a basis for modern law and contexts
between philosophy and meditation, theory and practice
Four cultural sectors
From statics to dynamics
About alternative philosophy
Philosophy and meditation
Problem and conflict resolution
Being and development
Specialization and versatility
Learning and competition
Good and evil
This is not yet the newest version 3.0 (only available in German)
our Cultural Sectors
We can regard religion, art, humanities and natural sciences as the four most important subjects in which the transition from the physical nature to our influenceable life is reflected in form of so-called culture.
Today, we have come to a point where we seem to know and understand better what these four realms contain than we can say about the concepts of nature, life and culture. But to outline these latter ones, it is certainly not sufficient to refer separately to any of these four domains, but we need to look at them together, and the same is true for the interdependencies and interactions between them. Therefore this can not be a subject-specific task, which certainly gives a justification for again giving interdisciplinary philosophy a greater role, after it had been set back mainly by the natural sciences, above all because of the seemingly inherent lack of experiments.
But since each of the four domains contain a multitude of aspects, it seemed unrealistic to find a common denominator in philosophy. Additional difficulties were caused by the fact that the kind of philosophy we are used to was mostly limited to a purely rational endeavor, whereas in those four domains this was originally not the case. But in today's sciences it was more and more was enforced, for example, by skepticism towards intuition and strict condemnation of speculation. Thus, not only the relationship between nature, life and culture should again be questioned, but, if possible, also the essence of philosophy itself possibly leading us to a better understanding of what man actually is.
During several years of life in Thailand it has become very evident how much we as Europeans limit ourselves to the rational part of life. Thinking logically has so much more appeal and importance for us, that we are often unconsciously shy away from holistic conceptions and thus, according to own impression, avoid important experiences, which could indeed have the character of experiments. At the same time, one can come across philosophical questions in Far Eastern countries at many points, but it might be astonishing to discover that there is no simple translation for philosophy and for culture in those languages in our sense. Instead, they often restrict themselves to talking about temple ministry. Should we just take note of such an observation or better challenge our own position?
The decision in favor of the latter choice led me to see in philosophy not only the love of wisdom according to the European tradition, but also to ask if something else could be done to penetrate new areas. To produce something else,- is that not exactly the meaning of the word "alternative"? Thus, an alternative philosophy had been stimulated, which should encompass all parts of life more fully than traditional philosophy, but avoiding esotericism, fixed creeds or fantasies.
In each of the four domains cited above, there is a predominantly emphasized human aspect. Religiousness underlines morality, that is, the conflict between righteousness and enforcement. Art, above all, seeks balance (harmony) between authenticity and fake. Humanities are confronted in particular with the interpretation of the material world between being (ontology) and development, while natural sciences increasingly meet complexity in the conflict between logical search for truth and statistical fuzzy holism.
Four prominent categories can thus be stated, where the question arises as to whether all other categories can be derived from these four, which certainly are selected with some degree of arbitrariness. In natural sciences, especially in mechanics, the description by four dimensions is well known, namely with imaginary time and three spatial dimensions. Man, however, is part of nature and thus in principle should also be describable in four dimensions.
The four domains mentioned above, which roughly outline what we can understand by culture, all have the task of establishing relationships between nature, originally understood as negligibly changing (static), and our strongly changing (dynamic) human life. However, this separation between static nature and dynamically interpreted life is relativized by our better understanding of the meaning of complexity nowadays.
Low complexity is the prerequisite for logic. Logic, on the other hand, is closely linked to rationality and the main interactions can be reduced to four operators. High complexity, on the other hand, is practically synonymous with life processes. However, by the term life is understood not only human life, or maybe even that of higher animals, but it encompasses a much wider and probably unlimited range. Today we can also speak of life far away from the human realm, for example, in molecular or stellar processes, which also continue regeneratively. This more urgently than before raises the moving question of what is specifically human.
Myths seen by humanistics primarily refer to the early human conflict between material and spiritual worlds. In the last past centuries, it finally culminated in dialectics between materialism and idealism. In scientific terms, these can essentially be understood as a description of what is called life without immediately being able to define what is meant by the term. The confrontation or interaction between outer and inner world (nature and psyche), which Homer called the Janus-headedness of divine wisdom, can nowadays be named duality. In these expressions, duality and dialectic, one can discover a correspondence when one either says that interaction takes place between dual states, or as well that a conflict between dialectical positions occurs.
Classical philosophy is mostly limited to the rational dispute (interaction) between perception (cognition) and processing, which could either be understood dialectically or as dual. Rationality, thereby, could be understood as a child of the myths, and without causing much doubt, be assigned to the head.
The other parts of the human body, which are the upper body, the lower abdomen and the extremities, could respectively be associated with the conceptional pairs of feeling and vitality, of sex and power, and finally, of movements and activity. In rational philosophy, the parts of life that are perceived as animalistic are usually omitted. The associated taboo provides a clear separability into a static and a dynamic part, or at least making subdivision easier or even possible (state and process).
Duality can therefore be stated twice in succession, which together can be conceived as four-dimensionality. Since only three dimensions can be real, Plato came to the sensation of the imaginary as a shadow world. Axiomatics for the description of nature is nowadays used to rationalize this sensation.
Axiomatic description of nature formalizes dual interaction between operators (quantifiers and links) and can consequently be understood as a child of such alternative philosophy, if initially no limitation to only rational thinking and perception takes place. When limited to logic, four quantifiers (measurable values) and four logical operations are required. Again, since only three can be real (e.g., three spatial dimensions), the fourth operator has to be considered as being imaginary. Logically, with low complexity, only the succession of generations is available as imaginary quantifier, while holistically,with high complexity being provided, this could be either time or emergence or development. However, the only imaginary operators are logically the negation and holistically the second law of thermodynamics.
Alternatively, it can be said that being (ontology) develops, or instead that development is (has an ontological being). The relationship between being and development at first appears as a dual myth. In modern terms, this can be understood as the interaction between matter and fields, ie mass and energy (Einstein formula).
Between logic and holism, in principle, there must be a transition, which can be continuous. At higher complexity, the logic collapses, resulting in uncertainty. Consequently, one is forced to use a gradual approach to boundary values at the margin of the range, which could be something unknown, such as e.g. a higher (not yet defined) dimension. The simplest case implicates leaving linear systems. If the earth is no longer understood as a flat disk, quadratic terms must be added, meaning first of all circles.
Recursion as a cyclical approach does not only have to turn in a circle, thereby following a common misunderstanding, but can approach the unknown either as a wandering ellipse (like planets and comets). as a spiral (like planets to a star). Perturbations, however, can only be possible, if the system is incomplete (at least partially open). Recursion thus reaches beyond logic, which has necessarily to be an open system. As its exterior area, holism can be seen. Therefore, logic and holism can be understood as a dual pair. In alternative philosophy, but alas not logically justifiable, wisdom can be understood as a generic term for logic and holism taken together.
Human understanding, as well in extroverted as in introverted form including the question what being human means, thus ultimately produces or needs four dimensions or categories. In order for duality not simply to restore duality, but to introduce development as a new element, asymmetry must come into play. As simplest assumption for the occurence of a recursion, presumably based on considerations of consistency, a first dimension can still be assumed without the property of duality. This one must therefore be irreversible (called imaginary) and is logically interpreted as the negation, but holistically as the second law of thermodynamics, which being based purely on experience has not been proven. The other three dimensions or categories with duality as first property must therefore necessarily be reversible (called real).
Four-dimensionality contains in classical mathematical description, especially the physics of mechanics, imaginary time (describes arising and decaying), and three real spatial coordinates (extending between the dual “poles” which are positive and negative infinity). In nature, time hints at imaginary energy, but the real part could be understood as three different forms of mass (matter, antimatter, and dark energy resp. matter), which are not yet completely certain. In life the imaginary part, instead of the physical time, might be the counting of generations (birth and death), and for the real part, instead of the physical space, three areas of life (daily life, external world, and psyche resp. soul) could be taken. In culture, as the imaginary part assertiveness could be subsumed, and in real terms, the three domains of activities, which might be business (economy), life (ecology) and control (rationality).
Initially meant as an illustration, it is also possible to identify an imaginary and three real areas in essential basic components of our lives. Water shows superfluidity and the three phases solid, liquid and gaseous. The human body includes the imaginary area in the abdomen (love or attraction and sex or multiplication) and three real areas, namely the extremities (movement and activities), the head (perception and processing) and the upper body (feeling and fitness). This may seem unscientific, but could contain with realistic likelihood thoughtful and thought provoking ideas.
Interaction and recursion
(Truth and poetry)
time flies away,
death is needed,
need belongs to life.
From statics to dynamics
Recursion generally seems to be a widely underestimated method not only in some mathematical apps, but also in order to gain deeper understanding of commonly taken for granted terms such as life. This is getting to be clearer when we ask whether we can talk about life in the macro world (worldwide on Earth or in the solar system or throughout a galaxy) or in the micro world (within mobile molecules, oscillating atoms or elementary particles, which quantum mechanically can already be understood as interaction between particles and fields describable as a cloud). This is also expressed in historical controversies, whether "the" life was created or developed. Thus, ontology can be opposed to philosophy of development, which de facto gives to the concept of recursion a central meaning. Emergence and development could thus also be understood as mutually dual terms. This may similarly apply for other such terms often accepted without much thought such as e.g. freedom.
In classical science theory, it is said that an action causes a reaction taken as the effect. As essential deficiency of the classical formulation, very inadequate definitions of the terms used nowadays appear. In particular, through the new theory of fractals, a formulation consistent with classical mathematics has shown up by the work of Mandelbrot (1975), saying that a state in a generation n + 1 is a function of a state in a generation n. This results in a seemingly simple functional connection of processes with states, but which necessarily contains a singularity (eg birth and death) and thus goes beyond the classical functional mathematics:
f (n + 1) = a + b * f (n)
Thus, the concept of effect necessarily includes the transition from one generation to the next, howsoever such a generation is understood. In the simplest and everyday case, it is based on time, what falsely could suggest continuity.
Because of said singularity, the transition from description by static state to description by dynamic process is necessarily mind-expanding as, for instance, the transition from the image of a flat earth to the idea of the earth as a sphere. More generally, the quadrature of the circle and the like, e.g. also the question of whether the chicken or the egg first arose, can only be solved by the assumption of an outer area, ie. in an open system allowing external disturbances.
Such singularities and hitherto unconscious influences from outside are in principle captured by the term paradigm shift coined by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962).
is at first glance very primitive and has nothing to offer for learning. There is a danger that university philosophers will starve to death. In this respect, and not by chance, it resembles minimal music. Maybe they do not like it, although it does not mean contempt for any kind of so-called classical music, including Gregorian chant, which is even used creatively. The same applies to alternative philosophy, which could also be called a mini-philosophy. But then it will be even more difficult to show its tremendous beauty to people like those of the peer review sometimes questionably accepted to a great extent.
For its part, the new beloved child likes Homer as much as minimal music is fond of Gregorius. Both were somehow monks, but both only about fifty percent, because they followed the then already secretly accepted Middle Way not foreseen in their faith doctrine..
But let us try not to overlook an essential point mentioned above. You can not, or rather, it's probably not possible to learn mini-philosophy at all. The reason is perfectly clear to regular listeners of minimal music. You may have noticed that in these creations seemingly little happens. But in a second run the listener can get aware that in such music of recognized good quality there are almost never two equal beats.
Continuous variation makes learning virtually impossible. Here, learning takes on a different meaning, which involves much more than just rational perception and processing. It is like music that is made by the whole body and for the whole body, which is at least well suited for dancing and certainly also for making love, where thought, digestion, exercise and even work are not excluded. Attention! Such work could be fun and joy. Important in any case is the slow but admittedly never completely possible approach to something unknown with just that recursion.
Philosophy and meditation
This other meaning of learning is obviously more captured by meditation than by philosophy, which in turn seeks to understand. This again poses the unresolved question of the possibility of universal definitions for these two terms, which are very dependent on local cultures. The emphasized rationality of Western philosophies and, on the other hand, the prevalent lack of rationality in the meditations, which are mostly from Eastern cultures, make this immediately clear. But it is equally apparent in critical analysis that there is a considerable but clearly limited number of philosophies as well as of meditations.
In the previous sections, the four-dimensional structure and the duality of the individual dimensions or the supposedly necessary and sufficient four categories were highlighted with their own dialectic. This means a total of eight domains. This indeed is valid for both the different types of philosophy as well as of meditation.
The crucial difference between philosophy and meditation almost coincides with the difference between theory and practice, which, in effect, deliver much simpler definitions of these terms, upon which one can agree quite independently of individual cultures. Remarkable is the fact that already the historical Buddhism with its eightfold way pointed this out.
Thus, it can be listed that one can conceive largely separate kinds of philosophy and also of meditation for similarly dual and dialectically understandable pairs of perception (cognition) and process thinking (processing), for feeling and body energy (fitness), for sex (Tantra) and morality (power), and finally for activities (occupation etc.) and locomotion (research and travel). These eight species correspond on the one hand to essential cultural domains and on the other hand to the human body parts.
Philosophy and meditation can accordingly be seen as a dual or dialectically understandable pair, providing completely new possibilities for insight. Theory and practice can likewise be understood as a dual pair or cum granu salis also as a dialectical pair. Not controversy over the definitions of these terms seems to be important, but above all the assertion involved, which even has the character of a hardly rebuttable statement that it generally does not depend on one-sided extreme positions, but the intermediate domain must be explored. This means that neither exclusive philosophy nor exclusive meditation should continue to lead us, but rather a Middle Way between the two that is always to be redefined and in this sense understood as dynamic and modern. Because of its obvious importance, both for philosophy and meditation as well as for theory and practice, despite the aversion to fundamentalist emphasis, writing this term in capital letters should be justified.
Problem and conflict resolution
Accordingly, problems can generally be solved not only by philosophy or exclusively by meditation. They, loosely stated, require a mixture of both of them. Likewise, one-sided theory as well as exclusive practice do not bring about conflict resolution. Rather, such imbalances are likely to be the cause of violence, including military conflicts. We have to learn to orient ourselves in the intermediate domains. This can not be the classical philosophy alone, but only a more advanced modern alternative philosophy, which means not simply a vague new form of philosophy, but the mentioned intermediate domains being fully integrated into life.
Again and again, classical philosophy was accused of lack of experimentation, especially by the scientific community. Meditation actually has the character of such experiments. Reproducibility, however, is only approximately possible given the high complexity that exists in life. But even the natural sciences themselves now have to come to terms with the occurrence of blurring. Only closed systems with a limited number of components show strict logic and therefore total reproducibility. This does not rule out that also statistical results can be reproducible, but not in a strict manner. Even the smallest perturbations can already initiate new development.
Corresponding considerations also apply to the relationship between theory and practice, except that here in general it is not simply about task-like problems in human life, but in addition about potentially dangerous social conflicts. Instead of limited personal problems, this is about massive power and violence. The avoidance and prevention of any life-threatening violence is the core concern of all modern and therefore here also dynamically understood societies. Ideologies are pure theory and dictatorship is pure practice. Both do not lead to the goal, but only such a balanced Middle Way. However, the repetition of this term, sounding like a mantra at first, should not discourage, but emphasize the importance of your own weighing of a balance between theory and practice, from which ultimately the ability to compromise of an entire society emerges. Above all, we need to foster these domains between theory and practice. There are large deficits practically everywhere, both in one's own personal life and in any kind of social conflict. Investing here is likely to be the best possible means of preventing awful violence and thus the best way to foster conflict resolution. Balancing and finding compromises may essentially mean the same thing.
Ontology and development
Well-known keywords of classical philosophy can be taken as one-sided positions in the proposed alternative philosophy, between which we also wish to take a position. With these basic philosophical concepts, attempts are made to grasp both situations and knowledge as simply and generally as possible.
We can understand situations largely as a colloquial expression for ontological being. Initially, they primarily affect the practice, which tends to be synthetically oriented. Knowledge describes colloquially to a greater extent development. Accordingly, these can initially be predominantly assigned to theory and tend to be analytically oriented.
In all the above-mentioned areas, structure is probably the most commonly used general or general term for interaction or relationships. The term can be used both for situations and for knowledge and thus in a philosophically extended way of speaking for ontology and development. It can be used for both practical synthesis and theoretical analysis, but has an extra dimension in addition to the definable terms situation and knowledge. It seems obvious to understand situation and knowledge as real and three-dimensiional, and to classify said additional dimension of structures as imaginary. Situations are represented three-dimensionally by Euclidean (vector) geometry, and knowledge is classically described by functional (algebraic) dependencies. Structures - think of natural structures like faces, clouds or rivers -, however, comprise more and can only be approximated or partially understood through situations or knowledge. The additional fourth dimension thus characterizes structures and makes them indefinable. Structures can only be comprehended recursively in a general form, they are inevitably dynamic in nature and can be understood as modern in this sense.
Military and business strategists have been interested in structures, and John A. Warden in particular has divided this term into five parts - Leadership, Process, Infrastructure, Elements, and Impact, which, in the language used here, are to be understood as five dimensions (or categories).
However, general four-dimensionality has been made very probable in two completely different ways, both by attribution to the human body parts following from biological evolution and to the cultural domains following from mental evolution. Therefore, it is equally probable that the term structure should also be four-dimensional. However, the number of shares can easily be reduced to four by adopting a lead process, that is, by not segregating leadership and process. This avoids statements about a god or leader.
Structures are based on both cultic and innovative concepts, so equally many very different areas such as u.a. about religion, philosophy, business or even fight. There is a separate assignment for each area, which is understood in the relevant current case as the process, infrastructure, elements and effects. This can not and should not be done here in detail. In particular, cult-like concepts have a static character and reflect a state of mind, whereas innovative concepts mean dynamics and process thinking. It seems important, however, that said thinking refers not only to linear, but also to network-like processes and, moreover, to processes which go beyond exclusive thinking in the strict sense, that is to say influences from emotional, animal and activity-related areas. Only really purely theoretical systems can be assumed to be closed, for all others this can not be shown. Dynamic processes (and thus all innovative processes) are continuous in simple cases and still come close to static descriptions, but may also include possible cracks (discontinuities, singularities, interruptions), which can have immense significance in politics.
Specialization and versatility
Static situations are by their very nature fixed on a guiding process and thus have a cultic character. In principle, this determination can be made to almost anything, both in areas of nature and in human areas (sometimes already in higher animals). In the case of nature, spatial as well as territorial claims derive from it in both humans and animals. In the human areas, corresponding claims can be made in all parts, which can be assigned to the four different parts of the body as well as the different cultural areas.
Territorial claims can be better enforced through mergers, which leads to herding or social formation. The associated specialization, however, refers to the initial natural conditions and can not adapt to changes under static conditions. In the latter, however, unbound animals, which include predators, hunters, and even modern notebook nomads, have greater opportunities. These instinctively or through insight have a greater or even almost complete dynamic share, but in group or social cohesion they are rather of questionable value. In particular, extreme cases, ie purely static or purely dynamically understandable cases, seem questionable. Such individuals are on the one hand fixed or unfree and essentially subordinated to a single goal and on the other hand completely free and hence irresponsible. At this point, is it again appropriate to demand a modern middle way, which requires constant own small course corrections and readiness for compromises?
In dynamic conditions, however, always possible singularities are the critical point. In static conditions nobody is plagued by such problems because they can not be foreseen there. But what can individuals in dynamic circumstances do to cope with it?
Singularities are constantly occurring in life in the form of birth and death, of new foundations and bankruptcies, of newly emerging territories, and others that are disappearing. We have to learn to work around this, which, admittedly, will never be completely possible. But may the reluctant word recursion be mentioned again?
Defining what is right in a certain area today seems to be a fundamental right of every country. This is secured militarily and legally in often not very squeamish way, and who does not agree with or violates this will be tried and "put out of action", be it with military or criminal methods.
This procedure is absolutely human in the sense that it is fundamentally against natural law, e.g. the animals are practically ignored. It is based on archaic principles, which can not be justified in modern terms, and on Roman law in the western world. Natural law, on the other hand, is based, from today's point of view, above all on a mixture of Darwinism with elements which we can roughly call morals and which, to a certain extent, already exist in animal populations, e.g. protection of kinship and support of important areas of life.
It could and should be the task of a simplified modern and in this sense alternative philosophy, which on the one hand can be recognized as generally understandable and on the other hand as the basis for such determinations. The most important basic elements of such a philosophy are now said to be the duality of being and development. These are not principles of faith as they used to be, but results of insights that can be regarded as binding in general and not only in the context of religious identifications. If one wants to create a new legal basis from this, then in any case a right to being and a right to development must be assumed. These two rights must be recognized as equivalent pillars of a new case-law, which implies that mediation between the two types of fundamental right must be a primary and absolutely paramount principle of modern jurisprudence.
This includes important consequences that are related to previous demands for power. Of course, such a decisive step towards a more problem-free modern society can not be introduced suddenly and virtually by regulation. However, it can very well immediately be worked on in small steps and thus create a spreading feeling for the creation of a new basis for a much more conflict-free and thus better world, which should actually come to the breakthrough automatically one day.
Religious communities of all shades are decisively involved in the cause of the vast majority of current events that are shattering world politics and also the private coexistence of populations, as reflected in the grim daily news. They essentially serve local identifications and do virtually nothing against the almost invisible huge arms production and the associated trade, but are in many places even behind it. This should finally contribute to the consistent realization that all established religions as partners in the power politics have served and should be eliminated as soon as possible from the political business.
The feared vacuum in its place can not be adopted by anyone else but a modernized philosophy, which can not be limited to rational think-tanks, although almost nothing should be objected to a rational philosophy. But it is not sufficient and urgently needs to be extended by further shares, which basically were already present e.g. in the early Greek philosophy and then, bit by bit, were eliminated in often very obscure and even hidden ways. Sexuality in particular, which religions developed almost regularly to support their own claims to power, plays an important role in this, as does the usually very reckless animal husbandry, which is rarely guided by respect for the life of other living beings.
A fresh wave of secularization, quite in the style of Lessing's times and ideas, but fundamentally renewed and modernized, seems imperative. Religiousness is certainly not harmful and should be promoted today as well as in Lessing's "Nathan the Wise". But where is there such a religiosity separate from claims to power? You can search them like pinheads. Everywhere religious representatives immediately appear in positions of power and make these or those demands, without the feeling of being aware, what mischief is done to them. This also applies to the own ranks, that is to say the power that seems to be indispensably exercised in media committees by them and which for the majority of the population appears to be a blessing. It continues on both sides of all major parties in the current terrible conflicts in the Orient and also in the distant seemingly so peace-loving Asia, where religious groups work shamelessly together with dictatorships and cause just such a mischief.
At the beginning of all religious organizations is the construction of so-called sacral buildings, which, however, above all mean the creation of property and power in the hands of the people prominent in these organizations, that is, initially generally a priestly caste. While until then in the early form of society only buildings were built for protection purposes, which did not establish crucial personal possessions, this changed fundamentally with the creation of religious buildings. This gave the people above all a sense of the importance of ownership and taught from the beginning to cuddle. It runs like a red thread through all subsequent historical development and over time becomes a deep-seated, widespread war that still continues to breed today among supporters of various colors, most notably red and black. Possession is the trigger of virtually all modern conflicts and so deep-seated that it just seems pointless to most people to even go into it.
To deal with this issue people have given much attention to the discovery of the completely different social behavior of the otherwise practically identical monkey populations on both sides of the Congo. The river has become so broad over the past one million years that it has become an impassable barrier for the animals, so that very different behaviors could emerge. On the northern side resources were scarce and led to an aggressive behavior of the emerging chimpanzees, which lead veritable wars. On the south side, the separately developing bonobos had plenty of food and learned to solve their conflicts through frequent sexual intercourse. This seems to be biologically the more sensible method, because so always the fastest reacting partners come into play, which corresponds to the basic principle of Darwinian selection, namely that rapid reaction is a particularly important element in the struggle for survival.
Today, however, this element is systematically eliminated by the demonization of such direct sexuality by virtually all religious organizations.
Ownership has become the main defining object of all modern production organizations. Initially it was seized simply by force, in particular by land grabbing, especially with the participation of the then leading elites in historical societies, which then usually more or less seamlessly passed into noble and monarchist and later other public structures.
To restart here today or to begin again, seems almost hopeless, but should still be absolutely necessary. This, just as with secularization, can not happen suddenly, but only with caution, e.g. by slowly cranking up taxation and repatriating ownership of common property in infinitesimal steps. This realization coincides completely with the alarming finding of an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, which also seems to many urgent people to be the most urgent need to reduce, and also that a real balance between communism and capitalism has not yet taken place and continues to be decided by both sides as a victory for themselves.
To motivate such movement and to start it carefully is understood as the concern of the alternative philosophy. Politics should therefore, as in the Platonic sense, once again be the offspring of a philosophy that, however, is to be changed in its consciousness, which now, with the easily understandable and to be conveyed idea of a modern Middle Way, basically provides clear guidance on how to avoid possible related and almost all other kinds of conflicts. This can only happen in an ongoing, gently widening interaction between the private and public sectors, but it must also be as cautious as possible to encompass all of the aforementioned areas without misrepresenting themselves as guru, missionary or preacher.
Learning and competition
Emergence in small steps
Rational concepts, especially logical statements about states, but largely independent of their kind, have advantages over approximating, in particular, by their accuracy. The description of an image with pixels allows e.g. the exact reproduction of each single point whose size is determined only by the number of pixels. However, a much higher number of pixels or coefficients are needed than for a fractal description which results from improving an initial assumption stepwise from generation to generation, but is unable to accurately render individual pixels.
States can be determined rationally. In philosophical terms, it means the investigation of being, which can be done with the utmost accuracy in the framework of statics while renouncing dynamics. The addition of dynamics inevitably leads to a renunciation of the highest accuracy, but allows to capture the development of processes what constitutes the very essence of dynamism, modernity and learning. Determining and learning are thus fundamentally different categories, as humanists say, or different dimensions in scientific language.
Clearly conceiving this difference is of utmost importance in-between theory and practice. Pixel images represent states, and dynamics can only be created as an illusion by rapid succession of such images, which is the basis of television. Fractal images, on the other hand, can continue to develop at any time, which corresponds to learning processes. In principle, every single image can be derived by changing or specifying a single coefficient from the previous image with minimal loss of time. This consideration is not just valid for images, but for all dynamic processes and their description. Learning is generally the addition of an "little bit" in a subsequent step and thus should theoretically be more effective, the faster these steps take place. However, this can only partially be realized, because each step also means an expenditure of energy, which is not available indefinitely.
Life derives from automatons or immovable unicellulars. These first jump from one state to the next under energy change, which is described by quantum numbers or at low energies by genetic code. These states can in principle be grasped rationally. The transition from static to dynamic behavior is accomplished as a crucial step in biological evolution in nature through the transition from immobile crystals to mobile enzymes, enabling learning and effective development. This is the basis of the evolution of extremities, in the simplest case of flagella in bacteria.
The lower abdomen of higher living beings derives from unicellulars. So the first step following is the evolution of extremities, then of a head and finally the clear distinction of an upper body. These further developments of biological evolution can be understood as consequences of learning processes in the sense of Darwinism. The assumption of a statistical emergence of new states only by mutations could not explain the actual speed of evolution. Faster learning processes through transition from generation to generation are therefore crucial.
The trick of learning in the modern dynamic sense now consists in reducing the generation time, which must no longer be identical with the lifetime, but only will depend on the energy being available. Each individual learning step is thus "simply" an improvement on the previous "generation" in learning, which no longer necessarily has to do with birth and death and thus avoids the problem of destructive singularities. Learning becomes a practically continuous process, even though it is gradual. The individual steps need only go as fast as possible and with the lowest possible energy consumption, which is the basis of all competition.
Every single step of learning represents an initially infinitesimal small emergence. The higher the density of the involved components, the more this comes close to actual emergence. This is generally true, so equally for elemental particles, human creativity and astronomical super- or kilonovae.
The handling of complex situations may seem to us the most important problem in confrontation with complexity. But just as we can ask ourselves before such a question, what is the essence of the person him- or herself, it would certainly not be wrong here also to start with questions about the complexity itself.
This question will depend strongly on many circumstances, such as when and where it occurs. In the religious realm, it may be about the wide field between silence and infinity, in art between a single point and completed expanse, in the humanities between the own inner center and the world, and in science between sharp logic and fuzzy holism.
In general, it seems to be about comprehensibility, which finally leads to measurability in the natural sciences. But what is measurable? It is not just about the sheer number of elements, but above all about the relationship, there usually called interaction, between each element with all the other ones. Thus in a more comprehensive understanding is the essenc e of complexity, which is closely linked to the notion of network.
Each element has in principle both, a materialistic and an idealistic nature, or point and field characteristics, and takes part on Einstein's playground. At least theoretically, it can mutually transform matter and energy into one another, immediately pointing out the inseparable connection between theory and practice, and it not only exists but also participates in development.
Complexity is much more complex than we seem capable of grasping. But in each of the above areas, which could well be defined in a different way, there seems to be human consensus on how we handle it. The religious answer may be humility, the artistic answer rather creativity, the mental position the making of assessments, and the scientific proceedings may be characterized by being verifiable. Everywhere there is a wide scope that can be understood as a leeway of morality, creativity or human assessment or just as Einstein's playground.
The most important human "fact" may be relationships. But again, it may be true that the relationship of two people is more dominated by logic than that of three or more individuals or groups. Our actual European or American society is more logically oriented in comparison with earlier times and less developed countries and insists accordingly strongly on monogamy, thus probably favorable relations for the society between generally only two persons. An undeniable higher proportion of people with more complex relationships can be found in Asian countries, which tend more to holism. To the same extent as network-like human intractions are playing a role, which ought not only mean personal advantage, but also responsibility, so-called poliamore relations can also be observed more frequently here too, to which the author of these lines increasingly adheres by conviction.
However, as political and private structures are certainly mirrored in each other, such changes are likely to be increasingly expected in politics as well, suggesting an increase in the importance of less exactly defined political movements instead of rather clearly defined political parties.
All this may initially unsettle you. But it is certainly more pleasing if the feeling grows that seemingly clear fundamentalism can not avoid a networked formation of opinion. In art, the insight can increase that it thrives particularly well on the borders between lower and higher complexity. Spiritual wisdom will be valued more highly when acknowledging a diffuse nature. The natural sciences will also benefit from the fact that fuzzy relationships have a much wider validity than previously assumed.
Not only simple and complex facts, but generally logic and holism can be understood as dual pairs. Even in the current discussion about gender relationships, there is a trend from #MeToo to #ConsentMatters, which reflects an increasing appreciation of general networking, involving mutual duality.
Good and evil
A Chinese proverb says in questionable translation: The good man builds bridges, the bad man builds walls. The bridges and walls as well as tunnels and trenches are sometimes classified as useful advantages, and at other occasions in similar way as bad or even evil disadvantages. Is the definition of what is called good or evil exclusively determined by the society concerned? Beware of the traps of the respective language! Good and bad, useful or harmful, right and wrong, positive or negative,- these paired descriptions of conditions prevailed in past times. But the languages continue to evolve with their societies. By means of mirror neurons we learn to attribute to familiar words again and again small new twists and thereby to adapt them to changed conditions. More and more we get a feeling not only for static conditions, but also for dynamic processes. This is increasingly understood as modern, not just recent events.
The Chinese speak of Ying and Yang as dual states, which do not rank. But states and processes are not just ying and yang. Statics and dynamics are not the same kind of thing. Body and matter are mainly understood statically and described mathematically by scalars, which do not give a direction. On the other hand, ideas and energy are preferentially understood dynamically and described mathematically by directed vectors.
Does the bridge-building Obama right or the wall-building Trump? Does Merkel right, who likes the former escape-tunnels in Berlin, or Seehofer wanting to deepen border trenches? Does the good man build bridges or escape tunnels, and the bad man instead build walls or trenches?
Both evil and harmful as well as false mean, above all, only the black part of a black-and-white painting, limited to only two possible static states and thus negating the intermediate areas, which can be called explorations, balances, fairs, values, choices and compromises. Biology shows us that positive and negative are equivalent. The negative electrons provide us with good electrical current.
There is no higher development without cell aggregates, which are characterized by the formation of flexible membranes and controlled permeable pores. The membranes are furthermore layered "trenches and walls", when we think of our not simply built skin or an onion. The pores, on the other hand, are selectively permeable "bridges or tunnels." Nature has developed this through judgmental evaluation ensuing evolution. A skin should be healthy and beautiful in our opinion. Could the same not apply to borders? As it seems, in the human realm, similar circumstances can probably be assumed or applied, and well understood again in the personal as well as in the public or political sphere.
Likewise, neither in the microcosm of atoms and elementary particles nor in the macrocosm of stars and galaxies are there insurmountable walls or trenches nor any arbitrarily large bridges or tunnels. Instead of solid walls, even in extreme areas of nature, there are only partially permeable barriers and phenomena such as the so-called tunnel effect, meaning a partial permeability of diffuse pore-like structures.
These are not just only scientific considerations that have no meaning in the humanities. Descriptions must be consistent across disciplines, ie. if something is wrong in one of two inter-related areas, then something is wrong altogether. In particular, as the humanities and also the natural sciences are split by rational spirits into numerous sub-areas, here religion, art, anthropology etc. and there into physics, chemistry and biology etc. But we can not expect that, for example, exclusively in one of these areas an exception of an obviously general natural law occurs.
Good and evil never denote completely realized sharp social extremes. Between them a measuring or judgmental orientation can or should take place. One conclusion is that there are neither completely good nor totally evil people, therefore neither an angelic mother Theresa nor the only devilish Hitler. Development, however, does not always proceed smoothly and continuously, like slowly getting healthy or sick, but sometimes jumps and leaps, what is described in nature with quanta and singularities and in life is called birth and death, arising and passing, or emergence and catastrophe.
States arise, meaning they develop. Contrarily, development has not developed, but is a state. Finally, something has to act between those states and developments, which today is simply called action.
If we understand this alternative philosophy as a building, as kind of a construction, then three real legs (such as dimensions, categories, components, or coordinates, without giving much distinction to the differences between these often questionably defined terms) are sufficient for a firm position. Thereby we can mean states, developments and actions, in similar way as the spacial coordinates in sciences for length, width and height. In the description of nature time comes as fourth imaginary size. In this philosophy we can ascribe the fourth imaginary dimension to what we actually perceive as reality, quite similar to Plato's idea of a shadow world.
We could also first axiomatically posit an imaginary reality as a starting point and then add states, developments and actions as real dimensions. The way in which we open up the world, that is, assume the axiomatic basis, seems to be something of a religious and thus undecidable question. For reasons of consistency, however, as in any description of nature, there should be three real and one imaginary component.
The notion of being real includes in nature description the meaning of being directed and reversible, what is not detailed and justified here. In a philosophical account, this must apply equally to states in general, and specifically to bodies, including human ones. Material catastrophes and bodily death mean dissolution into arbitrarily small particles, which however provide the matter from which something new arises.
About the same can also be said correspondingly concerning dissipative energy and even with respect to propagating ideas that arise and disappear again. Developing states are to be considered as processes, which are as well directed as also reversible.
Finally, the same could for sure be said about actions, without wanting to go into details of this rather abstract part, but also having very real consequences. This imaginary part can not be reversed. Time and reality always proceed one-way, allowing to measure or count units as hours and generations, or to account them in a blog or vlog. The same stem of the words counting and accounting makes one think.
Matter and energy, nature and life, world and God, - "only" pairings? Are these good or bad thoughts? Everything flows, everything turns in circles, everything results from recursion? So read this text again from the beginning? Or are any statements wrong anyway that contain the word "everything"?
Oh, Santa Philosophia, save us from the evil! But philosophy comes and goes. So what?
No, neither Latin nor English, but the more holistic Thai language should illustrate this:
mai (high-spoken) means asking a question.
mai (middle voice) means sense.
mai (deep) means no.
Let's try to say the simple sentence in Thai:
Does asking not make sense?
This might give an idea of a recursively developing languages, both colloquial and specialized, including philosophy. As we know today, their development is greatly accelerated by mirror neurons. Thus, in each language, in similar way relatively quickly develop changed but related descriptions of related states and processes. The language and the social character of a society are closely intertwined. Of particular interest, however, are discontinuities, where something fundamentally new will be added to it, which especially happened in the transition from two to three-dimensional representations during Galileo's discoveries. Today, such a transition is again beginning from three- to four-dimensional concepts, which can bring about comparable difficulties, especially in the general social understanding.
Basic contracts of various kinds are intended to define conditions as by charters, confessions, basic programs, Basic Law, agreements and constitutions. The comprehensive term statutes expresses their static character clearly. Above all, they serve to strengthen a community or society through identity formation. Both in the private and in the political sphere, they consolidate hierarchical structures through this previously predominant static component. They usually represent elaborate legal interpretations of rather conservative representatives of the associations in question, which not infrequently grant them tacit advantages. At first the more progressive part is often unaware of them. They have been and are being formally "ratified" by a majority of people who are declared eligible to vote, whether in assemblies of any kind or in more general elections at least outwardly democratically organized. Even the full meaning of this designation is often not clear to the majority of those concerned, namely generally a passing en bloc, ie without a possibility for detailed voting on individual parts. As a result, such constitutions usually form an instrument of power, which then is declared more or less taboo and can only be changed under difficult circumstances in a complex, controlled legal manner. Often this fact tends to become a more or less obvious occasion for stronger violent change.
It is only in recent times that a dynamic part, which can be perceived as progressive, is gradually gaining in importance, reflecting increasing flexibility and adaptability. A development understood as modern in this sense is characterized, almost by definition, by an increasing proportion of flexible individual decision possibilities not being in advance decided from above. The prototype of such forms is probably a meditation, which is therefore only hesitatingly accepted by conservative circles in general or not at all.
The conservatives like to entrench themselves behind the plain-spirited explanation that "everything should be as good as possible", which implies a clear contempt for the importance of spontaneous and often more up-to-date decisions.
The fact that the established approach more or less includes, in particular, the own advantage and the preservation of power of existing and traditionally tried and tested conditions is equally repressed and even negated. Since a transition from static to dynamic basics generally represents a process accompanied by considerable critical upheavals, it is not always easy to convey, especially to the more simply structured sections of the population, such as the rural population and socially weak sections. These associate alarmingly easy, and often certainly contrary to their own interests, with the conservative side, promoting static and supposedly always positive traditions. In fact, this can even augment disadvantages. In the first place, this tends to foster the top of the hierarchy hiding behind abstract formulations, regardless of whether, according to its own admission, it is primarily attributable to the Left or the Right.
Instinctively, but without being able to discern this clearly in their actual reasoning, experience has shown that those for populism susceptible sections favor decision-making methods which, declared as basic democracy, appear to be a spontaneous process, but doubtfully considered as modern, avoiding too strong fixation on constitutions regarded as disadvantageous , The latter, however, is discredited rather incomprehensibly for them by the Latin term status quo, while adherence to existing and often no longer up-to-date conditions conditions is praised as good tradition.
Therefore, to get a more open and at the same time continuous development, it seems very necessary to create both a knowledge and a feeling of the difference between statically fixed states and dynamically flexible processes. The understanding gained in the natural sciences for the importance of a clear distinction between close-by and far is regarded as essential. In the immediate vicinity, socially corresponding to the private sphere, material conditions and above all repulsive forces are effective. On the other hand, in the distance, socially assigned to the public or political sphere, the focus is on ideas and communicative influences, which transmit themselves in a way comparable to natural processes through vibrations and radiation. Basic democracy depends on the close-by area, the media belong to the distant area.
However, since people are shaped mainly in their childhood, implicating the private sector, this plays a significant role. Families as well as kindergartens and schools are concerned. The ability of children to adapt independently to their close-by environment and also to change it for themselves or perhaps their own group should therefore be greatly encouraged, in particular an understanding of the importance of meetings of their group and the far-reaching media.
Again and again, as part of the alternative philosophy adviocated by ARS-UNA, attention was drawn to the importance of all that is living on this earth and especially of Homo sapiens, the supposedly so wise man positioned in nature somewhere between the microcosm and the macrocosm so immensely different in size. In both areas nature has everywhere a static share in the form of the fundamental laws of nature, which can at least partly be expressed in terms of natural constants, such as the speed of light or the size and weight of atoms. Superimposed on these are dynamic processes, which could essentially be understood as consequences of different forces. This juxtaposition is expressed in a way that has been noticed and strongly emphasized by Einstein underlining the coexistence of matter and energy. The quite similar juxtaposition of body and mind in the humanities reflects an analog relation.
Forces generally take into account the natural constants, so we can say they live in peace with them. Likewise, the coexistence of mind and body plays a compable role. This applies also to animals according to their evolution and even to plants where we still do not understand everything.
In this sense, the search address ARS-UNA.net is intended to express the strong interconnectedness of all close-by and far areas and especially of cultural sectors too. So here, especially starting flexible movements in the society instead of fostering fixed organizations is promoted. This trend corresponds to successful kinds of behavior that can be observed in nature. The formation of very large states should also be seen with caution, making us aware how uselessly they require large walls, either more material ones rather close-by such as Orban and Trump, or concerning mainly information from the distance as in the case of the Chinese Internet.
Obviously, the more flexible animals are in the lead in comparison to the more static plants, although the latter, according to recent findings, also have good odor organs and effective propagation and even informational possibilities. One guideline may be to deal well with all and everything that is not life threatening dangerous from near and far, with humans, animals and plants.
Loose communities should thereby have an increasing importance over more firmly fixed organisational forms. This is essential, as it usually is in nature, for a development which is better suited taking into account the ongoing balance of favored characteristics or intentions. However, existing conditions under condemnation of flexible processes should not be meticulously preserved, for which statutes of all kinds are often abused. Flexibility better serves for prevention of danger. If it is made possible on an ongoing basis, it can limit the extent of singularities, which can in principle be more dangerous. All natural coming-about and vanishing actually meaning transformations including birth and death, belong to them. Sticking to static states means inhibiting flexibility. The stagnation inevitably linked to this promotes the extent of major singularities perceived as disasters, whether seemingly natural ones such as drought, flood, earthquakes and meteor impacts, or whether they are either wars arising from the dispute over material resources or ideologically triggered by poor communication.
Better understanding of these relationships, both rational and emotional and in daily life, can have beneficial effects for all benevolent stakeholders.
© Copyright Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2018
Updated July 10, 2018 Version 2.9
Alternative Philosophy of Development
(Indian book on economics)