Knowledges, truths, errors

Knowledges, truths, errors


" … whereas they see, in one man, and one day, and one house, different things to be fit for different members, and a thing formerly lawful, after a certain time not so ; in one corner permitted or commanded, but in another rightly forbidden and punished. Is justice therefore various or mutable ?
No, but the times, over which it presides, flow not evenly, because they are times, …,

But why doth “truth generate hatred,” and the man of Thine, preaching the truth, become an enemy to them ? whereas a happy life is loved, which is nothing else but joying in the truth ; unless that truth is in that kind loved, that they who love anything else would gladly have that which they love to be the truth: and because they would not be deceived, would not be convinced that they are so ? Therefore do they hate the truth for that thing's sake which they loved instead of the truth. They love truth when she enlightens, they hate her when she reproves. For since they would not be deceived, and would deceive, they love her when she discovers herself unto them, and hate her when she discovers them. (cf. Confessions - Saint Augustine - book III 7, 13 – book X 23, 34)".

"Because you should not underestimate yourself, we are an automaton as much as a spirit. And from there comes that the instrument by which the persuasion is made, is not the only demonstration. How much there are few demonstrated things !" (Cf. Pascal - Thoughts - frag. 671).

Pertinent observations expressed by this great minds who had however only an elementary world's understanding compared to the current comprehensions.
Still it is necessary to extract quintessence of our knowledges !

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

One century ago, H. Bergson (1859-1941) was asserting :
"… into superior centres of the bark or marrow the nervous elements do not work with the aim of the knowledge : they are only sketching suddenly a plurality of possible actions, or are organizing one of it." (Cf. Matter and Memory – Paris, Alcan 1910).

A curious declaration which incites to smiling today.
The nervous elements do not work and cannot ketch and organize.
They are of biologic structures which enable, among other facts :
- use of value’s references,
- transmission of processes organizations with biologic effects, of processes organizations with behavioral effects, even with deadly effects,
- and possibility to have necessary knowledges which enable the creation acts required for development of the life’s phenomenon.
Nuances !

As for A.N. Whitehead, he saw in knowledge the permanent symbiosis between  two sources : the imagination and the lived experiences, which is participating of our cosmic foundations.
Actually, our foundations in the universe are more subtle,
-  on one hand, because the continuous renewal of elementary particles which compose the cells,
- on the other hand, because knowledges which emerge from consciousness state, necessitate transcendent activities and of ceaseless transmissions of information (of "sense") until quantum level.

Thus, how do not see in the man, an exceptional pole (centre) of transcendent activities necessary to universal dynamics ?

The astronomer Fred Hoyle would not contradict us :
"The current knowledges in cosmology managed to suggest with enough force that the daily situations could not persist without the remote parts of the universe, that all our ideas of space and of geometry would be completely invalidated, if this remote parts were being isolated.
Our daily experience, even in its inmost details, seems to be so strictly integrated on the universe's scale as it is almost impossible to consider that the both domains : the inert matter and the living matter, are existing separately." (Cf. Frontiers of Astronomy),

comprehensions that we express by interrogation :
is not the man a divine necessity rather than a God's specific project on earth ?!

With regard to the processes organizations and information in general, how not to be surprised when we see that the philosophers have not answered yet, in a credible way, to problem of the "sense" : its recognition, its transmission and its memorization ?
It is true that philosophy is, more than yesterday, "fed" with concepts, we do not hesitate to say it : more and more hazy ; that's why it has lost a part of its credibility and nobility.
We think thus, to "vital impulse" proposed by Bergson, to Sartre's expression : "consciousness which imagine", to the auto-power recognized to imagination by numerous thinkers, to understanding of the intention which would result according to Whitehead of "interaction of primary feelings", ...

According to us,
"… it seems that there are two things which are required always to judge well :
the first that our knowledges must be, as much as possible, in harmony with the reality's behaviors,
and the other that the memory which enables remembering and access to these knowledges, remains faithful..." (cf. Paraphrased extract of a letter of Descartes to Elisabeth - Egmond, September 15th, 1645),
nevertheless,
"… it remains that conscious knowledge has two extremities which join itself :
the first extremity is that the men to the birth, have a total ignorance of the primordial causes,
the other is the one where arrive the men after to have found all that their intellect enabled them to discover, and who consider that they know few things and are in the same ignorance of the primordial causes..." (cf. Blaise Pascal - Thoughts - paraphrased extract - Reason of the effects, frag. 77).

Indeed,
we have an only absolute reference : the present moment which is the same during all existence,
and an extremely partial and relative world's understanding.
Why that ?,
the conscious comprehension, why is it poor compared to internal knowledges necessary to development of the body and life’s phenomenon (for example, the understanding which is inherent to cells) ?
Given that the world has a sacrificial character, is not because the creative entity of transcendent order, by definition of divine character, who recognizes herself in the I (ego, subject, spirit) and who, eternally, leads univers, is not omnipotent ?

Theologians, to your writing desks !

*
The conscious understanding presupposes obviously, internal comprehensions, in other words, the conscious understanding is the outcome of a chain of comprehensions.
What we consider as "truth" is thus a compound group of,

- primordial truths which are memorized in the inmost depths of our cells and which enable the dynamics of the particles, atoms and molecules composing our physical identity ; they are imprescriptible truths which concern unchanging evolutive ways of the inert matter.

- truths with a strong objectivity as the knowledge of the gravitational force about which we know that it depends only on the masses and distances,
and truths with a weak objectivity as those based only on hypothesises.

- "sufficient truths" which enable the daily life of all beings of the same species.
For example, sufficient truths of the worker bees are hardly different from those of their queen, …, those of the scientist are similar to those of the farmer.

Observe that our notion of sufficient truth is different of the concept : "épistémé", developed by Michel Foucault, a concept which highlights the fundamental codes of a culture to a definite epoch.

- necessary truths, as the "lie" quoted by Plato :
"If really the lie is useless to Gods, but useful for men as a remedy, it is evident that employment of such a remedy must be reserved to doctors and that the uninitiated persons have not to use it. " (cf. The Republic III - 388d, 389d),

comment resumed by Averroes (1126 ? - 1198) :
"For leaders, it's good to tell lies to people in the same way that medicament is good for disease. And, as it is only the doctor who gives medicament, the one who tells lies to people, is the king in exercise of his kingship.",

and developped by Maimonides (1138 – 1204) :
"You have to imbue yourself of what we said on the beliefs ; or authority inculcates a true belief which is itself the only purpose, for example, the belief to unity, eternity and God's non-materiality, or the authority inculcates a necessary belief to stop mutual violence, or to acquire good morality." (cf. Guide).

- personal truths associated to lived experiences, which are "nourishing" the abstraction’s domain and participate of the concepts, ideas, anticipations, …, and even, are expressions of the religious feeling.

So, we have several kinds of truths at our disposal,
notably civilizations truths which have been promulgated out of necessity and which, nowadays, sometimes, are invalidated by the sciences.
Thus we understand why there are false truths.
Furthermore, this false truths are the singular expressions of our freedom degrees !

*
Actually, we are imbued by relative and sufficient truths,
- relative truths because for example, we judge according to antonyms: slow - rapid, …, black - white, …, right - left, …,good – evil,
- sufficient truths because they enable existence.

Let's quote, for example, among these relative and sufficient truths, one among the most emblematic : the simplistic and common understanding of the vision according to which that are the eyes which see ; nowadays, it is moreover one of the stumbling-blocks of the philosophy (and theology).
What can we say about it ?

We know that frequencies of the light's waves are extremely numerous, nevertheless the visual organs cannot enable us to perceive, distinctly, every frequency of this "multitude".
We recognize only groupings of this waves.

Thus, it's by means of an innate grouping process more or less "subtle", and by language, that we can recognize the colors and name them.
More or less subtle because these innate groupings take place,
- in our retina by means of only three types of photoreceptors, each type "tuned" on a group of wave's frequencies (the pigeons have four types of photoreceptors, of this fact, pigeons distinguish better the light’s waves and therefore the colors, than us).
- and in our brain because we would have four other types of receptors which would enable from detecting spectres of the red, yellow, blue green, and violet (according to experiments made on very young children).

Additional precisions,
- the biological receptors are not tuned on a unique frequency but on a frequency to which are associated other frequencies, often of weaker amplitude.
We understand better so, why we can see a large spectrum of colors as the rainbow.
- the perception by the eyes requires improving of "brain's structure" after birth, by means of the first lived experiences ; let's remind that the man’s baby begins to be conscious of himself only at age of some twenty months.

Consequently, certainly in a first analysis, we can say that natural light is a mix of seven colors : violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red, but in reality, it’s a "mix of electromagnetic waves" of various frequencies.
Besides, recognition of the colors requires differentiation and interpretation of the characteristics of these electromagnetic waves according to "value’s references" common to our species.

More precisely, recognition of the colours requires the intervention (implication) of an only creative entity able to transcend their electromagnetic waves in order to differentiate them and judge them according to value references.
The comprehension of vision's processes leads therefore to new truths that complete current scientific truths.
Let's insist more.

To reinforce this point of view, it is not necessary to know all the numerous theories on the waves and radiations, more and more esoteric, proposed successively by Descartes (1596 - 1650), Huygens (1629 - 1695), Newton (1642 - 1727), Young (1773 - 1829), Fresnel (1788 - 1827), ..., Maxwell (1831 - 1879), Broglie (1892 - 1987), ...
It is enough to wonder what are primordial causes of some commonplace experiments.

For example, we know that when a disk which has sectors on which are respectively painted the rainbow's colors, is rotating quickly, we see this disk white.
Why that ?
Is it because our eye mix the colors, as it is usually said ?
Evidently no.
The eye is not an operator.
Eye is a biologic structure which enables with nerves, transmission of visual perceptions to brain, so that these can be recognized and interpreted by a creative entity who transcends them ; nevertheless when these perceptions, these colors, pass too quickly, this entity cannot differentiate them.

The Maxwell spinning-top on which there are only the red, the green, and the blue, is also rich in information.
It shows that we can re-create all visible colors by modifying relative intensities of these three fundamental colors, a process used in video.

Besides, this spinning-top shows that there is a persistence of images on the retina ; it is a specific process of memorization associated to organs of vision,
a process naturally, which is managed neither by the eyes, nor by brain !

So, these experiments, although extremely simple, reveal that eyes, as the telescopes, the microscopes, the cameras, the optical fibers, …, enable only a physical treatment of the information, preliminary to transcendent activities of interpretation.

They give evidence also that electromagnetic waves are sense's primordial vectors,
and they lead us to reconsider numerous scientific texts, for example :

"The data bank which is represented by DNA can work only if cellular actors are able to recognize of specific regions of the double helix and able of interacting with these regions. In fact, the existence of a system as that of the genetic expression depends on proteins's capacity to recognizing some bounded portions of the DNA molecule, ... and to initiate to their level, the transcription of the adjacent gene ....
The perfect adaptation of one of the most fundamental structures of the proteins to big furrow of the DNA facilitates considerably DNA's recognition by these molecules, because these molecules can so to reach in a intimate way the fundamental sequences of the DNA …,
a protein cannot see really a DNA sequence ; it has to feel it, as a blind reads a text of Braille." (cf. The Long Chain of Coincidence – M. Denton).

Obviously, proteins can not recognize some portions of the DNA, ... and make.
This faculties are the ones of the creative entity, master of the "sense" who, in every being, uses proteins and has, notably,
- the power to memorize (to code) the genetic patrimony by means of combinations of four nitrogenous molecules : Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine,
- the capacity of integrating these combinations in rigorous chronologies,
- and means to diffuse, constantly, myriads of processes organizations with biologic effects, of processes organizations with behavioral effects, even with deadly effects, in all organs.

Let’s beware therefore of reductionism and of its inevitable false truths !

*
Karl Popper (1902-1994) imagined an asymmetry between truth and error.
More exactly, this philosopher recognized a "structural asymmetry" in the bipole "truth - error",
an asymmetry which would incite to more interest for truth.
Let us quote his favourite demonstration :

"All ravens are black, however, it is impossible to show truth of such a proposition.
Even if one hundred, one thousand, hundred thousand ravens are black, this fact will show never, that all ravens are black.
For it , it would be necessary to have knowledge of all the ravens which have existed, are existing and will exist ; what is impossible.
But it is enough to see an only raven of other colour than black, so that proposal is false, so that we are certain about its falsity ...
Therefore this asymmetry represents : a finite group of basic statements which enable, if they are true, the change of an universal law, while they can never verify this law.".

Well, but that say to us nothing as for the meta-reason (the meta-intention) which incites to research of the truth and to recognizing of its primacy.

Nevertheless, this asymmetry shows that unceasingly and in every being, of the mysterious incitements (and comprehensions) help in choices of value’s references, in particular those associated to sufficient truths,
and it, even if these truths are only relative !

Mysteriously too, the reality's dynamics shows respect of directions (of the sense) ; the universal laws and evolution processes give evidence of it sufficiently.
Why that ?
Is not because the respect of the sense and directions is an universal necessity ?
We are convinced of it.

*
The universe's evolutions of which some ones can be represented by laws, presuppose, naturally, primordial immutable truths, notably those which have enabled the life's appearance and its development.
But then, ceaseless researchs of the novelty that take place in the cells and which necessitate specific truths, have they only for objective, complexity's increases of some "parts" of the life's phenomenon and it, only on one planet ?,
even, these researchs have they henceforth as objective the "preservation" of the humankind during a ridiculously short period compared to history of our galaxy ?
To imagine it, is absurd.

Indeed,
- on the one hand, life’s phenomenon and the men are universe’s potentialities which can be actualized (materialized to become realities) as soon as "omposition" of a planet isppropriate.
- on the other hand, creative entity, of transcendent order, who animates us and manages universe, this immensurable construction site, for ever unfinished,
as Sisyphus who was condemned to the eternal task of rolling a large stone,
in us, has to work to know and must research to know more, and it, in spite of inexorable universal constraints and everyday servitudes.
Of numerous relative truths today, especially scientific, are thus more than "beliefs among other ones", they are necessary truths that characterize our epoch.

Of course,
"any human proposition has same authority that other ones, if the reason do not make the difference",
more exactly, any human proposition has same value that other ones if of reasoned activities do not enable to us to do the difference (the reason is not an operator),
alas,
"The greatest and most powerful means of persuasion, ..., are the multitudes of years and of faithful ; …. the faiths surpass so much the wise men." (cf. Pierre Charron. - The Wisdom - I, 42).

Besides,
"Do you believe that a false opinion has less power than bile on the one who has jaundice, and venom on the one who has been bitten by a rabid dog ?" (cf. Marcus Aurelius - Thoughts, book VI).

Yes , we know henceforth, that non-truths, false truths, errors, uncertainties influence psychical and physical balances of individuals.
Nevertheless, why does one believe today still to ancestral truths rejected by the sciences ?,
why do false truths go through, so easily, generations ?

*
Let us quote again Descartes :
"… can we imagine a being produced by this sovereign Creator of all things, who is not perfect and completely finished in all his parts ? And certainly, there is no doubt, God did not create me so that I never make mistakes … ; it is sure also, that He always wants what is better ; therefore, is it more advantageous for me, to mistake or not to mistake ? ....
Because by the only understanding I can't accept or deny the things, but I conceive only the ideas of things, which I may accept or deny. " (cf. Metaphysical meditations - fourth Meditation).

Indeed, it’s idea that we have of things.
But, Descartes had an elementary world's comprehension, if we compare it to ours : he has never imagined the men and animals, as extraordinary poles (centres) of creative activities taking place in their cells, and even until quantum level, and therefore, concerning whole universe,
of creative activities of transcendent order, the ideas of which are the singular fruits.
So, his "cogito ergo sum" is prelude of an unfinished symphony.
Actually, Descartes (1596, 1650) could not express all his ideas when we know, for example, that at Toulouse, philosopher Vanini Giulio Cesare was burned (1619) on the public square to have dared to propose a naturalistic theory which was recognizing kinship relations between the monkeys and men.

But then, why the philosophers (and the theologians) have they nowaday, a so little creativity ?
Most of them have lost their critical sense of the sciences and seem satisfied of numerous current false truths (Big Bang, time which began, time which will finish,…).

Let's reject therefore, these false truths, especially those according to which the universal laws, the nature, the organs as the brain and genes, the consciousness, the culture, …,
are operators having faculties which enable recognitions, judgments, choices, …, decisions and acts,
and let's meditate with regard to incitements which induce us to research of more truths and knowledges.

These incitements indeed, like mysterious voices, come from a beyond the real : the abstraction's domain ; they are besides, theoretically all respectable on account of their transcendent nature (order), ipso facto, of their divine character.

You noticed it, we moderated our comment by the expression "theoretically all respectable" because although these incitements have a divine character, actions which result, are not always respectable.
Here is certainly, one of the great mysteries which veil implication’s comprehension in the world, of a creative entity of divine character.

Think of the abominable murders which "enamel" the current events, with references to God.
Far from us however, idea that such acts are attributable to incitements of some demons.
They show plainly, them too, existence of freedom degrees which are specific in us, universal in matter.
The freedom and its limits, another great mystery !

*
As Plato and Sakyamuni, since more two thousand years, great minds have meditated with regard to adequacy between the phenomena (the reality) and concepts (the understanding).

A difficult problem because our world’s comprehension depends notably, on,
- relative characteristics of our value references (the bipoles : positive – negative ; big – small ; ... ; just – unjust ; ... ; good– evil),
- interactions between the observer and the observed,
- systematic disappearances of the perceptions, inherent to the structure of the sensorial organs,
- erroneous comprehensions, particularly those, trivialized, that concern the nothingness and time,
- sufficient truths (of our epoch).

We consider nevertheless, that there is truths more absolute, particularly those concerning the immutable references which are necessary to universal dynamics, and of which some are in abstraction’s domain of the beings.

More precisely, we believe to imprescriptible truths correlative of aprimordial necessity, for example, we believe to existence, in ourselves :
- of meta-values,
- and of meta-logics which enable immutable interactions, of transcendent order.

The "realism" (existence) of these truths is notably attested, in a obvious way, by cyclic and perpetual evolutions which can be expressed with universal laws.
Plato, sensitive to world of the ideas and eternal forms, would not contradict us.

Thus, nowadays, taking into consideration our extraordinary world's comprehensions, Aristotle would not affirm :
"so that there is science (knowledge) it is necessary to speak as a human being".

As for Descartes,
on account of ceaseless researchs of the novelty which take place in our cells,
he would not say that "the faculty to conceive has a very small extent".
It is not the faculty to conceive which has a very small extent, but our conscious understanding and the powers that we have at conscious level, and it, although we are poles (centres) of transcendent activities, exceptional, which concern not only life’s phenomenon, but also quantum level, therefore, universe.

Alas !, today more than yesterday, the things’s comprehensions are not accessible to everyone, but reserved to scientists, to specialists, who use to express them, more and more esoteric languages.
However, let's keep hope, every being has a sufficient understanding of the world adapted to his level of complexity,
an essential fact which leads at inexorable question :
why to look for the truth ?,
since the researchs, whatever they are, will never allow to reach the "thing-in-itself" imagined by Kant.

Besides, numerous new scientific truths although experimented, are not recognized by the religious hierarchies, because these truths incite to radical reject of several fundamental religious dogmas.
And however, these dogmas are founded on epochs truths, of which some, we dare to say it, are errors.

More importantly, responsible men of various religions try to hold a dialogue, nowadays and without success, using several of these false truths and asserting that they have been revealed.
On account of current grave moral crisis of the humanity, is not it more judicious, even imperative, to lead another reflections more realistic and more open, by choosing problems which can be discussed in a reasoned way ?,
because such is indeed the success’ key.

These problems, for example, could be classified in two groups, according to the consensus possibilities.
First of all, the problems concerning very directly the daily life, because we know that the politic men cannot any more, to assure the social balances of the humanity ; church men must be implicated.
Next, the meta-scientifical, philosophic and theological interrogations for which the answers necessitate a just understanding of the time, of the relativity, of the sense (its recognition, memorization and diffusion), of the abstraction’s domain, of the thought activities (in particular, the inspiration and revelation), …

Ambitious and noble program !


Paul Moyne
http://www.paulmoyne.com