free web hosting | free hosting | Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting






Chapter 1

(Some anticipation about the subject)

 

1.1) Pluralistic hypothesis and dualistic anthropic 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 chance (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 anthropic dualism (later RAD) 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 RAD 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 RAD 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 RAD, 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 anthropic 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.

                                 

                                                    

                                                   

NOTES

 

(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 chance 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).This new physical theory (on continuous development) has had birth in the 1968 from a smart intuition of the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano, who, more recently, has advanced the revolutionary cosmological theory of the "Pre- big-bang", in base of which the big-bang was not other that an important phase, but posterior, of the birth of the universe (for a summary description: Science & Vie n°988 janvier 2000 - pp. 42-46 and New Scientist 3/6/2000 - pp.24-28 ).