Let’s imagine we have a philosopher, who has an audience, that gladly listens to his thoughts. Let’s then imagine an other audience (A2), who begins to consider our philosopher’s thoughts as waffling.
The philosopher asks from A2, what is the smallest contention between waffling and philosophizing he can make. After he has agreed about this question with A2, he begins to philosophize from this point with a little (agreed) gap to both directions from the agreed point where he could still be considered a philosopher.
After some time A2 again considers our philosopher a waffler not a philosopher. Our philosopher continues to reduce his thoughts with an agreement with A2 so that A2 at first considers him a philosopher again, but always after a while considers the philosopher a waffler.
Eventually A2 considers the philosopher only a waffler not a philosopher at all. All he says is only some kind of nonsense.
Now the audience that gladly listened our philosopher at very beginning and continued to consider him as a philosopher starts to invent new kind of philosophy thinking the difference between philosophy and waffling, particularly the psychology about what changes other audience’s view to consider something waffle rather than philosophy.
Perhaps even new school of thought arises with whole new theories. Lots of work for many future generations. Now, how would A2 react to this new school of thoughts? Would they consider all those people as wafflers?
Image courtesy of atibodyphoto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Since this is some kind of humor of mine and just short little story, below is the original Finnish version of it. As some people probably notice, in my translation some spirit of the original story has been lost.
Olkoon meillä kuvitteellinen filosofi jolla on kuulijakunta, joka mielellään kuuntelee hänen ajatuksiaan. Olkoon meillä sitten toinen kuulijakunta (K2), joka alkaa pitämään osaa filosofimme puhetta jaaritteluna eikä filosofiana. Filosofi kysyy selvittää K2:lta mikä on pienin siirtymä, minkä hän voi tehdä puhumisessaan siten, että puhe ei ole enää jaarittelua vaan filosofiaa.
Tästä päästään yhteisymmärrykseen. Filosofimme jatkaa pienellä pelivaralla tällä uudella rajalla filosofointia. Lopulta K2 toteaa jälleen, että ei tuo ole filosofiaa vaan jaarittelua. Jälleen haetaan yhteisymmärryksessä pienin liikkumavara jaarittelun ja filosofian välillä ja filosofointi voi jatkua. Lopulta jälleen K2 pitää filosofointia jaaritteluna.
Filosofimme jatkaa pienimmän rajan hakemista tahon K2 kanssa jaarittelun ja filosofoinnin välillä. Lopulta K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna. Kuitenkin nyt on muu kuulijakunta, joka on alusta asti pitänyt filosofimme puhetta filosofiana koko ajan samalla, kun K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna.
Nyt filosofimme puhetta koko ajan filosofiana pitänyt kuulijakunta keksii kokonaan uutta filosofiaa yhdessä filosofimme kanssa pohtien jaarittelun ja filosofian eroa, erityisesti psykologiaa siitä, miksi filosofia voi joidenkin kuulijoiden mielestä menettää merkityksen seurauksella, että alunperin kiinnostunut kuulijakunta keksii uusia filosofisia ajatuksia usean sukupolven ajan filosofiasta, jota K2 ei enää pitänyt lainkaan filosofiana vaan jaaritteluana.
Ehkä syntyy jopa kokoaan uusi filosofinen koulukunta ja teoria. Nyt, miten kuulijakunta jonka mielestä kaikki filosofimme filosofia olikin jaarittelua suhtautuisi mahdollisesti syntyneeseen uuteen teoriaan?
I remember the time, when I went into seclusion for about a year reading, as it comes to philosophy, Viktor E. Frankl’s books, when I began to experience some kind of intellectual awakening, many kinds of it.
At the time, I started to think about from where kind of feelings such as disgust and even hatred to other people may come from.
I came into conclusion, that sometimes mentioned feelings may in fact be caused by the fact, that oneself doesn’t accept some qualities or customs of others to oneself. In short, if one doesn’t accept something to oneself, one doesn’t accept it to others either. One may even hate such thing(s) in other people and as a result of this, one may even start to hate other people. But one can’t define surrounding life only from relation that one has to one’s relation to surrounding life, particularly one can’t define surrounding life only by oneself!
Furthermore, if one starts to hate people by mentioned above, one may in fact harden oneself and in the worst case denies love from oneself and become ”tough” and violent.
In addition one must remember, that ice is slippery; one who has hardened oneself may be slick and sarcastic (in bad way), but because of mentioned qualities of oneself, one doesn’t aim at constructive solutions with environment, but in fact also with intelligence shatters, because the intellectual operation doesn’t strive from the harmony of love.
Understanding in love will build more permanent solutions to everyone’s life.
This kind of hardness (or ”toughness”) may give an illusion of power, but is as ice; in cold it is stiff, but when morning sun gradually melts the ice, it melts all that stiffness. Similar thing may be seen in all hardness and hatred, when love takes it place on them.
Image courtesy of Liz Noffsinger at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
As it comes to ice, because of all the more warm morning sun, instead of ice in the spring will be eventually water, which is to be absorbed by the land. As a result of this land get’s ”life’s elixir” to grow life on it; and soon instead of stiff ice can be seen one of the colors of the nature, green, in form of grass.
The land beneath the grass may be rough, but if it wouldn’t be rough, one would fall. The land is where one can put one’s steps.
To reader, what is the most powerful power of life? Particularly stronger than hardness, ”toughness” or hatred.
This blog post was inspired by a conversation in one morning with my girlfriend, Morning Sun, when we were talking about life in general and my past.
In love it is possible to find oneness; this oneness makes even absolute equality possible; the lovers are one!
The Bible: ”…and they shall be one flesh.”
”She’s the one” by Robbie Williams: ”I was her and she was me.”
I see the same oneness in all of these three thoughts; the principle of equality in love.
Image courtesy of lekkyjustdoit at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Two messages I have sent to Morning Sun by the phone (published by her permission):
”But how to achieve this love? What is love? The aspiration of non-stable dynamic systems to balance harmony as goal? Harmony – the mathematical beauty, elegance. What is this in practice in this context? Love?”
”We have reached a harmonic function; this has described us as one; here is the equality of love. So we are mathematicians, both of us, ”discoverers”! :-)” [In real life neither of us is a mathematician]
This post was inspired from the philosophy of sacred geometry and of course from Morning Sun.
It was about 20 years ago when I first came up with this idea…
The thought goes like this:
Is it an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist?
Let us assume that someone says that it is an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
This is now in contradiction with the fact that absolute truth doesn’t exist, because the one who denies absolutely the existence of absolute truth is immeditialy in contradiction with existence of absolute truth, because the sayer just stated one absolute truth stating that it would be an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
So, we can’t absolutely deny the existence of absolute truth! That would lead us into logical contradiction.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The question is: Does an absolute truth exist? Do many absolute truths exist?
Of course every truths are not absolute truths, but it seems quite obvious that at least one absolute truth exists. At least denying absolutely the whole concept of absolute truth leads into logical contradiction, as stated earlier…
Just an old thought of mine…
I was about 30 years of age, when I came into conclusion, that the primary meaning of life is love. From this one can derive other purposes for existing. When love is one’s meaning of life, it reflects on everything one does.
If one doesn’t have a romantic relationship, love should still be, of course, the meaning of one’s life. Love can then be the ultimate goal in the life. Was one living in a relationship or not, respecting love and everything it stands for, should be the ”rules” in one’s life. And even if one lives in a romantic relationship in love, one should keep in mind, that we people are not perfect; even in love affair love is still the ultimate goal, because of people’s imperfection.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Of course the question, what is love, should be answered. Some kind of definiton for love should be given. Is the definition of love written inside of all of us somehow? Should we first try to find it inside ourselves? Is it ”coded” more or less in our hearts?
In my opinion love is perfect harmony at its best. In perfect relationship no rules needs to be set for the relationship, there’s absolutely no need for anykind of rules for the relationship, if the relationship is based on perfect love. Love itself is the only ”rule” in perfect relationship.
Respecting the beloved with love prevents making things that would break the relationship or hurt the love one. Thus love can be also somekind of freedom of being oneself. Of course both on the relationship should be living and experiencing this harmony.
In my opinion love can’t be defined as opposite of hatred, because love is at strongest stronger than anykind of pure hatred. Hatred makes one weak eventually, love makes one strong, perhaps even immortal – at least it can give an experience of being immortal. 🙂
According to Galileo, the laws of the nature have been written in the language of the mathematics but can one say that there is mathematics in the nature? I mean, does mathematics exists in the nature?
The mathematics itself known by us is abstract, conceptual, in other words it “lives” in the world of ideas separately from physical world that can be touched. Some have interpreted, that the mathematical laws that describe the universe are irrespective of the human being and have always existed; the human being has discovered them by reason. And the discovering still continues.
But it is quite difficult to say that how mathematical laws could have always existed. How about the pure math itself, without any applications? Without its “invention” or “discovery” it would not have been possible to present the mathematical laws that describe the universe, the laws from which some people say, that those laws have always existed.
Fractals are again in fashion, but I’ll take as an example from mathematics the Fibonacci sequence. It conceals the golden ratio in it. In the nature this ratio can be detected by measuring everywhere where there are spirals (a geometric interpretation of the Fibonacci sequence), in the galaxies, in the flowers, in the human body itself… And also in music. Even in DNA.
Image courtesy of scottchan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
In addition, this ratio appears to represent beauty in the nature. It’s no wonder, that this ratio has been used in art and architecture, and much more. Also, in the human body this ratio represents beauty. When the features of human face reflect this ratio, the face is generally considered to be beautiful. The teeth are considered to be very well constructed, when they retell the golden ratio. The 2010 dentist magazine (in Finland) says that the maxillary tooth crowns of clinical relations should follow the so-called “golden ratio”.
This ratio is irrational number, i.e., its decimal representation is infinite. The exact value is
½ (1 + √5)
which is a value of approximately 1.61803.
First 7 Fibonacci numbers are 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8. The idea is that the next number is the sum of the two subsequent numbers in such a way that the sequence starts from zero, then follows to ones (sometimes the sequence is presented to start with two ones). Thus the next number in the sequence is 13. The golden ratio starts to form, when a sequence is continued far enough and two consecutive digits are divided by each other, the bigger by the lower. The limit in the infinity seems to be the golden ratio.
The Fibonacci sequence has been compared with the the universe so that like Fibonacci sequence has as a start but not an end, Fibonacci sequence is like the universe: It has a beginning, but not an end. Furthermore the Fibonacci sequence is interpreted to be very fundamental to the whole universe. But what the universe would now approach? Perfectness? Perfect beauty? One expression of beauty? Another view to the universe is, that it has an end, though.
How can such a simple formula can define beauty? How can something so simple be so fundamental to the entire universe? I must say that there’s still much to “discover”.
Does the great truth loom In the infinity, always one step ahead; just when we think, we have discovered something, there’s something else or new in the next step. But we already know what’s out there in the infinity: ½ (1 + √5)!
Previous chapter was my humor about comparing the Fibonacci sequence to the universe, because there is too much mystique attached to the sequence. It’s believed that big-money conspiracy is hiding the truth about the connection between Fibonacci sequence and the universe, so that people wouldn’t know the truth. It’s also believed that the Fibonacci sequence is some kind of sign of God’s mathematical designing of the universe (I don’t deny the existence of God, but I would criticize the idea that the Fibonacci sequence would be a sign of God)
So the golden ratio can be found in the nature by measuring, but does the quotient of two subsequent numbers of the Fibonacci sequence approach in the nature the golden ratio? I mean that in the nature there exist no numbers at all! Even in this blog post there exists no numbers, but logical representations of numbers as Ludwig Wittgenstein would put it. And he is right.
But in the nature there can be found patterns through interpretation, mathematical patterns. Also there’s no knowledge without interpretation, information must be interpreted. But this interpretation is only in the mind of interpreter. So what is there in the nature? A human being. According to the interpretation.