Preface
This
booklet is born
and developed about a proposal that concerns
a reading of new kind of the
reality that regard us;
whether as individuals or as animals inside
a species, a world and a universe.
On all these themes the contemporary science
provided us a series of knowledge
elements not exhaustive and certainly perfectible,
but that undoubtedly allow us
a more adequate world and life reading even
with respect to the recent past,
both also with all the limits concerning
our intellective faculties and the
investigation tools that we can dispose.
With the benefit of this scientific
background, most implied than explicated,
the real dualism (dualism of the
reality) intends to give itself with objective foundations,
on which be
able to raise a building with minimum solidity
prerogatives. A profane
conception of the world emerges, or rather
decidedly atheistic and also
irreligious, where it is erased any transcendence
and where however we look for
the elusive signals of possible aspects of
the reality that are not immediately
accessible to our current sensory and intellective
capacities. That induces us
to start and lead a not conventional exploration,
outside and inside of us,
reconsidering and rereading the human evolution
and of the universe in terms for
which, without indulging in metaphysical
temptations, one wonders how much of
anthropologically authentic the spiritualistic
ideologies were able to pick up
of the reality, to analyse it and eventually
recover it critically. This
research should lead us on the conditions
not to run the risk "to throw the
child with the dirty water", as often do
the radical and dogmatic materialisms.
If
it is reasonable to wonder whether the mosquito
and the bee are living a reality
barred to us and that the same do the snake
and the spider, the polyp and the
eel, the mole and the bat (1) and
away by all other our big or little companions
of the biosphere (2) ,
one
does not see why, in correct terms and with
adequate inductive modes, it is not
possible to assume that the living is not
one but manifold, until to advance
reasonably the hypothesis of a "pluralism
of the reality" that the
presumptuousness of the homo sapiens
instead wants from always only one and one-way,
and combines it with the
axiomatic mortgage according to which "the
whole" must be reducible to only one
original cause, material or spiritual.
But,
by a pragmatic point of view, what does means
“pluralism of the reality”?
In effects our pluralism has two meanings, a “hypothetical” and a
“real”
one. The hypothetical one concerns the cosmology
and its correlated, in
reception of the thesis of those astrophysicists
and cosmologists (always more
numerous), that, with solid reasons, imagine
(because it is practically
impossible a verification) a global reality that goes well over the
borders of the universe where we live, hypothesizing
the existence of a lot of
universes (if not endless) besides our one.
Some of them arrive even to think to
internal universes of the our one, in the
sense that in the bottom of every
black hole can perhaps even form a further
universe. If the things would be in
this way the general reality could be very similar an immense system
of
Chinese boxes, where every universe is contained
in an other more vast and at
the same time is container of other to its
inside. It is superfluous add that
every universe would be able have physic
laws and characteristics one's own (for
example be constituted of antimatter). Plurality
of universes which obviously
can born and die, expand or contract, etc.
and which would give rise to a
general scenery where we men (so presumptuous!)
who result already physically
meaningless in our universe would decidedly
disappear in such hypothesized
plurivers.
In its “real” meaning the
pluralism instead pertain to the known reality, perceived or intuited from the man,and
intends correct our current way of think
it, by which (for reasons that we will look
evident in the following pages) we tend always
to unify elements of the reality that
would be considered separately from the “structural”
point of view. While from
the “functional” one (not “for what are”
but “for how work”) often they must
referred to the system of which do part,
because this sometimes is an “holistic”
unity (see chapter 1 footnote 4), with characteristics
and emergent behaviours
as regard the sum of his components. An extension
of this second aspect of our
pluralism is that doesn't take for nothing granted
that our knowledge
about the living world to which we accompany
on this planet are absolutely
exhaustive and that is instead likely that
can escape us inside realities one’s
and “internal” to other species because our
investigation tools both
intellectual and experimental not reveal
them us.
With the premises of which over we
give now a brief anticipation on that will
be treated later on, when it will be
developed the second meaning (the “real”
one) relative to our pluralism of
the reality. On the other hand, if is to consider “real”
what pertain some
receiver in general reality is no reason
to assume a priori a privileged
receiver (the man), who, by his senses and
his intellection, establishes that
must be “in general” how is for him (as thinking
animal). In other words, what
is real for the man can be so even for other
animals, for the reason that
combasic
mon is the (the living matter), but that
not implicates that this " human real
"is the only existing and what perceptively
and intelligibly concerns the man
is" all " reality of our world. The
assumption of this point of view has an immediate
consequence for the man
himself, since (being he contemporarily subject
and object of the investigation)
it becomes possible think (and set) as reality even that one is not
perceivable neither intelligible, but of
which are perceivable and intelligible
the real effects on our existence.
The
real dualism, as subspecies of a
pluralistic vision of the reality, intends to examine the existence of
the man within the limits of the sure perception
and intellection horizon,
however possibly leaving a knowledge window
open on only intuitive horizons, but
decidedly " real " with their effectuality (3) . From such opening, which
a more careful and deep reflection we can
find what, escaping the senses and the
reason, only becomes accessible to idemal
intuitive sensitivity and the
intellective intuition. This
effectuality (incontestably real) authorize to extend
the investigation
on the reality moving the borders toward what offers itself
to the
intuition, for example in the feelings and in the
emotions, without it is
possible gather the substance. So to say that the biosphere
possesses a plural reality means that, over to a general reality (the
materiality) common to all living beings,
we hypothesize (together to this) much
other kinds of particular reality, concerning
specific experiences, some of them
(in our experience) are characterized surely
as “irreducible” to the
matter. A pluralist conception of the reality is
by the man even a
humility action, that look out upon the thesis
that other animals (belonging to
our or other ecosystem ) have the possibility
of live experiences to us totally
blocked, but at the same time legitimates
the hypothesis that the same man is
able try kinds of different reality and not
referable to other living
beings.
After these anticipations on what is to the
base of what will here exposed I whish preliminarily
underline that this is yes a philosophy book,
but that is turned to the generic reader.
For such reason the text that will follow,
in its not secondary purpose to be founded
pragmatically on a “good” common sense, could
be considered philosophically enough rough;
on the other hand (I willingly admit it)
is just my own philosophical training to
be rather rough. Such limit however leaves
me to hope in its possible hidden merit:
that one to allow the reading to persons
of the all without philosophical culture,
those people who frequently are called “men
in the street”, who, therefore can be considered
the privileged addressees of this work.
I use the terms of the
current and traditional language every time
will be possible. This to a
condition: that they adapt validly to the
concepts that I intend express.
Besides I have had to borrow from the learned
philosophy some expressions and
argumentation that seemed me compatible with
the clarity and the simplicity I
intended, obviously when they result already
sufficiently known and such to not
jeopardize the accessibility of the speech.
In rare cases, to avoid
misunderstandings, I have forced to introduce
new terms and I hope that they
don't disturb too. Yet, if that will happen,
the glossary placed to text’s end,
and before the analytical indexes, will be
able constitute a valid help. Such
terms will be always written in italics,
as the greatest part of the terms of
the usual philosophy that will be here used,
together that ones of other
specific disciplines and with the words in
languages distinct from the English.
A last notice: the book
contains several footnotes, made necessary
to clarify or equip terms and
affirmations of useful elements at the purposes
of a full comprehension. As a
rule they are not at all essential to understand
the text in its principal lines
and therefore they can be quietly jumped;
this at least in first reading. Later,
if the reader was interested in the subject
will be able to get back on his
steps for a second reading and so perfect
his comprehension of every detail.
I
dedicate this booklet to the unknown companions
of journey (of life) who have
had an existential experience such to mine.
I think we are many in five
continents, reciprocally unknown and fully
scattered. To them all my brotherly
solidarity goes.
I
close this short preface with two words about
the title: the necessity/liberty opposition is
not new and I neither cannot exclude that
books already exist written in the
past with this title. However I do not have
been able to give up, because,
through it and rather synthetically, already
comes enunciated the access key to
the heart of the problem which will be faced
here, even if that will happen with
gradualness and if the motive become clear
little by little in the development
of the subject.
Notes:
(1) The
American philosopher Thomas Nagel in a famous
article of 1974 was asking
himself “What it is like to be a
bat?” In it is exposed an antiredutionistic
thesis of the reality, in which one
was affirming that the objective qualities
of the experience constitute an
"irreducible" aspect of the reality was supported.
And as the other’s
subjectivity is accessible only by an identifying
himself effort with the point
of view of the other, it is not possible
to exclude that exist experience forms
completely real (but precluded to our perception
and our intellection) that are
irreparably barred to us, it dates note the
impossibility of identification with
who carries out them.
(2) I will use often this
term to show the whole of living world in
every its form or
expression.
(3) We
define with effectuality the set of the practical consequences perceived
by a subject because of an agent of the reality,
be it well known or unknown. In
other sense it is a way of being of what
actually happens with respect to what
is only possible. In Aristotelian terms that
is what characterizes the
act with respect to what that remains only power. Therefore it is
the contrary of potentiality and opposite of
virtuality.