Chapter 1
(Some anticipation about the subject)
1.1) Pluralistic hypothesis and dualistic
reality.
The term
pluralism suffered a sort of
monopolization by politics and sociology,
to the point that became difficult
propose it in other context without risk
some misunderstanding. Yet, for the
speech I intend here develop, any other word
is more adapt to designate the
mental attitude of who wants look the reality not in superficial and
generic way, but with the attention that
require “every” aspect of it that
shows characteristics one's own, not referable
to an imaginary “unity-totality”
that would include them. Which, in any case,
would be always inadequate to
exhaustively express the real specificity
of the elements that form it. With
that is not intended censor the use of some
terms that in the economy of the
speech are extremely useful, but to put in
guard against the fact that with
think them to make some “real” entities,
because they are simple linguistic
“signs” that show a “plural set” otherwise
not expressible.
To make more comprehensible the meaning and
the sense that here we intend signify for
“pluralism of the reality” (in the “real”
meaning) perhaps, more of every definition,
it may be useful to do some trivial considerations
about the conceptual misunderstanding that
happen every day in the current and usual
way to express (and to think) it, with which
we tend always (for explanation economy,
but with inevitable conceptual relapses)
to “total” the plurality in an unity, to
the point that the abstract whole “replaces”
real parts at which does reference, reassuming
the reality in a “significant” substantially
equivocal. We will use, to illustrate that,
of three usual terms that “total” the plural
reality which indicate, hiding or at least
bracket: that one of “sky”, that of
“nature” and that of (animal) “body”. To
them we make usually reference as
meaningful unities in themselves, while they
are simply linguistic terms, which
indicate only abstract and unitary sets of
concrete and separate realities; a
kind of ephemeral boxes that hides what actually
contain. Such considerations
are inferable even from simple manuals of
middle school and yet they refer to a
sort of “inactive” scientific notions, since
learned but immediately expunged
from the conscience knowledge. That confirm
as the scientific obviousness,
normally taken for granted, much often is
totally missing in the manner with
which we commonly think the reality. They are those containers of which
we usually consider the wrap, without ask
us what is within: an easy and
inconsistent “one” in place of
"much" concrete realities. Besides the (legitimate)
discursive necessities a persistent metaphysical
tradition still permeating the
contemporariness lead us to have always on
the eyes a monistic pair of glasses
with which to look a pluralist reality, so
perpetuating a substantial
misunderstanding. The reality is in fact formed from a fragmentary set
of disjoined elements, which connect and
report mutually (even with feedback processes)
in a continuous evolutionary process that
modifies them singularly, without never lead
them toward that sort of holistic (4)"upper-realities” largely interiorized,
that work excellently in poetry but awfully
in philosophy. The global reality in fact cannot be considered
an organism (in like case the holism is perfectly justified), but rather
a heap of independent entities (even if interactive)
never reducible to a
totality.
The concept of “nature” is used to point
out that is inside our planet, on its surface
and in the part of space that it
drags in its rotation (synthetically we would
call them with endosphere,
biosphere and atmosphere
). This three the Earth elements is able
interact among them, but they are
totally independent and of the all uncoordinated
(if not in a hypothetical
divine mind). The endosphere continues probably in its slow hardening
and in its stabilization (started five billions
of years ago), the biosphere
is that thin and recent layer that covers
it (fragmented in millions of living
species characterized above all only by an
irrational will to “singularly”
exist and not referable to a global whole
of the life), the stratosphere
is a gas and vapours mixture whose state
depends exclusively from the sun, from
the gravities come into play and from the
motion of the Earth. But into the
concept of “nature” we can find a further
unreal abstract unity covering a real
plurality: the concept of “strengths of the
nature”. This expression points
some phenomena of the all or in parts disconnected,
as volcanic eruptions and
earthquakes (relating to the endosphere), hurricanes and cyclones
(relating to the atmosphere) and tides (caused by the lunar gravity).
It
happens so that a seaquake and a hurricane
in common speech (and unfortunately
even in our way of think) are considered
simply two different aspect of
“nature” (that would be besides the same
of the living beings and of their
sets), while are different and not relatable
realities. Then, define them
“aspects of the nature” feeds the equivocation
about an unity that in the
reality doesn't exist, while they are real
and autonomous elements of it; elements
that not have nothing in common and they
go therefore kept “pluralistically”
separate if we want gather possible “real”
relationships and interactions.
An analogous type of psychological distortion
we make speaking of the “sky”. We usually
speak and think it as the unity of what is
outside the Earth and that show itself as
a kind of aerial and boundless ceiling where
are sharpened the stars, while in fact it
is an immense void in little part containing,
with great discontinuity, a plurality of
very different entities (in minimal part
visible, in little instrumentally revealable
and for the most part completely dark) every
of them with a form, a structure, a constitution
and a phenomenology sometimes absolutely
unique. Already only the stars, the more
notice and famous inhabitants of the sky
(only constituent one of the numerous categories
of heavenly bodies) differ one from the other
for composition and type of light (as single
or coupled among them or with other bodies)
(5). But to think commonly the sky as the
“place” of the stars cause we forget that
they are not other that minimums elements
of complex systems as the galaxies, which
(constituted from complexes of solid matter,
liquid and gaseous) show them with very diverged
forms and characteristics (even them as single
or coupled) and that are travelling at enormous
speed to move away among them from billions
of years. The sky results so be an excellent
linguistic tool in aesthetical and metaphysical
fields, but ruinous in philosophy. More corrected
would be to think the sky only as terrestrial
face of the universe and to this do reference,
but with that we are not of the all safe
to fall again in the misunderstanding, since
even it may still be thought as a complex
“unity” rising from a simple unity (the original
big-bang). To think the actual universe in
monistic manner is an unintentional cognitive
absurdity, which leads unconsciously to a
vision distorted and misled of the reality.
It is then in such sense that here we wishes
a corrected pluralistic to what
plural is, avoiding (at least on the conceptual
plan if not on that discursive
one) to fall in that sort of metaphysics
“monistic trap”, which make us unaware of
the “what it is” because we
consider real “what it is said”.
The term “body” (even “organism”) lead us
to the third example. It is a living system
the prototype of which was born by
chance and self-organizing for modifications
and usually casual adaptations,
that have however the exceptionality to result
“successful” giving rise to “necessary
and repeatable” biological processes, while
billions of other similar systems
are “aborted” (or “selected”) and therefore
not more here existing to consent
us to consider them. The body of an animal
(is that of the man or that of a
worm) is an extraordinary miracle of the
matter evolution, with which the cells “collaborate”
to the well working and maintenance of an
organism. The differentiation of this cells
happens in base to a fixed program writing
in the genome, it increases with the complexity
of the organism in formation till constitute
“one” community of billions of living unity
functionally connected in organs and their
parts, but all concurrent to the life of
a “unitary” living body, definite and individualizing.
Being the animal body a perfect biological
engine to “not-programmed” birth, which,
if results to own the requisites, “self-programs”
to live and die, is an example about how
is the plurality what is original of all
that lives and not what lives original of
the plurality that constitutes it. The self-programmed
formation happens across an assemblage in
most part “necessary” of living unities that
self-specialize while the body evolves for
a specific job. If the passage from died matter to living
matter (origin of the current “biological
engines”) is fruit of the case (6), as it is probably the birth of the prototype
of every species, will be not idle specify
that all “parts” of biological engines artificially
made with the genetic engineering (and so
beforehand “programmed”) are to be considered
in their specificity of living entities wanted
from the man and not assimilate to the “historical”
reality of the “natural” biological engines
that has had origin in very long times. Seems
legitimate forms the hypothesis that the
actual living organisms are holistic systems
perfectly coordinated, where originally anarchic
cells organize themselves across a “collaborative”
process that leads to the existence and to
the running of a living body (7). And even the ecosystems, in which
different species of living organisms cohabit
in integration or even in
symbiosis, are fruits “in equilibrium” of
long conflictive processes of
adaptation and selection for us unimaginable,
that could be called authentic
pluralistic miracles of cohabitation and
of selective collaboration, by
starting from “will of life” probably totally
contrasting.
We would able to easily arrive at the
conclusion that in fact all our universe
is an extraordinary “not-programmed”
and casual system of different realities
in relative equilibrium, where from
about twelve billions of years a nearly endless
variety of heavenly body are
born and interact, die and survive. Inside
this system (in a little planet to
the periphery of one of the innumerable galaxies)
from about two billions of years
the first living cells have started to exist,
to split, to develop and to
coordinate till produce complex organisms
as plants and animals, among them we
men, that are here to about them speak.
At this point became very important to
forehand give an essential explanation to
place the real dualism (later RD) in its own perspective, to the
shelter from
misunderstandings (or worse confusions) which
can it assimilate with the
various and well known “dualisms", whether
of philosophical character or
religious character, that are based on dualities
of the type matter/form,
existence/essence, appearance/reality, ideal/real,
spirit/matter, soul/body,
good/evil, etc. The RD in fact intends not
already to place it in the field of
the principles or of the abstract concepts,
but in that of the reality, also with all the limits and
the faults that it can have as not scientific
thesis and of a purely
intuitive/inductive character. Nevertheless
it bases itself also on to
rereading of the well grounded man’s and
cosmos history, on the few or many
scientific acquisitions into various fields
founded, which must however combine
with the attention to anthropological elements
concerning that possibility of
the man of give itself, also outside strictly
scientific horizons, as subject
of knowledge and at the same time as knowledge
object. While contesting the
metaphysical and doctrinal mystifications
typical of the religious ideologies
in their generality, the RD tries also to
gather the possible intuitions of the
real one what, here and there, they
can have absorbed and fixed, using them as
fossil signals of to primitive world
and life interpretation.
The RD, that we could also define the
anthropic subspecies of a general cosmic
pluralism,
places itself against all monisms (8) (be they of materialistic, idealistic or
spiritualistic character) as false answers
to natural, but intellectually deviating
psychic (9)
requests of "unity-homogeneity-uniformity"
and
"determination-explanation". These
are arbitrarily moved to an
interpretation of the reality that "ideologically"
puts between
brackets, or removes, every not reducible
aspect of it to that supposed
unity-totality. In fact I consider the monism,
in all its several forms, a kind of conceptual
totalitarianism, intolerant
towards every extraneousness element to the
dogmas that it places what
inalienable a-priori foundations.
The pluralistic hypothesis of the RD concerns
a cosmos (uni-vers or pluri-vers?)(10)characterized by reality terms not "closed"
and limited to those that our inductive/deductive
capacities allow us to gather (often purely
favouring to anthropic perspective) because
it goes beyond towards another which surpass
it, progressive where the man is considered
not other than the most expression, definitive
but not necessarily highest, among the forms
of matter
organization. What that is put in discussion
by the RD (that for many points of
view is a "critical" materialism
form) is to consider as
"real" only what is reducible to
the matter, both in progressive or elementary form,
excluding every
other entity or phenomenon not offering this
characteristic, or compulsorily
attributing to it the "reducibility"
in rigid and dogmatic way. But
it still contests definitely such idealistic-spiritualistic
drifts that our
mind entrust every arbitrary creation or
conceptual interpretation the cosmos
and the life of.
The RD, therefore leaving from the
hypothesis of the existence of several and
separated ambits (11)of reality irreducible each other,
considers them also as dimensions of the
real
placed on various plans, where the being
in one of them means normally to be
alien to what belongs to another ambit.
That allows us to avoid the risk to overestimate
the human intellectual
possibilities and then abandon the ideological
closure that wants the man
"to the centre of the universe",
in favour of an opening towards what
that is not knowable for us in narrow sense,
but of which we can intuit the
existence and a few characteristics. What
is important is to be able to establish
if such intuition has a universal
base and so it can be considered common to
every man and not "individual
(true or presumed) exceptionalities",
which could give rise to
"revealing" or "creative"
insubstantial hypothesis on the
accessible plan of the Real for everybody.
The negation by the RD of every anthropocentrism
extends also biological or
metaphysical hierarchies to every other worth
judgement (man as
"king" of the Created, nobility
of the Good [for us and perhaps to
detriment of other species] with respect
to the evil, etc.) tightly connected to the anthropocentrism.
Our pluralistic hypothesis however also an
other aspect involves, not less important
under the cognitive point, that to
come off the conception of the universe and
its parts like a reality inside of
which it is a structural continuity. This
opinion is prevalently based on some a-priori belief as purely
intellectualistic point of view, without
any checking in the reality. And that happens chiefly
because often the man had applied to reality “as it is” the concepts “how it must be”
or
“how he will it should to be” on a basis
of prejudices, ideological dogmas or
psychic requests as those already mentioned
of “unity and homogeneity”, that
had heavily and fully influenced also scientific
theories. The reality, for against, is made of
“discrete” (distinct) elements, but always
inside of a functional synthesis
which can only wrongly be seen as a structural
continuity. Under this point of
view a lightening example comes from the
structure more complex and progressive
of the matter living (our brain), constituted
by hundreds of billion of cells
specialized among them tight connected, but
making everybody a single and
specific function inside of the behaviour,
apparently univocal, of the nervous
system and the mind.
Without further penetrating what which
will be afterwards examined I limit here
myself to anticipate that the RD
supposes (inside a reality probably
"plural") a "dual" anthropic
reality, because, besides the matter, primary reality that us surround
and constitutes, we intuit a second reality
given to us, to it irreducible, that reveals
itself in the world of feelings
and more particular in the affections, in
the aesthetic excitements, in the
ethical emotions, in the discovery and knowledge
enthusiasms. If it is true in
fact that the matter, in every form,
becomes clear, perceivable and computable
in the perception and in the rational
analysis, it is not less true that this "other"
reality is absolutely clear by the intuition together with the intuitive
sensitivity. The true cognitive problem consists in
being able to establish
if this second reality is at the end
“reducible” to the first one, as a particular
way of it to be and show itself,
or (is our thesis) keep itself "irreducible"
to that.
While confirming that one of the founding
criterions of the RD is the one based on
the recognition of a capacity of our
mind (of type "extra-intellective"
or extraphisic) to intuit an elusive extramaterial reality,
I here
anticipate that the relationship between
such intuitive reality (intuited) and the special mental function
(intuiting) is likely to take place analogously
to the way in which the earth concerns the
leg that it crowd, the water the fin that
it cleave or the air the wing that in it
hover (12).Our animal bodies are in fact made by elements
that draw their forms and
their functions from information on the external
reality, that through the
biologic evolution the genome received and
synthesized to the best adaptation
to the natural environment. Therefore is
not clear why a specialized part of
our mind could not to reach information,
even if weak, about a hide reality
that promote or cause our particular feeling,
that cannot superficially and
rigidly ascribed to pure activity electro-chemical
of our cerebral cells.
1.2) A hypothesis for the XXI Century (towards
a crisis of the faiths?)
With a back step I want now make a
historical recognition about precedents which
lead to the origin of RD, to
stress that, at the middle of Nineties, when
it only was a mental draft by
uncertain prospects even for myself, my pervasive
pessimism of that moment made
me think to a futuristic anthropologic horizon
a little worrying and with which
seemed to me I would in advance to face.
As you know the depressed ones have
strange fantasies, but mine lead after me
(at least I hope) to something than
from the psychic dimension has lead me at
first in a reflection on the problem
of our relationship with the reality
and subsequently to the formulation of an
existential answer on substantial
rationality bases. In the perspective about
which I will say the RD could have
then at least a task: to be useful as previous
attempt, or as methodological
example, or as set of existential reflections
to use with flexibility, for an
approach post-religious to a conception of
the world on materialistic basis,
but without falling in the "pure and
raw materialism"; on the
contrary with some decisive elements for
a positive overcoming of it.
Then let us hypothesize that in a not too
far future (within how many decades?) at
least in the industrialized world, a
true awareness of the profound reality of
the universe (at present still
prevented by the strong presence of religious
beliefs permeating our culture)
can get a footing. And that, together with
new scientific discoveries on the
origin of the life, can go in a state of
crisis, in a traumatic way, all the
traditional systems of belief, which helped
for millenniums our ancestors to
survive to privations and pains, to believe
in the life and in the "next
world", make children, till the soil
and build houses and towns. If this
forecast should possibly come true (and already
some sign does not miss) a
probably dramatic anthropological mutation
would happen, unless mitigated and
slackened in the time by the resistance that
unawarely would be opposed in the
depth of psyche, because of its
conservative nature. There would certainly
be by the religions the attempt to
conform precepts and morals (perhaps also
the doctrine) to the new necessities,
but they would find effective formulas to
continuing to grant the psyche of their believers in a
satisfying homeostasis? (13)
Or maybe instead the things could better
go and the process of become really aware
not be so immediate, at least for the
more ones? For a great number of people could
come a period of shortage of the
conscience and that avoid the aspects most
traumatic of the crisis. Those
peoples could unconsciously oppose temporary
brakes to that revolutionary and traumatic
coming, allowing such a less painful passage
towards the common and unavoidable
destiny of such very heavy "ideological
orphanity". Moreover the new
generations could be, with better knowledge
of the facts and alternative
existential models, prepared to live without
God with some gradualness. The
definitive problem however could be in the
fact that, inevitably, before or
then for everybody (always that the death
does not come to close before the
match) with the further evolution of the
sciences, more it will be the problem
to reconcile what which intellectually "is
known" with what
sentimentally "is believed". And
then it could become indispensable
have at disposal some "models",
some weltanschauungen (14)(or "conceptions of the world"),
as existential alternative, which refer to.
If one should verifying this hypothesis to
that would quite follow quickly a general
removal from the religion of the
fathers, the men would dramatically be not
to own other certainties than the
scientific ones: that for the psyche (15)could have effects laying waste. But must
also adding that the sciences, a little for
the nature of their concepts and a little
for their specific language would continue
in every case to be heard as extraneous for
many people, without the possibility of being
really understanding from most men of the
street. And however the true problem would
be another: that the sciences for their nature
would keep on not being able to provide any
answer to the big metaphysical questions,
because your action field is and will be
only the world "in its materiality"
(16).
.
In the perspective which
I hypothesize for the gullible persons to
save its psychic integrity and live
in peace could maybe still remain quite easy,
because on the ashes of the big
religious systems could proliferate formations
of braggarts, who could supply
able, useful and aimed answers, in excellent
and granted packs, with the
determinant help with fantastic and sophisticated
information and persuasion
techniques, that surely will not lack in
future. And however I wonder if also
this chaotic view, always more mystified
and precarious, could very far push in
the time. Besides, however, before or then,
the generations to come will
finally have to suit the idea of untenability
of a creator and transcendental
God. With this absence they will have to
face and to manage to the best the
possibilities of elaborating, or simply providing,
an acceptable answer to
their legitimate existential and eschatologic
questions.
In every case the more thoughtful and less
inclined to suggestion peoples could be destined
to pay the highest price. They
probably could know, inevitably and in improvise
way, the nihilistic abyss of
the radical materialism and in the search
of the exit everybody will risk to
remain alone, testing that despair in which
we, or at least "some" of
us, will have preceded them. However goes
confirmed: before or after, and for
everybody, the elusions, the removals, the
placing between brackets, the faiths
of replace, all they would arrive to your
extreme border, and everybody would
have to ask himself to try to find the vision
or conception of the world (the weltanschauung) most consistent with your doubts and your
expectations. Then could be born (perhaps)
million of individual philosophies, which
only for the luckiest ones would be able
to become beliefs (17). They are
the extraphysical "models" to which
I was mentioning above and of
which the RD, without any pretension to constitute
an alone and exhaustive
conception, would propose itself as antecedent.
These individual philosophies could
furthermore be free from every debt to the
"learned" philosophies,
which in the meantime will become more refined,
pleonastic and abstruse. They,
with all your logical dialectic-hermeneutic
technicality, already today are
turning to experts of the philosophy and
not to those ones (surely the most
part) who are completely lacking in it. Certainly
to these men, also in the
future, the learned, aulic and intellectualistic
philosophies, will keep on
totally turning out abstract and impracticable,
therefore useless. But maybe of
this fact the professional philosophers will
continue do not care. The extreme
intellectualization of the academic philosophy
seems started towards a fatal
incapacity to formulate some universe and
life interpretations suitable for the
common man. Formulate exhaustive philosophical
systems reasonably credible and
at the same time directly transferable in
practice living, what existential
reference frames, being impossible or not
interesting task for the learned
philosophy, which prefers to practise in
idle dialectic and hermeneutic
refinements. On the contrary, those I assumed
as philosophies of the future,
individual or personal, ingenuous or antiintellectual,
could have the
prerogative to be immediately usable in the
daily reality, because the adoption
as conception of the world is
decisive “for the life” of whom they will
formulate or adopt. Exactly as it
happen with the religions, which, beyond
your dogmas and your precepts, are, in
most cases (more or less unawarely), modelled
and adapted to the single
existential needs and used as "living
guides". Nor the
"individual" or "personal"
adjective can mean that
everybody should necessarily invent a philosophy,
but only that everybody could
"decide" if exercising your individual
freedom and with it
"choose" a conception of the life
and of the death one, which allow
him to feel himself intellectually free,
using or not using the models most
consonant with the reality that already available
are.
This speech will certainly make alarm someone:
but
then “what will become of the “truth”? We think that the term has assumed
so misunderstanding meanings (especially
in religious field) that turn out
opportune an abolition of it (to exception
of the logical-mathematical field)
in favour of that of reality, about which we will have opportunity to
get back. Is quite interesting noticing that
a pragmatic interpretation of the term "truth"
(to all favour of the value practical-psychical
of the ambiguous religious truths) is that
advanced by William James, which was claiming
that a truth "to be true" must
also "working" in current life(18). This is in part right,
if we consider that without a reasonable
pragmatism is quite difficult to
manage in the meanders of the ideas (sometimes
intrinsically ambiguous),
especially when we have to tune them with
the problems of real life. Here I
evidently move forward with some hypotheses
fairly combining with a
relativistic speech, whose is convinced that,
also with all the new knowledge
that the man will be able in future to acquire,
will strongly remain any way a
immense and deep area of conjectures and
hypothesis in the darkness of our
deepest ignorance. But for the dignity of the man aware of himself,
that above could always be preferable to
defending and maintaining false truths
administered by the tradition and accepted
in not critic and irrational way.
The problem in fact, to speak clearly, is
to try and retry to approach rationally,
but also intuitively, to that extraphisical
reality which our intuition confirms us every
day, which however is and will
stay for the man absolutely unknowable, because
of our structural incapacity,
as constituted by matter, to go
cognitively out of the ambit of it.
Of other from the matter we can have
only some intuitions and on them to build
some hypotheses, and on the
hypotheses to build even some systems more
or not reasonable. But with all that
we will never be able to pretend to exceed
a dissatisfying cognitive
relativity.
What I will try to explain wants to be so
the translation, in the terms that I mentioned,
of an anti-intellectual way of doing philosophy
that must come from the real experience of
the "spent life" and that as such
must worth "for the life" and not
for the culture. But in the same time I think
that we must to have the intellectual courage
to penetrating through the meanders of a
free reflection that leaves apart from rigid
canons of the reason,
without that means to allow something to
irrationality or fantasy.
My personal way of thinking about the
world and the life I believe been both the
eventful and lucky result of a
existential travail, and I do not neither
consider it as especially original,
because it is common to a great number of
peoples who had not be able to give
up their critical sense, and who are "incapable"
to believe in some
of the big institutionalized lies which principally
found the religions. Nor I
want to hide my relative presumptuousness:
to think that my luck was to find Ariadne’s
threat that lead out of the painful labyrinth
generated by that incredulity and
that doubt ones that we must to test in face
to what illicitly as truth passed
is, and about it we feel, more or less clearly,
the bad smell of fraud. But I also soon want to add that it is
"also" with a little uneasiness
that I decidedly assume this
antireligious position, because many people
dear to me, and whom I estimate,
live intensely and profitably their faith.
The embarrassment I meet in my antireligious
enunciations comes also from the fact that
my adolescence (as I will say later) has
taken place in the Christian faith and that
my first formation has happened in that context.
I neither can forget the fact that, on the
ethical plan, I have fed me with the Christianity
foundations and they, in some measure, probably
condition my same current atheism. However
how could I abstain from the declaring what
which in some way is to the origin of this
philosophical proposal? For this I admit
my deep conviction that the belief in a being
superior, father and master, is not other
than the man's self projection in the transcendence,
exorcizing at a time the insult of the ignorance
and the fear of the death. This is what about
a century and half ago brightly had seen
Ludwig Feuerbach (19),
whose thought I consider fundamental in order
to place in the correct
perspective the divine hypostasis and its
correlated aspects.
However I could not abstain from the
forerunning a question probably emerging,
since someone will certainly be asked
the because of this booklet (the logic wants
that one obviously write to be
read) and, after all, to whom it really turns.
It is clear not being able
reasonably to hope that some aristocratic
profession philosopher can waste his
time to run it, at least for a "cultural
class" matter; nor I can
hope that fans of the traditional philosophy
will do it, that on the basis of
their interest turn to well other texts;
nor obviously the believers, which
look preferably for confirmations to your
faith and not surely that which put
it in discussion.
For just now said I would like turn to
that vague category established by the men
"in the street" proposing
them a informal philosophy, which I like
call just "of street". But I
realize that after all also the adjective
"of street" is not very
clear, in fact: what men in the street could
interested in my informal an
anti-intellectualistic, but anyway philosophy
one? Who is that, with his
hurried and busy living, besieged from a
thousand proposals for his free time, should
engage himself in the reading of a book which
comes from the nothing of the
insignificant anonymity of me, asking himself
whether or not be worth having
the lost time to run it? The answer is: I
do not know. I manufactured an object
I know to what it serves, but I do not know
whether someone will notice. Mine
is in fact a bet, that of who, for game,
goes to the open sea with a little and
unsafe boat and throws your hopeful bottle
in the billows with that message
which maybe no one will read. Of other part
the game, as one will see, is an important theme
for the RD and I would
really like to fix to this mini-philosophical
attempt of mine that much of
playful there is always in all the hopeless
enterprises.
I still wish to add that a not secondary
purpose
of this informal little treatise would be
above all that to be able to be read
without boring. Of other part, the purpose
of the RD cannot be that to
convince, nor receive assent to do proselytes,
but offer it as non-conventional
thing of which take vision and propose it
as "new conception of the
world", on which at least think. And
anyway offer, in correct terms, the
problem of the possibility that an elusive
reality
exists beyond the matter and that
this is rationally sustainable, without contradicting
the general scientific
view of the world. At the same time, I do
not deny it, I will try to unmask the
instrumental and improper abuses that the
religious ideologies (not without
some "historical" merits in existential
terms) built on the false
concept of "spirit", doing a creator,
legislator and ruler entity,
which in its proper terms is what most "material"
it is possible to
imagine, as I hope to show.
1.3) Something about the subject and whom
writes.
Necessity
and liberty are fundamental aspects
of the two ambits of the reality, the matter and the aither (20), how fixed from the DR as of universe fundamental
components, which we can perceive, or at
least clearly intuit; for this reason they
metonymically were used to provide the title
to this booklet. Which intends to present
the anthropic real dualism theory, which
is in hard opposition to all monistic ones (materialistic or spiritualistic)
that recognize a single reality, to
which all the existing one reducible
or referable is.
In the case of the materialism, as one knows, the reality
is considered exclusively made by the matter
and therefore to which all being in universe
reducible is. In the case of
the spiritualism, on the contrary,
the bodies are considered ephemeral or transient
beings and the only reality to be the “spirit”,
as itself or as
immanent or transcendent nature of the divinity.
Inside this second theory,
there are then further differentiations and
in most cases the reality both of the spirit and the matter is
admitted, but this one is considered most
of all secondary and in every case
subordinate to it. We are here in the context
of the big monotheistic religions
on which we will pause for long, because
it is especially with them that the RD
want match.
At this point however a very important
specification must make, since, if the monisms
subordinate to one or other real (matter or “spirit”) the aspects supposed
from the other derived (matter as
emanation of the “spirit” for the spiritualism
and “spiritual” experiences as appearances
of the cerebral activity for the materialism), in the RD the two reals (matter and aither), which
are reciprocally immanent, together present
and widespread (and furthermore
having the same cosmic origin) under the
axiological point of view are
absolutely equivalent. Therefore this is
a joint relationship that excludes, in
the diversity, any hierarchical concept of
dependence, pre-eminence,
superiority or "nobility". Nor
relatively to the time their differences make inequality: in fact,
if the aither (very approximately the
"spirit" of the common sense) "does
not have time" that does not at all mean it
to be eternal, for the reason that is the
becoming (21)of the matter to produce the time, therefore the "end of the time" will also be the end of the aither. In other words: the end of the
universe, if and when you will be there,
will mark the end of both the matter and the aither. Under the point of view of the whole and in particular of the existence that means,
very simply,
that actually the human realities are
two and that the man, according to the DR,
has two equivalent possibilities to
exist or "fulfil him": one in the
ambit of matter, that him
constitutes and itself offer to his perception-intellection
and another, in the
aither ambit, that offer itself in the affections
and emotions sphere.
One is fulfilled carrying out the daily life
and the other carrying out
particular mind states, hard reducible to
the activity thinking of our brain,
but made possible by the intuitive sensitivity (22), which allows our relationship with
the aither according to what we will explain.
But I would now to come to the personal preliminaries
that are to the base of my ideas about the
world and to the genesis of the RD here that
will be explained. When in 1994 I had what
presumptuously will call a "intuition",
after a long painful period of existential
crisis lasted many years, could not think
that it, besides to solve my personal problems
would then have taken away the form and the
characteristics of a true "conception
of the world" (the German weltanschauung) away. In fact it came
soon to assume such systemic structure from
gave like a quite consistent and
organic life and universe vision, but above
all not in contrast with the most
up-to-date scientific knowledge on the cosmos
and the life. This evolution
happened in very natural way, even if to
the beginning my reason was reluctant to accept such a revolutionary
idea, that was
presenting also the embarrassing reengagement
(also if approximately) of
metaphysical terms not very unlike those
of the religious faiths what I was
contesting, although if with meanings and
denotations totally new.
However, even if it had solved my existential
problems and was offering itself to me in
convincing terms, free was not from some
"presentability faults", and I
realized that, if I wanted also to make you
communicable, I had to elaborate and clarify
its theoretical terms, together with its
structural appearances, according at least
to presentability criteria. So, also in a
not continuative way, I worked on it for
many years, up to elaborate one "form”
of it that now seem me decent and able to
be proposed. I thus decided to put my message
in the famous bottle and try to make it take
the wide one, hoping that it will finish
in some good hands. This text is public "issue"
of that long meditation on life and on the
world that here it offers to the judgement
of the readers, hope numerous and above all
not too much severe.
I would like to take a further step now
back, to tell something of me and offer a
summary portrayed of the
"producer" to help his "product"
be understood more easily.
I was baptized and confirmed, even if in
my family the Christian faith was
little more than one convention. A very poor
family, but above all economically
"mined", because of war and of
bad speculations effect of the family
head. My mother, of town native, was a fairly
cultured and very sweet woman,
who too believed in the affections to be
also a lucky woman. My father, of
rural origin (but attracted by the town)
was an arid and calculating man, very
ambitious and frustrated by repeated professional
and economic failures, who
radically had an evolution in materialistic
sense, which, for the little I can
remember, happened in the period in which
I was still a child. That fact
produced a contrast between us when I started
frequenting the parish of the
quarter, entering soon in the Azione
Cattolica (Catholic Action) and later becoming a group
"Aspiranti" (23) head. My father's
opposition was actually more of political
character than confessional: having adhered
to the Communist Party (24) he was considering the Catholic Church
allied to double thread with the dominant
middle class and obviously in classical terms
of that time " the middle class and
the priests " were acting together to
starve the proletariat and keep it in the
ignorance”. At that time the Azione Cattolica was much politicized and to
the elections of 1948 I was collaborating
in favour of the Democrazia Cristiana party (Christian Democracy) in the so-called
“Comitati Civici” (civic committees), while
my father, very angry, was claiming
that the priests had plagiarized me. In all
that my mother was apparently
neutral, even if she were actually on my
part. My brother, elder of four year,
was not believer, but was also against the
Communism more than me and even for
that his relationship with my father was
very bad. Apart from these details, it must be added
that the marriage
between my parents was a “something” that
euphemistically it would be possible
to call "disastrous", but on this
subject I prefer not to dwell.
When I was eighteen there was a turn which
took me to abandon the church and the faith
and set out on the path of a provisional
agnosticism that lasted about ten years,
until it evolved towards a decidedly
atheistic and materialistic direction, leading
me also on political extreme
left positions, with a turn to a hundred
and eighty degrees with respect to
those of adolescence ones. But it was only
about the age of forty (already
married with two children) that further thinking
I arrived to radicalize my
materialism up to have, for consistency,
to deny reality or at least substance
to all that which I had always considered
as noble and wealth part of my life:
I allude to the feelings, to the affections,
to the art and music emotions, to
the enthusiasm of knowledge and of discovery
as ends in themselves. All this,
in the materialistic optics, had to be reducible
to the matter and in it itself cancel, without leaving
any real track.
Surely, was the possibility that those things
were epiphenomena (25) of the matter, with some subsistence
at least during the course of the life, but
however irreparably apparent,
temporary and insubstantial.
A conflict broke out in me between the
reasons of the materialism and the
"sense" of the living; that precipitated
me in an existential crisis
which I had to suffer for about ten years
but then, light at the end of the
tunnel, appeared clearly the intuition of
the reality as only false totality and actually formed
by two
"separated components ": the matter
and what later I would call aither.
That clearly explained the numerous incongruities
of which my chaotic
conception of the world irreparably was suffering
and the magma of my ideas
beginning to assume a consistent and sustainable
structure (at least for me in
that moment) what I would never have dared
to hope to the beginning.
I gave this personal information to the
only purpose to give back testimony of my
existential journey, consequent to a
process of reflection on himself and on the
world which is not, I repeat it,
that of a profession philosopher, but that
of a common man “in the street”, to
the holds with all the common problems, the
income the family, the expectations
the ambitions and the wish to live (or survive)
in peace with himself and the
other, but the same time tormented by the
wish to understand something of more
on why and how "I am" and "the
universe is", and what
relation exists between me and it.
1.4) The unknown and the “truth”
I think to can say that we are dipping and
laboriously sailing in the unknown
and who dogmatically affirms to own the “truth”
always say the “false”,
consciously or unawarely. The ignorance structurally
belong to us and
impregnates us, therefore it is also as we
are belonging to it, in a special
way when we penetrate into special intimate
or interpersonal experiences that
go beyond the ambit in which we use
the rational thought and with which investigate
the sure evidences of matter, which moreover founds us,
constitutes and wraps. So the unknown
one must be accepted as our limit and as
invincible existential opponent. We
with it together live and continuously face
it, how a dark horizon in which
maybe could hide “stable” being, to
which every living creature is aiming, but
sentenced to live the precariousness
of becoming (or dynamic being).
The truth
word and the derived adjectives unexceptionable
are in common speech and used
to mean correspondence, verifiability, coherence,
etc. (logical truths). But when are used in transcendental sense
(metaphysical truths) they are at least
an abuse and very often a voluntary mystification.
The use that was done of
this second meaning of the word in religious
and philosophical field is not
only mystifying, but also strongly diverting.
We must be beware of make of the truth concept a fetish, since the easy absoluteness expectation
must be checked
with the continue exercise of the reason,
which, to contrary, offers us of the reality
a diffuse relativity background. The metaphysical
truth is the mystifying
reciprocal of the cognitive sentence which
we are subjected to, that lets us
only glimpse that total relativity of our
and of the world becoming, which, as a kaleidoscope in continuous
rotation, always
us offers a changeable appearance, and sometimes
contradictory of the reality.
I think that the absoluteness and
certainty demand, which psychically even
us pesters, so how the aim to a future
where all being contradictions could
been conciliated, must by now to make the
contemporaneous man suspicious, who
has at disposal an age-old experience in
the psychic and psychoanalytic
research, whose results are now sufficiently
confirmed and incontrovertible. I
believe at this point evident how that psychic
demands (mentioned about homeostasis) can be a dark trap, which
acts in that religious ideology favour that
us proposes a cheap salvation for a
sentence (the “original sin”) whose we could
be at first charged. With regard
to that doctrinarian theorem, which if assumed
in a non-critical way save us
from existential research (but leaves us
in that “reason sleep” from which the
Enlightenment believed us to made free) the
RD shows a shattered world, untidy
and casual, so it is actually in the reality.
The millenary struggle the religious
ideologies led against the indetermination,
which instead must accepted as
"foundation" of ours existence,
was one of the ways of hiding the
structural ignorance that is with us, denying
also that sense of the tragic one (26)(that existentially characterizes us as men)
which goes with that ignorance which always harass us and
that often is just hidden under the sense
of the holy (27)one (what substitutive of the unknown
one), in which the tragic one would
solve itself "therapeutically".
But if instead we rationally want to
face the problem we must enter in a way of
thinking that we do not have any
possibility of solving the tragic one
that accept it and at the most temper it
with the comic. This is not a
pessimistic option, on the contrary, it is
the choice which allow us to elect
such irony to guide our life,
relegating all dramatization in the ridiculous
one, above all in this
civilization of the appearance, of the show
and of the success search (often
made of stereotypes and fetish ones), where
sometimes laughingly characterizes
the frustration of our trivial ambitions.
The unknown,
for the mind of the man, is like a barrier
which he towards continuously moves;
but as the new gained territory becomes new
knowledge property, his better
open-mindfulness makes him also intuit that
the depth of the unknown is more deep of how much first
thought. Is very likely that how much more
the true science man
"knows" than he is aware of the
vastness of that he “does not
know". Only the "dogmatic” one
cannot to careless about the unknown, in fact he does not at all need
to research and learn because he already
knows "everything" that him
is useful to speak in name of “Truth”. Thus
one was able to arrive to the point
to make of the verbum (in Latin =
word) term as “Verbum” (of God) the value
of a religious fetish, “truthful” and
“eternal” one. Thus the extraordinary
conquest of the word, such marvellous tool,
which lives and evolves, that allow
us to communicate in the common speech, as
in the philosophical and scientific
and as well in the poetic evocation for the
religion “became petrified” in that
fetishistic and dogmatic “Truth”.
As regards the truth concept in metaphysical meaning, I would
still to add that
there is only a unique existential situation
that "perhaps" could aim
to assume it: that of suffering. In
fact it is not only true in as is never contradictory,
but it can be called
"the time of the truth" to
better right than the death. When a person
suffers are disappearing from the
horizon and dry up all sources of the banality
and inauthenticity to which we
drink daily. Because, when the suffering arrives “becomes we and we are it” (28)
and that happens in a difficult identity
to sustain, but, in the same time
unavoidable. As much unavoidable than the
necessity
that permeates us, in agreement with perpetual
laws of the becoming. But, nearby to the pain (irony of the diversity),
there is also another
situation in which it is given to us finding
out a revealing power, the one of
the comicality. And we will see as the comic strikes to the same
way of a spark when the anthropic reflex
of the necessity receives the
beneficent attack of that of the liberty. So the cry and the laugh are
the topic theoretic couple in the every man
life. Between the two supports of suffering
and comic stretch itself the on the empty space rope
where is played the
man's existence.
1.5) "Street’s" philosophy and
a little “forest’s ".
Aping the subtitle of a work of a "big
one" of the modern philosophy, which
say: "how one philosophizes with the
hammer" (29),
I am leaving for a short time the street
and enter in the forest to do a bit of
philosophy "with the axe". Therefore
cutting the matter of the
"thinking" a little roughly will
try to cut (and to point out) what I
think be cause of many distortions of the
human thought, since from the
origins. In my opinion, a kind of original
sin which invalidate man’s thought
every time that he is not able to assume
a sufficient independence from the
pressure of psyche, what protects its
homeostasis affecting and forcing
cognitive elaborations and computational
functions (intellect and reason)
towards an arbitrary reading of the reality.
That leads to universe interpretations always
(or often very much) formulated
on account of "unity", "order",
"definition",
“homogeneity" and "uniformity".
This kind of phobia of the
causal plurality, of the disorder and of
the indetermination, whose everyone
more or less is subject, very often is almost
judged as a
"revelation" of what us transcend
(in the monotheism) or of what us include
(in the pantheism), what as truthful mental
image of unity and totality would
have infused in our mind the seal of the
unknown and supreme "being
truth".
But this phobia that would be "
divinely innate " does not regard, as
it would be possible to think, the
people who have a faith, but also men of
science that are continuously to the
presence of a natural world and of a universe
that show not at all that unitary
comforting and reassuring structure the psychic
homeostasis requires (30).
This cause the fact that unconsciously the
man always goes to the research of a
single “first principle”, is it irrational
or rational, from which all the reality would have had origin and to which, before
or then, everything must be to the end reduced
(31). In other words, in recognizing the
multiform appearances of becoming we always try to display a
historical precedents or final phase where
all the phenomena and world aspects
can find the explanation and justification
as effects of a transcendental
cause, and in it to converge and find their
reason to be.
This one of the unity, of the order, of the
harmony, of the homogeneity etc. constitutes
the big human dream of every time. A dream
which after the reshaping of the Newtonian
model, the coming of the quantum mechanics
and the recent developments of biology, would
be good right to withdraw it in the archaeological
shelves of the human history instead to last
in the individual consciences. But it is
still more in the solid religious ideological
systems that the dream cannot die; thus happens
that, when the scientific news puts in crisis
the dogmatic system of the faith, the silent
but constant interpretative work of the theologians
settles continuously the faith “truths” with
the scientific evidences, sometimes leading
to a true doctrinal revision (32).
The fact still has another worthy interest
aspect, since it light up a structural prerogative
of psyche, which, faced to a new factual knowledge
that can be
dangerous for its homeostasis, while
it make the question simultaneously produce
the "useful" answer for
itself, putting intellect and reason in a corner. And we could add
that perhaps the oppositional order/chaos
couple in theoretic field is the
mother of other dualities corresponding in
ethical field (well/badly), in
aesthetic field (beautiful/bad), in cognitive
field (perfection/imperfection),
in metaphysical field (spirit/matter), and
so on, which are managed from psyche in an analogous way. In the historic reality
between two “opposites” there is almost never
synthesis (as wanted Hegel) (33)
but much oftener only more or less conflicting
relation (34); therefore the opposites live together in
the phenomena for most alternating themselves
and much less frequently solving in a synthetic
unity. But as well you know all the ideologies
(religious, philosophical, sociological)
always imagine the synthesis (final cause)(35)
that will solve the plurality and the precariousness
in the of unity and of
stability perfection.
Our intellect
and reason perceive a factual reality
that is shown only as becoming, but
thep psyche stubbornly them
curb pushing always to admit a unitary and
immutable being what "first and final cause" of
the whole. And often it is really the reason, for some perverse internal
process, that recognizes in the unitary no
other than itself. So all
rationalistic philosophical systems (Cartesianism,
Spinozism, Hegelianism,
etc.) are always strongly defined in finalistic
sense.
The attraction of unity concept, which (I
repeat) according to RD originate in psyche,
is joined whit that aim of a unitary, tidy,
homogeneous and stable being which characterize alternate
periods of Western thought, but that was
straight away a constant in Easter
one, where it dominated the philosophic speculation
through the millennia
(except the Shamkya system about
which later will said).
It is furthermore interesting to note that
the theory of the “unity” (as origin and
definitive form of the universe)
impose itself almost simultaneously in the
Indian world and in that Hebrew
around to 1000 B.C. with the hypostasis of
the Brahman in the first and Jahveh
in the second. The Brahman as unitary supreme
strength to the origin of
"whole" in that all the preceding
divinities converge and Jahveh as
only god that assume in himself all old divinities.
It happened then that the
previous pluralistic system of local or tribal
divinities (surviving instead
for long in the Greek cultures) is suppressed
to set a single divine principle.
But it is not less interesting to mark that
about ten centuries later (still
with a relative contemporariness) inside
those two monistic systems become
successful the tri-partition in the shape
of Indian Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu
and Shiva) and in of Christian Trinity one
(Father, Son and Holy Ghost). A
psychological numerology that seriously will
study the relationship between
“the one which becomes three” and “ the three
ones which remains one” (also see
the much recent Hegelianism and other various
idealistic tri-partitions) could
throw light on these transubstantial processes
in the history of the human
beliefs. But also in the ancient Greek world
(about VI century B.C.) had not
missed the aims to the unity, verifiable
in the “unitary principle” assumed by
Thales with the “water”, by Anaximander with
the “infinite”, by Anaximenes with
the “air” and finally by Parmenides with
the “being”.
I close this little analysis of the robust
trunk " philo-unitary "of the human
thought, which I cut with the
axe, to add that it does not only concern
the
"religious-spiritualistic-idealistic"
line we outlined above, but
also the materialism, which, in its
several forms, characterizes often itself
also as a strict monism not unlike, in its opposition, to those spiritualistic
ones.
1.6) To
intuit the unknowable.
While proposing this booklet I must also
soon highlight its clear limit: when I talk
about the aither, and about what it concern, I well know
not to be able to
offer any true knowledge element about it.
On the other hand the RD, putting
itself as proposal that flow by a research
on the irreducible to matter
and as overcoming of the “spirit” of the
tradition, it draw totally away from all
the religious hypostases of the “spirit”
(in the terms and the manners), but not less
from all lay ones (philosophical or parapsychological)
that placed and place now it in theoretical
or eschatological terms (36).
And it is really for this distance that separates
the RD from them I have
preliminarily the duty to admit my "ignorance"
about what really is
the extraphisic ambit that I placed. Therefore dealing with the
aither I am perfectly aware not to be
able to appeal to the rational faculties
of the reader, as mental
"deductive and computational" functions,
because I must repeat that
it can instead only be object of a synergetic
process of intellect and idema,
that is to say consequent from a faculty
such the intuition conjugate with intuitive sensitivity. That does not
mean the reason are extraneous to
this operation, because to which we must
entrust the check that the assertions
about the aither at least
corresponding to what of which having knowledge
is possible, because such
assertions never can conflict with the certain
knowledge that the reason itself ratifies. Then this one,
certainly, remains the "driver"
for the dualistic elaboration, but it
cannot always be also the " tool"
for every approach. This is the
motive for which I must introduces and mention
preliminarily to those others
tools (intellect intuition and intuitive sensitivity) to which I
entrusted the "reasons" for the
philosophy I proposed as regards all
which is “not” perceivable, knowable and
rationalizing.
Only of what which is perceivable (by our
senses or adequate scientific tools) is in
fact possible a true knowledge, even
if anyway in anthropic terms. And however
our knowledge of the reality cannot limit it to this. If it
so is then shall be unreal most of the origins
and the causes of our most
important and deepest emotions. Therefore
deny reality, for a restrictive
positivistic concept, to all what which exceeds
the “verifiable” is a limiting
closing of our horizons. Our mental faculties
beyond the reason are so wide that no reasonable person can
deprive herself.
Must looking from every of autosuggestion
and illusion forms, but it is
necessary keeping in mind that our intellect
is most related to the world through not-rational
ways. Among them the most
important is certainly the intuition.
The intuition
as philosophical concept has a curious history
that I save you, its validity as
knowledge tool was placed and denied, exalted
and condemned, divided for
knowledge typologies, etc., up to Kant, who
applying the adjective of
"intellectual" identified it with
the divine creativity. In the RD
the job of intuition is to lead the approach (synergetic with
intuitive sensitivity, of which later) with what we affirmed as
“irreducible” to matter. We in
fact cannot perceive the aither in
direct way because our materiality separate
us from it and however, through a
particular function of our mind (as one will
see in the next paragraph) we can
it receive and elaborate as well to keep
and describing some its aspects about
them we will treat at the proper time.
1.7 Some additional considerations.
The philosophy I intend to propose would
will it to be above all a philosophy of the
"good sense" and for the
man “in the street” in contrast to that "learned"
of the
universities. It renew to the thought of
those philosophers, above all
ancients, who in a world still dominated
from that pluralistic and not dogmatic
religion (but not for this less binding),
which was the so-called Hellenic paganism (37),
where already at that time invited their
fellow-citizens to beware of blind and
superficial belief in the institutionalized
divinities, showing an existential
and alternative way consonant with the reality
of the physical world, which, also if in
initial manner and in approximate
means, was beginning to reveal it. Among
these noble fathers, whom I elect to
far reference models, I like to mention Empedocles
and above all Democritus and
Epicurus. These two were the initiators of
that rational and non-mythical
philosophy of the nature and living that
the coming of the Christianity, with
its dogmatic violence, sent in the cellar
for fifteen centuries. Rationalistic
and lay philosophy which shyly reappeared
in the Renaissance but that impose
itself only in Enlightenment, to give birth
and to bring up the bloom of an
atheistic and rational conception of the
world which however was sent, too much soon, in
the dark one by the
nineteenth-century idealism (38).
After the drunkenness of idealism and of its Marxian filiation
followed by the dark and ambiguous existentialisms
of the Twentieth Century, I think it that
now, to the dawn of the Twenty-first,
it is arrived the moment to reconsider that
so neglected message. And therefore
(renewing to it) try to propose a conception
of the world alternative to those ones of religious and
idealistic transcendentalism,
so as to those ones of a rigid materialism
and a dogmatic scientism. To be
credible however it must offer us a not contradictory
view of the reality with respect to the objectivity
of the most recent scientific acquisitions,
and in the same time (exceeding the
radical and arid materialism which
often to them binds it) must set up an existential
horizon showing a vision of
living rich of all cultural and affective
ferments the humanity cultivates from
always, as the most precious part of our
adventure in the life of the cosmos.
I am not sure that my hypothesis on the
plurality of the universe and the consequent
dualism of the anthropic reality,
as well as the outline I will do about a
uncertain future (the aither) which
could wait a "product" (the idioaitherion)(39)
of that particular mental function of ours
which the idema is (40), can constitute in
their set a convincing thesis. And however
it will be at least a weak voice
against the monistic tyranny which has raged
in the centuries and put every
pluralistic alternative in shade, of which
the RD (as philosophy regarding the
man rather that the universe)is a subspecies (41).
As we already saw the of “unity” and of
uniqueness glamour, as of other part that
of the “order”, is a "constant"
one in the history of the human thought.
It evidently owns a great assurance
power under the psychic point of view, but
it is clear that does not find
confirmations in the reality of our
experience nor in scientific objectivism,
which instead offer us an image
plural, complex and chaotic of universe in
general and of biosphere in
particular; even if strongly organic and
integrated in the necessity, which cause a certain order of causal and
consequential
character in the whole.
We will still repeat that most success and
culturally ruling philosophies, in every
time, where always in favour of the
uniqueness of a “first cause”, only afterwards
analysing the plurality of the
effects. The sciences, on the contrary, have
always left from a single effect
to investigate the many causes. That clearly
outlines the difference as the man
from always "would like" the world
and as instead it "is"
in the reality.
(4) In epistemology the holism term
shows that theory which considers the scientific
knowledge as a set of clauses
highly connected, such not to allow the experimental
verification of a single
hypothesis, but only of portions more or
minus extended of the set. Analogously
in biology it is the theory according to
which every living organism presents
not referable characteristics to the simple
sum of his parts. Exist also a
sociological conception of it, which considers
the societies as not reducible
totalities to the sum of the individuals
who constitute them.
(5) The stars are bodies that send electromagnetic
issues of various type. The light that we
see depends from the superficial temperature
of the body, that is directly proportional
to the mass and to the speed of rotation.
Contrary to our usual way to speak those
that send "cold" light (the blue
stars) are the hottest, while those that
send "hot" light (the red stars)
am the more coldest. A blue star as Riegel
(8.000 times more great than the Sun) has
a superficial temperature of 75.000 Kelvin
degrees, a yellow one as the Sun has a temperature
of a few less of 6.000 k degrees and a red
one as Betelgeuse about 3.000 k degrees.
(6) We here assume the point of view presented
by first by the biologist Jacques Monod at
the end of the 1960s and treated in his book
“The case and the necessity” published in
1970.
(7) To this issue are extremely interesting
the
recent developments in studies about apoptosis,
the cellular suicide. Actually
happens that the cells do not die, but "kill
themselves". That
happens through the internal production of
proteins-killer that "execute
the sentence" as soon as the cell becomes
useless or not more coordinated
with the near ones. In fact the process is
very complex because come into play
three genes that produce as much proteins
only one of which is the “executor”,
but its work depend by a second one, sort
of “switch life/death” and by a third
(the “protector”) that put off the execution.
This mechanism is substantially
identical for all the living creatures (J.C.Ameisen,
To the heart of the
life, Feltrinelli 2001- pages 75 and following).
(8)
Theories that admit an only substance, which
everything is reducible to; in
other words: there is only one fundamental
reality, which all that exist is
reducible.
(9)
The Psyche, in its tendency to the
conservation and saving of nervous energies,
always pushes the intellective and
analitical faculties (intellect and reason) to formulate a
satisfying and tranquillizing "vision
of the world".
(10) I refer to some recent cosmologic hypotheses, that
considers our universe only
as "one of a lot of ones" born
by the initial big-bang.
(11) We call ambit the real “field” in which a being shows
itself and exists. I apologize if I am forced
to introduce a few ad hoc terms. After an initial attempt I
realized the impossibility to use well known,
(but improper) terms in the
context of the RD, with the risk of cause
misunderstandings that unlikely can
then to be removed.
(12)
The thesis that affirm the animal body to
be the result of a genetic acquired
information elaboration about the outside
reality is of Konrad Lorenz, and is
asserted especially in two his fundamental
works: The other face of the mirror (1973) and Nature and destiny (1983). For Lorenz "living" is
above
all "learn" and acquire information
about the reality that surrounds
us. Therefore the evolutionary adaptation
is an acquisition to knowledge for
which << [...] inside the living system
a reproduction of the real
exterior world is formed. >>
(13)
Been of balance to which the psyche
(together with the rest of the body) aim,
avoiding unpleasant both mental and
corporeal experiences. That influence also
intellect
and reason activities, which in your
formulations must do the accounts with the
inertias of it.
(14)
We introduce here (and will alternately use
it to conception of the world) the
German word weltanschauung, which
literally "vision of the world"
means, translated into English
(besides with “conception”) also with “intuition”. It is sufficiently well known in philosophy
and psychology, and
practically used in all languages as only
term expressing the mentioned
concept.
(15) As you will meet longer the RD places
and
consider four "functions" principals
of the mind, which is called mental organizations, as structural and
functional elements logically "identifiable"
inside the working of
our encephalon. They are the psyche,
the intellect, the reason and the idema (core of the individuality).
This type of heuristic operation, for "functional
subdivision" of the
mind, which has been called partitive
proceeding will be presented and explained longer.
(16) The RD considers the universe as a complex
entity from the character metaphorically
"spongy". In it all the
"perceptible" reality hides
an other one only "intuible" reality,
which concerns the ambit of the
"gaps" of our perception.
(17) The term belief means the
assumption as truthful of a concept or of
a set of concepts about a object of
the thought (fact, situation, text, testimony,
etc.) believed as real,
independently from every empiric or rational
confirmation:. The belief therefore has prevalently irrational character
even
if based on elements of rationality.
(18)
We are here referring to The will to
believe - 1897, a book where James explain such point
of view.
(19) The “anthropomorfization” of the religion
is the interpretative thesis explained and
developed by Ludwig Feuerbach in The
Essence of the Christianity (1841).
(20) I had been forced to introduce this new term,
which approximately is similar to “spirit”
in the conventional meaning, because
this one assumed in the religions a divine
and transcendental sense that is
incompatible with RD, which is atheist and
immanentistic thought. The Aither term, with the indicative meaning
"ethereal substance", is a free
derived from the Greek word àiter that just means "ether".
The term were used before from Empedocles
to show the air, little later from
Anassagora which used it to the "fire"
place, then Aristotle in the De Coelo showed it like the "thin
substance", non-generable and incorruptible,
the sky constitutes. Later in
Aristotelian sphere assumed the meaning of
" fifth element " besides
the classical ones four (earth, water, air,
fire).
(21)
The becoming is the flow of the
general reality of the universe,
therefore everything is unstable and transforms
itself into always different
forms of the matter, which never "are" but always
and continuously "become". The
term was placed by Heraclitus by first in
the history of European thought as cosmologic
principle that the thinker expressed with
the famous expression “panta rei” (= the
whole runs).
(22) We here anticipate that the intuition
is faculty of the intellect, which,
contrary to the reason (that works for
deduction and induction) it owns as primary
faculty. But the intuition of the aither, as most that it concerns, a
particular case of joined function between
intellect
and idema could be considered, from
that the supposition of the existence of
an intuitive
sensitivity, as idemal faculty, which concur with the
intuition to allow the access of man to the aither.
(23) It was the category of teenagers that was preceding
that of "youngs"
one (from eighteen to thirty), which was
followed in its turn by that of the
"man" one.
(24) The Italian Communist
Party (PCI = Partito Comunista Italiano) after the collapse of Soviet Union in
1989 became Party of Democratics of the Left (PDS = Partito della Sinistra) and subsequently Left’s Democratics (DS = Democratici di Sinistra).
(25) With
this term some English positivists
(Huxley, Clifford, etc) defined a secondary
or accessory phenomena of corporeal
ones (for ex. the conscience).
(26) We will treat in due course this subject,
inside of the Chapter 6 (6.3 The moira).
(27) The sense of the sacrum
one, by theologians believed as "innate"
and revealing of our God’s
dependence, has been object of several historical,
philosophical and
psycanalitical analyses. One of the more
deep and interesting one is The Sacrum. The Irrational in the idea of
Divine and his relationship to Rational (1917) of Rudolf Otto. In this book
the irrational character of the Sacrum and
the necessity, in the approach to the religious
phenomenon, of freeing to every
rationalistic conditioning is treated.
(28)
The concept of suffering, which the
RD places as central theme, must kept distinct
by the sense that to it
attributes the Eastern Philosophy and specially
the Buddhism. Later one will specify as the suffering is not something "to
exceed" but something “to be lived"
as correlated to becoming.
(29) F.Nietzsche – The twilight of the idols (that is: how one
philosophizes with the
hammer) -1889.
(30) In Freudian terms it could be said that
the chaos, the indetermination and the causal
plurality are able to determine a too high psychic
cathexis, and that the consequent energy waste increases
the
pressure by id on ego, pushing this to the formulation of
less perturbable thoughts.
(31) Are well known the Albert Einstein anxieties in front of
the uncertainty principle of
the quantum mechanics and his
repeated attempts to find a unitary principle
that could explain all physical
laws are well known.
(32) The revision of Christian doctrine,
or at
least the placing in shadow of his affirmations
that can be in strongly contrast with the scientific
discoveries, is a
quite recurring teological operation from
the half of the XX Century
onwards.
(33)One
remembers that the Hegelian phenomenology
(dialectic process of the opposites) is based on the thesis (which posits itself), on the antithesis (to which opposes itself) and
the synthesis (which unifying both in
itself).
(34)
We call relation the situation which
occurs between two or more entity "in
balance", which in the
diversity or the opposition stay the same
to themselves without never
"solving" towards a unity which
them nullify.
(35) According to Aristotle the “final cause”
is the purpose or finality of any action.
In theology the argument of the f. c.
leads to the necessity of God, who is also
the “first cause”.
(36) I refer here from a side to the
philosophical idealism and spiritualism and from the other to parapsychology, especially in its form
known as spiritism.
(37) Goes however pointed out that the pagan
polytheism, based on the myth, was a form
much poetic and adequate to the
complexity and plurality of the reality
which us surround; and above all a little
dogmatic and doctrinal.
(38) Intend to refer above all to the Hegelian
idealism, as expression of a purely
intellectualistic and unrealistic vision
of the man and the world.
(39) The term was composed
with idio (from Greek idios = one’s) and aitherion (aitherial
element).
(40)
Unfortunately am forced to introduce the
idema
term here, which is near in some way to that
of soul. Why this replacement? That because the
term soul, owned by the religion and charged
of transcendental meanings, is by now unusable
for the RD. The word derives
from a free fusion of ide[ntity] and
se[ma] (meant) or if one wants also
of ide[ntity] and re[ma] (flow [of the conscience] ). In
definitive the meaning I attribute to idema
is that of core and dynamic essence of the
individuality.
(41) We besides want remember that some cosmologists
are always considering more the possibility
that our universe is not that one of a lot
of ones existing (pluriverse). I would also
notice that physics is studying the hypothesis
of a universe constituted by many more dimension
of the four canonical (three of space + time
) and perhaps be (Superstrings Theory) other
seven hidden dimensions (compacted).