A mechanism with life, or a life mechanism, and then simpler the Whole as a Life, since from an holistic point of view it is very incoherent to say: We live in a connected mechanism (or motion or process) that is not alive.
|FILOSOFIA||Ontology||Taste of Truth||Logic||Foundation||Fidesim|
|*El Tao del YinYang
(de Laozi – Yi ching)
Informal poems (Laozi)
de la Natura
armony and Human-Nature
NatureGod or Heaven
Personal > Natural
|Formal linear lógic||Esence
of the things
Local > Natural
|Contradiction||Adversarial and formal linear dialéctics||Local universal
Social > Natural
|Class struggle||Material idealism||Capital||Atheism
Material > Natural
|*El Tao de YinYang
(Formal logic dinamic generalización of
|YinYang of Nature||Nature-Human
armony and Human-Nature
NatureGod or Heaven
(i.e. True love fakes fear)
We have to fill our “positional void” by framing better many unresolved problems in physics and some key unknown events such as: cambrian explosion, protein formation, neanderthal to homosapiens, DNA role or the ubiquity of the cell’s coordinating and so on. Whatever the scientific technicallity, complexity is not about the size of the macro, it is about its connectivity potentialities. This means that since every human is more complex than the Sun, we have a lot to do for the Whole. By the way, we have been gifted with complexization that is designed to be simplifiable and not only being in a chaoticly endlessly thing complicating itself more and more, as we can simply see it happening in how we deal with our complex daily problems.
The mechanics of cause-effect gives a view, but is not truer than to say that we will never be able to describe the full mechanics of Life (nor even an absolute cause nor the first cause in mechanical terms). But without vitalism, the positivist would be choosing complicated words for their ontological hights, ending with its “Chaos-Void as God” philosophy (Void because i don’t know it… not because its empty or doing nothing). The newly positivist Quantum Foam theory improved this a bit positioning us as sparks of bubbles, althought not yet completely entangling us there in the foam. So finally what positivist vitalist would say about non-vitalist positivism is that its love is fear-centered, fear focused. It wants to see the natural true love with fear constant as the fear of true love, which is only one and the poorer (less beautiful but still posible way) saying phrases like this: We are some small meaningless casual beings left alone in a very vast outer space where we can do what we want and so the stronger that dominates the others will survive better.
This is not even false, but it has less vital power than if it was integrated within vitalism. The aesthetics of the choice of the ontological starter is important for our evolution. By accepting-adapting to the mechanics of the plant nature is alive we notice that our biochemistry is happy, why “Life” or “natural and universal vital mechanism” offers us more interaction with nature than “Mechanism to dry” (or universe) , everything, world, cosmos or god).
With the word Life you can see better how each part shows the unit it is in. To give more coherence and focus adequately the remaining debate, we have to make arbitrary aesthetic choices to separate the parts of Life to be able to understand it better by its differentiated parts, for example:
Wombsion: Formless life
Particle: Form of Life
Subject: Insensitive Form
Plant: Inanimate Sensation
Animal: Simple Soul
Human: Complex Soul
Otherwise, the construction of a roof or basic architecture with a material artificoso and insignificant, makes every time, although the intellectual efforts to decorate are even greater, the results are even more unsatisfactory and far from reality and beauty if fits.
There are no missing evolutionary links, only revelations from unknown origins for us
It is needed to remind to all, but specially to the scientific community, that humanity have always tended to believe in a holistic view of reality (which stands for complexity also being simplifiable while fully unexplicable) than in a purely linear mechanistic one that uncoherently says: It is only truth, or reality, if i can prove its cause-effect (unless i can’t fully prove it, which in fact i have to admit that i could never prove it with any aparatus or meassurement).
We can see from nowadays perspective when looking at the past that there has been a lot of abuse magic thinking and even denials of mechanistic proofs. We have to see also that people trying to overcome this situation have failed in the same magic thinking they were criticising, i.e. formal logic and bayesian set theorists take a self-evident and static truth as a grounding force for their stands, overmasculinist monotheistic religions produced Sacred Books as if they were Theories of Everything for explaining better the previous faithful beliefs that were less deeply explaining it, etc.
Imagine what a big feeling was, is and will be the fact of reconnecting with the basic guesses of so many other people that have in the past felt this life view very deep and also researched accordingly with their very poor resources compared to the ones we have nowadays. Imagine also how every strict scientist will get to patch and glue many of their lost links, or chains, or bits they need to rest more comfortably at niight and wake up full of more renewed energy to engage further his-her passionate work. If you reach to imagine that, you are already there, a warm welcome back on board for you!
The bug of Everything and World as begineers
The word Everything, like Tao, helps us to understand a “box”, but by itself it does not tell us anything significant. We can only understand a little what is the All or Tao through what it contains:
The Tao is not significant but it contains the YinYang, Yin and Yang if they are significant.
A title, specifically a suitable substitute for the “unnameable” Everything, should be the word with the most significance (value) of all, since it is the word that will contain all the others.
Taking the principle of Taoist culture that it is the Yin who can generate the Yang and not vice versa:
To give some significance to the “untouchable” Tao, we should call it (Super)YinYang, (Super)Yin or (Super)Yang.
But the titles that haunt the heads of many people, not counting the easy but vague Tao or Everything, are Universe, Multiverse, Cosmos. World is the more popular variant of those. All these words tell us nothing about what they contain, they are unique ontological starters even more insignificant than Everything or Tao. Even so, we continue headed with having them by title, why will this absurdity happen?
The explanation is very easy to see: Universe, Multiverse, Cosmos or World are Yang expressions that we can call parents, but they are not mothers. These Yangs try to give birth to everything, when it is well known that:
The Yang, like the man, can not give much of birth.
But the Yang, like the man, also wants to be special, and is headed with the idea that he wants and can give birth and gets us into a fight. This detail of using a Yang as a primary title, although it seems insignificant nonsense, makes the whole philosophy that we then spin about it uprooted. If we make a house without foundations or with poor foundation, in the end the house will fall. With this emphasis in not to put as a title to who deserves it, all the following explanations are complexed to absurdities impossible to share or follow, and ends up leading to the explanation or positioning of our experience (era: existence …) as an unnecessarily too complex to wander accidentally, suffered, hurt, poor and without too much sense.
The most reformist attempt in the logical logic of the “Yang that wants to give birth” is the word Cosmoginia, or the yingization to Multiuniverso with “universal constants” or “universal tension”, which is not all bad, but does not come so close to the truth or coherence as if “wombsion” would arrive to, because if that tension is what fuels this life, something uterine must be that tension, so by this more significance analogy we would get more of its universal womb tension.
The bug of God Void as begineer
“A revelation of length in a stable family full, everything is (or can only be) full”
Even if we consider the possible vacuum as what is beyond the observable universe (or horizon of events), that supposed emptiness would also be a part, even more unknown, of the “full where we are”. Above all because we already know that, mechanically, we are interacting with that vacuum energy. So, if it is affecting us, it is part of us and there is no possibility of emptiness in nature, nor in the unknowable called unobservable universe or beyond the horizon of events. Everything is connected.
“Empty” is just as we call the greatest of all our unknowable acquaintances. But emptiness is only our “existential void” (or “positional void”), a permanent sense of lack of information about our concrete position in this environment where we are.
To use the concept of “universal vacuum” at a primary ontological level (“the first-most beautiful truth”) to describe the motor of nature, as mechanistic positivism does, makes all the sense of the world only if we understand that emptiness it is a poetic way of calling the “unknowable”.
But placing ourselves as dependent on a source of the universal energy that is in the distant black hole causes incomprehension of the source present here in a connected reality, and the metaphysical questions of where we are coming from, where we are, where we are going and where the like of quantum mechanics, causing an important mental uprooting, because the questions are formulated isolated and distant as if there were a gap between them (No ToE ..), and between us and the environment (lifeless movement) and between the times (linear dogma) or between the sciences (not ToE …), finishes being the narratives quite devoid of beauty and rigor.
«The vacuum is what moves us the most but it does not move? Does something move us that is not alive? The emptiness and the nature are not alive and us yes? What chaos?
“The laws of identity (A = A), contradiction (P ¬P), and excluded middle (P∨¬P) form the 1st principle of the truth-based mathematical abstraction. Following the 1st principle, modern set theory as a foundation for mathematics and computer science requires an element in a set to be self-evident and the properties of a set to be independent of the nature of its elements. This «independence» is the same as to say: We are truth seekers that do not need a shred of logical dynamics for reciprocal interaction.
Static thruth-based models, despite much aesthetic effort put to it, excludes any possibility of a formal definition for the ultimate Being to reveal all beings with logically definable causality with regularity. It also doubles its non-logics by claiming that the essence of such and all beings is contradiction, so with this redudance finally and for sure their truths will be contradictory, not only but specially within their own laws. This tells why nihilism is unavoidable in clasical metaphysics, why God is needed as an exemplar being or the prime mover aimed to be a figure for rational-social consensus that ends any further philosophical review (as the subjective truth at a personal level also does) and why the root of a type hierarchy of all beings has to be labeled with a NULL value (i.e. void, vacuum, non-alive motion, even collapse). – Wen-ran Zhang Sligthly Tweaked»
Why then is positivism a theoretical basis widely accepted by many such intelligent researchers if the architecture of its theoretical framework is so weak at a basic ontological level?
The most basic answer to this important question is why in something very basic and profound they succeed (vibrate a lot of vital truth), which is that: «The vacuum moves us» or more widely speaking: «The humans feel that the poetic positional void moves us » The curious thing here is that although the positivist scientific research is so clumsy, by the fact of putting as much intention to their effort in a specific direction, perhaps by a serendipity humourous natural humorous, research from their opposites give us possible very good complementary positional truths for example:
1) The rhetoric of positivism is affirming poetically, although rationably claiming to deny, that all nature is connected by the energy of emptiness and therefore also have a “positional void” like us (if feeling a positional void is a complex human feeling , the capacity to feel-position-presence of plants and matter is being highly valued).
2) Positivism is the current that pretends to ignore more metaphysics and poetry and can not, uses them like all other rational efforts, and like others, positions them at the highest level in their explanation. Therefore, aesthetics and metaphysics can not be ignored because they are the best tools, when rigorously used, to provide the basic framework for any theory to have a greater capacity for understanding complexity, therefore they are logical tools. above, relating to analytical philosophy and mathematical mechanics.
3) It is very true that we fear the supposed emptiness of death, but we fear them so much because we vibrate their seemingly opposite: Life and love.
Yin Yang + Yang-
Life Empty Death
Love Truth Fear
Truth is the primary positive Yang of vitalism, complementary of Yin Love
The Life patch as a begineer
“Life” is (Super) Yin, “World” is (Super) Yang, “Everything” is (Super) Tao.
A Theory of Everything is aimed to unify how microscopic and macroscopic interactions happen. Macroscopic referrals of bigness are not due to size, but because of complexity. And we also know that the microscopic subatomic particles building up the molecules of the sun or of a sun ray are not more complex than the ones forming the human expression of a (meaningful) word. This is important to note because besides mathematical formulas, a ToE will need to be explained with a consensual language. Such minimal but wordy language would be yet another expression of a mathematical beauty or natural vibrations. Microscopes or telescopes helps us for a ToE, but very well known scientists like Einstein, Feynmann, Wheeler (and many others) have researched deep the high sciences within the scientific strict methodologies for explaining the cause-effect mechanics (positivism) and have finally concluded that we should better understand the micro and the macro by looking deeper at humanity ourselves, with the simple argument that since some of the expected results of a ToE could be not only the unification of mechanistic sciences, but also the unification of lower Social sciences too, that besides logic or algebra, are explained with natural languages.
Every theory aimed to give an explication and provide models for its implementation needs a title for it. Formally speaking, a single word as an unique beginneer for a formal ontology. This has a lot of importance because the word that will title the theory (or philosophy) will definetely affect all the following words that it will contain.
Note: There is one jargon saying that says “Bad domain name kills”, referring to the importance that a title has for whatever project. If your title is ugly, despite your project being the loveliest, it won’t be that much lovely because you choosed a parent that is corrupting the beauty of all its nested childs.
If we want to title a theory that assumes the holistic axiom (any part is representing the whole of it), since we say we are alive, and any part of us is representing the whole, the “whole” should be alive too. If we consider all to be alive, Life is the obvious candidate for a title for an holistic theory, and Vitalism would be a more formal expression of it. The only thing we need for consolidating this it is a minimal taxonomy of the different types of life expressions.
This is a reasoning very easy to understand for why we should be choosing Life or Vitalism (instead of its less meaningful mechanistic synonims “Whole” or “Universe” or “World”), but Life or Vitalism as a titlte has been subject to many classical misunderstandings that are debunked in this article: review of the Wikipedia entry on Vitalism. In a short resume, this has happened because of interpretating mechanics and holism through a poor dualist point of view during history (Read more about it in this other article: review of static-truth logic) and also due to the resulting antropocentric view that estates that our Life (or our mind, consciousness or soul) is above the laws of physics, thus interpretating the free will as a dualist dogma compared to determinism, instead of as a complementarity, which science itself is officially accepting it as a fact in the theories of evolution with the deterministic agency concept.
The mechanistic way of researching a ToE is very exposed nowadays within the Coppenhaggen interpretation of quantum mechanics in the Physics Standard Model that requires explanations of events to be meassured through an apparatus for them being accepted as real, natural or truth. But this mechanistic way of seeing reality fails in complying with its own laws, since apart from uncoherence in meassurements, it estates the need of an observer for time and space to be available, but such observational influence outcomes can’t be meassured with any apparatus. Also, is well known by anyone that abstract mathematics and theoretical physics require some unavoidable metaphysical assumptions (such as i.e. void, language beauty, etc) which not any apparatus apart of the human intuition could meassure whether they are the more, or enough accurate ones, i.e. which is the aparatus that tells us that “void” is enough or the most beautiful word for the initial needed backgroundless force? How can we rely in the accuracy of meassurements if there is a backgroundless force powering them?.
This is where the main road of science ends, so why we not assume that science need some type of accurate metaphysics that should help them in their positivist research?. If we don’t do that, we are assuming that Social Sciences don’t rely on the laws of physics, and so nature or our life can be titled as “Hommo Copenhaggen Apparatus”, which noone person will accept that, so all the scientific effort will become quite useless, and probably this wouldn’t gather further or more advanced discoveries either, since they are far from how we as observers, observe reality.
Why holists are not yet vitalists?
Along the scientific research trend there is the metaphysical holist trend which posibly could never be strictly meassured. Not only holism has not been falsified by science, but every new scientific discovery is coherent and approaches the hipothesis that the nature we live on is being holistickly organized.
This is not any new situation at all. In fact, since the first documents we have known from the oldest ancestors research, they were using the holistic metaphysical approach for their scientific research. An holistic approach that in one way has been kept by many and in another way has tried to be, slowly but surely, deprecated by later scientific researchers in favour of the dualist and antropocentric mechanicist view. The word Holism itself is an step forward for trying to favour a more separative mechanicist dualism. Holism is a greek word that focuses in an outer matter, and that causes its own theorizing to be a bit doomed for getting further.
Before the greeks proposed holism as a noun for its scientific trend, there was a knowledge base where they have feed their theories from. These knowledge base where the greeks drank from was explained with humanized archetypes (Epics, Enuma Elish from summerians, etc), that holism itself tries to escape from with other type of less active gods. But nevertheless, there is feeling that we also have to attach to Holism as an introductory word for being closer with what the scientific community nowadays could accept better, even the scientific trend having holism as one of its demons, as seen when anyone cites the Mach Principle or the Participatory Anthropic Principle to any dualist scientist. We can use Holism which is less meaningful but synonimous with Vitalism for talking more empatically to more classical scientists, but we should also use our own favourite words for explaining the better addon than holism we can give to the lost paths of science nowadays.
Despite Vitalism obviously being a more coherent and beautiful word than holism, many holism pursuing philosophers have also have failed into their theorizing by not assuming Life or Vitalism as a title for their general ontology. This is probably due to the pressure of the highly interested and arbitrary difamation propagation against holistic views of reality that was pointing them as less truers, magic thinkers or even CRAP (Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle). Holistic authors could nevertheless have rather stand firm defending their titling with a very obvious and beautiful unique beginneer as Life or Vitalism are, but they rather have decided to accept the titles their critics were suggesting to them (which are not complying with our “complex simplicity” principle) finally making them looking uglier or marginated for the purpose of the mechanistic dogma titling to be maintained with propaganda force as the mainstreamed or only one. And as we already saw, an example of this are the words holistic itself (instead “holism” should be one of the axioms of vitalism only), or animism, hylozoism, or more recently: aether pantheism, systems theory, Life systems or Biocentricity, which can be synonymous, but since they are less meaningful overall, we should be using them only as an intermediary interface for the more dual scientist persons (since they are more meaningful for them) transition into better reasoning.
However clear and simple Vitalism looks like as a title, it has got a lot of controversy during the history of philosophy and science as we saw. Specially during the last 2 centuries, it has been deliberately deprecated in favour of a more purely dualist mechanistic (positivist-bayesian, cartesian-newtonian, antropocentric-dualist, sofist-skeptical) view. One proof of the failure in doing this is that one the main cross-disciplinary problems that nor science nor philosophy hasn’t resolve much is a theory of relationalism (or Mach principle). Fuzzy logic, fuzzy sets and fuzzy bipolarity has advanced in this will, but didn’t formulate a way to integralize that to every aspect of our living. But, since as proposed earlier if you attach to a good title and wills some prizes come during the way, there was special one which come which is the following step that fuzzyness needed, which was already suggested by many without noticing, but noone else before brought it further. If we can see relativity, quantum mechanics or fuzzyness as a 2.0 of the linear “formal” logic, ethics & morals 1.0 version of thinking, this flove project brings the 3.0 , the integrality of fuzyness along its principles for the language of love (was ToE) i.e. There was, is and will be a natural fear that we want to bring to more love : There is a natural feared love, that our natural morals desire it less feary. This resolves the naturalistic fallacy while also proposes the basic axiom for natural law: the evolution of creativity for feeling more freedom within a determined path to more love for the most, that has to overcome the attached fear there is in it.
Samples of positivist vitalism dual fuzzyness
The best way to found the primary cause is by reasoning more about the effects caused. For example, male mechanics and female teleology are twins.
There is a recurrent attempt to try to separate and rival as opposed to teleology and mechanics. On the one hand, especially in the past, many teleologies saw as their greatest enemies the mechanical theories (anti-scientific religions). On the other hand, especially in the present, the mechanical theories see their rivals to teleology (Philosophy died – Hawking, Philosophers do not bother science – Popper, Metaphysics is not worth anything – Positivist logic) (See more: science metaphysics, revision of positivism).
This mechanistic philosophy has as its main axiom that: “Cause and effect can be isolated even though it is chaotically connected by a predictable mechanics”. This is a phrase that in itself is already quite contradictory, but is the basic pillar of the positivist dualist truth, or “philosophy of the effect caused.” The effect caused is a reality, or truth that we can perceive something, but that does not justify that something is the whole.
The positivism of so much effort that puts in a polarity (only the processable has value), when we give back to this dyad and read “philosophy of the cause effected” we see that, curiously, the basic logic of the teleology of the participatory anthropic principle, which positivism does not accept as a possible truth and if as a rival that tries to falsify, but by many efforts with microscopes or telescopes that it can not …
We have turned the dyad and we have seen something. Now, further and more clearly still, by merging the two dyads in “perception of cause and effect is proof of the cause that has been made”, we unite both theories and this new theory, in a coherent way, encourages us to understand that the consolidation of cause and effect demonstrates an important level of rigor in the metaphysical mechanics of the Participatory Anthropic Principle. That is, apart from the effect caused in one of the linear processes of life, there is an effected cause (teleology) in another simultaneous process (of retrograde reciprocity), where we are, for now, the super-effect of the entropic energy, a consummation, the finely effected cause of the primary intention, for being the revealers and more worshipers of cause and effect. Positivist vitality would be another, more beautiful way of explaining it.
Let’s see another example of how “cause-effect perception is proof of the cause”, simply turning the order of the concepts that positivism uses in its linear event explanation (interlaced does not have it …), and the differences in the sentences we will be sufficiently explanatory by themselves.
Entropy → Electron → Energy → Fractal → Particle → Time-Space → Observer
«Entropy of electrons generate energy in a fractal with particles in a time / space where there is an observer»
Interactus → Space Time → Particle → Fractal → Length → Electron → Love
«The spatial time of long fractal particles in electrons full of love is interacting»
We have changed the aesthetics to some concepts (not to its foundations). This new phrase is the complement that explains what the first sentence does not explain. Also, without going deeply into it, you can understand that the new phrase contains more to the first than what the first contains it.
The most interesting thing here is to see how this can be a game to which these words are given and you have to arrange them in a plane, and then give yourself an explanation, and what you expose as your theory, will give you the feeling of great truth (you vibrate in a focused way – your vitalist version of nature), and even if you do not order it or like positivism and / or vitalism, your expression will still have a lot of truth (See more in: Strategic Tacticism), and tránquila that surely not for that reason nature will fall apart, haha … although maybe some universe of the multiverse if … careful … jiji … .
Again, fuzzy hell.. Creationism and emanatism shouldn’t be rival, 🙂
The theory of the evolution of matter is not separated from the theory of the evolution of organisms. We need a positivist vitalism that narrates the theory of the evolution of life (or organic matter!) Together. Both a so-called BigBang, and the beginning of cell life and all of its subsequent unknown evolutionary steps emanate from something that was already there. The context for that to happen was created by the evolution of the whole environment, in which the revealed forms of the are increasingly able to intervene in it. Evolved forms are going to emanate an increasing capacity for intervention, and they will decide to be creative with that capacity, so that they will emanate even more capabilities later on.
As the way to be more able to be aware of your unknown future and total implosion at the time of the death of your body, the creativity of making life more expansive, starting with itself, increases. The common instincts that from the first cell until today there is a broad consensus that determinism (or basic evolutionary logic) does not allow us to act completely free, and that this influences us and forces us to:
The sending of signals
The characteristics of the so-called biological processes are more, but we reduce them to these so that, even at the risk of shocking some reader, so it is easier to explain that other subjects that are not considered biological, may have similar behaviors to ours. also (eg, the air, the table or the clouds of Venus also forcefully look for subsistence and sending signals).
To biologize more the matter, from the summarized values of the biological processes (see list above) to more extended syntheses, even if it is to use the pathetic fallacy, is an original way to explain the evolutionary challenges that we face, and also why not, to give more rigor to the explanation to the necessary observation that had to be already be before there were humans, so that this reality could be constructed.
We were matter seeking to be born as humans without knowing it, now we are human matter that keeps trying to transcend its form towards something better following such trend. Just as matter wanted to be human without being able to foresee it, now the human feels similar to what matter or animal felt about its future before they we become humanity.
All the matter looks for the selfsustaining and the sending of signals, so that later that same increased perception of agency is capable of a greater energy processing by means of:
Adaptation to environmental changes
Greater impact of their interaction on others
At the end of all this chain, with similar sensoriality limited to the one that has an evolved table, air or cloud of Venus we find ourselves with our special talent of
The need of the reasonable mind that transmits revealed data that increases our hyperconnectivity.
Nowadays, possibly biologists are the scientists that could better improve their works by adding Vitalism to their positivist point of view. And since they demand a better grounded physics theoryzing for being able to be more productive in their study of molecullar complexization, they should be rather and more lobbying for vitalism to be better considered within the scientific community, as dear anthropologists as Tim Ingold, in his own other words hints he would also like to.
For now work in progress on othere parts of the theory is being made in spanish in vitalismo.org