Understanding and levels of understanding

Understanding and levels of understanding


" - Why therefore does man reason, while the other animals do not reason ? …
Because, to a certain extent, there are also in other animals, numerous activities produced by the reasoning.
- Why also, the animals are not reasonable in a equal way to the man? …
- But why then, all men themselves are not equally reasonable ? …
In fact, we must conceive that, it was not necessary that all lives which are as movements, and that all thoughts were identical ; but it was necessary that the lives and thoughts differ " (cf. Plotinus - Treatise 38 - 8, 30),

" There is another energy, principle in my flesh which God made me, not only of life but of sensations ; commanding the eye not to hear, and the ear not to see but the eye that through it I should see, and the ear, that through it I should hear ; … this energy that also horse and mule have, for they have as me, sensation." (Cf. Saint Augustine – Confessions – Book X, 7).

At this beginning of the third millennium, what would they write these illustrious thinkers ?

-------------------

Henceforth, we can argue "realism" (existence), in our body, of multiple understanding levels.
Indeed, we are poles of ceaseless fluxes of processes organizations with biological effects, of processes organizations with behavioral effects and even with deadly effects, and that requires from taking into account of specific value’s references at every key level of our organism,
essential activities which presuppose, evidently, numerous faculties, among which faculties that enable recognitions, judgments, choices, anticipations, …, decisions and actions.
Thus, don't be surprised if life’s dynamics gives evidence of numerous understanding levels, interdependent and adapted to complexity level of the beings.

For example, if we were :

* a "cell",
we would have some intentions and objectives comparable to these which emerge from consciousness state.
Besides, we would be an extraordinary factory in which we would perceive our environment by rudimentary senses, and preserve our information in biological memories composed of molecules, atoms and particles, …,
we would analyze and manage development of our "body" with main desires as, to maintain our life and to increase our understanding of "small world " which surrounds us.
For that purpose, we would know therefore the "high-low", "right-left", ..., "I - no I", "friend - enemy", "useful - harmful", …, and we would have all faculties necessary for our life’s dynamics.

Our value references would be adapted to our complexity levels and we would use durations, these intervals which are not space, these mysterious intervals of "transcendent order".
However, in spite of the numerous evoked resemblances, our knowledges would not be so "subtle" and "general" that the ones of the man.

* a "plant",
we would not ignore the solar and lunar cycles, ..., would recognize the wet zones for our roots, …, would use photons necessary to our extraordinary photosynthesis activities ...
"Venus Flytrap" (dionaea muscipula, it's a carnivorous plant), for example, we would add up since we would react to disturbances of our hairs,
but only if successively, two are perturbed, but two opposite each other.

* an "animal or humanoid ",
the activities, of transcendent order, of which we would be pole, would lead us to act according to instinctive modes.
Evidently, we would have a small knowledge of the things and phenomena notably, on account of little memorization capacities,
nevertheless, we would have proto-feelings.
Thus,
birds have family sense and even use rudimentary tools, …,
superior animals are sensitive to human affection,
chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas have a proto-consciousness state.

* Let's return to our " man state".
Henceforth, we know that we are "bearers" of :
- understanding's level of rudimentary beings, that of our cells,
- understanding's levels which include proto-consciousness state,
- and consciousness-state that enables wide transcendencies and deep introspections.

But then, if there is no structural discontinuity between life's phenomenon and inert matter, what is the understanding at atoms's level and even, at quantum level ?
Let's remind that at quantum level, there are permanently, respect of directions and rigorous chronologies.

Obviously, physical matter does not recognize, does not judge, does not choose, …, does not act ; thus, cannot "evolve" by itself.
"Implication" of a creative entity, of transcendent order, is necessary.
Plotinus would not contradict us, him who believed to coexistence of the "good" and "evil" in inert matter :
"How when inert matter is bad, can it wish the good, without losing its estate of inert matter by its participation to the good ? " (cf. Treatise 26 - III, 6 - 11, 31).

*

So, interactive levels of the understanding are rich of information as for life's dynamics and as for primordial causes.
Let's insist more.

If we consider for example, the very young japanese macaques, of the Koshima island, who learn to wash their food (dirty potatoes), with their mother,
or the plains's gorillas discovered in Congo, who teach to their progeny how to rinse roots so as to eat them,
Evidently this behaviors requires more that physical activities : of the abstract activities as the recognitions, choices, previsions, …, and decisions.

Here is another similar interrogation, how to explain that chimpanzees can associate some symbols to things,
more exactly for example, can associate three designs which represent "the red", "a circle" and "a tail ", to vision of an apple ? (cf. The animal intelligence - J. Vauclair, Le Seuil).
For it, it is necessary that some characteristics of this apple and of these symbols are transferred in a same virtuality domain (abstraction's domain), and are compared by a creative entity, master of "sense" and "time".
What can we say of this mysterious domain ?,
ignored by the philosophers and theologians, where "is reigning" present moment, without duration.

We could also quote behaviors of kanzi.
Educated in Yerkes Center of Atlanta, this chimpanzee was recognizing more than six hundred words and was capable of "building" some embryos of sentences with symbols.
Although these sentences have been rudimentary, even stupid, it would not have been possible without the innate memorization of specific abstract references which were judged, utilized and constantly updated,
and if there are "innate judgments ...", obviously, there are innate interpretations.

Concerning the "innate", and the biological processes which are associated with it, let us emphasize some grave mistakes and ambiguities of the philosophers and biologists ; examples are numerous :

* "Instinct is the innate capacity that enables an animal to have a typical behavior of his species, in specific environmental conditions, in particular to parents's contact..
Man does not really learn to speak, no more than bird learns to fly.
This knowledge is put by his genes in his brain and parents reveal this treasure.".
It's necessary to be serious !

Indeed, genes do nothing, but they enable memorization of genetic potentialities,
potentialities which are fruits of ceaseless creative activities, of physical order and of transcendent order,
potentialities which can be actualized (materialized to become realities) by means of parents, of the education or other "initiators" as the environmental constraints.

* "Reality which is perceived by animal is put in his brain or more exactly, within neuronal complex of his brain.".
Yes, but who puts and what are processes ?
Matter by means of its physical properties which would enable to brain from "transcending" reality to recognize, judge, choose, decide and do ?
Evidently no.

* "It is not necessary any more to search and to define observer who forms images memorized in brain, if we admit that brain works as an active metaphor,
in other words, when representation is merged with action, …
The representations are at the same moment the forms and forces which produce and reproduce subject's world, …".
An active metaphor, what is it ?!
Do we have to laugh or cry in front of this speech ?

Let's repeat, virtual images which are located in abstraction's domain, are not creative entities ; these abstract references, only enable recognitions, judgments, choices, …, and actions.
But then, who does elaborate them, enable their coherence and adequacy with reality, who does use them ?

So, we must be vigilant in front of simplistic explanations which are conveyed by the scientists, philosophers and theologians


Paul Moyne
http://www.paulmoyne.com