Archive for March, 2010

Dasein in Broad Sense. Nonlinear Revolution and the New (Non-Biological) Essence of Living Being

Posted by on Thursday, 25 March, 2010

” True Nonlinearity. It’s incredible ! “

Rev. RANT – comment to “ Dasein in broad

sense “

The main Heideggerian work “ Being and Time ” has been probably interrupted due to some methodological reasons ( its author suggesting in a Note to “ On the Essence of Truth ” just that it was deliberately left undeveloped ); from the analysis of Heideggerian texts, my dominant impression is that the author was methodologically halted somewhere between linear and nonlinear without being able to clearly conceive what and especially how to further develop. The appearance of some unusual difficulties of nonlinear type, would be absolutely normal taking in consideration that Dasein  represents par excellence an open, hyper-articulated, nonlinear entity, and the world as living thing was / is unconceivable in the absence of physis situation also centered on nonlinearity.

Two more benchmarks in supporting this viewpoint:

  • Hardly, contextually overcome difficulties concerning the meaning differentiation ( “ spatial and non-spatial ” ) of preposition “in”, differentiation which normally aims not toward spatial but rather toward linear / analytical / cartesian signification and ( in relation to the human Dasein ) toward nonlinear / synthetical /non-cartesian signification; shortly: in / separability versus in / inseparability.
  • The conceiving of Being’s temporality as a transcendental horizon (with three ecstasies: future, past, present) into a historical moment in which the nonlinear time penetrates living being as a living, fluctuant pulsation controlled not by duration (the above mentioned ecstasies remaining under the sign of duration) but rather by potential / real ratio ( see “ Time in Broad Sense ” ). To mention that in the non-cartesian horizon characterized as “ distinct, inseparable ” any transcendental changes its traditional nature, opening toward other entities, a good example being provided by Plato’s Eidos (Forms, Ideas) which presently function as a “ potential self ”, controlling things / beings (the “ real self ”). Interesting enough, the last interpretation (time as living pulsation or non-duration) allows the consideration of the temporality of every Dasein not as a quality / category deriving from personal experience but rather as an existentialia or “ a possible way of living being ” respectively as a fundamental temporal characteristic  a priori contained into originary, potential essence of each and every living being (design,  Entwurf ); a new duration? not at all,  this ” potential duration ” being  not a parameter but rather a function under  your  non-univocal  control: you are co-author ( to better or  to worse ) of your own design!

In this elaboration of my detachment from Heidegger, concerning the widening of human Dasein extension / connotation, I have relied on a series of very interesting methodological suggestions such as:

  • Considering the choice / selection as a fundamental characteristic of future physics ( Russian physicist N.A. UMOV, 1900);
  • The non-traditional idea expressed by D. BOHM ( in an interview with F.D. Peat ) according to which the future quantum physics must have the characteristic of a quantum organism (rather than quantum mechanics );
  • The suggestion of J. MARSHALL that the wave function ( from quantum mechanics ) has such mathematical characteristics that favor the emergence  / evolution  of life and consciousness : the universe has an innate tendency toward life and consciousness: they are ultimately due to the mathematical properties of quantum wave function which favors the evolution of life and consciousness.
  • The exceptional inter-disciplinary works  by Dr. Mae-Wan HO ( elaborated when still active at The open University, UK ), particularly “The Rainbow and the Worm – the Physics of Organism, 2nd Ed. , 1998, centered on…the simple question formulated with many decades before by E. Schrodinger: What is Life?
  • J. JEANS: the universe is a great thinking (through this Jeans does not move away from the living being but rather, as underlined by Heidegger himself with reference to a Parmenide’s thesis, “ here the heterogeneous is thought, thinking and living being as Same (das Selbe).”
  • A.N. WHITEHEAD: we cannot understand nature except as an organism
  • Last but not least:M.  Heidegger himself underlined several times the necessity of broadening of Dasein (extension and content) – the world of Dasein  existing only as a world / living  thing. As I will show in the following the human Dasein has been preceded by the …new Dasein, in other words “ cogito ergo sum ” was preceded by “ allego ergo sum ” = I choose therefore  I am ). Indeed the Nature (“ World ”) has been in detail prepared for the emergence of the human phenomenon ( in any case the human being did not get thrown, from the beginning, in a hostile world defined by crime, wars, cancers ). Darwinism, co-evolution ( system / environment ), etc. appear more and more as being the final, exterior  touches of a  much more elaborated process / program, codified somewhere into the existence’s depth, eventually on Planck scale (10 – 33 cm.), as suggested by Roger PENROSE in a highly speculative , highly controversial – and why not? – equally genial manner. Let’s wish Roger 20 more years of physical well being and spiritual youth to efficiently guide us through the mysteries of the Dasein file.

1. The Nonlinear Revolution and the New Dasein

The traditional science and knowledge in general were based on the linear methodology according to which the outcome is always directly proportional with the stimulus;  in the summative condition involved by linearity the genuine Whole ( “ World ” in the case of Heideggerian thinking ) cannot be achieved or even maintained. In the nonlinear situation which revolutionized the modern knowledge, the proportionality stimulus / outcome is breached; without altering the essential data of the linear world, the nonlinear approach provides a new conceptual frame, efficient methods and patterns to achieve / maintain the Whole, as well as understanding and controlling of the complex systems of the Dasein type and equally the far from equilibrium processes (the case of becoming and / or genuine being).  In the far from equilibrium states, the systems have totally different behaviors  in comparison with the equilibrium or near to equilibrium states, since through nonlinearity the system comes to a totally different space of possibilities, drastically raising the number of accessible states and correlatively the system’s ability to make alternative choices / selections (organizational instability, see Fig. 6 ).  Moreover, the potential barrier between actualized / realized states on one side and the potential / possible ones on the other side significantly diminishes, the system becoming very sensitive to small variations ( fluctuations ) of the internal or external parameters; this sui generis situation has been previously presented on this blog under the name of  “ activation of possible ”.

In the very special area of the bifurcation point P (Fig. 6) the usual ratio between necessity and chaos is changing in favor of stochasticity: this time

Fig. 6   Prigogine Point: the psychic ( spirituality ) insertion

selection / actualization of a certain state out of  the entire repertoire of potential / possible states of the systems (repertoire delimited by the kinetical equations) is  decisively controlled  by the stochastic factors ( fluctuations ). The point P named by me as point Prigogine ” has a special methodological significance because it marks the entrance of the system into the “ genuine historicity ” or in other words, the moment in which the system becomes alive in broad sense.  Moreover this point is critical in  the substantiation of continuity between physical / psychical because exactly here (as a consequence of non-univocal selection = ontological premise of subjectivity: allego ergo sum = I choose therefore I am) the new non-biological Dasein is generated, this ( Prigogine ) point being  the alpha point of   any  psychology interested by its genuine genealogy!

For the Western thinking, the connection between the genuine being and historicity is a defining one. In this context becomes essential to be able to pinpoint the mechanism through which the new Dasein has access to genuine historicity. The following schema illustrates this mechanism concomitantly showing the necessary   physical premise ( nonlinearity and instability ) as well as the constitutive moment of genuine historicity – non-univocal selection:

Equilibrium ↔ Non-Equilibrium ↔ Nonlinearity ↔ Instability ↔ Non-univocal selection → Irreversibility → Historicity

The introduction of the new Dasein into  contemporary knowledge comes with some distinct methodological consequences:

  • The Heideggerian category Dasein as human reality is sensibly extended trough taking over from  Vorhandenheit of some active / activated systems susceptible to new, non-traditional manifestations which bring them close (without identifying them) to the human Dasein: subjectivity in broad sense, inseparability, becoming
  • Traditional contradiction between “ to exist ” (without “ to be ”) and “ to be ” is losing its fundamental character becoming empirical; rather, we will have to consider a genuine complementarity relationship between the two verbs / states since from now there are beings concomitantly and in different grades presenting existence and genuine being.
  • Nonlinear revolution, respectively the new methodological situation indicated on this blog through the term “ physis situation ” is clearly and for the first time showing which conditions the Nature as living being would have to fulfill.

2.  From “ World as Machine ” (Descartes, Newton) Toward “ World as Living Being / Potentiality “

A.N.Whitehead: “…we cannot understand nature except as an organism. “

In the following I will discuss some key-moments:

  • What is the meaning of model / metaphor “ world as machine ”? What are the actual implications of this model, which for centuries has marked in a univocal manner ( without any alternatives ) the anti-ecological consciousness of numerous generations?
  • Which factors put under question the validity of this model, still used, although not exclusively, in Western societies in which separability and Cartesianism are still deeply rooted?
  • What did Heidegger need to elaborate the minimal methodological status of category “World as living being”?
  • How can the living in broad, non-biological sense be correctly introduced in contemporary science / knowledge?
  • What is the methodological status ( still controversial, but could it be any different? ) of Attunement in its complementary versions – intrinsic and extrinsic ?

World as Machine – Descartes’ Materialist / anti-Vitalist Option

Traditionally the problem of living being has been raised as early as the Greek antiquity and as far as Heidegger without finding some correct methodological criteria for delimitation in regards to “thing” especially without uncovering that “ quid proprium ” of  the genuine living being. For instance, Aristotle has considered , from a vitalist platform, that souls of different type (vegetative, sensitive) would govern the organic processes of living beings, whilst the passive things ( ta onta for Greeks, das Seinde for Heidegger, beings in modern English are not ). Descartes follows the Copernican heliocentric model (considered by science historians as a “ huge step toward world as machine model ”) and according to his mechanist, anti-scholastic program, rejects the Aristotelian vitalism, asserting that plants, animals and human body are nothing else but machines, with two possible exceptions: in the human body it may exist a soul with limited activity ( Descartes rejects any soul / mind for animals whose behavior is exhaustively explained by mechanical means ) and, the second exception – the Universe as a whole, where the total amount of motion would be managed by Divinity.

I do not recognize any difference, Descartes declared, between the craftsman made machines (clocks, artificial fountains, mills, etc) and the different bodies created by nature itself.

In Meditation VI, he conceives, in a truly craftsmanship manner, the human organism as a type of machine made from bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood and skin… which works due to a “ fire without light ”, burning inside the heart.  The Universe itself is described by Descartes as a machine that works on the basis of mechanical laws, being exclusively constituted from passive matter or from moving atoms, therefore from inanimate parts. This mechanist, qualitative model has been later reformulated in a rigorous mathematical manner by I. Newton to whom the Universe was an automaton whose functioning (programmed in detail) was removing God from equation, so reserving divinity a janitorial role at most. This way the Cartesian – Newtonian mechanist model has directly fueled the materialist atheism, concomitantly leaving the entire knowledge without the Whole category.  Interestingly, after more than three centuries of mechanist thinking, the required methodological  reference to Whole (“ see the whole picture ”) is even presently treated (with some exceptions, of course) in the Western world as a mystic reflex of Eastern origin (Taoism).

We need to emphasize the decisive contribution of the Cartesianism in the promotion of an anti-ecological attitude: not just the nature but even the living beings (plants, animals = devoid of any soul, and even the other peers especially the women) were and, within certain limits, still are treated  in a simplistic, reductionist manner as means or means systems.

World as Living Being / Potentiality. The Introduction of Genuine Living in Contemporary Knowledge

To note: the mechanist description of the world due to Descartes / Newton does not represent the ultimate reality but only its mathematical (hypothetical, parallel) version which to become a physical reality would have to withstand the measurement operation – a quantum operation of great ontological subtlety within which the measured properties (and to some extent the systems themselves) are created during this process.  Einstein himself fell into this ontological trap when he formulated the well-known “ EPR paradox ” to demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Under an accurate methodological analysis of mathematical / physical rapport it can be concluded that the mentioned paradox does not even exist.  In conclusion Descartes’ / Newton’s machine was not a physical one but a mathematical one at most!

The inconsistency of the “ world as machine ” model has become more and more evident due to some scientific advances of great methodological relevance accomplished during 19th and 20th centuries:

  • The discovery of radiation / electro-magnetic field due to M. Faraday (1791 – 1867) and J.C. Maxwell (1831 – 1879) has established the empirical, non-fundamental character of Newtonian physics centered on solid, stable systems rigorously localized in space, leading to the elaboration of a new non-mechanist, electro-magnetic model of nature ( vibrating universe );
  • The rise of Darwinism: mutations, natural selection, evolution / Ch. Darwin (1809-1882) had a similar effect over the mechanist model of living systems, highlighting their unlimited  evolutive resources;
  • The appearance of quantum mechanics (1900 and after) and especially its recent development  (after 1990) of the so-called new quantum mechanics – open toward non-traditional technical – engineering applications centered on quantum information, the emergence of decoherence theory and correlatively of general theory of genesis as well as the introduction of complex dynamic systems into scientific contemporary knowledge has clearly shown the coarse character of Cartesian metaphor “ world as machine ” shedding light on potential continuity between physical / psychic – premise for  a general theory of genuine living. Years ago Dr. Mae-Wan HO was describing the new created situation in the following terms:

“Quantum theory demanded that we stop seeing things as separate, solid objects with definite locations in space and time. Instead they are de-localized, indefinite, mutually entangled entities that change and develop like organisms.”

  • Last but not least, the activation of possible, physis situation (to note: physis is not the Way in Taoism sense but rather my way of the individual being), the “ genuine historicity ” concept (presented above ) would have greatly helped Heidegger in his elaborations, “ deliberately ” stopped ; the three concepts / models just mentioned has clearly shown the optimal (maybe unique) way to efficiently model the alive in broad sense and  “ world as potentiality ”:
    • The minimal existential premise of selection: nonlinearity / organizational instability / high sensitivity of the system;
    • The introduction of living in a physical context – non-univocal selection counting as an opening of physics toward consciousness eventually even bypassing the biological realm (see Fig. 6 above);
    • The shift from living to genuine living (tuned becoming or Heideggerian mediation). The new (non-tautological) identity principle. The interchange between things / livings within Dasein in broad sense: some things are activated (becoming “alive in broad sense”) whilst a part of livings remains in tautology, rejecting for any reason the tuned becoming / mediation.

3.  Inseparability and Attunement

The modern science and knowledge have been characterized through the absence of some genuine Wholes (because linearity has impeded everywhere the formation and functioning of these Wholes, thus blocking the elaboration and promotion of inseparability); in the last decades the situation has radically changed to the point that it can be asserted the contemporary comprehension is indeed centered on inseparability. This extraordinary perspective change it is marked by some particular methodological landmarks:

  • Fuzzy logic – the collapse of dualism and recognizing of onto-logic legitimation of T states ( tertium states );
  • Attractors ( Strange attractors ) – a mathematical premise of introducing a generalized morphogenesis into the non-Cartesian model “ world as potentiality ”;
  • Non-univocal selection universal property of non-linear systems allowing the surprising insertion of a psychic moment (spirituality) in full physicalism;
  • The recognizing of universal applicability of quantum mechanics, beyond  micro-limits, making possible the elaboration of genesis in broad sense as well as the extension of quantum inseparability (entanglement) over all systems including the World as Living Being (see Fig. 1, a fundamental aspect that should not be omitted is the appearance of real from… nothing Fig. 1 a, b – a very special nothing such as the quantum vacuum; to mention that the fluctuations of this vacuum constitute the source of  all potentialities and therefore of the model “ World as potentiality ”);
  • Synthesis with harmonizator based on genuine complementarity between contradictories which overtakes the binary models of Cartesian / Hegelian inspiration providing for the first time a coherent pattern to effectively harmonize a world intrinsic diversified;
  • Dasein in broad (generalized) sense, centered on the principle “ allego ergo sum ” having a peculiar integrative signification since it promotes inseparability between the  Heideggerian Dasein and the new Dasein.

Inseparability designated by Heidegger by the key-term “ Being-in-the-World ” constitutes an existential frame offering to genuine living the unique chance of control by the Whole (Attunement) in two complementary versions: intrinsic one (through existentialia – fundamental term introduced by Heidegger conferring authenticity to the living being through das Er-eignis ) as well as an extrinsic one (through intentionality = vibratory processes  aiming to salvation involving communication in broad sense through synchronization, resonance, coherence (see chapter Attunement and Distant Healing below)

Fig. 1 Genesis in broad sense of the real: from pre-history (a) to quantum inseparability / entanglement (d). R = real horizon, P = potentiality

Inseparability and Dasein

Some details:  even though the Heideggerian Dasein represents a fundamental phenomenon, the elaboration of a Dasein in broad sense comes with some conceptual reconsiderations of great interest. For example, now we are constrained to clearly differentiate between Heideggerian “ world as living being ” and methodological category “ World as living being ”. Since the Heideggerian Dasein (my own Dasein) is distinguished by an extreme individuation ( specification ) both as real ( I am X ) and potential possible ( I can be Y ), the world as living being attached to this Dasein will necessarily be a unique, personal one, even though opened to other similar (unique) worlds. Therefore, the world as living being in Heideggerian sense represents a subsystem of the World as living being; the latter one that I will specify in the following with capital letter, results as an integral of all unique, finite subsystems. It is worth to underline some temporal peculiarities: the Heideggerian relationship between man and time is radically changed when we consider the extended category Dasein; world as living being is situated not in /separability time (the case of traditional metaphysics) but in / inseparability time: the man exists as time ( sich zeitigt), when there is no man there is no time. This last aspect – inaccurate if we refer to World as living being – I had it in mind when I have elaborated “time in broad sense” – a time of spiritual essence, centered on potentiality (Ip) directly related  to real (Ir), detaching myself from the human essence of Heideggerian time, centered on Sorge / Care. It is also necessary to distinguish between time in objective sense and the concept of time ( subjective sense ) which from Aristotle to Kant, and from Hegel to Heidegger has sometimes radically changed its connotation, while the fundamental temporality has remainedand will remain – undissociated from potentiality Ip.

Results that spirituality, consciousness, temporality, nature, genesis all considered in broad sense cannot be reduced to the human presence in the World, their antecedence becoming more and more evident in rapport with the emergence of human phenomenon: in order for Heidegger to assert at a given moment “ human existence is fundamentally poetic ” it was necessary a concertate mobilization of the non-poetical resources (poiesis being par excellence a human referential ) of the World as living being, in other words, of the new Dasein.

Attunement and Distant Healing

A special attention deserves the methodological status of original essence which prefigures the development of the living being as a design (Entwurf) situated not in real but in potential possible from where it confers the system authenticity and / or salvation.  We are dealing here with the special relationship between potential self and real self, the last being non-univocally determined by the first one. In his conference dedicated to Identity Principle, Heidegger asserts the decisive role of das Er-eignis in reaching of the essential living (Wesende) by man. Heidegger makes a principial distinction between contingent possibilities, of empirical nature, applicable only to passive things (in which case a certain possible state may be realized or not) and potential possibilities applicable to living beings.  Traditionally,  the contingent possibility has been considered net inferior in comparison with actuality and necessity; Heidegger denounces this arbitrary existential hierarchy considering possible, especially in his potential version ( when for example a seed prefigures almost doubtless the plant / tree ), as being above any actuality ( see Sein und Zeit, pp 143-144 ); here it is formulated and rightly resolved the key-problem of relation between essence / existence, opposite than J.P. Sartre whose methodological inconsistency is well known: to promote his own ideological options ( his preference for atheism ) Sartre was not reluctant to put the cart before the horse, considering that the essence is derived from existence. For Sartre – and his followers – the  Ralph Waldo EMERSON’s adagio  is properly suited: “ Most people would rather die than think. In fact they do.

Preeminence of the essence (design) toward existence is more and more clearly asserted in contemporary non-Cartesian knowledge, such in the case of Stuart KAUFFMAN who considers that orthodox Darwinism and its correlative “ accidental machine ” are insufficient to explain the appearance of high order complex systems from nature and society, pointing to the special role of their intrinsic self-organization:

“ There is an order in nature waiting to unfold – a natural direction to evolution pulling evolved forms toward complexity. Morphogenesis, or the growth of form, may be at least partially a consequence of inherent self-organization.”

The idea of inherent self-organization, can and it should be extended over all chemical systems ( see Chapter “ Original Situation in Chemistry: is Atomism Fundamental ? ” , section Alive (the Living Thing) in Broad Sense on this blog) as well as in a generalized form to World as living being.

In several postings on this blog I have tried to combine the generous Heideggerian suggestions concerning Attunement by the Whole ( by the means of original essence, respectively of the fundamental characteristics – existentialia ) with the inspired contribution of Roger PENROSE, who postulates the key-role played by Plato’s Eidos, in edification and functioning of the genuine living consciousness;  in this context ( controversial of course, but a lot less controversial than promoting Cartesianism in a non-Cartesian world!), Fig. 9 is a geometrized representation of the physical rapports between the original essence (Penrose-Heidegger track), the electric being – one that receives through resonance / synchronization messages from potential / possible and which guides the generation / regeneration of the solid being through specific electro-magnetic currents. Even in some limit situations, when the contribution of the counterfeit real self ( aiming toward uncoupling from original essence ) becomes predominant, the Nature as living being – which promote Wholes, not allowing their destruction or even their excessive disturbance – offers to the individual being (” my own Dasein” ) a last chance: salvation / healing / re-harmonization with original essence or …disappearance.  This way, our surrounding reality, a  lasting reality,  is not a random one but rather a tuned reality, brain, organism, society, Earth (see Gaia model,  shortly presented on this blog), universe itself  being predominant coherent Wholes.

The vibratory paradigm, valid as a model in real as well as in potential possible, considers World as living being constituted not from solid bodies (such as Newtonian world) but rather from fields, the living beings being represented as some damped oscillators  susceptible to communication in the largest possible sense through resonance / synchronization / coherence, resulting the possibility of bringing back of these oscillators from sub optimal situations ( such as uncoupling of the two essences, Fig. 9), to a re-coupling state – process of a spiritual / wavy  nature usually designated as salvation / healing. For the purpose of essences re-coupling, salvation / healing utilize(s ) intentions / intentionality and prayer to promote the distant healing – form of extrinsic attunement whose therapeutic efficiency has already and repeatedly established in a scientific manner. Dr. Larry DOSSEY has seriously and courageously approached  this phenomena, named by him “ nonlocal mind ” presenting it in conferences/ articles as well as in his book “ Reinventing Medicine Beyond mind- body, to a new era of healing ”, Harper, San Francisco, 1999. Dr. Dossey  follows without any refrains the force lines of non-conventional thinking of some well known scientists, opened toward the spiritual horizon such as: physicist Henry MARGENAU ( having important contributions in modern physics ) and biologist George WALD ( Nobel prize for biology ) who textually declared: “ MIND rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always…the SOURCE AND CONDITION OF PHYSICAL REALITY.” (my underline FF). In regards to the skeptics’ reaction toward the nonlocal mind phenomena, Dr. Dossey ( page 84, on the above mentioned book ) has a …historical reference:

“Skeptics may moan, bellow, howl, and whine, as they did against gravity, but nonlocal mind is an idea whose time has come.

Dasein in sens larg. Revolutia nelineara si noua esenta ( nebiologica ) a fiintei / fiintarii

Posted by on Monday, 22 March, 2010

Opera de baza a lui Heidegger  “ Being and Time “, dupa cum se stie , a fost intrerupta probabil din motive metodologice ( autorul  sugerand  intr-o Nota la “ On the Essence of Truth” doar ca  a fost “ in mod deliberat lasata  nedezvoltata ” ); din analiza textelor heideggeriene  impresia  mea dominanta este ca autorul a fost metodologic surprins  undeva intre linear si nelinear , fara a putea  concepe  in mod clar ce si mai ales cum trebuie dezvoltat in continuare, preferand  – spre regretul general – sa puna punct unei elaborari de mare interes teoretic – asupra careia nu-si mai putea exercita impulsul organizational normal in deosebi  datorita ivirii unor dificultati  neobisnuite , de tip nelinear ( mentionez ca Dasein-ul reprezinta prin excelenta o entitate deschisa , superarticulata , nelineara , iar lumea ca fiinta era / este de neconceput  in absenta  situatiei physis, centrata de asemenea pe nelinearitate ). Doua repere  in sustinerea acestui punct de vedere :

a. Dificultatile,   rezolvate  anevoie , contextual,  privind  diferentierea meaningului ( ” spatial si nespatial “)  al prepozitiei  ” in “,  diferentiere care, in mod normal, trimite nu la ” spatial “ ci la semnificatia lineara / analitica / sumativa / cartesiana  si ( ” cand se raporteaza la Dasein-ul uman ” ) nu are in vedere  aspectul ” nespatial ” ci semnificatia nelineara/ necartesiana / sintetica ; mai pe scurt : ” in / separabilitate ” versus ” in / inseparabilitate “; de remarcat privilegiul limbii romane ( reliefat de Constantin NOICA )   de a dispune  de o prepozitie speciala ” intru “ care desemneaza fara ambiguitati situatia ” in / inseparabilitate”

b. conceperea temporalitatii Fiintei ( Being ) sub forma unui orizont transcendental ( cu 3 ecstazii : viitor , trecut , prezent ) intr-un moment istoric in care  timpul nelinear penetreaza  fiinta / fiintarea sub forma unei pulsatii vii, fluctuante, controlata nu de durata ( ecstaziile mentionate  ramanand totusi sub semnul duratei ! ) ci de raportul dintre potential / real ( a se vedea ” Timpul in sens larg. Esenta spirituala a timpului ” pe  acest blog ). De mentionat ca in orizontul necartesian al cunoasterii contemporane, caracterizat ca ” distinct , inseparabil ”  orice transcendental isi schimba natura ( traditionala ), deschizandu-se definitoriu spre ” celalalt “, un bun exemplu fiind oferit de Eidos-urile lui Platon care in prezent functioneaza ca un ” self potential ”  controland / salvand  fiintele individuale ( self-ul real ).   De notat, de asemenea ,  ca ultima interpretare ( timpul ca  pulsatie vie, non-durata ),  permite considerarea  temporalitatii fiecarui Dasein nu ca o calitate / categorie aparuta din/ in  experienta personala  ci ca o existentialia sau o ” posibila cale a fiintei / fiintarii ” , respectiv ca o caracteristica fundamentala continuta a priori in esenta originara potentiala a fiecarei fiinte ( proiect , Entwurf ).

In elaborarea acestei ” detasari ” de Heidegger, vizand largirea conotatiei Dasein-ului uman , m-am bazat pe  o serie  de sugestii metodologice  extrem de interesante pe care doresc sa le mentionez  in introducerea de fata :

  • considerarea  alegerii / selectiei ca o  caracteristica  fundamentala a fizicii viitorului  ( conf. fizicianului rus  N.A.Umov );
  • ideea expimata de D. Bohm intr-un interview  cu F. D. Peat conform careia fizica cuantica a viitorului  va trebui sa aiba nu atat caracteristicile  mecanicii cuantice cat  pe acelea ale unui organism cuantic;
  • Atentionarea  lui J.Marshall conform careia /caruia functia de unda ( din mecanica cuantica ) are astfel de caracteristici matematice incat sunt favorizate  procesele de aparitie / evolutie a vietii si constiintei :  the universe has an innate  tendency toward life  and consciousness: they are  ultimately due  to the mathematical  properties  of quantum  wave function  which favors  the evolution of life  and consciousness;
  • Lucrarile  interdisciplinare de exceptie datorate  Dr. Mae-Wan HO (elaborate  pe cand activa la  The Open University , U.K. ), in mod special ” The Rainbow  and the Worm – The Physics  of Organism, Editia a II-a: 1998 , centrate pe intrebarea …simpla  formulata cu multe decenii in urma de catre E.Schrodinger: What is Life?
  • J. JEANS : Universul este o mare gandire ( reamintesc  : prin aceasta Jeans nu se indeparteaza catusi de putin  de  fiinta , dimpotriva , asa cum subliniaza Heidegger cu referire directa la o teza a lui Parmenide ,  ” aici este gandit eterogenul, gandire si fiinta , ca Acelasi ( das Selbe). “
  • A.N. Whitehead : we cannot understand  nature except  as an organism
  • Last not least: Heidegger insusi a subliniat in repetate randuri necesitatea largirii – ca sfera si continut a  lui Dasein – lumea Dasein-ului  neputand fi decat  o lume / fiinta. Spre exemplu , discutand aspectul initial al  fiintei ca prezenta ( Anwesen )  Heidegger declara: ” Abia omul deschis catre fiinta  lasa fiinta  sa vina in prezenta. Aceasta  nu inseamna  in niciun caz  ca fiinta este pusa abia si numai prin om.” Atentie la acest cuvant exploziv ” abia ” care trimite direct la o cronologie  anume (confirmata de stiintele evolutive contemporane, desi acestea refuza sa mearga pana la capat, negand, spre exemplu, validitatea modelului GAIA  ): Dasein-ul uman ( biologic ) a fost precedat de…noul Dasein , altfel spus , asa cum voi arata in continuare , “cogito ergo sum ” a fost precedat de ” allego ergo sum “: Natura  ( ” World ” ) a fost minutios pregatita pentru aparitia fenomenului uman ( in orice caz omul nu a fost aruncat, de la bun inceput, intr-o lume ostila definita prin crima, razboaie , cancere…) Darwinismul , co-evolutia ( sistem / mediu )  , etc. apar din ce in ce mai clar ca fiind tusele  finale , exterioare ale unui proces / program  mult mai  elaborat de in-fiintare codificat undeva in profunzimile  existentei, eventual la scara  Planck ( 10-33 cm. ), asa cum  sugera speculativ, controversial dar -de ce n-am spune-o? – genial Roger PENROSE. Sa-i dorim lui Roger inca 20 ani de sanatate fizica si tinerete spirituala , pentru a  ne ghida majestuos si imprevizibil  in/ prin …misterele Dosarului ” Dasein”.

1. Revolutia nelineara si noul Dasein

Stiinta / cunoasterea traditionala a avut la baza metodologia lineara conform careia  rezultatul / raspunsul este totdeauna proportional cu stimulul, Intregul ( ” World ” in cazul  gandirii heideggeriene ) neputandu-se nici macar constitui sau mentine in conditia (  sumativa ) presupusa de  linearitate; in situatia nelineara care a revolutionat cunoasterea moderna,  proportionalitatea  stimul / rezultat  este incalcata; fara a schimba datele esentiale ale lumii lineare , abordarea nelineara ofera  un cadru conceptual radical nou , metode si modele  eficiente pentru constituirea / mentinerea Intregului, ca si pentru intelegerea si controlul sistemelor complexe – de tipul Dasein – ale proceselor care au loc departe de echilibru ( cazul devenirii  si / sau al  fiintarii autentice ). In starile departe de echilibru sistemele   au comportari total diferite de  starile  de echilibru sau aproape de echilibru, intrucat prin nelinearitate  ( activare ergonica ) sistemul accede  la un spatiu de posibilitati cu totul diferit, crescand drastic  numarul de stari  accesibile  si, corelativ, abilitatea sistemului de  a face alegeri alternative  ( instabilitate organizationala, vezi Fig. 6  ). De asemenea , bariera de  potential dintre starile actualizate / realizate , pe de o parte si cele potential / posibile , pe de alta parte , scade in mod semnificativ, sistemul devenind foarte sensibil la mici variatii ( fluctuatii ) ale parametrilor  interni sau externi ; aceasta situatie sui generis a fost prezentata pe acest blog  sub numele  ” activarea posibilului “.

Fig.6  Diagrama alegerii neunivoce ( bifurcatia asimetrica).  AP  =  traiect  linear al   dezvoltarii ( “ schimbare fara schimbare ” ).  PDF ( PE ) =  traiect nelinear ( schimbare imprevizibila ). P= insertia psihicului / spiritului in universul fizic  – punctul alfa al oricarei psihologii interesata de genealogia autentica.

In aria foarte speciala a punctului de bifurcatie ( Fig . 6  ) raportul tipic dintre necesitate si intamplare se schimba in favoarea stocasticitatii: de aceasta data selectia / actualizarea  unei anumite stari din repertoriul tuturor starilor potential – posibile  ale sistemului ( repertoriu delimitat de  ecuatiile cinetice ) este  controlata  in mod decisiv de catre factorii stocastici ( fluctuatii ). Punctul  P , Fig.6 , numit de mine “Punctul Prigogine ”  are o deosebita semnificatie  metodologica  intrucat marcheaza intrarea  sistemului in ” istoricitatea autentica ” sau , intr-o exprimare alternativa ,  momentul in care sistemul devine  viu in sens larg.Acest punct  este, de asemenea,  critic , pentru evidentierea continuitatii  dintre fizic / psihic, dat fiind faptul ca  exact aici ( ca urmare a alegerii neunivoce = premisa a subiectivitatii: allego ergo sum = aleg deci exist ) ia nastere noul Dasein, de esenta nebiologica.

Pentru gandirea Occidentala legatura dintre fiintarea autentica si istoricitate este  definitorie. In acest context  devine esential sa putem   evidentia mecanismul prin care noul Dasein are acces la istoricitatea autentica. Schema  care urmeaza expliciteaza acest mecanism scotand concomitent in evidenta premisa fizica obligatorie ( nelinearitatea  si instabilitatea ) precum si momentul constitutiv al istoricitatii autentice alegerea neunivoca :

Echilibru   ↔  Non-echilibru   ↔  Nelinearitate ↔  Instabilitate ↔  Alegere neunivoca →   Ireversibilitate Istoricitate

Afirmarea ” noului Dasein” in campul cunoasterii contemporane are cateva  consecinte  metodologice care se cuvin subliniate. Iata patru dintre ele:

1. Categoria heideggeriana Dasein ca realitate umana  isi largeste sensibil sfera si continutul  prin preluarea ( din Vorhandenheit ) a  unor sisteme active / activate , susceptibile de manifestari noi, netraditionale care le apropie  ( fara  a le duce la identificare) de Dasein-ul uman : subiectivitate in sens larg, inseparabilitate , devenire…

2. Contradictia traditionala dintre “ a exista “ ( fara ” a fi ” ) si ” a fi “ isi pierde caracterul fundamental devenind empirica , mai mult  vom avea o relatie de complemetaritate autentica  intre cele doua verbe / stari  intrucat de acum exista fiinte care  etaleaza concomitent si in grade diferite  existenta si fiintare.

3. Revolutia nelineara , respectiv noua situatie metodologica desemnata pe acest blog prin sintagma  ” situatia physis “ ne arata explicit si pentru prima data ce conditii trebuie sa indeplineasca natura ca fiinta, lumea ca fiinta si , cel putin la fel de important , tehnologia ca fiinta. Asa cum sublinia in mod constant Heidegger , capacitatile des-fiintatoare ale tehnologiei, nu doar fata de  Dasein-ul uman ci chiar fata de natura / lume , nu trebuie nicicum subestimate.

4. Pe langa prepozitia  ” intru ” limba romana  ne mai surprinde  cu alt cuvant plin de seva filosofica ( heideggeriana ) , asupra caruia am atras atentia  si cu alte ocazii, este vorba despre verbul ” a acorda “. Acest cuvant ” miraculos  ”  permite  diferentierea optima intre o realitate data ( neavand  justificarile Intregului, cam acesta fiind statutul metodologic al tehnologiei  in lumea contemporana  ) si o realitate acor-data care are justificarile Intregului, fiind  conforma cu o situatie / esenta originara. In prelungirea elaborarilor din prezentul articol , vom putea asadar sa concepem / traducem  in romaneste fara nicio  retinere Dasein-ul uman   ca         “ omul acor-dat ”   respectiv Dasein-ul in sens larg ca ” fiinta acor-data“, dupa cum vom putea desemna fara ambiguitati formele  neautentice corespunzatoare prin “ omul dat ” si ” fiinta data “. Fara nicio  retinere ? Mult mai mult decat atat : cu …mandrie filosofica, intrucat fara nicio exagerare  termenul nostru ” omul acor-dat ”  este competitiv ontic / ontologic  cu insusi originalul ( Dasein ) , contrapunand trimiterii terne  da = acolo ( spatiala si atat! ) o articulare esentiala ireductibila (nu doar ” dat ” ci ” acor-dat ” ); cat despre dimensiunea stilistica ( elocventza ) ea nu este deloc in suferinta, dimpotriva; termenul romanesc concurent ( ” fiinta-in-deschis ” ) este  superficial ( ca sa nu spun mai mult ) dat fiind ca fiinta nici nu poate fi conceputa decat ca sistem deschis ( regimul ” fiinta-in-inchis ” fiind …fatal ) iar daca  renuntam la  partea  superflua , pleonastica , ramanem cu ” fiinta…” prea putin pentru a justifica frecventa ( suparatoare )  cu care poate fi intalnit termenul in literatura romana de specialitate. Nu interpretati  referinta de mai sus ca o denigrare globala a lui G. Liiceanu : el valoreaza mult mai mult decat gaselnita mentionata, ” elaborata” intr-un moment de hei-rup-ism conceptual, tipic dambovitean.

2. De la ” lumea ca masina ” ( Descartes, Newton ) la ” lumea ca fiinta / potentialitate “

A.N. Whitehead : ” we cannot understand

nature  except as an organism. “

Probabil niciuna dintre postarile mele , pe acest blog , nu a atins densitatea de  implicatii metodologice exceptionale  pe care le veti intalni  “ la fiecare pas “  citind articolul de fata. Voi aborda  – din pacate uneori fara  detalierea care s-ar cuveni : as avea nevoie de volume ! – numeroase probleme – cheie ale dezvoltarii cunoasterii ( si societatii ) contemporane , incercand  sa sugerez tot atatea schite de raspunsuri  din care lectorul interesat sa poata selecta, cu o exigenta luciditate, ceea ce i se pare pertinent pentru devenirea lui personala. Iata cateva dintre aceste  probleme-cheie :

  • Ce inseamna de fapt modelul / metafora “ lumea ca masina ” ? Care sunt implicatiile actuale ale acestui model, care timp de secole, a stantat in mod univoc ( fara  rivalitati /alternative ) constiinta ( anti- ecologica ) a  numeroase generatii ?
  • Ce a contribuit la  punerea sub semnul intrebarii a validitatii acestui model , aflat inca in uz – desi  ne-exclusiv – in societatile  occidentale , in care separabilitatea  si cartesianismul sunt inca adanc inradacinate?
  • Ce i-a lipsit lui Heidegger (  realmente un mare maestru in intuirea / formularea de intrebari cardinale privind lumea contemporana ) pentru a elabora un statut metodologic consistent minimal pentru categoria  “ natura ca fiinta “ ?
  • Cum poate fi introdusa  ( corect ) fiinta/ fiintarea in sens larg , nebiologic, in stiinta/ cunoasterea contemporana ?
  • Care este statutul metodologic (  controversial , deocamdata , dar s-ar putea altfel ?) al acor-darii ( in cele doua versiuni complementare – intrinseca si extrinseca ) ?
  • Cum trebuie procedat pentru  aducerea si mentinerea  tehnologiei “ in sine “ in cadrele fiintarii autentice ?, etc.

Lumea ca masina – optiunea  materialist / anti-vitalista a lui Descartes

Traditional problema fiintei / fiintarii a fost pusa , incepand cu antichitatea greaca si pana la ( inclusiv ) Heidegger , fara insa a  se gasi criterii metodologic corecte de delimitare in raport cu ” lucrul “, in mod special  nedescoperindu-se acel “ quid proprium “ al fiintei / fiintarii autentice.  Aristotel, spre exemplu , a considerat , de pe pozitii vitaliste , ca  sufletele  de tip  diferit ( vegetativ / senzitiv ) ar guverna  procesele organice ale fiintelor / sistemelor  vii, in vreme ce lucrurile inerte ( ta onta la greci, das Seinde la Heidegger , beings in engleza curenta, nu fiinteaza , nu sunt ).

Descartes urmeaza  modelul heliocentric copernican  ( considerat de istoricii stiintei drept  “ un pas urias spre modelul  lumea ca masina “ ) si,  conform programului sau anti- scholastic, mecanicist, respinge vitalismul  aristotelic sustinand ca plantele, animalele si corpul uman sunt “ nimic altceva decat masini “, cu doua posibile rezerve  : in corpul uman ar  fi  limitat activ un suflet  ( Descartes  neaga orice suflet / minte la animale al caror comportament este explicat 100 %  pe baze mecanice ), a doua exceptie vizand universul ca intreg , unde cantitatea de miscare totala ar fi prezervata de  Divinitate.

Eu nu recunosc nicio diferenta , declara Descartes , intre masinile  facute de  mestesugar ( ceasuri, fantani artificiale , mori , etc. ) si diferitele corpuri  realizate  de natura insasi.

In Meditatia VI , el concepe  in adevar “mestesugareste” organismul uman  ca pe “ un tip de  masina echipata cu si confectionata din  oase, nervi , muschi, vene,  sange si piele …” care lucreaza pe baza unui “ foc fara lumina “ care arde in inima.

Universul insusi este descris de Descartes ca o masina care lucreaza pe baza legilor mecanicii , fiind constituit exclusiv din materie pasiv / inerta sau  din “ atomi in miscare “ ( conform  abatelui M.Mersenne – bun prieten cu Descartes ),  deci din parti complet lipsite de viata.  Acest model mecanicist , calitativ , a fost ulterior re- formulat riguros matematic de catre I.Newton, pentru care universul  era un automat a carui functionare  ( programata in detaliu ) il scotea pe Dumnezeu din…ecuatie, rezervand Divinitatii cel mult rolul unui…janitor = ingrijitor / depanator. Prin aceasta, mecanicismul cartesiano – newtonian a alimentat direct si convingator ateismul materialist, lasand totodata intreaga cunoastere – a viului si neviului – fara categoria de Intreg. Semnificativ: dupa mai bine de 3 secole de mecanicism , referirea metodologic obligatorie la intreg ( “ see the whole picture “ ) este si in prezent tratata ( cu anumite exceptii, desigur )  in lumea occidentala ca un reflex misticoid , de inspiratie…orientala ( Taoism , New Age,  etc. ). In mod special trebuie subliniat insa aportul decisiv al cartesianismului in promovarea “ stiintifica “ a unei viziuni anti – ecologiste : nu doar Natura  ci si vietuitoarele ( plante , animale = sisteme neinsufletite si chiar  ceilalti semeni, mai cu seama femeile ) au fost si , intre anumite limite, inca sunt  tratate simplist, reductionist, ca mijloace sau sisteme de mijloace.

Lumea ca fiinta / potentialitate. Introducerea fiintarii autentice in cunoasterea contemporana

De subliniat un aspect deosebit de important care este totusi  adesea trecut cu vederea : descrierea  matematica , datorata lui Descartes / Newton a lumii / universului  nu reprezinta realitatea  unica / ultima cum s-a crezut timp de secole  ci doar  versiunea matematica ( ipotetica, paralela ) a acestei realitati care pentru a deveni realitate fizica trebuie sa fie supusa probei autenticitatii, respectiv  operatiei de masurare, operatie ( cuantica ) de mare subtilitate ontologica  in cadrul careia insusirile  masurate si, intr-o anumita masura ,insesi  sistemele  supuse masurarii- la limita lumea insasi! – sunt create in acest proces. De  notat ca aici am in vedere , evident , conceptul de “masurare in sens larg ” care, la randul lui , implica  ” environment-ul in sens larg , nu doar si nu in primul rand  subiectul uman , fie acesta  dotat eventual cu un  Ph.D. ( conform J.S.Bell ). Einstein insusi a cazut in aceasta capcana ontologica atunci cand a formulat “ paradoxul EPR “, pentru a demonstra …incompletitudinea mecanicii cuantice. La o analiza  metodologica  atenta a raportului dintre matematic / fizic se poate conclude ca, de fapt, paradoxul mentionat nici …nu exista. Rezulta ca “ masina “  lui Descartes / Newton  nu a fost una fizica  ci, cel mult , una…matematica!

Inconsistenta modelului ( matematic / mecanicist ) al lui Descartes / Newton  a devenit tot mai evidenta ca urmare a  unor dezvoltari  stiintifice de mare relevanta metodologica  survenite in sec. al XIX-lea si al XX-lea si anume :

  • descoperirea  radiatiei / campului electromagnetic , datorita lui M. Faraday ( 1791- 1867 ), J.C. Maxwell ( 1831 – 1879 ) a demonstrat caracterul empiric , nefundamental al fizicii newtoniene  centrata pe sisteme solide , stabile , riguros localizate in spatiu, conducand la elaborarea  unui nou  tablou , nemecanicist , electromagnetic al naturii / universului ( “ vibrating universe “ );
  • dezvoltarea  darwinismului :mutatii , selectie naturala , evolutie /  Ch.Darwin ( 1809 – 1882 ) a avut, la randul ei , un efect  similar asupra  modelului mecanicist al sistemelor vii, reliefand   resursele de dezvoltare interne si externe practic nelimitate ale acestora ;
  • aparitia mecanicii cuantice ( 1900 si dupa ) si, mai cu seama  dezvoltarea recenta  ( dupa 1990 ) a asa-numitei “noua mecanica cuantica “ ( deschisa spre aplicatiile tehnico – ingineresti in deosebi din aria ” quantum information “) , ivirea teoriei decoerentei si , corelativ,  a teoriei generale a genezei , precum si atragerea in campul cunoasterii stiintifice  contemporane ( dupa 1960 ) a sistemelor dinamice complexe, au reliefat in modul cel mai elocvent cu putinta caracterul grosier, de prima aproximatie  al metaforei “ lumea ca masina “ evidentiind continuitea dintre fizic si psihic – premisa a edificarii unei  teorii generale a fiintei / fiintarii autentice. Iata cum descria,  cu ani in urma,  Dr. Mae – Wan  HO noua situatie creata :

“ Quantum theory demanded that  we stop seeing things  as separate solid objects  with definite  locations in space and time . Instead they are de-localized, indefinite,   mutually entangled  entities that change  and develop like organisms.”

Last but not least , activarea posibilului , situatia physis (  de notat: physis este nu Calea – de tipul Tao – ci “ calea mea “ adica a fiintei individuale ), conceptul de “ istoricitate autentica “ ( prezentat  mai sus ) i-au lipsit, probabil,  lui Heidegger in elaborarile sale , stopate ” in mod deliberat”; ele au aratat cu claritate care este calea optima , poate unica , de modelare eficienta a viului in sens larg , a lumii ca fiinta / potentialitate:

1.  premisa existentiala minimala a alegerii / selectiei : nelinearitate / instabilitate organizationala ( sensibilitate inalta a sistemului );

2.  introducerea fiintarii in  campul fizicii ( alegerea neunivoca avand semnificatia unei deschideri a  fizicului spre spiritualitate , constiinta, eventual chiar prin ocolirea biologicului ! ), vezi Fig.6, mai sus ;

3.  trecerea fiintei  la fiintarea autentica  ( devenirea acor-data sau mijlocirea heideggeriana ). Noul principiu al identitatii (netautologice ).”Rocada lucru / fiinta ”  in Dasein-ul in sens larg : o parte din lucruri se activeaza ( devenind “ vii in sens larg “ ), in vreme ce o parte a fiintei ramane in tautologic, refuzand, for any reason, devenirea acor-data / mijlocirea.

3.Inseparabilitate si Acor-dare

Daca stiinta moderna ( cunoasterea traditionala in ansamblu , inclusiv  metafizica aferenta , fara “ metabole “ ) s-au caracterizat prin absenta unor Intregi autentici ( intrucat linearitatea a atacat  pretutindeni constituirea si functionarea  unor astfel de intregi, blocand astfel elaborarea si promovarea inseparabilitatii ), in ultimele decenii situatia  s-a modificat radical, asa incat se poate afirma  ca intelegerea / comprehensiunea  contemporana  este efectiv centrata pe inseparabilitate. Aceasta  extraordinara schimbare de perspectiva este marcata de  unele repere metodologice definitorii cum ar fi :

  • Logica fuzzy – prabusirea dualismului si recunoasterea legitimitatii  onto-logice a starilor T ( tertium );
  • Atractorii / atractorii stranii ( strange attractors ) – premisa  matematica a introducerii in modelul non-cartesian “ Lumea ca potentialitate “ a  unui mecanism generalizat de morfogeneza;
  • Neunivocitatea alegerii – insusire  universala a sistemelor nelineare permitand insertia  surprinzatoare a  momentului psihic ( spiritualitatii ) in plin  “ fizicalism “;
  • Recunoasterea aplicabilitatii  universale a mecanicii cuantice, dincolo de limitele micro-lumii, facand posibila atat elaborarea conceptului de  “ geneza insens larg “ cat si  extinderea inseparabilitatii cuantice ( entanglement ) asupra tuturor sistemelor , inclusiv a Lumii ca fiinta ( vezi Fig. 1, un aspect fundamental  care nu trebuie trecut cu vederea , este aparitia realului – Fig.1 a,b –  din “ nothing “ – un nimic… foarte special , de ordinul  vacuumului cuantic; de mentionat ca fluctuatiile acestui vacuum se afla la originea  tuturor potentialitatilor si, prin urmare , a modelului “ Lumea ca potentialitate “ );
  • Sinteza cu armonizator, bazata pe  complementaritatea autentica  dintre contradictorii, depasindu-se astfel modelele binare de inspiratie cartesiano- hegeliana, oferind pentru prima data un model plauzibil pentru  armonizarea efectiva a unei lumi  inseparabile desi funciar diversificata ;
  • Dasein –ul in sens larg ( generalizat ) , centrat pe principiul “ allego ergo sum “ avand o semnificatie integrativa deosebita intrucat promoveaza  inseparabilitatea  intru fiinta dintre Dasein-ul uman si subsistemele active / activate din componentza  unei lumi  inerte , pasive ,  desemnata “ la gramada “ de catre Greci prin termenul ta onta;” noul “ Dasein , altfel spus “ Lumea ca fiinta “, a pregatit  silentios dar eficient “ lacasul poetic” al omului, respectiv “ lumea ca fiinta ” .

Inseparabilitatea  ( desemnata de catre Heidegger prin termenul – cheie specific “ Being-in-the World “ ) constituie un cadru / frame  existential sine qua non care ofera fiintei autentice, sansa unica a controlului de catre Intreg ( acor-dare sau Attunement ) in doua variante  complementare: intrinseca ( prin intermediul   modurilor potentiale  de a fi ale fiintei = existentialia – termen fundamental introdus de catre Heidegger, vizand in principal conferirea de autenticitate prin das Er-eignis ) cat si extrinseca ( prin  intentionalitate, rugaciune = procese de natura vibratorie, vizand in mod special salvarea, implicand nu limbajul natural ( asupra semnificatiei acestei distinctii am avut  o divergenta de opinii cu D. Bohm, care a si dus la stoparea relatiilor dintre noi; episodul este relatat  mai detaliat in alta parte pe acest blog ) ci  comunicarea in sens larg prin sincronizare, rezonanta , coerenta , vezi  capitolul “ Despre Acor-dare / Attunement “, mai jos).

Fig.1    Geneza in sens larg a realului : de la  preistorie ( a ) la     inseparabilitatea cuantica / entanglement ( d ). R= orizont real , P = posibil

Inseparabilitate dar…cu distinctii

Cateva  detalieri sunt binevenite: desi Dasein-ul heideggerian , de esenta umana , reprezinta un fenomen fundamental, elaborarea  unui Dasein  in sens  larg ( care cuprinde  in primul rand Dasein-ul lui Heidegger precum si noul Dasein ) vine cu unele reconsiderari conceptuale inevitabile, de mare  anvergura si interes. Spre exemplu ,  acum suntem constransi sa  facem o diferentiere  clara intre  lumea ca fiinta a lui Heidegger  ( care nu este  in niciun caz una cu categoria metodologica “ Lumea  ca fiinta ” ) si / sau cu Intregul stiintei . Intrucat  Dasein-ul heideggerian ( my own Dasein ) se distinge printr-o extrema individualizare  (  specificitate, limitare) , atat sub raport real ( Eu sunt = I am )  cat si sub raport potential – posibil ( Eu pot fi X = I can be X ) , lumea  ca fiinta   atasata acestui Dasein  va fi in mod necesar una unica , limitata , de uz personal , desi deschisa spre  celelalte lumi ( unice ) similare. Aceasta inseamna ca  lumea ca fiinta  in sens  Heideggerian reprezinta  un decupaj ( flexibil , mobil , totusi  un decupaj / subsistem )  in  Lumea ca fiinta  a metodologiei / stiintei,  aceasta  din urma ( pe care o voi desemna in continuare  utilizand  majuscule ) rezultand printr-o integrare  a tuturor subsistemelor unice , finite .

Corelativ, se cuvin subliniate unele  particularitati ale modului in care concepe Heidegger relatia  dintre om ( man ) si timp , care este radical modificata  cand avem in vedere categoria largita  Dasein;  lumea ca fiinta a Dasein-ului heideggerian  se situeaza nu in timp ( cazul metafizicii traditionale ) ci intru timp, omul si timpul fiind ( intre anumite limite ) inseparabile : omul exista ca timp ( sich zeitigt), cand nu este om , nu este timp ( ? ). Acest ultim aspect – inexact, potential confuz– l-am avut in mod special in vedere cand mi- am propus sa  elaborez “ Timpul in sens larg “ , un timp de esenta spirituala ,centrat pe potentialitatea Ip, dar cu raportare nemijlocita la real ( Ir ), detasandu-ma astfel de  esenta umana ( biologica ) a timpului Heideggerian , centrat pe  Sorge / Care ( Grija ).  Este, de asemenea,  necesar sa se faca distinctie intre  timpul ca atare si conceptul de timp care , de la Aristotel la Kant si de la Hegel la Heidegger si-a modificat , uneori radical , conotatia, in vreme ce  temporalitatea fundamentala a ramas – si va ramane –  nedisociata dpotentialitatea Ip.

Rezulta ca   spiritualitatea , constiinta , temporalitatea, natura , geneza in sens larg nu  pot fi reduse la prezenta omului in lume, antecedentza acestora devenind  tot mai evidenta  in raport cu emergenta fenomenului uman : pentru ca Heidegger sa poata  afirma  la un moment dat “ Existenta omului este in mod fundamental poetica “ a fost necesara o mobilizare concertata a resurselor ne-poetice,  pre-umane ( poiesis-ul fiind, prin excelenta, un referential uman ) ale  Lumii ca fiinta, altfel spus ale… noului Dasein.

Despre acor-dare ( Attunement  ).Vindecarea la distanta prin rugaciune

O atentie speciala merita si statutul metodologic al esentei   originare care prefigureaza  dezvoltarea fiintei sub forma unui proiect ( design, Entwurf ) plasat nu in real ci  in potentialul posibil,de unde confera sistemului autenticitate si / sau salvare. Este vorba aici despre relatia de tip special dintre selful potential si selful real, cel din urma  fiind cel precedat si determinat ( neunivoc), lasandu-i-se  sansa alegerii, inclusiv a alegerii de sine, spre bine sau spre rau . In conferinta sa dedicata “Principiului Identitatii “ Heidegger afirma rolul decisiv al  das Er-eignis in atingerea  fiintarii esentiale de catre om : “ Dobandirea- conferire a Propriului ( das Er-eignis )  este domeniul care vibreaza  in sine ( se poate citi: fundamental , subl.mea , FF ) prin care om si fiinta  ajung fiecare in esenta celuilalt, isi dobandesc  fiintarea esentiala ( Wesende ) , pierzand acele determinatii  pe care metafizica  li le-a atribuit. “ Heidegger face o distinctie principiala intre posibilitatile potentiale si posibilitatile contingente, de tip empiric, cele din urma fiind aplicabile  numai  lucrurilor pasive ( in care caz o anumita stare posibila  se poate realiza  sau nu ); traditional,  posibilitatea  contingenta a fost considerata net  inferioara  atat actualitatii cat si necesitatii; Heidegger denunta aceasta ierarhie existentiala  arbitrara considerand posibilul , mai cu seama in  varianta sa potentiala ( cand , spre exemplu , o samantza  prefigureaza aproape indubitabil planta / arborele  sau cand   potentialitatea unei persoane directioneaza cu minima contingenta dezvoltarea   propriilor  facultati si predispozitii, innascute ) ca fiind mai presus decat orice actualitate ( vezi Sein und Zeit , pp143-44 ); aici este pusa si rezolvata corect problema relatiei dintre esenta si existenta, invers decat  o face J.P.Sartre a carui inconsistenta metodologica este binecunoscuta :  pentru a –si promova propriile optiuni…ideologice, in speta  preferinta pentru ateism – Sartre nu se sfieste sa puna caruta inaintea cailor, considerand  esenta derivata din…existenta . Lui Sartre – si celor ca el , nu putini, oricand dispusi sa subordoneze adevarul unor aranjamente ideologice – li se potriveste de minune adagiul lui Ralph Waldo EMERSON : “ Most people  would rather die  than think. In fact they do. “

Preeminenta esentei ( designului ) fata de existenta: aceasta pozitie  implica, intre altele, preeminenta selectiei naturale intrinseci / esentiale  fata de selectia uzuala , extrinseca; acest aspect va fi dezvoltat pe acest blog sub titlul ” Selectia naturala in sens larg. Caracterul extrinsec al Darwinismului ” ).  Existenta in natura a unui ” proiect “ waiting to unfold este tot mai des si mai raspicat afirmata in cunoasterea contemporana , non- cartesiana , ca in cazul   lui Stuart KAUFFMAN care considera ca  darwinismul ortodox  si corelativa sa  “ accidental machine “ sunt  insuficiente  pentru explicarea  aparitiei ordinii inalte a  sistemelor complexe din natura si societate, indicand spre rolul special care revine autoorganizarii inerente acestor sisteme: “ There is an order  in nature  waiting to unfold – a natural  direction  to evolution pulling evolved forms toward  complexity. Morphogenesis, or the growth of form, may be at least partially a consequence  of inherent self-organization. “ Ideea unei “ inherent self – organization “  poate si trebuie sa fie aplicata tuturor  sistemelor chimice (  vezi capitolul  “ Original Situation  in Chemistry: is atomism fundamental ?  Russian chemists’ suggestion: See the Big Picture! “ Sectiunea  Alive ( the Living Thing ) in Broad Sense, pe acest blog ), precum si, intr-o forma generalizata – Lumii ca fiinta.

In mai multe postari pe acest blog am incercat sa  combin sugestiile  generoase referitoare la  acor-darea de catre Intreg ( prin intermediul esentei originare, respectiv al caracteristicilor fundamentale  “ existentialia “ ) datorate lui Heidegger, cu contributia  inspirata a lui Roger PENROSE , care  postuleaza  rolul  de prim rang jucat de Eidos-urile  platoniciene in edificarea si functionarea constiintei fiintei autentice; in acest context ( controversat, desigur , dar  mult mai putin controversat decat promovarea  cartesianismului  intr-o lume  evident non-cartesiana ! ), Fig.9 este o reprezentare geometrizata a raporturilor fizice dintre esenta originara ( traseul Penrose – Heidegger ) si fiinta electrica / electric being –   cea care  receptioneaza prin rezonanta / sincronizare mesajele din  potentialul – posibil  si care  ghideaza, la randul ei, generarea /  regenerarea fiintei solide prin curenti electro-magnetici  specifici. Chiar in situatiile – limita , cand ponderea esentei reale contrafacute devine predominanta ( selful  real  tinzand spre decuplarea de esenta sa originara ), Natura ca fiinta  – care promoveaza intregii,  neingaduind distrugerea si nici macar perturbarea lor excesiva – ofera fiintei individuale ( my own Dasein ) o ultima sansa : salvarea / vindecarea / rearmonizarea cu esenta originara  sau …disparitia. Asa se face ca realitatea care ne inconjoara , realitatea durabila ( inclusiv umana )  nu este una oarecare ci este o realitate acor-data, creierul , organismul , societatea, planeta Pamant (  vezi modelul Gaia, prezentat  succinct pe acest blog  ), universul insusi fiind intregi predominant coerenti.

Paradigma  vibratorie , valida ca model atat in real cat si in potentialul – posibil, considera Lumea ca fiinta  constituita nu din corpuri solide ( ca in viziunea  newtoniana ) ci din  campuri / fields , fiintele fiind  reprezentate ca niste oscilatori cu amortizare susceptibili de  comunicare in sensul cel mai larg posibil ( prin rezonanta, sincronizare, coerenta ). De aici rezulta posibilitatea principiala si de fapt a  readucerii acestor oscilatori din situatii sub-optime ( de tip decuplarea esentelor , Fig. 9 ), la o stare  de re-cuplare, proces  de natura  spiritual / ondulatorie, bazat pe rezonanta intre sisteme / campuri distincte desi inrudite ( apropiate ca frecventa ), desemnat uzual prin termeni ca salvare, vindecare . Vizand re-cuplarea esentelor , salvarea / vindecarea utilizeaza intentiile si rugaciunea pentru a promova  vindecarea de la distanta ( distant healing ) – forma de acor-dare extrinseca, a carei  eficienta terapeutica a fost deja multiplu si  convingator  stabilita pe cale stiintifica. Dr. Larry DOSSEY a abordat cu seriozitate si curaj  acest fenomen ( pe care el l-a numit “ nonlocal mind “ ) prezentandu-l  atat in conferinte  si articole cat si in monografia   “ Reinventing Medicine “ – Beyond mind-body, to a new era of healing, editata la Harper SanFrancisco in 1999. Dr. Dossey urmeaza cu dezinvoltura  liniile de forta ale gandirii neconventionale promovate  de unii  savanti renumiti, deschisi spre orizontul spiritual cum ar fi: fizicianul Henry MARGENAU ( cu contributii – cheie in fizica moderna ) si biologul George WALD , laureat al Premiului Nobel pt. biologie  care a declarat  textual : “ MIND rather than emerging  as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always … the SOURCE AND CONDITION OF PHYSICAL REALITY. “ ( subl. mea , FF ). Cat despre reactia scepticilor  de serviciu cu privire la fenomenul “ misticoid “ al  nonlocal mind,   Dr. Dossey ( la pag. 84 a cartii amintite ), are o referinta demna de retinut :

“ Skeptics may moan , bellow, howl, and whine, as they did against gravity, but NONLOCAL MIND IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME .” ( din nou , subl.mea, FF ). Sau in traducere libera : Scepticii pot sa murmure, etc… asa cum au facut-o si impotriva gravitatiei, dar  mintea ( spiritualitatea ) nonlocala este o idee  a carei vreme, iata , a venit .” Voi reveni la extraordinarul Dr. Dossey intr-o postare  viitoare intitulata : Premonitiamesaje  din  potentialitatea ( in curs de actualizare ) ?, dedicata lucrarii sale recente ” The Power of Premonitions “.

Cancerul, Dr. Hamer si …Politia Culturala Damboviteana

Posted by on Sunday, 14 March, 2010

In anii 2008 / 2009  obisnuiam sa  particip ca vizitator la rubricile de sanatate ale  ” Evenimentului Zilei ” – Bucuresti , pana cand am observat ca  si WM  obisnuia sa -mi trimita  interventiile  ” la carantina ” pentru cateva ore , nu mai mult…Asa ca am luat , atunci , hotararea ca pana in 2010  sa nu mai colaborez   ca vizitator . Astazi , martie 14 ,  mi-am luat inima in dinti si , fiind …2010, am trimis  EvZ  doua  note  intitulate ” Dar Intregul ? “, pentru a  corija intrucatva tonul hiper – bombastic al unui articol intitulat nu mai putin bombastic “ Omul care detine secretul cancerului “. Daca WM m-ar fi expediat  din nou  in Sala de asteptare  pe durate tipic …dambovitene , as fi intrerupt din nou colaborarea  cu ziarul pe  alti 1-2 ani. Nu a fost asa. A fost altfel: cele doua interventii au aparut prompt  dar, surpriza …au disparut la fel de prompt cu articolul  de baza cu tot din sumarul editiei on line. In cateva minute… de parca Elena Ceausescu  ar fi stat la panda …non-stop si eficient. Eu intreb : daca procedura nu este  Politie , este totusi…culturala? In cele ce urmeaza  incerc sa repar aceasta  neplacuta ….desincronizare ( pe care romanii din tara nu trebuie sa o accepte  sub nicio forma , intrucat se va extinde devenind ” fara frontiere ” ),  reproducand  cate ceva din ” dosarul disparut ”  aproape instantaneu  , desi materialul era efectiv demn de atentie. Pentru cei interesati de detalii privind ” modelul  cancerogenezei ” propus de Dr. german Hamer, amintesc  ca pe acest blog  exista   postarea ( detaliata si in limba romana  ) cu titlul ” Vindecarea in sens larg…” Voi incheia cu mesajul extrem de generos care se desprinde din modelul Dr. Hamer : Fiti fericiti !

Omul care deţine secretul cancerului

Alina Vătăman
Duminică, 14 Martie 2010
S-a născut în România, pe care a părăsit-o la vârsta de 7 ani, pentru America. Acolo s-a desăvârşit ca om, dar şi ca pofesionist în domeniul geneticii, ajungând la un pas de Premiul Nobel. Face parte dintre aceia care, odată ajunşi peste hotare, au tăria să îşi afirme originile româneşti şi este printre puţinii români plecaţi din ţară care recunosc că, odată ajuns în ”lumea nouă”, identitatea naţională se pierde încet, încet. Cu toate acestea, la 31 de ani de la despărţirea de ţară, vorbeşte limba română impecabil.

Profesorul Victor Velculescu este iubit şi mai ales apreciat în întreaga lume pentru tenacitatea pe care a dovedit-o atunci când a pornit o luptă cu duşmanul tăcut al omului, cancerul. Ştie că există tratament pentru acesta, dar că descoperirea unui medicament care să trateze toate tipurile de cancer este paractic imposibilă, însă el însuşi afirmă că punerea bazelor unor metode eficiente de tratare definitivă a cancerelor a rămas doar o chestiune de timp, întrucât primii paşi au fost făcuţi.

La 25 de ani, a descoperit metoda SAGE – Serial Analysis of Gene Expression, care permite identificarea genelor modificate de cele normale la scală mare şi deschide noi orizonturi în cercetarea cancerului. După numai zece ani de la revoluţionara descoperire, românul-american aduce noi speranţe în ceea ce priveşte prevenirea şi tratarea celor mai frecvente forme de cancer, cel de sân şi cel de colon.

Într-un interviu exclusiv acordat evz.ro, profesorul Victor Velculescu explică în ce constă noua metodă, care sunt avantajele ei, ce speranţe are cu privire la tratamentul cancerului şi cum vede salvarea medicinei româneşti, a cărei valoare este incontestabilă, dar prea puţin stimulată.

Iata si interventiile mele , semnate ca de obicei cu nick name-ul Caterinca :

  1. Dar Intregul?

    de Caterinca(Vizitator), duminică, 14 martie 2010 – 17:09

    Il felicit sincer pe Dr. Velculescu pt. performantele sale profesionale, dar am ample rezerve:amandoi suntem cetateni americani preocupati de cancer  si facem parte din clasa BP doar ca el tine de ” Big Pharma ” ( interesata de profit maxim si sigur, respectiv de tratamente , nu de preventie si cura) iar eu de ” Big Picture”, cu accent pe intelegerea cauzala a acestei boli, a acelui “ceva” situat inainte si dincoace de gene.Sincer nu-i doresc sa se cancerizeze cumva , fiindca , sunt sigur , nu genetica dansului il va ajuta sa se vindece. Interesanta si sugestia ( de asemenea unilaterala ) cu hiper-amplificarea imunitatii. Ambele abordari scapa ceva esential din vedere: Intregul.Aici intra in primul rand factorul psihic- sufletul care , chiar cand este invocat, este tratat cu superficialitate, ca un argument second hand. Si totusi , trebuie sa recunoastem( si sa nu uitam! ) un lucru esential : oamenii fericiti  nu fac cancer! Voi reveni daca WM nu ma tine iarasi in carantina.

  2. Dar Intregul ? ( II )

    de Caterinca(Vizitator), duminică, 14 martie 2010 – 17:30

    Multumiri, WM!
    Iata un caz real , extrem de sugestiv:o doamna a reusit dupa 9 ani sa ramana gravida ( pierdea sarcina prin luna 5/6 ) si era f. fericita impreuna cu sotul, pana cand s-a intalnit cu…Intregul:intr-o seara, repezindu-se sa deschida usa , s-a impiedicat de carpeta , baiatul ( de 3 luni ) s-a lovit de calorifer si , in cateva saptamani a decedat. A urmat un cancer de san absolut rebel, cu deznodamant fatal. Ar fi ajutat-o genetica d-lui Velculescu , sau super-imunitatea rusilor? Greu de crezut. Ar fi ajutat-o insa , poate decisiv , SOTUL care insa nu a fost , sufleteste, alaturi reprosandu-i sotiei: nu, nu pot accepta asa ceva , am asteptat 10 ani acest copil si tu…In mijlocul acestui desert spiritual, mama = trestie fragila, s-a prabusit. Iata de ce am fost extrem de interesat de modelul Dr. german Hamer (model controversat la maxim, dar UMAN cat cuprinde). Fiti siguri, prieteni , Dr. Hamer cunoaste mult mai multe secrete despre cancer decat Dr. Velculescu.

  3. Si acum o surpriza :  voi reproduce ca pe  un  P.S. postarea  semnata Maria  , din EvZ , care m-a impresionat  prin  caldura  si maniera directa de a spune : Ma bucur ca ai revenit, Caterinca. Hello, Maria !

ce bine ca ai aparut
de maria(Vizitator), duminică, 14 martie 2010 – 20:25
Te salut Caterinca, te stiu din 2007 cand dadeai sfaturi despre cum trebuie baute ceaiurile. Am incercat sa beau ceaiul verde concentrat dar este oribil – 2-3 pliculete la ceasca. In ce priveste calciul si mie mi s-a dat supradoza pt osteoporoza si am ajuns sa am calculi in mucoasa ochiului. Am renuntat la calciu si am ramas doar cu microlitiaza la rinichi. Sfaturile dv sunt minunate. Sa fiti sanatos. Acum 25 de ani am avut cancer de san operat cu tot tratamentul chimic si radiolo-gic si am scapat!

4. Pentru Maria si toti prietenii mei ( multi ! ) din Romania , inclusiv …Dumitru Bortun: sunt sigur ca interventiile mele in favoarea Intregului ( care este in primul rand suflet dar nu numai suflet ) au fost bine primite . Daca este asa , atunci va datorez cateva detalii in plus , care  mi-au demonstrat  si mie, cu ani in urma , si vor face acelasi lucru si cu voi, astazi, un adevar   fundamental : cu Intregul nu trebuie sa te joci! Femeia  din cazul real era  o brazilianca ( f. apropiata ca suflet de romance )  i se spunea Lane dar eu ii ziceam  Helena. Sotul ei era american de origine maghiara , cu unele inflexibilitati ( duritati ), as zice destinale , fiindca pana la urma si-au pus pecetea pe  soarta familiei intregi.Eu nu am fost consultantul lor  in probleme de sanatate  ci ” numai ” un prieten. Dupa funeralii, simtindu-ma oarecum distant / distantat, Sotul  m-a interpelat  cu o oarecare ezitare ( stia  ca in materie de adevar eu sunt necrutator, cu mine si cu altii ) : ” Simt ca ma condamni . Tu cum ai fi procedat? ” Dupa raspunsul meu , pornit din inima , am izbucnit amandoi in plans ca niste…omuleti ( ceea ce si suntem! ) : ” Eu?…i-as fi pupat talpile.”  De ce chiar talpile ? Am mai multe explicatii : Helena a facut pasii aceia imprudenti   ( spre usa) din dragoste , fusese aproape singura toata ziua si  se bucura nespus sa curme aceasta singuratate; dar mai cu seama  ea trebuia sa simta extrem de intens ca , dupa accidentarea fatala a copilului, ea, vinovata , ramane totusi in centrul Universului familial.Replica sotului – inflexibil – a avut urmarile cunoscute . Ceea ce nu stiti inca e ca,  dupa aproape 3 ani de singuratate vinovata, sotul insusi a fost rapus de…cancer, cu toate  eforturile  depuse la  una dintre cele mai mari clinici americane. Concluzia mea , a noastra , nu poate fi alta decat : avem nevoie unii de ceilalti , dar nu oricum ci in conditii de deplina autenticitate.

Cineva ( Daniel- un roman  din Canada ) mi-a pus o  intrebare ( de fapt doua ) prin e mail: Cum  putem deosebi un  ” inteligent ” de un” intelept “, ce-i lipseste lui Dinu Patriciu  ca sa fie ” intelept ” ?

Raspunsul meu : criteriul cel mai bun este  atitudinea  fata de Intreg. Managementul serios / eficient al Intregului = intelepciune ( aici D.P. este  lacunar, chiar daca nu-si da seama, sau refuza sa recunoasca ); inteligentii sunt mari maestri ( cartesieni ! ) in manipularea partii, dar ajunsi in zona Intregului  recurg la aceeasi manipulare si rezultatele , uneori catastrofale, urmeaza imediat. Atentie: nu poti fi cu adevarat fericit in afara intelepciunii!Cineva  m-a “provocat” sustinand ca intelepciunea mea ( atata cata e ) s-ar datora studiului filosofiei.  Foarte departe de adevar: : nu studiul  te face intelept ( poate erudit, dar este cu totul altceva) ci mai curand suferinta si in primul rand suferinta despartirii: de cei dragi, de tara, de tine insuti ( de clovnul numit ” ego”, cum spunea Jung).Semnul ca esti cu adevarat intelept este sa te simti chirias pe aceasta lume, inclusiv ( sau mai ales ) in propria-ti piele. Miraculos, abia atunci iti dai seama ca…lumea este a ta: intr-un mod  neposesiv, nearogant, subtil. Nu identificati managementul onest  cu manipularea agresiva  altfel , oricum v-ati numi , veti fi taxati metodologic ( adesea ” amenda ” aplicata se numeste cancer ). Gabriel Liiceanu si Andrei Plesu – pe care eu i-am considerat  nu printi ai culturii (masluiti la Paltinis ) ci sperante autentice ale noii spiritualitati romanesti pe care ar fi trebuit sa o edificam impreuna, au iesit din managementul cultural onest  ( daca au fost candva cu adevarat acolo ) preferand  manipularea si…tautologia culturala. Ceea ce-i diferentiaza , in esenta , de Dinu Patriciu este  …cravata portocalie. Dincolo de aparente – examinati prin microscopul spiritual care nu minte – toti  sunt pe cat de inteligenti pe atat de certati cu fericirea/ intelepciunea. Ei si, vor spune unii, fericirea a devenit deja demult  un concept pastoral. Asa o fi…desi mie nu-mi iese din minte  o intrebare fundamentala  a Bibliei ( Matei, 16:26), care nu tine seama de culoarea sezoniera a  cravatei: ” Si ce ar folosi unui om sa castige toata lumea , daca si-ar pierde sufletul? ”

Doua intrebari – cheie  de la neprietenii mei din Romania

Gusti si Damian  sunt  doua persoane – presupun – diferite care, prin e mail , m-au rugat sa le raspund fie si punctual la intrebarile lor “ de bun simt “. Iata  intrebarile lor ( stilizate )  si raspunsurile mele :

1.  ( G. ) Sunt unul dintre cei  care au utilizat – atat ca profesor cat si  ca autor – in mod repetat termenul de Dasein  in traducerea lui G.L. “ fiinta-in-deschis “ si o voi face probabil si in viitor , nu fiindca ar fi o varianta fara cusur dar mie imi pare  conforma cu teza  lui Noica ( inchiderea ce se deschide ) si chiar cu  unele formulari heideggeriene similare. De ce credeti ca ar trebuie sa ma” reprofilez” si   sa  prefer noutatile Dv.?

 

Domnu’ Gusti, eu iti apreciez sincer consecventa si chiar te rog sa ramai pe pozitii ! Totusi parerea mea – la care tin –  este ca formularile  de tipul celei  mentionate  vin pe linia “ usoara “ a culturii / filosofiei independent de  existenta unor variante  similare   consacrate…cu multe decenii in urma. Dupa aproape 100 ani de la aparitia lucrarii lui von Bertalanffy ( care a fost  biolog ) dedicata tipurilor de sisteme , e limpede ca genul fiintei  ( biologice ) nu poate fi   sistemul inchis ci sistemul deschis. “Inchiderea ce se deschide “ s-a dorit a fi, probabil, o replica data cartesianismului cu “ in sine “-le sau dez-articulant. Daca asa stau lucrurile ,e greu de acceptat sa ( mai ) definesti un  sistem deschis in / prin…deschisul  sau. Iar, intrucat ne raportam la  om cred ca putem si trebuie sa gasim criterii de definitie  adecvate cerintelor de azi, de exemplu acor-darea.

 

  1. ( D. ) Sugestia editarii unei lucrari  intitulata  tendentios “Dupa Noica “, la doar cateva decenii de la disparitia acestuia, imi pare  inconsistenta. Pe cine credeti ca ar interesa astazi, in Romania,  o asemenea carte ?

Termenul “ tendentios “  nu este tocmai bine ales , asa incat eu il voi corela cu tendinta mea- evidenta pentru insideri – spre o armonizare cu colegii mei din tara, din pacate , dez-uniti dupa mai bine de 2 decenii de la …revolutie. Dr. L.Turcu reprosa recent intelectualilor  ca nu au reusit sa  armonizeze  clasa politica din Romania, pe baza unei platforme minimale dar eficiente. Reprosul meu este mai modest, referindu-se la  dezbinarea  clara a intelectualilor insisi: cum deci ar putea ei sa armonizeze pe altii? Daca sugestia mea  s-ar implini – nu am sperante prea mari  fiindca mediul dambovitean  nu mi-e chiar necunoscut – urmatorul pas ar putea fi crearea unei Academii “ NOICA “ fie si sub forma unei scoli fillosofice de vara. Este de la sine inteles – daca ati urmarit cat de cat blogul meu – ca  pot scrie  eu insumi  “ Dupa Noica “ in mai putin de  100 zile, iar daca o voi publica sub titlul “ Jurnalul de la Baltinis “, va intreb eu de data asta : pe cine credeti ca nu ar interesa ? Intr-o varianta preliminara, manuscrisul circula deja  in familie si la prieteni iar sugestiile de tiraj primite sunt  cu adevarat…tendentioase.

Detachments

Posted by on Monday, 8 March, 2010

The detachment away from a dominant situation – a mentor, a superior consciousness, a generally accepted viewpoint – constitutes a given or acquired opportunity which can be equally used in a constructive or destructive manner. In the following, assuming the risk of some unavoidable repetitions, I will try to render several of my own conceptual – methodological detachments toward some of the well known scientists or philosophers  such as: G.W.F. Hegel, N. Bohr, I. Prigogine, D. Bohm, M. Heidegger, C. Noica, detachments representing for my readers some obvious thinking progresses or at least some alternative elaborations worth considering and eventually developing on their own.

1. Detachment from Noica

  • Space versus Time

Defining the 19th century as historism century, the 20th century as science / structural century and 21st century as a spiritual age, Noica does not miss the … opportunity to assert – in evident contradiction with recent science history – that the central role should be now attributed to the Space idol (??) even though the essence of  Space is a material one, while the time essence being a spiritual one seems to be much more appropriate. Look at the Noician wisdom at work (Jurnalul de la Paltinis, Bucharest, 1991):

“we continue to remain at the linear time image of Chronos, …the time has this way a dire genesis, one that can not be lost despite all the attempts made to it to ennoble. I often asked myself why the Greeks have a deity for time but not one for space. This is an interesting thing: when you truly uncover the space, as we did it in this 20th century, the time is swallowed by the space, becoming its 4th dimension, as in Einstein’s case…Space is a conquest of the modern era. Today’s mathematics belong to the Space (…), they being centered on geometrization and topology. Therefore those who such as Bergson or Heidegger, presently remain attached to the time problem, they appear to me to be late. We need to leave the time problem and to make the Space an idol, a good one not destructive one such as Chronos…”.

A little while ago, the physics of 20th century, following Einstein suggestions, had already made the attempt to idolize Space but the results have immediately proven that… not Bergson and Heidegger were the ones late but rather Noica  as it results from the following excerpt:

Spatial Theory of Matter (Florin Felecan, Filozofia Fizicii, Bucuresti, 1984, p. 277):

Stimulated by the success realized in gravitational field geometrization within general theory of relativity (A. Einstein), the try to construct a field generalized theory (as a generalization of Riemannian geometry), actually continues the series of attempts to reduce the physics (P) to geometry (G), inspired by non-classical ideas of non-Euclidian geometries. Following the Einsteinian adagio “ Space absorbs matter ( 1930 ) “, one of the geometrodynamics principles postulates “ in world there is nothing but a curved vacuum space… physics is geometry.”  This spectacular transmutation (postulated!) of the ( physical ) content in ( geometrical ) form, has certain (non-decisive) methodological reasons. However, geometrodynamics has not justified expectations as a unifying approach and the construction of physical objects just from the unique existence of cvadridimensional S – T has proven illusory. J. Wheeler himself  (the main promoter of geometrodynamics ) was forced to recognize (1971) the principial incompleteness  of his purist approach, underlining “ the fundamental and indispensable, ontological role played by entities and processes of a different nature than S – T.” This primer, of a physical essence, was  euphemistically designated by Wheeler, by the term “pre-geometry”.

Lastly, in a recent post on this blog (see “ Time in Broad Sense. The Spiritual Essence of Time ” ) it is asserted that time is in no way “swallowed” by space (conf. Einstein, Noica) but rather conversely, within the non-Cartesian knowledge horizon, time being tightly connected with possibility, is more noble and more generative than space, that is associated with real.

The “retro”  Noician option has been expressed ( publicly and therefore highly puzzling ) exactly when the main methodological requirement should have been:   go decisively into the authentic time problem and not through a random gate (and definitely not through Einstein’ realist – dogmatic gate !) but rather through the living being gate, opened ( just opened! ) by Heidegger.  As I will show in detachment no. 2, Heidegger himself did not understand how to efficiently harmonize  time and being, only having access to the narrow traditional meanings of the two categories. After I understood the Noician huge perspective error, the Paltinis master himself did not conjure my interest anymore only considering his contribution as a refined, subtle historian of traditional philosophy as well as a talented feuilleton style author of recent cultural problems. What should have been done by Liiceanu and Plesu in a significant and profound manner after the Noica’s disappearance? In my opinion:

  • To completely finish the project “Devenirea intru fiinta” (Becoming within Being) noticing that time penetrating into being ( simultaneously with becoming ) changes its nature ( timpul se in-fiinteaza) therefore leaving the Cartesian corset of duration ( escaping from the clock model )  and this way becomes a living measurable ratio; I have expressed this ratio as an authentic, continuous  pulsation /synthesis between potential and real, respectively Ip / Ir. In this way time is descending (gliding in Eminescian terms) along its potential ray into real, not arbitrarily but in a very special manner aiming toward genuine inseparability (timpul  intru fiinta ). From here – unlimited possibilities to a diversified approach of the new living time ( let’s not forget that Heidegger, our contemporary , was planning to consider the rapport Time / Being still in a… transcendental horizon / modus, at best placing the ( linear ! ) time somewhere between separability and inseparability). How did Noica and his team react toward this very interesting opportunity? Actually they turned their back to this unique chance, asserting “ we need to leave the time problem.”
  • Another very generous complementary project which had to be developed was “ Fiinta intru devenire ” (Being within Becoming); evidently here death / breaking-up has to be primarily considered since modern society itself is organized not into a pastoral environment ( in which what is becoming, it is not ) but effectively into a hazardous becoming environment often designated as “ at the edge of chaos “.  In this new  context ( still ignored or undervalued ) it could have been possible to immediately develop the mediation category ( just introduced in a rudimentary form by Heidegger – another outstanding opportunity to develop!) and it could have been formulated for the 1st time  the new authenticity criterion of living being: what is becoming, it is.

2. Detachment from Heidegger

Heidegger’s philosophical work, even though unfinished / interrupted ( methodologically interrupted ! ) is characterized by a unrivalled depth and subtlety within the contemporary history of thinking / knowledge,  making  very difficult any honest attempt to assimilate, any professional translation and even more any development attempt!   This extraordinary complexity (suggested by the  Dasein- schema reproduced below) comes from Heidegger’s ambition ( however unfulfilled ) to edify a fundamental ontology which would harmoniously situate the human being as genuine being within a genuine being world. From my perspective, the main explanation of his work being interrupted – I particularly refer to the temporal interpretation of the Being idea, intended for Division Three – is that Heidegger did not successfully separated himself from the linear methodology, e.g. the traditional  time (worth mentioning that nonlinear time together with “ physis situation ” would have provided him with access to the general theory of genesis in which the time / potentiality generates new non-linear beings while concomitantly invalidating the old, linear / tautological  beings; don’t forget : being  a non-linear entity, Dasein, in its  narrow and broad sense, asks for a non-linear approach / interpretation ! ). Similarly, his just as ambitious project, concerning Dasein generalization much beyond its connotation of human reality has proven unattainable in the absence of some helping methodological concepts such as alive in broad sense and physis situation recently elaborated by myself.


(click on the image for full resolution)

In the following I will present a short list of some  lacking or precarious methodological aspects which have considerably slowed the development of Heidegger’s work :

  • Nebulous Hedeggerian image about the “ new thinking / knowledge ”.
  • Methodological helping concepts: alive in broad sense , physis situation and Dasein generalization.
  • The new ( nonlinear ) time concept and genuine historicity.
  • Fundamental ontology and existence in broad sense.
  • The new criterion of being / living being  authenticity.
  • Inseparability and tuning / attunement
  • Pathways of metaphysics overtaking: poetry ( Holderlin ) or computerized images ( infographics )?
  • The new status of subjectivity: inorganic subjectivity ( self activity of things ).

2.1   Is this  the new thinking / knowledge ?

” We need an essentially new way  of thinking  if mankind is to survive. ” Albert EINSTEIN

In his interview ( Der Spiegel, 1966 / 1976 ) Heidegger touches the interesting problem of a new thinking / knowledge modality which would prepare our readiness of expectation. Asked if at the base of this renewal we would find an  European traditional thinking or an  Eastern one (such as Zen buddhism ), Heidegger replied: “ Thinking will only be transformed by a thinking that has the same origin and destiny.” Unfortunately Heidegger was unable to provide any further details in regards to this new development, only mentioning that the European tradition will be transcended in a Hegelian sense. In the following it is presented the new content of non-Cartesian knowledge transcendentally related to the traditional / modern thinking / knowledge.

The modern knowledge ( Cartesian values ) / the contemporary knowledge ( non-Cartesian values )

  1. Central category: Thing / Living Being
  2. Original essence: Matter / Spirit
  3. Reference existential category: Real / Potential
  4. Defining approach: Linear / Nonlinear
  5. Reference systems: closed, stable ( monadic, integrable ) / opened, unstable
  6. Intersystemic connection: weak ( separability ) / synconnection ( inseparability )
  7. Thinking type:  Cogito ( calculus ) / Living emotional thinking, etc.

What has substantially new intervened? There are some main aspects:

  • the opening of any type of real toward possible and correlatively the establishing – firstly in physics of high energy and in quantum mechanics – of objective character of potentiality ( potential – possible states );
  • recognizing the decisive role of the control exerted by the whole through communication / information in selection and development ( especially – Heideggerian principle of attunement / tuned reality );
  • recognizing the primordial role of unstable systems / states in development / becoming ;
  • promotion of the active – creative role of subject / subjectivity and correlatively of the spiritual factor in becoming of existence in broad sense ( real + possible ).
  • a  new, ecological attitude toward Nature : from nature as a mean ( of production, etc. ) toward Nature as a genuine living thing.

2.2 Dasein in broad sense

The main Heideggerian work “ Being and Time ” has been probably interrupted due to some methodological reasons ( its author suggesting in a Note to “ On the Essence of Truth ” just that it was deliberately left undeveloped ); from the analysis of Heideggerian texts, my dominant impression is that the author was methodologically halted somewhere between linear and nonlinear without being able to clearly conceive what and especially how to further develop. The appearance of some unusual difficulties of nonlinear type, would be absolutely normal taking in consideration that Dasein  represents par excellence an open, hyper-articulated, nonlinear entity, and the world as living thing was / is unconceivable in the absence of physis situation also centered on nonlinearity.

Two more benchmarks in supporting this viewpoint:

  • Hardly, contextually overcome difficulties concerning the meaning differentiation ( “ spatial and non-spatial ” ) of preposition “in”, differentiation which normally aims not toward spatial but rather toward linear / analytical / cartesian signification and ( in relation to the human Dasein ) toward nonlinear / synthetical /non-cartesian signification; shortly: in / separability versus in / inseparability.
  • The conceiving of Being’s temporality as a transcendental horizon (with three ecstasies: future, past, present) into a historical moment in which the nonlinear time penetrates living being as a living, fluctuant pulsation controlled not by duration (the above mentioned ecstasies remaining under the sign of duration) but rather by potential / real ratio ( see “ Time in Broad Sense ” ). To mention that in the non-cartesian horizon characterized as “ distinct, inseparable ” any transcendental changes its traditional nature, opening toward other entities, a good example being provided by Plato’s Eidos (Forms, Ideas) which presently function as a “ potential self ”, controlling things / beings (the “ real self ”). Interesting enough, the last interpretation (time as living pulsation or non-duration) allows the consideration of the temporality of every Dasein not as a quality / category deriving from personal experience but rather as an existentialia or “ a possible way of living being ” respectively as a fundamental temporal characteristic  a priori contained into originary, potential essence of each and every living being (design,  Entwurf ); a new duration? not at all,  this ” potential duration ” being  not a parameter but rather a function under  your  non-univocal  control: you are co-author ( to better or  to worse ) of your own design!

In this elaboration of my detachment from Heidegger, concerning the widening of human Dasein extension / connotation, I have relied on a series of very interesting methodological suggestions such as:

  • Considering the choice / selection as a fundamental characteristic of future physics ( Russian physicist N.A. UMOV, 1900);
  • The non-traditional idea expressed by D. BOHM ( in an interview with F.D. Peat ) according to which the future quantum physics must have the characteristic of a quantum organism (rather than quantum mechanics );
  • The suggestion of J. MARSHALL that the wave function ( from quantum mechanics ) has such mathematical characteristics that favor the emergence  / evolution  of life and consciousness : the universe has an innate tendency toward life and consciousness: they are ultimately due to the mathematical properties of quantum wave function which favors the evolution of life and consciousness.
  • The exceptional inter-disciplinary works  by Dr. Mae-Wan HO ( elaborated when still active at The open University, UK ), particularly “The Rainbow and the Worm – the Physics of Organism, 2nd Ed. , 1998, centered on…the simple question formulated with many decades before by E. Schrodinger: What is Life?
  • J. JEANS: the universe is a great thinking (through this Jeans does not move away from the living being but rather, as underlined by Heidegger himself with reference to a Parmenide’s thesis, “ here the heterogeneous is thought, thinking and living being as Same (das Selbe).”
  • A.N. WHITEHEAD: we cannot understand nature except as an organism
  • Last but not least:M.  Heidegger himself underlined several times the necessity of broadening of Dasein (extension and content) – the world of Dasein  existing only as a world / living  thing. As I will show in the following the human Dasein has been preceded by the …new Dasein, in other words “ cogito ergo sum ” was preceded by “ allego ergo sum ” = I choose therefore  I am ). Indeed the Nature (“ World ”) has been in detail prepared for the emergence of the human phenomenon ( in any case the human being did not get thrown, from the beginning, in a hostile world defined by crime, wars, cancers ). Darwinism, co-evolution ( system / environment ), etc. appear more and more as being the final, exterior  touches of a  much more elaborated process / program, codified somewhere into the existence’s depth, eventually on Planck scale (10 – 33 cm.), as suggested by Roger PENROSE in a highly speculative , highly controversial – and why not? – equally genial manner.

2.3  The Nonlinear Revolution and the New Dasein

The traditional science and knowledge in general were based on the linear methodology according to which the outcome is always directly proportional with the stimulus;  in the summative condition involved by linearity the genuine Whole ( “ World ” in the case of Heideggerian thinking ) cannot be achieved or even maintained. In the nonlinear situation which revolutionized the modern knowledge, the proportionality stimulus / outcome is breached; without altering the essential data of the linear world, the nonlinear approach provides a new conceptual frame, efficient methods and patterns to achieve / maintain the Whole, as well as understanding and controlling of the complex systems of the Dasein type and equally the far from equilibrium processes (the case of becoming and / or genuine being).  In the far from equilibrium states, the systems have totally different behaviors  in comparison with the equilibrium or near to equilibrium states, since through nonlinearity the system comes to a totally different space of possibilities, drastically raising the number of accessible states and correlatively the system’s ability to make alternative choices / selections (organizational instability, see Fig. 1 ).  Moreover, the potential barrier between actualized / realized states on one side and the potential / possible ones on the other side significantly diminishes, the system becoming very sensitive to small variations ( fluctuations ) of the internal or external parameters; this sui generis situation has been previously presented on this blog under the name of  “ activation of possible ”.

In the very special area of the bifurcation point P (Fig. 1) the usual ratio between necessity and chaos is changing in favor of stochasticity: this time

Fig. 1   Prigogine Point: the psychic ( spirituality ) insertion

selection / actualization of a certain state out of  the entire repertoire of potential / possible states of the systems (repertoire delimited by the kinetical equations) is  decisively controlled  by the stochastic factors ( fluctuations ). The point P named by me as point Prigogine ” has a special methodological significance because it marks the entrance of the system into the “ genuine historicity ” or in other words, the moment in which the system becomes alive in broad sense.  Moreover this point is critical in  the substantiation of continuity between physical / psychical because exactly here (as a consequence of non-univocal selection = ontological premise of subjectivity: allego ergo sum = I choose therefore I am) the new non-biological Dasein is generated, this ( Prigogine ) point being  the alpha point of   any  psychology interested by its genuine genealogy!

For the Western thinking, the connection between the genuine being and historicity is a defining one. In this context becomes essential to be able to pinpoint the mechanism through which the new Dasein has access to genuine historicity. The following schema illustrates this mechanism concomitantly showing the necessary   physical premise ( nonlinearity and instability ) as well as the constitutive moment of genuine historicity – non-univocal selection:

Equilibrium ↔ Non-Equilibrium ↔ Nonlinearity ↔ Instability ↔ Non-univocal selection → Irreversibility → Historicity

The introduction of the new Dasein into  contemporary knowledge comes with some distinct methodological consequences:

  • The Heideggerian category Dasein as human reality is sensibly extended trough taking over from  Vorhandenheit of some active / activated systems susceptible to new, non-traditional manifestations which bring them close (without identifying them) to the human Dasein: subjectivity in broad sense, inseparability, becoming
  • Traditional contradiction between “ to exist ” (without “ to be ”) and “ to be ” is losing its fundamental character becoming empirical; rather, we will have to consider a genuine complementarity relationship between the two verbs / states since from now there are beings concomitantly and in different grades presenting existence and genuine being.
  • Nonlinear revolution, respectively the new methodological situation indicated  through the term “ physis situation ” ( see below ) is clearly and for the first time showing which conditions the Nature as living being would have to fulfill.

2.4 A new methodological situation


The modern science and knowledge have been characterized through the absence of some genuine Wholes (because linearity has impeded everywhere the formation and functioning of these Wholes, thus blocking the elaboration and promotion of inseparability); in the last decades the situation has radically changed to the point that it can be asserted the contemporary comprehension is indeed centered on inseparability. This extraordinary perspective change it is marked by some particular methodological landmarks:

  • Fuzzy logic – the collapse of dualism and recognizing of onto-logic legitimation of T states ( tertium states );

  • Attractors ( Strange attractors ) – a mathematical premise of introducing a generalized morphogenesis into the non-Cartesian model “ world as potentiality ”;

  • Non-univocal selection universal property of non-linear systems allowing the surprising insertion of a psychic moment (spirituality) in full physicalism;

  • The recognizing of universal applicability of quantum mechanics, beyond  micro-limits, making possible the elaboration of genesis in broad sense as well as the extension of quantum inseparability (entanglement) over all systems including the World as Living Being (see Fig. 2, a fundamental aspect that should not be omitted is the appearance of real from… nothing Fig. 2 a, b – a very special nothing such as the quantum vacuum; to mention that the fluctuations of this vacuum constitute the source of  all potentialities and therefore of the model “ World as potentiality ”);

  • Synthesis with harmonizator based on genuine complementarity between contradictories which overtakes the binary models of Cartesian / Hegelian inspiration providing for the first time a coherent pattern to effectively harmonize a world intrinsic diversified;

  • Dasein in broad (generalized) sense, centered on the principle “ allego ergo sum ” having a peculiar integrative signification since it promotes inseparability between the  Heideggerian Dasein and the new Dasein.

Inseparability designated by Heidegger by the key-term “ Being-in-the-World ” constitutes an existential frame offering to genuine living the unique chance of control by the Whole (Attunement) in two complementary versions: intrinsic one (through existentialia – fundamental term introduced by Heidegger conferring authenticity to the living being through das Er-eignis ) as well as an extrinsic one (through intentionality = vibratory processes  aiming to salvation involving communication in broad sense through synchronization, resonance, coherence (see chapter Attunement and Distant Healing below)

Fig. 2 Genesis in broad sense of the real: from pre-history (a) to quantum inseparability / entanglement (d). R = real horizon, P = potentiality

2.5 Inseparability and Dasein

Some details:  even though the Heideggerian Dasein represents a fundamental phenomenon, the elaboration of a Dasein in broad sense comes with some conceptual reconsiderations of great interest. For example, now we are constrained to clearly differentiate between Heideggerian “ world as living being ” and methodological category “ World as living being ”. Since the Heideggerian Dasein (my own Dasein) is distinguished by an extreme individuation ( specification ) both as real ( I am X ) and potential possible ( I can be Y ), the world as living being attached to this Dasein will necessarily be a unique, personal one, even though opened to other similar (unique) worlds. Therefore, the world as living being in Heideggerian sense represents a subsystem of the World as living being; the latter one that I will specify in the following with capital letter, results as an integral of all unique, finite subsystems. It is worth to underline some temporal peculiarities: the Heideggerian relationship between man and time is radically changed when we consider the extended category Dasein; world as living being is situated not in /separability time (the case of traditional metaphysics) but in / inseparability time: the man exists as time ( sich zeitigt), when there is no man there is no time. This last aspect – inaccurate if we refer to World as living being – I had it in mind when I have elaborated “time in broad sense” – a time of spiritual essence, centered on potentiality (Ip) directly related  to real (Ir), detaching myself from the human essence of Heideggerian time, centered on Sorge / Care. It is also necessary to distinguish between time in objective sense and the concept of time ( subjective sense ) which from Aristotle to Kant, and from Hegel to Heidegger has sometimes radically changed its connotation, while the fundamental temporality has remainedand will remain – undissociated from potentiality Ip.

Results that spirituality, consciousness, temporality, nature, genesis all considered in broad sense cannot be reduced to the human presence in the World, their antecedence becoming more and more evident in rapport with the emergence of human phenomenon: in order for Heidegger to assert at a given moment “ human existence is fundamentally poetic ” it was necessary a concertate mobilization of the non-poetical resources (poiesis being par excellence a human referential ) of the World as living being, in other words, of the new Dasein.

2.6 Attunement and Distant Healing

A special attention deserves the methodological status of original essence which prefigures the development of the living being as a design (Entwurf) situated not in real but in potential possible from where it confers the system authenticity and / or salvation.  We are dealing here with the special relationship between potential self and real self, the last being non-univocally determined by the first one. In his conference dedicated to Identity Principle, Heidegger asserts the decisive role of das Er-eignis in reaching of the essential living (Wesende) by man. Heidegger makes a principial distinction between contingent possibilities, of empirical nature, applicable only to passive things (in which case a certain possible state may be realized or not) and potential possibilities applicable to living beings.  Traditionally,  the contingent possibility has been considered net inferior in comparison with actuality and necessity; Heidegger denounces this arbitrary existential hierarchy considering possible, especially in his potential version ( when for example a seed prefigures almost doubtless the plant / tree ), as being above any actuality ( see Sein und Zeit, pp 143-144 ); here it is formulated and rightly resolved the key-problem of relation between essence / existence, opposite than J.P. Sartre whose methodological inconsistency is well known: to promote his own ideological options ( his preference for atheism ) Sartre was not reluctant to put the cart before the horse, considering that the essence is derived from existence.

Preeminence of the essence (design) toward existence is more and more clearly asserted in contemporary non-Cartesian knowledge, such in the case of Stuart KAUFFMAN who considers that orthodox Darwinism and its correlative “ accidental machine ” are insufficient to explain the appearance of high order complex systems from nature and society, pointing to the special role of their intrinsic self-organization:

“ There is an order in nature waiting to unfold – a natural direction to evolution pulling evolved forms toward complexity. Morphogenesis, or the growth of form, may be at least partially a consequence of inherent self-organization.”

The idea of inherent self-organization, can and it should be extended over all chemical systems as well as in a generalized form to World as living being.

The vibratory paradigm, valid as a model in real as well as in potential possible, considers World as living being constituted not from solid bodies (such as Newtonian world) but rather from fields, the living beings being represented as some damped oscillators  susceptible to communication in the largest possible sense through resonance / synchronization / coherence, resulting the possibility of bringing back of these oscillators from sub optimal situations ( such as uncoupling of the two essences), to a re-coupling state – process of a spiritual / wavy  nature usually designated as salvation / healing. For the purpose of essences re-coupling, salvation / healing utilize(s ) intentions / intentionality and prayer to promote the distant healing – form of extrinsic attunement whose therapeutic efficiency has already and repeatedly established in a scientific manner. Dr. Larry DOSSEY has seriously and courageously approached  this phenomena, named by him “ nonlocal mind ” presenting it in conferences/ articles as well as in his book “ Reinventing Medicine Beyond mind- body, to a new era of healing ”, Harper, San Francisco, 1999. Dr. Dossey  follows without any refrains the force lines of non-conventional thinking of some well known scientists, opened toward the spiritual horizon such as: physicist Henry MARGENAU ( having important contributions in modern physics ) and biologist George WALD ( Nobel prize for biology ) who textually declared: “ MIND rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always…the SOURCE AND CONDITION OF PHYSICAL REALITY.” (my underline FF). In regards to the skeptics’ reaction toward the nonlocal mind phenomena, Dr. Dossey ( page 84, on the above mentioned book ) has a …historical reference:

“Skeptics may moan, bellow, howl, and whine, as they did against gravity, but nonlocal mind is an idea whose time has come.

3. Detachment from Prigogine / Hegel

It is sometimes reproached to us that Hegel the one we currently refer to in this book represents rather a caricature of the great German philosopher, in the sense that Hegel was the first one to introduce inseparability in philosophy / logic, that his real dialectic is essentially different from the highly popularized one by the so-called materialist dialectics. Naturally the genuine Hegelian dialectics is not reducible to Fichtean schema (thesis / anti-thesis / synthesis), Hegel opting for a different (though not essentially different!) schema: abstract / negative / concrete or the Logic variation: Sein / Nichts / Werden (Becoming), the last one being more complex and more flexible than any standard alternatives. Unfortunately Hegel does not distance himself from the modern thinking system rather being a devoted part of it: for instance, he remains into real (replacing potentialization with annihilation), he is deeply reductionist toward nature, accepting only linear changes, modeled according to the negation of negation law and not a genuine development centered on non-univocal selection; shortly, where we see living beings Hegel sees only things engaged in unending repeatability and cyclical temporality; based on this the future conceived by moderns is prefigured by the past: everything is given by the thesis A and anti-negation; indeed the negation of negation law does not allow original existential expeditions brutally reducing them to “the originality” of a train trip, which cannot leave its tracks unless in some accidental, unwanted cases. Not incidentally W. Faulkner wrote aphoristically: “the past is not even the past.” Regarding the inseparability problem in philosophy / logic we can debate it forever since it existed in different aspects for millennia (see Yin-Yang model, Buddhist logic, etc.). In the context of contemporary knowledge the Hegelianism is rather an impediment being necessary to elaborate a new dialectic. Truly, some of the elements of this new dialectic were anticipated by the great German philosopher, for instance: Hegel perceived the abstract character of the traditional identity law inferring that it is needed to take into account the continuity (fuzzy aspects):  “Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity.” (or in a more actual form: identity is identity of both identity and non-identity).

It is sometimes reproached to us that Hegel the one we currently refer to in this book represents rather a caricature of the great German philosopher, in the sense that Hegel was the first one to introduce inseparability in philosophy / logic, that his real dialectic is essentially different from the highly popularized one by the so-called materialist dialectics. Naturally the genuine Hegelian dialectics is not reducible to Fichtean schema (thesis / anti-thesis / synthesis), Hegel opting for a different (though not essentially different!) schema: abstract / negative / concrete or the Logic variation: Sein / Nichts / Werden (Becoming), the last one being more complex and more flexible than any standard alternatives. Unfortunately Hegel does not distance himself from the modern thinking system rather being a devoted part of it: for instance, he remains into real (replacing potentialization with annihilation), he is deeply reductionist toward nature, accepting only linear changes, modeled according to the negation of negation law and not a genuine development centered on non-univocal selection; shortly, where we see living beings Hegel sees only things engaged in unending repeatability and cyclical temporality; based on this the future conceived by moderns is prefigured by the past: everything is given by the thesis A and anti-negation; indeed the negation of negation law does not allow original existential expeditions brutally reducing them to “the originality” of a train trip, which cannot leave its tracks unless in some accidental, unwanted cases. Not incidentally W. Faulkner wrote aphoristically: “the past is not even the past.” Regarding the inseparability problem in philosophy / logic we can debate it forever since it existed in different aspects for millennia (see Yin-Yang model, Buddhist logic, etc.). In the context of contemporary knowledge the Hegelianism is rather an impediment being necessary to elaborate a new dialectic. Truly, some of the elements of this new dialectic were anticipated by the great German philosopher, for instance: Hegel perceived the abstract character of the traditional identity law inferring that it is needed to take into account the continuity (fuzzy aspects):  “Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity.” (or in a more actual form: identity is identity of both identity and non-identity).

Synthesis in Broad Sense. The Harmonizator

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 ( more exactly the Hegelian/ Fichtean ) 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 seized 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. 3 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;
  • 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 wave methodological status ( to clarify I want to underline that the quantum nonlocality is not action ).

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

HEGEL – Our Contemporary?

Posted by on Tuesday, 2 March, 2010

How Hegel separated me from Prigogine

At the beginning of the ’80, I had the privilege to meet I. R. Prigogine, firstly through articles and letters between Brussels and Brasov, and afterwards through direct personal contact, which has decisively helped me to understand some ( not all ! ) of the defining features of contemporary knowledge.  The main aspects that I have immediately benefited from ( being named by some of my colleagues as “ Romanian Prigogine ” ) dealt with:

the new methodological status of the system’s genesis and of contemporary knowledge in general;

– activation of the surrounding medium  and the role of nonlinear interactions ( intra – and intersystemic ) in organization and self-organization of the systems, in introducing and legitimating of the global approach ( inseparability).

Here is how  Prigogine has defined the role of nonlinearity: “ Nonlinear relationships and their crucial role has been from now well understood by physicists, they being omnipresent and susceptible to replace local viewpoints with global visions.” Our cooperation has been marked by publication of some studies dedicated to clarifying some of the above mentioned problems.  To illustrate I will quote from a methodological dialogue Felecan – Prigogine published in Romania ( journal Magazin, no. 18, April 30th 1988 ):

FF: Can it be stated that just lately and in strong correlation with the intense organizational coupling system / environment (nonlinear situation), the genesis of systems as systems can be effectively modeled and not just introduced by initial conditions – classical case? In other words: due to nonlinearity the general theory of genesis became a concrete potentiality?

IP: Yes, what we call here “ the general theory of genesis ” is presently found closer than before to science’s attainment.

Unfortunately, our different philosophical positions have soon blocked this cooperation: for Prigogine, Hegel represented one “ eminent example of dialectical thinking ”, that, even presently, is keeping unaltered its methodological value while for me the  work of the great German philosopher (whose pertinence I considered myself indisputable but only within modern knowledge ) meantime had become a hindrance in the development of contemporary thinking. For instance, the Hegelian synthesis seemed to me abstract in three ways ( therefore potentially generating of confusions, hyper simplifications and reductionism ):

  • Through exclusively engaging of contraries ( omitting contradictories – ontological basis of synthesis with harmonizator );
  • Considering just the struggle ( opposition, conflict ), which C. NOICA justly stated that it only represents the beginning of organization;
  • Not considering the reals as being susceptible of modal opening, toward possible ( Hegel treating ” possible / possibility ” as an empty category ), determined that the entire Hegelian philosophy to be incompatible with the genuine living thing.

My preference for our contemporary M. HEIDEGGER who ( following the Danish school of philosophy: KIERKEGAARD, HOFFDING ) has constantly asserted that genuine being is guaranteed by its persistence into possible, respectively by its ability to perform essential effective choices /selections, has been appreciated by Prigogine as unconvincing, disputable. This separation, even though it has psychologically marked me, has accelerated my orientation toward some alternative methodological solutions, searching and finding valid candidates for the genuine genesis mechanism in the decoherence model / theory ( ZEH, ZUREK ), for the activation of possible ( new quantum mechanics ), for recognizing of stochasticity as an essential systemic property (catastrophe theory). It is well known that in the Hegelian conception the role of chance was marginalized, well exemplified by the following elegant but false phrase “ chance is necessary because it has a reason, and is not necessary because it has an extrinsic reason ”; since this position has fed the methodological superficiality of several generations of researchers, I did consider that the theory of catastrophes has a major philosophical relevance, being critical for what I sometime ago called stochasticity internalization – a non-classical defining concept for contemporary knowledge, concept / model which provides a ( positive! ) response to a crucial question, apparently paradoxical: it is possible that a strict determinist process to be CONCOMITANTLY stochastic?

In this non-Cartesian context (the existence of some processes concomitantly determinist and stochastic flagrantly violating the Cartesian criterion, sometime infallible, of some clear and distinct ideas) an interesting moment: in 1987, being an active participant in the World Congress of Logic and Methodology of Science, Moscow, I had the opportunity to personally meet the Russian mathematician V.I. ARNOLD – one of the main promoters of catastrophe theory ( with whom I had a short discussion about the methodological specific of the catastrophe theory ).  With the following  excerpt from the Russian work ” Catastrophe Theory ”  by professor Arnold, 1981, p. 22,  it is shortly and convincingly explained the significance of the “ stochasticity internalization ”, idea that Hegel, in a historically  justified  way, did not have access to :

“ 10 years ago any technician / researcher who was to uncover, let’s say, in a chemical reaction some complex non-periodic oscillations, would refuse to study them, considering them as experimental impurities due to some external stochastic actions, etc. Presently, it is clear to many that these complex oscillations can be solidary with the essence of things itself, being determined by the fundamental equations of the phenomenon: they can and should be studied together with the stationary or periodical regimens  of process flow.”

Thanks, Vladimir Igorevich!