STUDY - Technical - New Dacian's Medicine
How
it Works... Our "Soul" (1)
Translation Draft
The road to ourselves necessarily passes through Knowledge. To know how to find ourselves we must first know who we are, what our true status is. Using the data accumulated so far, we have sketched the path of evolution to us. Then we analyzed the status of man in relation to his own thinking and psychology. But what is the status of man reported by the Universe, to the Whole, to the Uniqueness?
The road to ourselves necessarily passes through Knowledge. To know how to find ourselves we must first know who we are, what our true status is. Using the data accumulated so far, we have sketched the path of evolution to us. Then we analyzed the status of man in relation to his own thinking and psychology. But what is the status of man reported by the Universe, to the Whole, to the Uniqueness?
An
answer to this question obliges us to discuss all our
possibilities of knowledge. Do we have access to our real being,
do we understand its meaning that cannot be detached from that
of the world in which we live? In other words, do we know the
truth about ourselves? Is this truth reflected in our lives?
Essentially, there are two modes of knowledge: one rational or logical and another intuitive or analog. One is considered to be analytical and the other synthetic, one is of the concrete world, the other of a line of symbols, one is of science, the other of religion, poetry, art, revelation, one conceives a fragmented world (but increasingly compact, more unique) united by the laws of operation, the other expresses a continuous world, interconnected by its structure. Both modes of knowledge had as their object the same world, but they picked it up from different angles (they only had different reference points).
Logical, rational thinking is recorded for the first time and imposed himself by Aristotle, then by Descartes, Newton and all the classical exact sciences. By virtue of this vision, the world we perceive is the only real, cognoscible, determined by objective causes, in a space and a time that have an absolute character. The analysis of this as a phenomenon, as operating laws and determining causes, is the subject of science. It is the knowledge that led to the development of today's European civilization and culture.
However, on the basis of the Aristotelian principle of the excluded third party, he admitted only the existence of one truth. And it's always been that of the dominant power in the state. In turn, power has used either the "truth" claimed by the official religion or that provided by an intensely politicized science (or simply by manipulating the direction to which funds are invested in research). Hence the intolerance, with its multitude of forms of manifestation: the persecutions of those of a religion other than the official one, the inquisition, burning at the stake, political executions, prisons, the prohibition of other opinions in culture and thought outside the imposed dogmas, etc.
It is, therefore, a knowledge that has brought great service to mankind through the development of modern science and civilization and great services through the cultivation of intolerance. Beyond its avatars, however, we must ask ourselves whether, as it claims, it is the only one capable of revealing the truth about us, of re-establishing ourselves. This requires consideration to be made to how far subjective knowledge has access and how far from scientific knowledge.
We'll start with some considerations about scientific knowledge. The world perceived through the senses is undoubtedly one, real as a phenomenon in its own right, independent of our perceptions. But perception is different from species to species, depending on its vital imperatives, as well as from human to human. Frogs see only the moving world, insects a mosaic world, the dog perceives olfactory traces but also feels (like the cat) by means only he knows, the return home of the master from distances that come out of the radius of our senses.
I often feel the danger of the master and sometimes undertake rescue measures, such as waking up from sleep when the house caught fire, saving from the choke, getting out of the house that was about to collapse into the earthquake, etc. In nature there are dimensions we don't see, sounds we don't hear, colors that we don't notice, realities that we might be aware of through our senses because we have a limited register of perception much more than in other species. The instruments and apparatus we created suddenly revealed to us a world to which we had no access, but neither can they give us (at least in these times) the last reality because they are built according to the conception of our mind, only as an extension of the senses, and, as Hamlet said to Horatio "in heaven and on earth there are more things than our thoughts".
Therefore, like other species we perceive a useful new world, in accordance with our conceptions and suggestions. A ruler is straight only because the limit of bumps comes out of our perception register. We are a world made up of isolated objects with no relationship between them, while other ways of perception, as we have seen, signal it to us as "just an ocean of energy with a specific concentration of frequencies where the objects are." As for how we perceive our fellow human beings, the relationships between us and them, our place between them, the opinions about them, says it sufficiently, we believe, the social landscape of the present world. If we perceive the world the same way, why don't we form the same opinion about it? Because we perceive it differently and we have different interests. So, when asked whether the senses cover the whole existing reality, I answered the negative. That's how we went from certainty to uncertainty...
Until the early 20th century, the science that was particularly involved in the study of nature was classical physics. The laws discovered allowed the formulation of a deterministic image of the world. The phenomena became deductive and predictive for their characteristic legacies described by physics. They have also motivated, as a result, a materialistic conception of the world, easy and naïvely optimistic to some, rigid and exclusive to others. the appearance of the 20th century world, with its good sides and its great decreases (the two world wars, the threat of the third, psychological alienation, the existence of diversity of opinions, with different political systems that led to the well-known consequences) is the result of this thinking.
Classical physics proposed a mechanistic model of the universe, in which the prediction resulting from the knowledge of the laws of motion allowed a deterministic and optimistic vision, the basis of the exact sciences and a materialistic philosophy. At the end of the 19th century all physical phenomena were explained by Newtonian physics and equations about Maxwell's electromagnetic field. Starting in the next century, new observational facts are accumulated which can no longer be explained by the theories of this "form" of classical physics. The discovery of radioactivity requires science to penetrate the atomic universe. Instead of an indivisible particle, which should have mobilized with a force expressed by the product between its mass and acceleration, a space "populated" with particles and "animated" by electrical forces is discovered. Newtonian mechanics is no longer valid here and quantum physics is born.
Through Plank, Einstein, Bohr, Broglie, Schrodinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Dirac and many other authors of quantum physics, we are presented with a universe whose phenomena no longer meet the criteria imposed by the exact sciences. it is a universe that is primarily struck by the status of a principle opposed to that postulated by classical physics, the principle of uncertainty. The speed, location or space and movement time of a particle cannot be determined at the same time. Thus, at the subatomic level disappeared one of the principles of which would later be made the case, that of determinism, by which religion was fought in some countries and a number of phenomena in the psychic world were charged as unscientific.
This is how the paradoxes of which the most prominent is "how to build a world of certainty on one of uncertainty?!?" Unanswered question (even in these times)!!! Our senses are confused in the face of the new concepts of Cause, Space and Time, which lose their classical acceptances through Einstein's narrow and generalized theories of relativity (what's the point of considering the "old" and new discoveries of quantum physics). We learn of the existence of a curved space near large cosmic bodies, of a time that no longer drains evenly with different, depending on different "details" such as the speed of movement (and from quantum physics we learn of total nothingness, of the "intelligent" energy, of multiverse). It penetrates a world where the legacies have only mathematical expression but are real, perceptible, and the Aristotelian logic with which it has operated until now (thousands of years) ceases its functionality. As F. Capra tells us, at the subatomic level matter no longer exists with certainty, events do not happen accurately, but "just tend to happen".
Finding and describing the smallest dimension in the structure of matter, the last "brick", has preoccupied philosophical and later scientific thinking since ancient times. Today, Chew, through bootstrap theory, proposes to abandon the idea of the existence of a fundamental "brick" represented by a moving particle and replace it with the notion of "field" or "fundamental symmetry" because one cannot find a logical system that is consistent with everything we observe. And, quantum physics, although it has been demonstrated the manifestation of the "last brick" type by the definite existence of quantum, of the minimum energy underlying everything, confirms that we must be satisfied, for this reason, only with statistical approximations and hypotheses.
According to bootstrap theory, the world is no longer made up of separate entities, as it was mechanically designed by classical physics, but now appears to us as a dynamic web of interacting events, which is why the properties of one part result from the others, each part containing them all as in a hologram. The world is a coherent entity in which each side is connected to all the others in the universe, which is why an action exerted on one is reflected on all. On a fundamental level there is a nonseparability. This principle that expresses the coherent essence and functionality of the entire universe is fundamental to our understanding of ourselves.
Something exists only because something else determines it. We exist as our own determination and the same time of others. There is no precise identity but an approximation of complex interactions. Thus, the reality in which we live appears to us only as an approximation, being impossible to know the ultimate resorts of nature.
I have so far mentioned the existence of a level of knowledge inaccessible to classical sciences, which is approached by quantum physics and dominated by the principle of uncertainty, with the possibility of prediction only probabilistic, statistical and which requires another logic and language to be described, than those offered by our rational thinking. We will see later that the extension of these concepts to describe reality puts to the test the common sense of knowledge, of perception of man, but in order to understand oneself and extract the necessary consequences is obliged to make the effort.
Speaking of effort... That's enough for today! Tomorrow we'll continue...
Essentially, there are two modes of knowledge: one rational or logical and another intuitive or analog. One is considered to be analytical and the other synthetic, one is of the concrete world, the other of a line of symbols, one is of science, the other of religion, poetry, art, revelation, one conceives a fragmented world (but increasingly compact, more unique) united by the laws of operation, the other expresses a continuous world, interconnected by its structure. Both modes of knowledge had as their object the same world, but they picked it up from different angles (they only had different reference points).
Logical, rational thinking is recorded for the first time and imposed himself by Aristotle, then by Descartes, Newton and all the classical exact sciences. By virtue of this vision, the world we perceive is the only real, cognoscible, determined by objective causes, in a space and a time that have an absolute character. The analysis of this as a phenomenon, as operating laws and determining causes, is the subject of science. It is the knowledge that led to the development of today's European civilization and culture.
However, on the basis of the Aristotelian principle of the excluded third party, he admitted only the existence of one truth. And it's always been that of the dominant power in the state. In turn, power has used either the "truth" claimed by the official religion or that provided by an intensely politicized science (or simply by manipulating the direction to which funds are invested in research). Hence the intolerance, with its multitude of forms of manifestation: the persecutions of those of a religion other than the official one, the inquisition, burning at the stake, political executions, prisons, the prohibition of other opinions in culture and thought outside the imposed dogmas, etc.
It is, therefore, a knowledge that has brought great service to mankind through the development of modern science and civilization and great services through the cultivation of intolerance. Beyond its avatars, however, we must ask ourselves whether, as it claims, it is the only one capable of revealing the truth about us, of re-establishing ourselves. This requires consideration to be made to how far subjective knowledge has access and how far from scientific knowledge.
We'll start with some considerations about scientific knowledge. The world perceived through the senses is undoubtedly one, real as a phenomenon in its own right, independent of our perceptions. But perception is different from species to species, depending on its vital imperatives, as well as from human to human. Frogs see only the moving world, insects a mosaic world, the dog perceives olfactory traces but also feels (like the cat) by means only he knows, the return home of the master from distances that come out of the radius of our senses.
I often feel the danger of the master and sometimes undertake rescue measures, such as waking up from sleep when the house caught fire, saving from the choke, getting out of the house that was about to collapse into the earthquake, etc. In nature there are dimensions we don't see, sounds we don't hear, colors that we don't notice, realities that we might be aware of through our senses because we have a limited register of perception much more than in other species. The instruments and apparatus we created suddenly revealed to us a world to which we had no access, but neither can they give us (at least in these times) the last reality because they are built according to the conception of our mind, only as an extension of the senses, and, as Hamlet said to Horatio "in heaven and on earth there are more things than our thoughts".
Therefore, like other species we perceive a useful new world, in accordance with our conceptions and suggestions. A ruler is straight only because the limit of bumps comes out of our perception register. We are a world made up of isolated objects with no relationship between them, while other ways of perception, as we have seen, signal it to us as "just an ocean of energy with a specific concentration of frequencies where the objects are." As for how we perceive our fellow human beings, the relationships between us and them, our place between them, the opinions about them, says it sufficiently, we believe, the social landscape of the present world. If we perceive the world the same way, why don't we form the same opinion about it? Because we perceive it differently and we have different interests. So, when asked whether the senses cover the whole existing reality, I answered the negative. That's how we went from certainty to uncertainty...
Until the early 20th century, the science that was particularly involved in the study of nature was classical physics. The laws discovered allowed the formulation of a deterministic image of the world. The phenomena became deductive and predictive for their characteristic legacies described by physics. They have also motivated, as a result, a materialistic conception of the world, easy and naïvely optimistic to some, rigid and exclusive to others. the appearance of the 20th century world, with its good sides and its great decreases (the two world wars, the threat of the third, psychological alienation, the existence of diversity of opinions, with different political systems that led to the well-known consequences) is the result of this thinking.
Classical physics proposed a mechanistic model of the universe, in which the prediction resulting from the knowledge of the laws of motion allowed a deterministic and optimistic vision, the basis of the exact sciences and a materialistic philosophy. At the end of the 19th century all physical phenomena were explained by Newtonian physics and equations about Maxwell's electromagnetic field. Starting in the next century, new observational facts are accumulated which can no longer be explained by the theories of this "form" of classical physics. The discovery of radioactivity requires science to penetrate the atomic universe. Instead of an indivisible particle, which should have mobilized with a force expressed by the product between its mass and acceleration, a space "populated" with particles and "animated" by electrical forces is discovered. Newtonian mechanics is no longer valid here and quantum physics is born.
Through Plank, Einstein, Bohr, Broglie, Schrodinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Dirac and many other authors of quantum physics, we are presented with a universe whose phenomena no longer meet the criteria imposed by the exact sciences. it is a universe that is primarily struck by the status of a principle opposed to that postulated by classical physics, the principle of uncertainty. The speed, location or space and movement time of a particle cannot be determined at the same time. Thus, at the subatomic level disappeared one of the principles of which would later be made the case, that of determinism, by which religion was fought in some countries and a number of phenomena in the psychic world were charged as unscientific.
This is how the paradoxes of which the most prominent is "how to build a world of certainty on one of uncertainty?!?" Unanswered question (even in these times)!!! Our senses are confused in the face of the new concepts of Cause, Space and Time, which lose their classical acceptances through Einstein's narrow and generalized theories of relativity (what's the point of considering the "old" and new discoveries of quantum physics). We learn of the existence of a curved space near large cosmic bodies, of a time that no longer drains evenly with different, depending on different "details" such as the speed of movement (and from quantum physics we learn of total nothingness, of the "intelligent" energy, of multiverse). It penetrates a world where the legacies have only mathematical expression but are real, perceptible, and the Aristotelian logic with which it has operated until now (thousands of years) ceases its functionality. As F. Capra tells us, at the subatomic level matter no longer exists with certainty, events do not happen accurately, but "just tend to happen".
Finding and describing the smallest dimension in the structure of matter, the last "brick", has preoccupied philosophical and later scientific thinking since ancient times. Today, Chew, through bootstrap theory, proposes to abandon the idea of the existence of a fundamental "brick" represented by a moving particle and replace it with the notion of "field" or "fundamental symmetry" because one cannot find a logical system that is consistent with everything we observe. And, quantum physics, although it has been demonstrated the manifestation of the "last brick" type by the definite existence of quantum, of the minimum energy underlying everything, confirms that we must be satisfied, for this reason, only with statistical approximations and hypotheses.
According to bootstrap theory, the world is no longer made up of separate entities, as it was mechanically designed by classical physics, but now appears to us as a dynamic web of interacting events, which is why the properties of one part result from the others, each part containing them all as in a hologram. The world is a coherent entity in which each side is connected to all the others in the universe, which is why an action exerted on one is reflected on all. On a fundamental level there is a nonseparability. This principle that expresses the coherent essence and functionality of the entire universe is fundamental to our understanding of ourselves.
Something exists only because something else determines it. We exist as our own determination and the same time of others. There is no precise identity but an approximation of complex interactions. Thus, the reality in which we live appears to us only as an approximation, being impossible to know the ultimate resorts of nature.
I have so far mentioned the existence of a level of knowledge inaccessible to classical sciences, which is approached by quantum physics and dominated by the principle of uncertainty, with the possibility of prediction only probabilistic, statistical and which requires another logic and language to be described, than those offered by our rational thinking. We will see later that the extension of these concepts to describe reality puts to the test the common sense of knowledge, of perception of man, but in order to understand oneself and extract the necessary consequences is obliged to make the effort.
Speaking of effort... That's enough for today! Tomorrow we'll continue...
Love,
Gratitude and Understanding (Namaste)!!!
Dorin, Merticaru