Detachments

This entry was posted by on Monday, 8 March, 2010 at

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

6 Responses to “Detachments”

  1. If you could e-mail me with a few suggestions on just how you made your blog look this excellent, I would be grateful.

  2. This is a extremely interesting post, thank you for sharing! You will find numerous blogs on this topic but this one states exactly what I think also.

  3. i probably would not have said this was outstanding some years back however its amusing how age evolves the way you experience different creative ideas, thank you regarding the article it is nice to go through anything smart occasionally instead of the standard rubbish mascarading as information sites on the internet

  4. Excellent brief and this article helped me alot. Say thank you I looking for your information….

  5. Hi, I encountered your website as a result of Yahoo when researching with regard to 1st aid for a heart attack and your post seems pretty helpful for me.

  6. I discovered your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading more from you later on!…


Leave a Reply to Acne treatment