking the limits of anti – negation and correlatively the development based on exclusion through promoting the non –negation and correlatively again the subsuming development ;
  • The opening of real toward possible – as a premise of living being authenticity, this time the harmonized whole and not at all some ” distinguished ” part –  controls the situation,  making possible the evolution of opposition in complementarity; also,  the Heideggerian principle of tuned reality becomes active only in harmonized wholes, to follow on  the original essence ( idea, design ) commonly found in the potential – possible.

Conclusions:


  • The Hegelian synthesis centered on opposition, should not be undervalued because it represents a particular case of synthesis with harmonizator engaging especially the crisis situations;
  • All authentic, alive totalities are based on synthesis with harmonizator being contradictory, harmonized wholes;
  • Synthesis with harmonizator capitalizes in the most direct manner the lesson provided by biological being, regarding the prevalence of cooperative strategies in relation to the conflictual ones, strongly suggesting  the re-invention of politics, education, medicine, nutrition…on a new complementary base, according to the new methodological principle “ harmonize and develop ”, the decisive factor being this time the active medium;
  • Harmonization represents an essential requirement and not an extravagance inspired by some Eastern wisdom, it being correctly perceived as much as by politicians ( Abraham LINCOLN: ” the best way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend ” ),  as well as by researchers from different areas:

Lynn MARGULIS, Dorion SAGAN: ” Health is not so much a matter of destroying microorganisms as it is of restoring appropriate microbial community ” ( 1997 ).

Roald HOFFMAN ( Nobel prize for Chemistry ): ”…there is no real single thesis and antithesis but rather a multiple perspective, if not cubist at least multidimensional.  Why opposition? ” (1995).

X

Even though he has unique merits in abolition of Cartesian opposition subject / object in microphysics, it has to be noted that Niels BOHR did not decisively disengaged from the typical values of modern thinking system, for instance he did not understand the contradictory essence of authentic complementarity:

“ I hope that this concept of  ( antinomic , F.F. ) complementarity  is susceptible to elude the actual difficulties generated by necessity to make a distinction between subject and object.” ( N. Bohr, 1928 ).

Obviously, the distinction was not the main concern but rigid separation and especially the opposition involving “ nothing in common ” between the two contraries.  Unfortunately this “ nothing in common ” continues to this day to be predominant in approaching the rapport between ergonic / non-ergonic, matter / spirit, real / possible, action / information, etc. …

Distinctively different from “ Bohr complementarity idea ”, the synthesis with harmonizator has a generalized applicative value, it suggesting correct dialectic solutions ( Fig. 3 ) even there where some contemporary ( remarkable ) physicists inertially promote methodological rupture ( separation and opposition ) –  as is  the case of probability waves methodological status ( to be clear I want to underline that the quantum nonlocality has a non-ergonic essence / nature ).

Fig.3   A new ( non – Bohr ) Complementarity model between  A / non-A:    Action / Information

The Collapse of Dualism and the Rise of Inseparability

Posted by on Wednesday, 20 January, 2010


Comments of the week:

Vanvolkinburg182@rocketmail.com

200.252.42.196

2010/12/28 at 9:50 pm

Awesome posting man, I incredibly like the look and also the feel of this kind of blogging site. You write certainly well, you just need to be a aware guy. Will undoubtedly come back


Dipietrantoni@yahoo.co.uk

209.104.217.162

Epic submitted article! dad no doubted greatly liked scaning the great post! Cheers! A very well constructed post. Thank you very much for posting this. Additionally, I want to level out you’ve got an excellent theme to your weblog! Sustain the nice work!

=================================================================

Rudyard Kipling ( 1865 – 1936 ) expressed the transition from  Cartesian dualism and separability to  the inseparability as follows:

“All nice people like Us are We
And everyone else is They
But if you cross over the sea
Instead of over the way
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They.”


The Cartesian revolution  ( R. Descartes : 1596 – 1650 ) had as main objective  the  clear delimitation  from the medieval mysticism: through its particular logic centered on the exclusive disjunction either / or , it introduced the distinctiveness  in the philosophy and scientific knowledge. The new Cartesian methodological horizon, defined by the terms ” distinct and separable “, follows the syncretic  horizon, characteristic to the medieval perspective          ( indistinct , inseparable ); after 1500 the legitimacy of this  last perspective  began to be frequently questioned. In this context , the Cartesian option  either / or  ( either subject or object, either religion or science, either material or spiritual,..) had the significance of a ”  fiat lux ” ( Let  there be light ), marking the beginning of an extraordinary analytical effort which benefited both  the modern and  contemporary  science / knowledge. Indeed , the fact that  today it can be stated that contemporary comprehension  of the world is centered on inseparability became possible  only on  the basis of more than 300 years of analytical knowledge which stubbornly promoted the system      ( process ) analysis in itself, considering the coupling    ( of the systems / processes ) as non-fundamental , often irrelevant. Descartes’ error and the error of the dualism as a whole – laid on the absolutization  of separability ( ” Everything is divisible ” ) and especially on considering the duals as being opposite  / contraries ( see Fig. 10 a ) : object  versus subject, body  versus soul, a.s.o. This aspect deserves  to be detailed because  later , Hegel, Darwin and , in the 20th century , Niels Bohr and  the entire modern medicine, took over the Cartesian ( antinomic )  model in elaborating  some thought lines still very active in present. There are 2 possible modalities  of delimitation toward a given entity A : the hard line, promoting the opposite ( the contrary ) of A ( anti – A ) and the soft line  promoting not the opposite but the different of A : the contradictory  “ non-A ” ( note  that non-A or ” the complement of A ”  includes anti-A). Descartes and Galileo relied on the contraries probably to give the differentiation / distinctiveness  a sharper character, by this the synthetic resources ( anyway irrelevant  within a  rigorous analytic program ! ) were practically annihilated because  unlike the contradictories, the contraries have nothing in common ( see Fig.10 c ). The Cartesian methodology  did work   with excellent results ( continuing to be valid also in present ) but only in the limits of the analytical horizon , with its distinct and separable systems. Alternatively ,  all genuine / alive  totalities require  a non – Cartesian approach  based on  synthesis with Harmonizator being without  exception ” harmonized contradictory wholes ” ( for details  see the section  entitled  ” Synthesis in Broad Sense ” ).

Beyond  Descartes : two distinct crises

After 1960  the scientific  knowledge  entered in a new era  of development – a synthetical one, organized on 2  methodological horizons :  a first non-Cartesian ( distinct and inseparable ) horizon correlated with  so called “discrete crisis “ and an anti- Cartesian ( indistinct – inseparable ) horizon  marking  the  ” distinct crisis “

( unfortunately,  the two crises are often confounded ). For the  actual methodological moment , which has as main priority the delimitation from the Cartesianism , particularly relevant  is the discrete crisis horizon , which can be characterized best by the principle everything is connected with everything, thus the inseparability comes on the forefront.

The methodological  specific of the non-Cartesian horizon was firstly formulated  many decades ago by the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard , in the following terms: characteristic for the  contemporary scientific knowledge is not how the contraries  exclude one  another  but how the contradictories cooperate ; the non-Cartesian program  suggested by Bachelard  is not any more  satisfactory for the  contemporary comprehension because it does not take into consideration the distinct crisis, an anti-Cartesian issue  with major implications  in elaborating  the theory of chaos   and also the  new , contemporary  category of existence  ( see the section ” Existence in broad sense ” ).

Coming back to dualism  it must be shown  that it was submitted to a slow but implacable  process of  conceptual erosion ( Fig. 10 b , c ) having as effect the mutual opening  of the duals and  the  progressively attenuation of  the opposition relationship ( assumed ) between them. In the case of the  duals subject / object , for instance ,  this change  has been firstly produced  due to the activation  of the subjective side  ( by the romanticism : J.G.Fichte, J.J. Rousseau, F. Holderlin,.. see the A’ ,  Fig. 10 b )  and also, more recently , due to the  objective side activation:       non-linearity  and  states far from the equilibrium , activation of the possible,… see the B’ , Fig. 10 c .

Dualism and Quantum Mechanics: Niels BOHR and beyond

The non-fundamental character of the dualism was firstly demonstrated in quantum mechanics  through a series  of methodological works elaborated  between  1928 – 1948 by the  Danish physicist Niels Bohr , who contributed  to the fall of the  Cartesian opposition  between subject / object , proving that the usual separation  observer / measuring device  is an artificial one  and incorrect too since the observer owns some irreducible objective             ( operational ) features.However Bohr was  in many regards a…dualist: the complementarity principle  in its  antinomic version  ( either  wave or particle )  and also the so called  asymetric conceptual dualism ( Bohr did constantly affirm  the existence  in Quantum Mechanics ( Q M )   of a conceptual microscopic / macroscopic duality , considering the last one fundamental ) are some typical examples  of a dualist thinking. Another example  of dualism within the Copenhagen Interpretation  of the Q M is given by the dynamical dualism ( Born, von Neumann ). In von Neumann’s formulation ( 1932 ) , the dynamical dualism states that in the QM , two dynamical opposed regimes  are active:  a unitary dynamics  according to Schrodinger’ s  equation ( rigorously valid for  the isolated systems ) and a non – unitary dynamics  introducing  the reduction or the  collapse of the wave function  to describe  the stochastic transition in the new ( actualized ) state  during  measurements.To solve the dynamic dualism  the new Q M  advanced two  distinct ( though practically indistinguishable ) possibilities:

i. Decided modification of the linear and determinist dynamics so that the collapse results from the new  ( nonlinear and stochastic ) Schrodinger equation. The development of this approach ( the term  of interpretation becoming  improper ) is the best represented  by the SL ( spontaneous localization ) theories ( G.C. Ghirardi, A.Rimini and T.Weber; P.Pearle  ) . The eventual connection  of the SL dynamics with the gravitation effects  ( quantum gravity ) – S L G , seems promising  especially due  to the expected diminution up to  exclusion of the spontaneity of the original approach.

ii. Post – Everettian interpretation – representing in essence  a synthesis  between MWI and the theory /mechanism of decoherence ( the EZZ interpretation, obviously Z ,Z coming from Zeh, Zurek –  the main promoters of the decoherence  theory ). EZZ interpretation applies  consequently the unitary dynamics ( no collapse ) right,  with the price  of an indisputable ontological ” extravagance ” ( John Bell ). A new dualism ? Not at all, rather a new…J.S.Bell ( a reconceptualization of contemporary quantum theory ) since the decoherence and the collapse are neither identical nor incompatible , the two dual models  could be synthesized in the future.

Solving the Discrete / Continuum Dualism : Einstein or Zeh?

In my recent book “Beyond Descartes – from separability to inseparability ” ( Amazon.com ) I have shown that presently we are in full crisis of the discrete, thus being normal that particle – central concept in modern science – to lose ground against wave (respectively, fields of vibrational energy).   H. – D. Zeh goes even further asserting that since actual quantum mechanics no longer demands the existence of discontinuities in time (quantum jumps), space (particles), nor even in space -time (quantum events), one can conclude that the quantum mechanics itself lost its quantum character, the just apparent discontinuities above mentioned can be objectively described with the help of decoherence – itself a continuous process. Is discrete / discontinuity concept disappearing from our epistemology? Certainly not, the discrete / discontinuity cannot be excluded from contemporary epistemology / ontology; why exclusion?  I remind here the ( very ) pertinent question formulated by Parker Palmer in the following, integrative  terms : ” We  think the world apart. What will  it be  like to think  the world together? ” Thus,  it can be reproached to professor Zeh at most a tendency toward some abstractization of a P (potentiality) type. A tendency of opposite direction – abstractization of A (actualization) type – was exhibited by Einstein when, on the basis of his pertinent explanation of photoelectric effect, he aimed to exclude continuity, asserting that the light wave/ electromagnetic field in general, would actually be a (permanent) superposition of quantum oscillators, in other words a sum of discontinuities. To note that in contrast to old / traditional quantum mechanics centered (via N. Bohr) on the law of  excluded middle ( ” everything is either A or not- A ” ) or , simpler , on  Aristotelian / Cartesian antinomic logic: either / or, the new quantum mechanics is based on a very different logic (both / and) promoting not exclusion but rather the inseparability / harmonization of complementary entities: subject / object, potential / actual, continuum / discrete, etc. My  preferred solution to this temptation toward  any type of abstractization is suggested by David Bohm & Parker Palmer , respectively by the  both / and logic: in original / statistical quantum ensemble we have potentially both states – “wave” and “particle” as “aP ” compatible states – though in his     ” Wholeness and the Implicate Order” p. 163, Bohm considered  the two quantum states as ” mutually incompatible potentialities” – their actualization ( aP  → Ap ) being specifically accomplished depending on the type of decoherence involved: “wave – decoherence” or “particle-decoherence”; the wave actualization leads to particle potentialization but in no way to its exclusion (according to Cartesian either / or logic); the same solution ” both / and ” may contribute to a correct interpretation of the Young (two slits) experiment: 9 out of 10 of   current interpretations          ( including Young’s ! ) are inaccurate ( abstract, unilateral ). My suggestion : forget Bohr’s preference for antinomies and  bohmian  assumed ” incompatibility” and consider the ” wave/ particle” entity  rather  as  an adaptive totality. Acting this way you will not solve the “two slits” problem entirely (nobody has done so far) but surely you will detach from the mechanicist / reductionist clichés. But what exactly an adaptive system means within the contemporary quantum mechanics context? I choose to quote the response provided by John CAMPBELL, combining the analysis of the concept “internal model” (Karl FRISTON, 2007) and the Quantum Darwinism theory (W.H. ZUREK, 2009):

“Adaptive systems are characterized by internal models which simulate and orchestrate their environmental interactions. Quantum theory tell us that quantum systems must include a physical implementation of an information processing model equivalent to the evolution of a state vector in Hilbert space.. the nature of this model remains outside experimental verification.”

Some personal remarks: i. If the suggested model seems too complex for this organizational level you have to dare an extension ( you’ll need it, anyway, when you should look at  the delayed-choice experiment ) or…remain with classical options (nice trajectories, localization, etc.). ii. The environment itself must be taken into account either in the classical (Bohr) or in quantum sense; ignoring this aspect represents one of the typical abstractizations. iii. The process that we are referring to may be considered as a particular case of “measurement” in which the local (particle) and nonlocal (wave) aspects are harmoniously overlapping, making it possible to approach it with the help of information and decoherence concepts (“Decoherence occurs when information is copied from a quantum system to its environment”).

A new quantum dialectics: from  either A or P toward A/P inseparability

What could this dialectica nova bring to the field of contemporary quantum mechanics?

Everything depends on the actual desire of the physicists to detach themselves from the traditional ideological ballast, from their notorious FAPP opportunism consisting of promoting, with an incontestable success, the prediction of quantum formalism, ignoring explanation: why is this happening this way and not another. Here are some of my own dialectical suggestions:

  • Centering on potentiality: the decisive resignation from the classical realism and centering of existential concept not on real but rather on potential; of course, you can undermine  the potentiality’s central place , either in a hard manner by assuming a genesis deficiency  attitude ( no p→a ) typical for  modern science, or in a soft one assuming ( as Everett did ) the excess genesis ( all p→a ). For instance ,  David Deutsch, in The Fabric of Reality – a very interesting book, but..- considers our tangible universe as much as all shadow versions of the multiverse as a constellation of reals,  the potential / possible  being reduced in a very…constructive way to its ghost / spooky character attributed with great methodological candor by Albert Einstein. Right now, I think, we need a non-Cartesian and equally non-Everettian perspective , assuming that any  real ( from photon to universe ) is actually a Tertium ( A/P ) state.

  • Rethinking in-formation (spirit, time, finality): recognizing the primordial role of information – in comparison with matter and energy – in genesis and organization / functioning of the universe and correlatively promoting the new status (physical, however not ergonic; warning : when Landauer  asserts ” the physical support of information” he involuntary identifies the two concepts- ergonic  and non-ergonic ) of probability waves, reduced by the A (actualist) physicists to simple mathematical fictions; this way making possible the universal transfer of the Form, mainly convergent – no more!- to David Bohm’s idea  of active information. The extraordinary role attributed to physical choice (anticipated by the Russian physicist N.A. Umov, 1900) in the universal informational play as well as in articulation of the two horizons A and P.

In the following I wish to briefly elaborate on the increasing role of information along a series of distinct but inseparable stages – description / control / genesis which unfortunately were often taken over isolated, or undervalued.

1. Communication as description of the real system states: the subject is rather passive in comparison with the object and “information” is reduced to a transfer of “objective data”  being evidently subordinated to matter and energy. Maintaining the quantitative integrity of the message appears on the forefront, respectively the ratio signal / noise, redundance, etc. (this is the well-known Shannon / Weaver / Wiener moment; to note the presence of two remarkable guests: Clausius and Boltzmann as well as a …notable absence – information).

2. Control – this time both subject and information are no longer spooky entities but they are radically activated allowing us to assume that we are dealing with a new type of information / subject; in this new context the role of ergonic factors (matter / energy) becomes comparable if not equal to nonergonic factors (acausal correlations, probability / intentionality waves of aP type). The amplified role of information is manifested this time not as much in changing the physical states of the system but rather in altering their probabilities, the transition from communication / description to control being accompanied by an incontestable rising in the existential rank of the subject / consciousness and correlatively of the meaning / semiosis (see the section “Dasein in Broad Sense” on this site or in my book “Beyond Descartes”).

3. Genesis – constitutes the superior stage of the subject /mind / information  participation to reality, concomitantly marking the exponential increase of the form and meaning role in selection / evolution / genesis processes, the Bohmian concept of in-formation sparingly present in the 2nd stage (the control being a particular case of in-formation) now proves to be  decisive, fundamental: mind/ form / meaning become effectively generative and  this happens in actual generation no later – sorry, J.Bell; the environment (this time including the subject / consciousness as a creative environmental factor) transfers its instantaneous form to the wave function, its “collapse” may be smoothly interpreted as an informational process of control / genesis essence: indeed the actualization as a physical  subtle process could be started by synchronization (an in-formational process equally active in the real and possible) using at its “minimal” level the probability / intentionality waves, fact anticipated ( obviously, in their ” out of working hours” according to J.S.Bell ) by some open, integrative minds such as George WALD, Henry MARGENAU, J.A. WHEELER and more recently Larry DOSSEY, likely their unconsciousness was resonant with the above mentioned information metamorphosis. Their unconventional ideas were expressed in some clear statements which naturally scandalized the modern world obedient to Cartesianism: ” Mind…( having an aP essence )  is the source and condition of physical reality.” Nothing mystical or paradoxical, just somehow…subtle and anticipative.

  • Universal constants as cosmic sensors: firmer correlation between universal constants with quantum vacuum (“a field of all fields” continuously generating  all  potentials forms) going as far as considering these constants as cosmic sensors of vacuum activity as a sui generis dynamic system. If the average annual variation (10 -15 , or so) of these constants suggested by astrophysics is confirmed then one can conclude that – independently of other methodological considerents, older or newer – we are able to measure(from within) the universe.

  • Beyond the  either physical / or mental dualism : in order to make progresses in contemporary knowledge and/or in onto- logical modeling we need a new, non-Cartesian perspective that decisively promotes inseparability, considering each “real” as a Tertium state ( some A / P state) – belonging to a dynamic existential continuum in which  “ actual / real” formations (actually of Ap type) to harmoniously coexist with “P” formations ( actually of  aP type ). In this context many conceptual inaccuracies can be filtered, for example: physical / mental dualism (the mental / spiritual however having a specific physical nature: aP);  superluminal  speeds of  correlations  propagation aiming toward infinity – within the aP field become normal ones (without defying the theory of relativity whose “competence” in the Ap field remains firmly established), while the speed of instantaneous propagation of “pure” potentialities (?) becomes inconsistent (just like reaching… the temperature of absolute zero); of course in this new physical context the speed limit (→, ≠ ∞ ) will probably  be attributed to the potentiality quanta a0P – petherons is my suggestion, if we need a name; also this  a0 ( →, ≠ 0 ) is my candidate for the newest universal constant, if any  ) . Interestingly, the new perspective confers to the dreams, intuition and last but not least mathematics a physical -subtle status since both the symbols and the numbers ( the universal constants also) may be interpreted as functions of  aP type. At this point a realist-skeptic might object: ” The numbers 2 and 4 in ‘ 2+2=4 ‘ arithmetical expression – physical entities? ( excuse me: consider the symbols “+” and “=” too!); how else could we explain the physical amazing discoveries / anticipations acquired by mathematical calculation? It’s time to put an end  to the reductionism carried out by modern science which still continues – in an elaborated,  peer reviewed manner – to identify the existent with the actual, psyche with consciousness, time with duration…If you think that it is too difficult to  consider matter as an Ap entity and the mind / spirit as an aP one it’s only due to intellectual/ Cartesian cut ( either / or )  and  I suggest to read / reread  the following, healing quotation, signed with  about 50 years ago by Carl G. Jung ( Man and his symbols- 1964 , pp 94/95 ): ”  Today, for instance we talk of ” matter” . We describe its  physical properties (…) but  the word ” matter”  remains a dry , inhuman and purely  intellectual concept, without any  psychic significance  for us. How different was the former image  of matter – the Great Mother that could  encompass and express  the profound meaning  of Mother Earth. In the same way, what was the spirit the Father of All is now identified with  intellect …( this way)  the immense  emotional energy expressed in the  image of ” our Father”  vanishes  into the sand  of an intellectual desert.”  ( p. 98 ):… ( As the modern man ) ” developed consciousness  so his conscious mind  lost contact with some of that primitive  psychic energy”...Moreover, in “Memories, Dreams, Reflections ” – Vintage Books, New York, Jung considers  repeatedly  the concept ” wholeness of nature ” /  inseparability, underlying that the numbers and / or mythologems …” express the dynamics of  certain subliminal processes” ( or aP type processes in my formulation ) ; p. 311: ” The properties  of numbers  are , simultaneously, properties of matter, for which  reason  certain equations  can anticipate  its behavior”.

  • The new ether: rethinking potentiality as the new ether (having the vacuum as a generator) which through its special feature of superconductivity (in rapport with potentiality / probability waves propagation) may explain both the universal and constant character of universal constants as well as the mystery of entanglement and / or acausal correlations propagation with faster than light /quasi- infinite speed. Invariance toward geometrical distance may suggest a common or similar origin for both  universal constants and entanglement. The Aspect – Gisin experiments are actually a type P version of the Michelson – Morley experiment (of A type) with the fundamental distinction that this time the outcome was a positive, confirmative one: the P ether does exist. So far these ( Aspect- Gisin ) experiments  were rather punctually or at best regionally  interpreted as some  answers to the type A challenge called “ Einstein – Podolsky – Rosen ”. “Einstein’s ‘elements of reality’ do not exist”- if this conclusion literally expressed among others by Michael Horne, is all-in-all finished most likely we are going to encounter the new ether. In his masterpiece “ Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” J.S.Bell wrote ( p.187 ):   ” What is it that “waves” in wave mechanics? In the case of water waves it is the surface of the water that waves.With  sound waves the pressure of the air oscillates.Light also was held to be  a wave motion in classical physics. We were already a little vague( just a little? Common, Mr. Bell…) about what was waving in that case…and even about whether the question  made sense ( Why not? A good question contains  a part at least of the proper answer! ). In the case of the waves of wave mechanics we have no idea what is waving…and do not ask the question.” After water , air… I think  it is the turn of a more subtle support to come in the fore front of waving story…What about the P-ether ( and its correlate  – petheron, a°P ),  J.S.B.?

Dualism and Complexity Revolution

The dualism received the decisive stroke  after 1960 closely connected with the impact of the complexity revolution on the conceptual and technological development (  the discovery of the tertium states – see below – and the fuzzy phenomenon / logic ).The first consequence  of this revolution is the recognition of the fundamental character of the inseparability, what  presumes the definitive de-absolutization of the Cartesian methodology and its passage – together with its constitutive  separability principle – in a second , empiric plan    ( their practical significance being apparently undiminished ! ). This  ample anchoring into quotidian , regular life is misleading especially for  the proponents of the methodological immobilism: their preference – sometimes explicitly expressed – for the return  to the old conceptual dualism , with its assumed  ” fundamental macroscopic realm ” must not surprise us ; the explanation , be it a partial one , consists in their methodological uninforming or misinforming: the edification  of the new framework  implying unusual non- Cartesian concepts and principles , has been made , unfortunately ,  almost ” in secret ” , without  the celebrations proper to the great events  and, at any rate , without the  co – participation  of the educational system. As Michael HORNE – one of the stars of the ” inseparability revolution ” testifies: ” In Quantum Mechanics  we abandon the quotidian  ” either / or ” logic  in favor of the new  ” both / and ” logic . ” And , indeed the concept is very foreign since we never encounter it in our daily lives  (  conform Aczel Amir ).

Tertium ( T ) States



Inseparability is a defining  feature of the entire  quantum; due to the quantum inseparability , the transfer into   microscopic domain of some everyday notions            ( terms of macroscopic  provenience , with their  irreducible  Cartesian semantics ) becomes often   improper, generating lack of precision and paradoxes. Therefore inseparability is no more  limited to the  microscopic realm, nor reduces to some ” exotic” macroscopic manifestations  such as superfluidity , holograms , etc. The effective opening of the duals  is a quasi-universal process implying not the opposition  but rather  the authentic complementarity, proved by both tertium states ( extended  beyond  the most optimistic  expectations ) and , on a larger plan, by the fuzzy character of the existence : L. ZADEH, Bart KOSKO .        The tertium states  are  interface processes ( systems ) which can be  met almost everywhere in some real , stable  and defining forms :

  • liquid crystals ( at the solid / liquid interface );

  • solitons ( wave / matter );

  • dissipative structures ( animate / inanimate );

  • synthetic images ( real / imaginary );

  • simulation (  description / genesis );

  • entanglement ( potential / actual ), etc.

It can be stated that tertium states  preface the fuzziness ( fuzzy logic ) , which introduces  a continuity of  intermediary states  ( non – A ) between the 2 extremes ( A and anti – A ), for example  “ an ocean of gray ”  between white and black. The change is fundamental : from now on  there is no more   ” just subject ” or ” just object “,  not ”  just real ”  or ” just possible ” , not  “just wave”  or ” just particle”, not ”  just good ” or ” just bad “…

Aiming to the proper representation of the authentic complementarity ( engaging the synthesis between  the contradictories  and not  between the contraries ) , as well as  of the tertium states and  fuzziness , this author  introduced  the cones model ( Fig. 10 d ) , taking as a base  the progressive overlapping  of the 2 original states ; this model reminds  the Oriental yin / yang  diagram, being perhaps  less metaphorical but certainly more operational than that one ( more ” visible” transition/ continuity, being evidential  of  T state  appearance / constitution, etc.). As it results  from Fig. 10 , the cones model appeared not  as an imitation  but as a direct methodological outcome  of the Occidental  philosophy development ( the collapse of dualism ).

Final Note :

The contemporary methodology, decidedly delimiting from dualism ( Cartesianism ) recognizes and fully promotes  the great cognitive potential of the dual models , especially in the initial ( pre – synthetic or analytical ) stage  of the knowledge  of the complex systems . The same distinction should be made  also between the very efficient reduction method ( the dual model being a particular case of the reduction method ) and reductionism.

“All nice people like Us are We

And everyone else is They

But if you cross over the sea

Instead of over the way

You may end by (think of it!) looking on We

As only a sort of They.”

Healing in Broad Sense. From Penrose – Heidegger Track to Hamer’s Generators

Posted by on Sunday, 17 January, 2010

This article is dedicated to the rapport between authenticity and living being.  According to the dynamic diagram reproduced on the left ( in which the reader will recognize Fig. 9 from latter text, up righted) you can be authentic in only one way (the green axis, suggested by Heideggerian Er-eignis, axis that I will call Penrose – Heidegger track, but you can be / become unauthentic in many different ways / modalities / illnesses ( represented by the red lines in the diagram) under the action of a counterfeit essence designated by Heidegger as Ge-stell.  Obliged by the everyday life, under dramatic circumstances, to choose between Ereignis – authenticity and Gestell – unauthenticity, Dr. Ryke Geerd HAMER , did not hesitate to prefer authenticity, providing us with a methodological, moral lesson about the place and the role of a person in Nature, as well as  the Nature’s essential role in our life.  This unique lesson, expressed by the phrase “New German Medicine” permanently guided me into my elaboration of the category “ Genuine Healing or Healing in Broad Sense” represented in the above diagram by  return of the red deviations to the original essence of the living being ( the green axis).  See how Dr. Hamer himself described ( in 2005 ) the unusual high price paid for his option: “ Back in 1986 my approbation was revoked, because of my refusal to renounce the iron law of cancer and my non-conversion to traditional medicine.  For 24 years now I have been chased, threatened, prosecuted and thrown into jail twice, although I have done nothing wrong – except to rediscover this wonderful New Medicine with its 5 Biological Laws of Nature, a medicine that has always existed and will always exist…”

X

As well as some other modern knowledge categories (time, genesis, conscience, becoming, etc) healing and prevention were wrongly settled in the frame of modern medicine, the main methodological minuses deriving from an abstract, in itself approach:

– the separation between the patient and his history and  milieu;

– neglecting the spiritual factor ( the body being considered detached from or even opposed to the soul );

– neglecting or undervaluing the accurate causal relation : promotion of modulators instead of generator, or simply ignoring the etiologic moment;

-local analytical approach of the illnesses development ( shrinking  tumor, etc.) without considering the patient’s attitude / options  about life ( lifestyle );

– the individual dissolution  ( metabolic type, gender, age… ) into statistics, etc.

A New Structure of Causal Relation: from Cause to Generator

Centered on separability, modern medicine (as the entire modern science) promoted a univoque, local, irreversible and immediate causal relation:

Cause1 → Effect1

According to this schema the cause precedes and is rigidly separated from effect, the latter being completely unable to influence the cause. In the preceding schema some operational flexibility has been introduced by conditions, susceptible to induce some non-essential modifications of the effect. After 1960, due to systematic study of complex dynamic systems, the above schema proved overwhelmed, counterproductive, more and more authors indicating that the non-linearity and non-equilibrium states require a new space of possibilities, that, due to some interactive feed-backs, the new causal relation ceases to be centered on traditional separability  / localization; in the following I present two simple examples of cause / effect inseparability. Note:  these examples do not belong anymore within modern medicine, because nobody can clearly show which one is really the cause or the effect:

Diabetes ↔ Magnesium deficiency

Inflammation ↔ Free radicals

In this new context due to increased sensitivity, fluctuations may play an essential role in the selection of alternative ways  of system  development (see Fig. 6,  section “Alive in Broad Sense ”).  Moreover, due to interference (mediation being a rule in a complex system) action’s propagation in the new causal model may be subject to significant delays (as in the case of carcinogenesis ).  Presently it became clear to many that classic causal management actually was nothing else than a local, reductionist manipulation.

The new structure of causal relation definitely discards the old, Cartesian concepts  of cause in itself and effect in itself, these two being synthesized / united in a new category of Generator ( that determines the nature of the system / process ) while the other new category – modulators (corresponding to the old category of conditions) is limited to the alteration of the states of the system within its given nature. To note that the new concepts ( generators and modulators ) bring the causation category very close to genesis, opening the causation to the potential possible ( this significant aspect I have thoroughly discussed with Prof. Prigogine ).  One very convincing example is provided by the section entitled “ Copper Overload – the Western Metabolic Bomb ”: the true generator of all chronic diseases is the emotional factor ( ≈ stress, expressed by me as EPS ), respectively in a biochemical context, excessive intracellular copper deposit, generating a master endocrine – energetic imbalance ( this imbalance making any authentic healing impossible). Obviously, the inflammation, infection, dehydration, etc. are not generators but rather positive or negative modulators.  Identifying the genuine generator in a complex situation may prove difficult; instead , there is  a  facile temptation to substitute one or more modulators to the right generator. This idea can be easily highlighted by the unending series of “generators” of chronic diseases suggested by different authors:

  1. Overacidity  ( acid saturation): G. Crile
  2. Infection; inflammation;
  3. Malnutrition (improper diet);
  4. Insulin Resistance;
  5. Mineral Deficiencies: L. Pauling. Evidently, Pauling would have been closer to the truth using a more accurate formula: mineral imbalances;
  6. Stomach acid, etc.

Healing in Broad Sense – Biochemical Meaning

The biochemical generator of all chronic diseases is the intracellular copper overload ( Cu↑) and correlatively the underactive  adrenal glands.  Actually the entire history of chronic diseases is centered on a positive feed-back: the more intense and long lasting is the emotional conflict the more the copper deposit increases and adrenals become underactive ( this mean: aldosterone, sodium and ceruloplasmin deficiencies ).  The most efficient way to diminish the copper overload ( biochemical healing) consists in adrenal glands activation, involving the normalization of aldosterone, sodium ( which allows Cu↑ dissolving ) and  of ceruloplasmin ( secreted by the liver, it binds and removes the released copper).  The healing process can be boosted by a series of modulators (vitamin C, chromium, etc.). For details see the section ” Copper Overload – the Western Metabolic Bomb “. Note: to be efficient the  ” biochemical  meaning / circuit  ”  should be  tightly articulated with  the ” biological meaning / circuit ” ( and  conversely ); remember: first of all you have to discover the main source of stress  ( named by me  the ” Hamer’s Generator ” ) and to  neutralize  this  ”  fuse bomb”  ( = conflict – shock ) !

Healing in Broad Sense – Biological Meaning. Happiness – a quantum issue

To better understand the biological meaning of healing it is welcomed a brief elaboration on  Penrose – Heidegger track, about its constitutive significance for genuine living.  According to R. Penrose, the natural premise of the conscience / subjectivity is constituted by a quantum superposition of some proto-conscious states under the form of a series of spin quantum network found in the deepest existence; the granular structure of this level ( Planck scale: 10 – 33 cm) privileges postulation of an  informational essence of Qualia type ( something like the distinct  Plato’s Eidos ).  Joining through spontaneous reduction of this potential  “ original essence ” ( non-self ) with some specialized brain structures (microtubules / proteins : Stuart HAMEROFF ) generates the conscience itself as some “ real essences ” ( self ), more or less resembling the initial model. 

The  propensity to overlapping with the original essence, which acts as a specific / distinct attractor of every living being , including animals and plants, is “ rewarded  ” by Nature with an optimum coherence and harmony ( both internal and external ) while gradual decoupling from the original essence ( Fig. 9, right side) means  loss of harmony, separation of Universe, people and yourself ( energetical blocks  in biosystem, loss of balance / homeostasis). The small deviations or fluctuant differences between real / potential do not lead necesarilly to conflictual situations.  Note: the decoupling of the two essences ( self / non-self )  may be the result of some options (decisions, behaviors) against Nature due to the person or his / her fellow beings ( partners ); as a rule, similar events are produced unexpectedly being characterized as “ conflict – shock ”.

Fig.9 is a geometrized representation of physical relations between the original essence ( Penrose – Heidegger track), electric being ( the one receiving by resonance / synchronization the messages coming from potential – possible and guiding the generation / regeneration of the solid being through electro-magnetic currents (perineural in the regeneration case, according to Dr. Robert BECKER).

Even in extreme cases, when counterfeit ( self ) essence becomes predominant, the Nature – which promotes the wholes, equally disallowing their destruction or even their excessive disturbance – gives to the living being one last chance: salvation / healing / re-harmonizing or …. disappearance. This explains why all over the world, the lasting reality around us  is not a random one but rather a tuned reality: brain, organism, Earth ( see Gaia model ), Universe.. being predominantly coherent wholes. In this context, the cancer does not constitute a death sentence or a Nature’ s  organizational error  but rather a grave warning that the living essence is oriented against Nature and, correlatively,  the existence of living being is from now on put in terms of the above dilemma ( re-harmonizing or disappearance ).

File:Editing copia.JPG

Particularly significant is the fact that usually happy people do not get cancer ( the happiness state might be represented by ideal overlapping of the two essences – non-self and self ); the Nature’ s programmed urge coming  through Penrose – Heidegger track  is hence  very  clear: BE HAPPY! It can be claimed that the most of those who died from cancer have chosen….disappearance, being, for any reason, unable to redeem themselves, to get happy.  I prove this by quoting a medical doctor and a patient, who both outstandingly fought against cancer from two different standpoints.

Dr. Keith SCOTT – MUMBY, MD, PhD:

“If you heed the warnings and put the matter right you will be quite safe. Many people have had cause to BLESS the fact that they got cancer: it alerted them to the fact that their life was wildly off track (the red deviations, my underline FF) and that they must do something effective to put matters right – or pay the ultimate price.”

And now one of the most remarkable patients – Olivia NEWTON – JOHN, who  in 1992 fought impressively against her breast cancer, winning this battle, so that now at 61 years she looks remarkably young, being very balanced and opened toward those less fortunate and having toward Nature a very special constructive relation:

“My cancer scare changed my life. I’m grateful for every new, healthy day I have. It has helped me prioritize my life.”

If my message will reach Florida (where O.N.-J. now happily lives together with her second husband – John Easterling ) and if she considers that the model with Hamer’s generators corresponds to the scientific and individual truth, it will be very instructive to us all, if Olivia could describe her emotional conflict DHS which started her illness and how she managed to positively end the conflict, re-harmonizing herself and her relationship with Nature. I must mention that nobody made her aware that she was under the special and eventual lethal action of one or many automatic generators – as old as 1-2 years: divorce, bankruptcy, etc. – which should be identified with maximum accuracy and properly neutralized.

Re-connecting  Nature and Living Being. Hamer’s Generator

The emotional link between the woman and her beloved (mother, children, and partner) is accomplished biologically through breast.  Breast cancers – as well as other cancers and equivalent conditions – are based on Hamer’s Generator, which represents an automatic, predetermined track (programmed through historical evolution) which simultaneously binds the following subsystems: psyche / brain / organ.

  1. PSYCHE (= conflict – shock, which the patient feels in a very personalized manner, this specific, unique perception determines the detailed way followed by the generator itself ). Marked by DHS, the conflict – shock constitutes the focal point of GNM (German New Medicine). Even more, I consider that exactly at this level the coupling between the Penrose – Heidegger track and Hammer’s generator occurs. If things really do follow this course – and I do have this conviction – this means that for the first time after more than three centuries of Cartesianism, due especially to Roger Penrose and R.G. Hamer’s efforts, we have succeeded to re-establish the live union between Nature and human being ( matter / spirit, body /soul ) in a direct manner, equally controllable and measurable in real time. Don’t forget the outstanding contribution of  Stuart Hameroff to this non – Cartesian cognitive progress : I think  Stuart ( due to his  proved inter-disciplinary  formation / intuitions ! ) is  by far the most qualified person in the world to  elaborate  in details  the  Penrose – Hamer articulation .
  2. BRAIN: the specific localization of biological conflict ( “relay” designated by HH ) represents a lesion on the brain as some concentric circles, whose development can be followed in real time via C.T. scanning.  Further, the relay directs the generator toward the tissue / organ target. Note : recently ( in 2009 ) a modern expert  in brain cancers , and in CT scanning too, told me ” what you call ”  HH relays / lesions ” is a big zero… they are nothing more than  aring artifact , namely due to a detector  fault.” No comment.
  3. ORGAN – target: is depending not by WHAT but by HOW did the patient perceive the conflict DHS: for instance the wife walks in on her husband with her best friend; now if their conjugal relation is still under the sign of love, we deal with a sexual frustration conflict and the organ target will be the uterus; if the two married partners were found beyond any love, prepared to divorce, we deal with a partner conflict and the organ target will be the right breast ( for the right handed woman, or left breast for the left handed one).

Breast Cancer

According to Dr. Hamer, the GNM recognizes two distinct types of breast cancer:

  1. Adenoid mammary carcinoma (glandular breast cancer = GBC) appears as a solid, compact lump. The Hamer generator is in this case: DHS conflict as worry type affecting children, mother or nest (expulsion from nest); relay HH is cerebellum and tumor will derived from “ old mesoderm germ layer”. For instance a right handed mother who accidentally drops the kid, this suffering severe head trauma, will experience a glandular breast cancer to the left breast with the following biological meaning: the Nature started the proliferation of the left breast cells to optimize the healing of the kid by increasing the milk volume more than normal. The tumor will grow (as well as milk production) as long as the conflict persists. When the kid becomes well, the active phase of the conflict ends, followed by the mother’s healing (conflictolysis), the tumor being dissolved by TB ( tubercular bacteria ) if they exist, and if they are lacking the tumor is encapsulated, persisting without breaking down and often without disturbing
  2. Milk duct carcinoma ( intraductal breast cancer, IBC) : is almost unperceived in the active phase of the conflict. DHS (the conflict – shock) is always a separation of children, mother, and partner with the following biological meaning: my kid (mother, partner) was ruptured from my breast. HH will be localized on the brain in the area of cerebral (sensorial) cortex, the cancer being derived from “ectodermal germ layer”.  Conversely to the GBC case ( where the natural reaction was to grow the tissue) this time Nature decides to diminish the tissue (painfully) involved in separation resulting in ulceration of the breast, characteristic to the active phase of the conflict. As soon as the conflict is resolved the tissue starts the healing / repairing phase under the form of some swelling / growing of the epithelial squamous cells, resembling a “ tumor ” which the modern surgeon hastily ….removes it (though the patient is/was  in a spontan healing phase ! ).  Laterality rules are applied rigorously in this case too: a right handed woman who suffered a separation conflict with her partner ( including a business partner! ) will respond at level of the right breast and conversely.

 

Tao or Physis?

Posted by on Wednesday, 13 January, 2010

Tao or Physis?

The last decades emphasized a surprising, inconvenient truth namely that the western civilization beyond misleading fireworks has no fundamentality, being based, like the modern knowledge, on a series of local, particular, disintegrative values / models / categories / principles.  For instance today we are compelled to admit the non-fundamentality of the Cartesian cogito, that wore down in intellection (calculus), deliberately and dangerously breaking away  from its emotional roots ( sentio, volio) – sure source of vitality / authenticity.  Under a careful examination, without any opportunistic prejudices, we will notice that politics, education, medicine, … they gradually lost their authenticity, being threaten by failing into counterfeit  ( a failing aided by computers ):  fictitious elections ( post-electoral neglecting the Whole’s concerns and aggressively promoting the party’s interests ), pseudo-management ( manipulation), deceptive medical assistance ( the lucrative manipulation of the symptoms, ignoring  or even thwarting the healing process), fake families, fake happiness ( drugs, comfort ), fake nutrition ( junk food ) , fake ( polluted ) water and so on.  The main danger that currently threatens the Western civilization is not constituted by super-bugs, pollution or super-terrorists but rather by an inertial, generalized, asymptomatic perpetuation of Cartesianism. How did we get here?

The methodological answer: a unfinished series of methodological ruptures silently detached the genuine living being from its original coherence.  Look at some of these ruptures: Plato – Ideas ( Forms ) and things. Plato and Aristotle: poiesis and techne (the first impulse of technologism);  Galileo: quality and quantity; Descartes: subject and object; matter and spirit; modal uncoupling: real / possible; Kant: science and wisdom; Marx: labor and capital; formalism: syntax and semantics, etc.  In view of a still possible recovery of fundamentality today we are determined to identify and promote with all our might and everywhere the authentic totalities, the alive ( including the alive in broad sense )  as well as the genuine living.  This given imperative is very difficult to fulfill because according to Heidegger our contemporaries  are still blinded by real and correlatively blind toward the Physis.

Tao / Taoism against modern approaches: follow Nature’s course!

What is Tao / Dao? Tao/Taoism represents a teaching of antic China elaborated about 4,800 years ago by the shaman Fu Hsi ( Fu Shi) and later systematized about 400 years BC by Lao-Tze in his book Tao Te Ching ( the original being lost and was orally transmitted ).  Chuang – Tze ( Zhuang-Tze) a contemporary of Lao-Tze also contributed to the systematization of the originary shamanic Taoism, the two authors providing a philosophical version ( Dao Jia) and one religious ( Dao Jiao).  In the following I will especially deal with the philosophical Taoism known as “ Lao-Zhuang Philosophy”.  To note that my Western mentors in Taoism were some of the best known translators / commentators namely: Lionel Giles, Alan Watts, Derek Lin and Jos Slabbert.

What is ( what is not) Tao?  Tao – the eternal genuine Tao cannot be defined nor named except by diminishing its spiritual essence of supreme, creative reality.  Or using Derek Lin’s translation  Chap. 1 ( Tao Te Ching published by Sky Light Paths in 2006 –  see www.Taoism.net, permission to quote granted):

“ The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Haven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things”.

In the translations / comments studied by me, the answers concerning Tao’s nature are polarized, the two main aspects ( partially overlapped ) being:

  1. The methodological answer ( slightly  prevalent ): Tao is the way, method, principle ( “ Tao is the Great Principle ”) and
  2. The ontological answer equally concerning the creation of the whole Universe: Lao-Tze calls Tao “ the Mother of All Things ”, as well as the eternal return into the spirit of all expired material systems (things ): “ All things end in Tao, as rivers flow into the sea ”.  Some underlines: i. being  Nature’s own course ( but not  Nature itself ) Tao is impersonal  and without any ethical options, having nothing in common with the “ right ” and “ wrong ”; ii. Tao is creating the material world without any ( material ) involvement and especially without diminishing its spiritual essence, the return to Tao being always conditioned by a preliminary de-realization. Jos Slabbert:

“ All these thoughts, words arranged on paper

Come from the Tao and return to the Tao

Yet they do not touch it.” ( my own underline, FF )

The main methodological message of the Taoism for the contemporary world aims toward re-connecting the human with the Nature ( including with human intrinsic nature, neglected or excessively stressed ) being ruptured  by both  the forceful action of the technique as well as by the dualistic, unauthentic thinking ( linear- analytical reason) still promoted at a global scale by Cartesianism.  In this context the referential genuine alternative is constituted by  “ the non-dualistic world of the spirit.”

The key elements of the Tao:

  • Yin and Yang:  the whole Universe, from the smallest things to the cosmic phenomena and from the well being of an individual  to the great  social  movements  are based  on fluctuant  balancing  of these 2 energies   ( actions, human attitudes). “ Yin and Yang is Tao.” Look at some of the most usual manifestations attributed to these polarized energies – Yin / Yang mean respectively: dark / light, weak / strong, left / right, night / day, winter / summer, etc. In Fig.8 b is presented the Physis version of complementarity , introduced by me 2 decades ago as   the cones model emphasizing universal fuzziness or how the third states ( states  T ) are  generated.

  • Wu ( pure, spiritual state; emptiness ):  for a proper perception – and a proper following – of Tao’s tendency in a particular situation the sage should maintain his mind in a pure, quiet state, emptied of any prejudices, ideas, desires, and conflictual, arrogant impulses.  Derek Lin, Chap. 29:  “ the sage eliminates extremes, eliminates excess, eliminates arrogance.”  To maintain this un-alterated  peace of mind Chuang-Tze recommends to the sage : stay as far as possible from the “corrupt and chaotic” world .
  • Wu Wei ( the inaction principle, meditation, nondoing):  in a world full of tension, deeply marked by the fight for domination over Nature and other people, Tao Te Ching recommends meditation and abstinence. Do not force the things, the genuine control of  a local situation should be effortlessly accomplished, through a spiritual pathway.  Particularly, do no try to control or amend the Nature, it being a sacred instrument, already tuned: follow  natural course of the events, follow Nature ! Chap. 29: “The World is a sacre instrument / One cannot control it.”
  • Te (natural characteristics, Qualia ) “  Te ” this important word, being a component of the title of  Tao Te Ching, refers to the natural qualities distributed by Tao through a spiritual way to any living being.  This “ Te ” concept comes very close to the spirit itself of this blog, which is firmly asserting the existence in potentiality of an original situation / essence eliciting any system alive in a broad sense.  “ Te ” comes very close to the original Heideggerian essences which provide authenticity and salvation to the Dasein as well as to distinct potential forms ( Plato’s Eidos ) that according to Roger Penrose  guide, from the deepest existence, the forging and performing of the conscience / thinking.  For all these 3 methodological, convergent positions,  seems to be very suggestive the “ root motif “ invoked in a rather poetical phrase from Chap. 16: “ each returns to its roots.”  If these roots do exist and are efficiently involved both into the actualization and potentialization processes they can and should be introduced in every existential pattern which aims to completion.


Physis – as Genuine Living. What has been missing in Heidegger’s thinking?

Constantin Noica stated that Heidegger’s philosophy needed an integrative operator such as the preposition intru /into. I think that much more important for the great German philosopher would have been the addition of methodological category “physis situation” allowing him to approach the living being in broad sense, this way giving to Dasein historical relevance (continuity at different material organization steps) as well as universality : everything as living being not just the human ( animal, plant ), additionally including inanimate systems found in the physis situation, especially nature as physis, which would be re-incorporating the human being equally  as a physical and spiritual essence.

Traditionally the Nature itself has not been considered as a genuine, alive totality, the modern scientists often identifying nature as a whole with linear nature. I have a couple of typical examples  of truncated perception about nature / being, they having a  direct contribution to  lengthening the Cartesian vision “validity” about world as machine with several decades beyond any normal expectations:

Mechanicist perception: nature / being knows just mechanical causality – Fr. Bacon. Inference: any non-mechanical causality form ( final pattern, etc.) is / appears mystical or pseudo-scientific.

Linearist perception: nature / being  knows just linear reason – J.P. Sartre. In nature the generative process does not exist – G.W.F. Hegel. Inference: any version of alternative reason (generative, non-linear) represents just a human illegitimate investment.

Determinist perception: Stochasticity is extrinsic, non-essential, disturbing – G.W.F. Hegel. Inference: the modern probability is a state of the mind due to our ignorance concerning the system.  Recent developments in dynamics – especially stochastic dynamics – have no place within Cartesianism,  looking as a … contradictio in terminis.

Realist – dogmatic perception: Only things conceived as an object are real – A. Einstein. Inference: conscience, spirit, time, inseparability, etc. are not real,  being spooky, their scientific approach being inconsistent, unjustifiable.

Any reader in good faith will immediately notice that “spooky” are namely the above perceptions, coming from either an incomplete intrinsic knowledge or from a more recent methodological immobilism  fueled by a desire to block or delay the advancement of knowledge toward genuine living.

The category “alive in broad sense” promoting continuity / inseparability between physical / biological has become necessary (and possible) only within non-Cartesian methodology, this category being incompatible with linear – equilibrial reason which considers the systems as some closed, isolated, equilibrium formations, the milieu itself being considered isotropic, homogeneous and cold ( for details see the section “Alive in Broad Sense” ).

The physis situation is our contemporary alternative to Cartesian linear – equilibrial situation which constituted more then three centuries the implacable foundation of the modern science (physis comes from Greek “phyo” = to grow, to develop). Physis, this fundamental word of Occidental metaphysics ( according to M. Heidegger ) aims toward genuine living, a living along with original essence / situation. In physis situation ( meaning far form equilibrium and non-linear conditions ) the systems ( subsystems ) become unstable / sensitive to internal and external fluctuations and consequently susceptible to non-univocal, alternative selections, which can be represented using the bifurcation diagram; the point P, Fig. 6, named by me “ Prigogine Point is a point of biggest methodological significance, marking the entrance of the system in authentic historicity or, in an alternative expression, the moment in which the system becomes alive in broad sense.

Fig. 6 The diagram of non-univocal selection (asymmetrical bifurcation)

AP = linear trajectory of development;

PDF (PE) = non-linear trajectory

How the authentic historicity is generated within the alive in broad sense systems? The answer is provided by the following scheme – centered on non-linearity and non-univocal selection –   called by me “ organizational pathway ”:

Equilibrium ↔ Non-Equilibrium ↔ Non-Linearity ↔ Instability ↔ Non-Univocal Selection → Irreversibility → Historicity

Promotion of non-univocal selection and correlatively of authentic historicity in inanimated nature constitutes still a risky option from a methodological viewpoint, the majority of researchers going for a conventional Cartesian program of clear and distinct separation between animate / inanimate, historic and non-historic, final and non-final.

x

Beyond Descartes we encounter a fabulous world which we are just beginning to disentangle. The truly amazing fact is not as much that this non-Cartesian world really exists but rather that it is a fundamental one.