TOP
Electron
Preface
Philosophy
Understanding
Trinities
Workings
Truth
Naked existence
Plato and Kant
Spirit as fact
Darwin and God
END
 |
(I wrote 'Spirit as physical fact' in 2007 and recently (2018) added this text about atoms.)
Understanding the bike, seat, flower etc. always means: seeing the purpose of the thing.
So, what is the purpose of the atoms?
Proton and Electron as Body and Skin
Maybe the purpose of the proton | neutron only is: giving body to the things. Maybe the purpose of the electron only is: giving skin to the bodies. An isolated proton then is a naked body, searching for a skin. A neutron then is a proton-egg. That is the idea, a biological view at physics.
This body-building force can create a 100 different bodies, Hydrogen with 1 proton, Helium with 2 etc. up to a 100 protons in the biggest atoms. And the bigger the body is, the more proton-eggs it can contain. All bigger atoms have more neutrons than protons, and the bigger the more.
These biggest atoms then sometimes are unstable; a neutron escapes and becomes a proton, while the big body falls apart in smaller atoms.
Some atoms have perfect skins, with exactly 2, 8, 18, 32 or 50 electrons as surface-shell. These atoms are called inert. The other atoms have small or bigger holes in their skins. By working together in molecules, the thing as a whole then still can have a perfect skin.
And all these 100 different sized atoms of course make their own sized (colored) impressions in the outer space, a dynamic impression. That is the field of light, 1 playing field for all electrons.
An electron apparently is a smallest piece of atom-skin. The bigger the electron-shell is, the more skin-pieces are needed (2 x shellnr2). Such a piece of skin then of course has 2 sides, 2 'weights', to the body inside as smallest amount of charge (
), to the outside as smallest amount of light-energy (h).
The pattern behind
Strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic force clearly form a working unity when making atoms and molecules. A bit like cycling, rolling and steering form a unity in a bike, and like eating, breathing, seeing and hearing form a working unity in the human body and life in general.
There obviously plays a pattern behind then, a design, an idea: Spirit as fact.
The speed of light
Every spot in our finite cosmos is the origin of its own time-field, starting at zero and then expanding with the speed of light, over and over again.
It is only time yet, virtual, just a pattern. A bit like the pattern of the suit, the tailor has in mind.
Maybe these standing time-waves, like expanding virtual balloons, are the real speed of light.
Electrons use this pattern then to send their messages with, their photons. They can use big 100 meter 'balloons' then and send 3000000 photons per second, or smaller 1/1000 meter waves sending 300000000000 photons per second etc.
Maybe this picture of the speed of light can shine new light, both on relativity theory and quantum-physics.
Time
Where is my 70 years (+3 days) old past? Not behind but inside me; I feel it in my bones, see it in the mirror.
And neutrons and protons then contain the longest past, until the Big Bang.
Shrinking time-balloons becoming smaller and smaller. That is what we feel as mass I think, as body.
And in the middle or between (past and future), the electrons are alive. All my electrons working together, that is me, now.
'An electron apparently is a smallest piece of atom-skin' I wrote. And suppose electrons indeed are no balls circling around protons (like physics-books teach) but really are pieces of atom-skin, so that joined electrons form a (patchwork) sheet, balloon-shaped around an atom.
The circling still is there but as a whirling on the surface. An electron then = a flat space-circling (a line propeller?).
Then all electrons of the cosmos joined together, would form an enormous sheet (as a balloon?) with below the surface the negative electric charge (and all mass) and above the surface the field of light.
The cosmic electron-sheet then could be used to picture an innumerable number of patterns on it, maybe in a holographic way, as a circling.
This huge electron-balloon by the way also really exists, but only in time. All electrons together form the now-surface of a cosmic time-balloon, with in the center the Big Bang. So, life is always on the edge.
Gravity
These billions of light-years long time-lines between the Big Bang in the center of the time-balloon, and the electrons on the edge (like innumerable virtual spokes), are curved in space, huge curves causing clusters of galaxies, with in there galaxy-curves, still smaller solar-curves, planet- and moon-curves, and in the end the curves of the atoms.
And each electron then still is the now-end of the cosmic long time-line, the nipple on the curved spoke.
This curving of time-lines, that is what gravity is, I think. Mass will pile up in the center of the curving. And in very strong gravity-fields, 2 Hydrogen time-lines then can 'melt' together to 1 Helium time-line, 3 to Lithium etcetera uptil 92 time-lines in Uranium. Neutrons then are time-lines without nipple.
Still this: In the billions of light-years big balloon made of time, the Big Bang is in the center while all electrons form the balloon-surface. In the real space balloon however, the electrons are everywhere, because of curving and curving etc. The same, being everywhere, then is true for the space of the Big Bang, in every neutron and proton in particular; these long time-lines in a way are rolled up inside the neutrons and protons.
Quarks ?
A proton must be a space-circling, 3-dimensional thus 6-directional, and symmetrical. (Something like 6
6. While the electron, as flat space-circling, then is . And 66/ happens to be 1836.12, the mass-relation between proton and electron.)
And if you then smash a proton into pieces, then of course you will see smaller space-time events, for a short while. But that does not make a quark a fundamental particle! The proton-pattern anyhow is more fundamental, for me.
Nevertheless, fundamental-particle-physics will be very important in future nano-technology. I would focus on the electrons then; they have the future.
Just an idea, a Fabc phantasy.
Same text on 2 pamphlets 
Jan Helderman, Alkmaar, 20-1-18 | 6-2-18 | 15-2-19 | 15-3-19
A new notion of what Understanding is, automatically reveals a new notion of Truth. This new notion of Scientific Truth ought to become the driving force in for example politics. Why? For the sake of Truth.
This booklet also is meant for (young) people with little education, who may have heard the word philosophy now and then, but do not exactly know what it means.
Nevertheless I will try to be not childish so that (older) educated people also want to read it.
I want to start with saying something about what philosophy is, for me. People differ from apes, and that is because of our mind, with which we are able to understand. That is why, in the course of time, we were able to learn many truths about life and reality we are living in.
All together that now is such an enormous amount of knowledge, that no single human being on earth is able to learn that all. Even if you become a hundred years and study 10 hours each day, you do not know every fact.
That is also why we have split up science into sub-sciences that each study a part of reality. Biology studies plants and animals, chemistry studies how atoms become molecules, mathematics studies numbers and relations between numbers, the technical sciences study cog-wheels and levers and all these electronics we nowadays have et cetera.
There are many different sciences now, many different fields of study.
In the past that was different, a thousand years ago for example. It then still was possible to learn all known scientific facts. All scientific books together then fitted in only one room.
And these scientists of the past then often called themselves philosophers; 'philo' means something like love, and 'sophy' something like wisdom; so philosophers are wisdom-lovers. Philosophy then was equal to science, of everything.
In the course of time, all these different sciences we nowadays have, all occupied a part of the general field of knowledge of early days philosophy. So what is left for philosophy then?
Well, that anyhow is 'knowing' itself. What does it mean, knowing something, understanding a thing? And is your knowledge true then, what is truth?
Because all these different sciences offer us knowledge, true knowledge. But what then is true knowledge?
Why is it that the ape does not know what we know? Do you know that the DNA, the building-scheme, of the chimpanzee for more than 99.5% equals the human DNA? And the more we learn about DNA, the higher that figure becomes. Even their brains are nearly 100% like ours.
But why then do not they understand? And what then is it what we understand, when we are knowing?
That according to me is the most important question for philosophy now. So actually the question: Who or what is the human? Because our mind makes us human.
That by the way always was the most important question for philosophy. But since a good answer never was found, it still is the most important question.
On my website www.fabc.info, I compare all sciences we now have also with a tree with many branches, while all branches also have side-branches. Every branch then is a science like the branch of biology, the branch of chemistry, of psychology et cetera. Hundreds of branches and side-branches now.
And such a side-branch then is a specialism inside for example biology. Because no single human being on earth is able to learn all the facts about all plants and animals living on earth. To learn every fact about every insect already is an enormous job.
And philosophy then is not just a branch of the tree, but the stem of the tree of knowledge, on which all branches grow.
The answer to the question 'What is true knowledge?' is the mother of all other answers. Because if you do not know what knowing is, what then is the value of your knowledge?
2. UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING FITTING FORMS
So what is understanding, what is happening when you understand something?
Let us start then with simple things like your shoes, trousers, your seat or your bike. You undoubtedly understand your shoes, trousers, seat or bike. While a chimpanzee does not understand these things. Yes, you can learn a chimp to ride a bike with shoes and trousers on. But does that chimp then also understand the bike?
But you do understand your bike or shoe, and what then do you mean with understanding?
Actually that is very simple. You just see the shape of your foot in the form of the shoe, that is all, like you see your both legs in the pair of trousers, and like you see your whole body form in sitting shape in every seat and every bike.
So when you understand, you simply see forms that fit to other forms. Or you feel fitting forms like blind people do. And also then, understanding is a kind of seeing, an insight for these blind people.
Maybe you also understand the principle of the chain and cog-wheels in a bike, and also then, understanding simply is seeing that forms fit to each other, the chain on the cog-wheels in this case.
But the essence of understanding the bike is seeing or feeling that the form of that thing fits the form of the human body, and that applies to all human articles of use. They all have to fit to us, otherwise we would not understand the things.
Imagine other planets far away in the cosmos with life on it, also with a being that understands, so a 'human'. But also imagine these human beings to be egg-shaped, without legs and feet, moving over their planet bouncing like a ball.
Such an understanding being then would not understand our shoes, our trousers, our seats, our bikes. Unless they also see a picture of an earthly human being, fitting to these things.
These beings will have other clothes, vehicles, furniture, tools et cetera, fitting to their body form, and probably useless and therefore incomprehensible for us earthly human beings.
These egg-shaped human beings then probably will understand the principle of the rolling wheels in our bike and the principle of the gear-mechanism. They see fitting of forms then like we do. But the bike as a whole would not fit them of course, would be a rather useless thing for them, a meaningless thing.
So in these cases understanding is a simple act, just seeing forms that fit to other forms. Our mind is a very natural instrument then, as natural as our eyes, ears, hands, as natural as our senses.
Actually understanding also is a kind of sensing, in your mind. Apes see the forms. We also see the fitting of forms.
And according to me, understanding always is such a simple act, also if it concerns language or mathematics. Later in this little book more about these more abstract kinds of knowing.
We understand all our articles of use, furniture, tools, vehicles, buildings, clothes, food and drinks, simply because we see something in the form of these things. And that something then always is the form of our human body, our whole body or a part of it.
A hammer and screw-driver fit in our hands, our feet fit on the pedals of our bike, our pair of glasses fit on our nose, my fingers fit on the keys of my keyboard, I fit in my bed and through my door et cetera.
Next to that, all these human articles of use also fit to other forms, the hammer on the nail, the screw-driver on the screw, my shoes and my bike on the road, my clothes against the cold and the rain et cetera. And also then, understanding simply is that seeing of forms that fit to other forms.
And like all human articles of use as form fit to the form of our human body, in about the same way all plants and animals, including the human, fit to the form of the earth, and the earthly conditions like gravity, temperature, light and atmosphere.
The roots of plants and trees clearly have a form to penetrate the soil they are growing in. Birds are a kind of flying-machines, fishes a kind of submarines. And a flower actually is a satellite-dish, it opens for light, it then follows the sun. And where we build the receiver in our satellite-dish, the fruit is growing in the flower.
And also there, understanding the plant, the bird, the flower, the fish et cetera means that we see that their forms fit to other forms, the wings of birds to the form of the air, the flower to the form of light et cetera. If you see the satellite-dish in a flower, only then you really understand the flower, the way the thing works.
And also if it concerns the organs or limbs of plants and animals, the heart, the lungs, muscles and bones, nerves and brains, ears and eyes, also then understanding means that we see that the forms of these organs and limbs fit to other forms, the form of the heart as pump for blood, the lungs to breath the air, ears to receive sound-waves, eyes as cameras for light, feet to fit on the ground et cetera.
So understanding actually is a simple act, a very natural act. We see something in the form of the thing then and that something always is another fitting form.
That is also what we mean when we say that we have an idea, the idea of the shoe, the bike, the bolt and nut. We always see fitting of forms then.
Doing an invention is inventing a new form that fits to one or more other forms. And if it does not seem to fit to such an other form, it still can be a piece of art. And even useless pieces of art fit to other forms, our form, our longing for beauty.
But how about understanding more abstract matters like language and mathematics? Well, sounds too have a form, the round open O form for example or the sharp closed S form. And then we can combine these sounds to words. And such a word then can serve as a label for a thing like a bike, a shoe, a tree et cetera.
A sound form then fits to a real form. And that is how we learn and understand language. Later in this booklet more about language, about mathematics as well.
3. FORM-WORKING-FORM TRINITIES
When we understand some thing, we actually see trinities. Think about your shoe again. You understand your shoe when you see the form of your foot in it.
So foot and shoe form a unity. They of course are two different things. But without feet a shoe was not a shoe. And without women, a man was not a man.
But there not only are two things then, because there also is something playing in between, a fitting of the forms, a working.
A better example then is the screw-bolt and the fitting nut. Bolt and nut also form a unity; if there would not exist bolts, then a nut would not be a nut but just a kind of ring.
But this unity then not only is a duality but actually is a trinity. Because next to the two material things there also is the immaterial screwing playing in between, a working. And between male and female the working Eros is playing, between proton and electron the working Electra is playing et cetera.
Everywhere around us we see such form-working-form trinities like axle-rotating-wheel, cogwheel-driving-chain, human-riding-bike, hands-steering-handlebar, bike-rolling-road, heart-pumping-blood, lungs-breathing-air, wings-flying-air, eyes-seeing-light, ears-hearing-sound, man-sitting-seat, flower-receiving-light, tree-rooting-soil, bottle-containing-wine, fingers-typing-keyboard, lamp-shining-light, clouds-raining-water, nerves-sending-information et cetera.
Every form is partner in such a trinity. And the trinity as a whole then often is partner in a bigger trinity, like all these bolt-screwing-nut trinities in a bike or other vehicle or machine.
Moon and earth also form a trinity, earth and sun as well. Gravity then anyhow is playing as working between the two partners.
Just look around to every thing you see. You will always find another fitting form then, and then you understand. And every kind of fitting then is a working. This working then simply can be protecting like with our clothes, shoes, houses. Even useless pieces of art fit to another form, the human who enjoys art.
So when we understand, we see trinities, or feel, hear, taste or smell trinities, form-fitting-form trinities or form-working-form trinities. We see fitting of forms when we understand, we see the workings of reality then, the screwing, pumping, breathing, rooting, rolling, growing, flying, living, Eros also and Electra in the end.
And when we hear, taste, smell or feel, then the seeing is an insight, a seeing in our mind, an image, imagination.
Apes and other animals undoubtedly also see all these different forms in nature. But they do not see the fitting of forms, the workings, or only a few.
Our understanding anyhow is a simple act, a sensual act. Feeling that your shoe fits your foot; understanding never is more than that.
Modern scientists only accept facts in their sciences, and I agree with them. Only facts deserve to count in science.
If you think that an Intelligence or Great Spirit is ruling everything on earth and in the cosmos, well then you will have to define Intelligence or Spirit as physical fact. Only then it will count in science. And I repeat, I agree on that. Only physical facts deserve to count.
But how then about all these immaterial workings? The bolt is a physical fact, the nut as well. The male is a physical fact, the female as well. The proton is a physical fact, the electron as well. These physical facts then are material facts.
But the screwing that plays in the emptiness between bolt and nut of course also is a fact, a physical fact, though an immaterial fact.
And Eros or Love playing between male and female of course also is a physical fact, but immaterial, no thing.
Electra, the electromagnetic field of light, of course also exists as physical fact, but is completely emptiness.
So there also exist immaterial physical facts, all workings of reality, always playing in the emptiness between the material forms.
And are these material forms really material?
This form-working-form trinity structure of reality, also exists in the languages we use to describe reality. The forms and their qualities then are expressed as nouns, while the workings are expressed as verbs.
'Form fits form' is the basic fact in our reality, and 'form fits form' also is the basic sentence in language, though we not always write the second form. But when I say 'It rains' I of course mean 'Clouds drop water'.
So the form-working-form structure of reality is the noun-verb-noun structure of language. And even in words we see this trinity structure; in most words open sounds like vowels are enclosed by more closed sounds like consonants; consonants-enclose-vowel trinities is what we see in words.
4. THE WORKINGS AS SPIRIT/IDEA
Reality consists of many different material things like stones, rocks and mountains, rivers and seas, clouds and rain, all kinds of plants and animals, and of course all these buildings and other things we human beings have made.
But next to all these material things, there also exists an immaterial sphere in our reality and to describe this sphere we use words like spirit, soul, ghost, idea, mind and the like. We speak of the vital-spirit, soul-killing labor, the ghost in the machine, the idea of a book, the spirit of a team et cetera.
But what then do we mean with these words that describe this immaterial sphere of reality? What do we mean with spirit? It anyhow is not a thing like a rock.
Our brain is a thing but our mind is immaterial. What do we mean with mind or spirit?
Well, first of all we then must establish the fact that we use these words in two different ways. Sometimes with spirit we mean our human spirit by which we differ from the ape; we mean our ideas and feelings then, our mind.
Some other times however with spirit we mean something that is playing in nature or in our culture, for example when we talk of the vital-spirit or the ghost in the machine or the team-spirit.
So sometimes with spirit we mean something that is only playing in our brain, other times with spirit we mean something that is playing everywhere in nature and reality. And in both cases we then mean an immaterial sphere or phenomenon, no thing but completely emptiness.
So what do we mean with spirit, mind, idea?
If you have understood last chapters about 'Fitting forms' and 'Trinities', you probably already know the answer to this question, and also understand the difference between spirit and mind.
With spirit playing in nature and in our culture, we simply mean all these different kinds of workings that play in our reality, always as a specific kind of fitting of forms. The screwing that is the ghost or spirit of bolt and nut, the flying is the spirit of a bird or airplane, the pumping of your heart and the breathing of your lungs, that is the vital-spirit, the harmony in a team, that is the team-spirit.
That also applies to the spirit of music. The tones a melody is made of can be seen as material building blocks. However, the music plays in the emptiness between the tones, in the harmonious fitting of tone-forms to each other.
And the same is true for language. The spirit of a book plays as harmony in fitting sound or letter forms, but also in the fitting between the sentences and words, and the things, forms and workings they describe.
Of course it is a fact that understanding language or music is a bit more complicated than for example understanding your shoe. But the underlying basic mechanism is exactly the same, our ability to see that forms can fit to other forms, our ability to see the workings playing there, screwing, rolling, pumping, flying et cetera, but also Eros playing between male and female, and in the end always Electra playing in the emptiness between proton and electron.
So for me, in this relational view I mean, Electra, the electromagnetic field of light, also is Spirit. And it indeed also plays in the emptiness. Most part of the cosmos is nearly completely empty with just a few atoms in for example a cubic kilometer. But it then always is filled with many electromagnetic waves.
So that is what we always mean with spirit in nature; we simply mean fitting of forms then and all these different kinds of workings playing there.
And with our human spirit, our mind, we simply mean this ability we have to see all these workings playing between the fitting forms.
Our spirit is 'having an eye for Spirit'.
5. TRUTH IS NICELY FITTING FORMS
Now that we have learned what we mean with spirit, mind, idea, knowledge and the like, we also are better able to see what kinds of judgments are true, scientifically true, objectively true, and what kinds of judgments are personal and subjective value-judgments.
We live in an age now wherein science is very important. Only scientific facts count, and that is a good thing. I trust our airplanes, our medicines et cetera because I know that these things are developed in a scientific way. Every part of the plane is tested over and over again.
Many people blame our Western societies for their lack of spirituality. 'We need more Spirit' is what they then say. 'What do you mean with spirit?' then is the answer of the scientists.
So if we want more Spirit in our societies, we first have to define Spirit in a scientific way, as a physical fact that therefore deserves to count in science and society.
So what kinds of judgments are true, objectively true?
Let us first bring back in memory then, these hypothetical egg-shaped human beings on that other planet. They move bouncing like a ball over their planet, so have no legs and feet. And our shoes, trousers, seats and bikes therefore are no useful things for them.
So saying 'That is a bike' is not an objectively true judgment but actually a subjective value-judgment. A bike, shoe, pair of trousers, seat et cetera only is that thing for a being with the shape of an earthly human being.
Also suppose that the conditions on that other planet are different than the conditions on earth, a stronger gravity for example, a higher temperature, another composition of their atmosphere, a different kind of light from their sun et cetera.
So that our earthly flowers are not able to bloom there, our earthly birds not able to fly there, not even able to breath or live. Our flower is no flower there.
So also saying 'That is a flower, bird, living being' is not an objectively true judgment, but a kind of value-judgment as well, only true in conditions like on earth.
Only the mathematical measures of all these things are always and everywhere true, so objectively true. But if you give the thing a name then (flower, bike, bird), then in most cases you pronounce a subjective or at least relative value-judgment.
Mathematics by the way also plays as fitting of forms. A 1 meter long thing fits 3 times in a 3 meter long thing, and the circumference of a circle always is pi times the diameter.
Physical laws also play as fitting of forms, Electra between electron and proton for example, or weight between mass and a scale. We see these workings in nature and then measure sizes and forces, and that is what we call mathematics and physics, a map of the area.
And only mathematics then is objectively true, the measures of a bike or bird for example.
Provided of course that the form of the mathematical description perfectly fits the form of the real thing, and that not always is the case. So even in mathematics (and physics), quality (nice fitting) counts.
Nevertheless is a bike a bike and is a shoe a shoe for every human being on earth. For all of us earthly human beings, our shoes truly are shoes.
And even all kinds of qualities of the shoe then are part of this earthly human truth. Because the essence of a shoe is that it must fit to the human foot. Fitting to our foot even is the whole idea of the shoe.
So if a manufacturer would produce things called shoe that do not fit to any human foot, then this thing actually is no shoe, but just a kind of useless box or container.
And the other way around, the better the fitting, the more truly it is a shoe. So quality in the sense of well fitting, is part of the scientific truth about the shoe, the bike and every other human article of use including houses, hospitals, schools and even society in general.
A society that does not fit well to many people therefore is a scientifically untruthful society.
Such a shoe or bike that fits well to us, and also fits well to the circumstances, while the parts the thing is made of also fit well to each other, then often also is seen as a beautiful bike or shoe or at least a nice bike or shoe.
So even beauty partly is part of the scientific truth.
And though a flower is not objectively a flower, it truly is a flower in earthly conditions, and the same is true for all earthly plants and animals. And also there, well fitting and even beauty is part of the scientific truth.
Disturbing nature's harmony therefore is untruthful.
It is all about well fitting of forms, harmony in fitting forms. That is Spirit.
And people who plead for more Spirit in Western societies, like me, now are able to define Spirit in a scientific way, as a fact that therefore deserves to count.
Longing for more Spirit, for more harmony in fitting forms, is longing for more Truth.
Where in a society is (too much) friction, there the society is untruthful, like a car is untruthful, there where friction is too high. That friction then simply can be measured.
So there is a great lack of Truth in our world today. The poor people on earth not only are longing for food, but also for Truth.
6. THE NATURALNESS OF THE HUMAN
Many people, philosophers as well, think that the human is elevated above the rest of nature, has some super-natural quality. And it of course is our mind then that is seen as kind of super-natural.
And of course the human is a special creature, the only being on earth that is able to understand. But that ability to understand is very natural, just a kind of seeing, feeling, sensing that forms fit to other forms.
And actually this ability to see that forms fit, makes us extra natural, more natural than other animals. Because we also see harmony then in fitting forms, nice fitting, and then we enjoy.
A heron swallows its fish in one bite, as if it is just fuel. We however then first start to cook, to make it nice and tasty.
And we do that with every biological function.
We see fitting forms and therefore also harmony in fitting forms. And we also know that the better the fitting, of the shoe for example, the more truly the thing is. So we enjoy truth then.
So our mind makes us special but not super-natural. Our mind makes us extra natural. All biological functions, eating, drinking, hearing, seeing, sleeping, breathing, living in general, for us have this extra dimension of joy.
And that joy then always is sensual, an experiencing of nicely fitting forms, in food, in sounds, in everything.
We often make a distinction between so called elevated Art like poetry and literature, classical music and - dance, paintings, sculptures and the like, and more bestial enjoyment of food, drinks, sex, disco and the like.
However, every joy is sensual, a caressing of the senses, also in classical music. We see fitting forms then and harmony in that fitting.
So our mind does not make us elevated above nature, but on the contrary more natural than any other living creature on earth.
And then look at our naked body! Very natural and biological.
Why is it that we are so naked while all other animals have furs or feathers or wings or claws or hoofs or other tools on their bodies? We are the most bestial looking animals on earth, when we take off our clothes.
We have the inner body of all mammals and birds, still like the fetus. We have a very natural appearance, pure naked existence. Why is that?
Well, we anyhow do not need a fur or other tool on our body, because we can make these things ourselves. And we can make these things because we have a mind with which we see a coat in a fur, an airplane in a bird et cetera, always in fitting forms.
Our mind in a way already is our fur, our protection, our shelter, the software of it, the idea behind it.
And I think that is also why we are naked, because nature is clever, is intelligent for me. Would not it be stupid to have both a mind and a fixed fur? Would we have the fur of a bear, we all would experience that as a mistake of Mother Nature. Do not you think!
So the human is very natural, the most natural animal on earth for me.
We also are the only free beings on earth while a bird for example is not free at all. Would you, with your human mind, like to have the body of a bird? It would be like being imprisoned, day and night, your whole life long, on the seat of a very little airplane, the worst thinkable prison.
We are the only free beings on earth, free from tools on our body, and free to live in all different kinds of circumstances, in our airplanes like a bird, in our boats and submarines like a fish, and stronger and faster than any other animal in our vehicles and other machines.
Enjoyment in freedom, that seems to be the purpose of being a human. We anyhow are very natural.
Animals actually are culture, plants as well; airplanes, satellite-dishes. We have our culture but are purely nature.
Some philosophers see our nakedness as a deficit, a defect, while it actually is our strength; naked we fit in everything, summer-clothes, winter-clothes, all kinds of vehicles et cetera.
How did other philosophers, philosophers of the past, think about these questions of spirit, mind, idea, knowledge, truth and the like?
Plato who lived about 2500 years ago in Greece, then can be seen as the Godfather of Western philosophy. He for the first time brought our human mind into discussion in philosophy.
Until then, philosophers only thought about reality outside them. Knowing itself for them was a matter of course.
Plato for the first time started to think about thinking itself. What do we mean with knowing, with having a general idea, of the shoe, the bird, the flower, the idea of beauty as well?
For Plato, our ability to know and understand only was explainable if we assume the existence of a super-natural so heavenly world of eternal Ideas. You can compare this world of Ideas with a super-website somewhere in the cosmos, while all human beings by nature have a wireless connection with this super-natural world of Ideas.
And when we then see many different birds, we recognize the super-natural Bird-idea in all these different birds. These super-natural Ideas then must be a kind of simple elementary drawings, I presume.
If you have understood this little book and also agree with this relational view, then you know that such a super-natural world of Ideas is not needed at all. We do not need any inborn idea.
We only have to look, at forms that fit to other forms. We see the airplane in every bird, we see wings that float on air then, we see the satellite-dish in every flower, and we see our own body form in every human article of use.
Our mind can be completely empty when we are born, but is just an instrument like our other senses.
Nevertheless Plato's philosophy was widely accepted in the Western world for ages. His super-natural world of Ideas also fitted well to the Christian religion that ruled the Western world during many centuries.
But a few (2 or 3) centuries ago, that belief in a super-nature started to disappear. People more and more were discovering the power of their mind, the power of empirical science, measuring facts and mapping these measured facts.
That period of time is called the Enlightenment. Belief in God also started to expire more and more then. We started to discover that we did no longer need super-natural explanations.
Philosophers called empiricists like John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-1776) only accepted our senses as source of knowledge, while our mind was a 'tabula rasa' for them, a blank page, empty.
But how then can we speak of general knowledge, physical laws for example, if there only are individual sense impressions?
That was the criticism of philosophers who are called rationalists. For them there must exist some inborn rational ability in our mind.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) for example was such a rationalist, though a critical one. Real 100% rationalists like René Descartes (1596-1650) only believed in our mind as source of knowledge and did not trust our senses.
But Kant was a critical rationalist; both senses and ratio play a role in his view.
For Kant all knowledge indeed started with sense impressions. But after these impressions have come in, our mind is doing something with these impressions.
For Kant we had a kind of inborn scientific ability, which of course makes our mind a bit super-natural again. Compare it with a computer that after it is built, automatically contains some inborn basic programs.
Where then do these programs come from, who made them?
So empiricists did not agree with Kant for this reason. Only physical facts count and Kant's inborn rational ability could not be pictured as physical fact.
But how then can we explain our general knowledge of nature's laws, according to these empiricists? Well, such laws actually do not really exist according to David Hume. What we call a law is just a kind of agreement between scientists.
What I am describing here, the question, the discussion, even the struggle, also is called the body-mind problem of Western philosophy. And actually it is the mind problem.
We need words like spirit, idea, mind and the like. But what exactly do we mean then?
If you can not situate spirit, mind and idea in nature, well then there are two solutions.
First solution is assuming a super-natural sphere of ideas, in the cosmos or in our brains.
Second solution simply is denying the existence of spirit and mind. And last thing more and more was and is happening in the West.
In this relational view, the body-mind problem no longer exists. There are forms in reality and there is fitting of forms. And every specific kind of fitting of forms then is a working, screwing, Eros, Electra et cetera.
And when we talk of spirit, we always mean these workings, this fitting of forms, in language, mathematics and music as well.
And our mind is our ability to see that fitting of forms, to see the workings. To see harmonious fitting as well and then we enjoy and speak of Truth.
So indeed all knowledge comes through the senses. And indeed our mind is doing something with these impressions. But this ratio of us is very simple and natural, just a seeing that two forms can fit to each other.
And that fitting of forms is there, everywhere in nature. We just have to look.
And there indeed is more truth than the individual impressions. There are true laws of nature; all birds and airplanes float on the air, in earthly conditions, all shoes are shoe, for earthly human beings, all nuts fit on bolts, all electrons fit around protons.
And though we all have the same humanly body, we all have a different form, our brains and senses as well. Some of us fit and thus like music very much, some of us like mathematics very much, or cooking, or reading and writing. Or doing nothing.
And you also can form yourself, your body but also your mind.
And though understanding always simply is seeing that forms fit to other forms, the relation pattern of fitting forms can be very complicated. Think of a car for example. If you dismantle a car completely, you are left with thousands of parts.
And every part then has a specific form that fits to one or more other specific forms. And every kind of fitting then is as simple as the nut fitting on the bolt.
But all together the pattern of relations then is so complicated that it takes you years to become a good mechanic. And maybe you never become a good mechanic, but are a good cook or musician, while the good mechanic can not cook or dance.
Our personality is our own form, fitting to other forms in our own personal way.
Finally this: Plato of course was not a stupid man. Because there indeed exists an immaterial world of ideas next to the world of material things. But this world is not super-natural like Plato thought, but plays right in the middle of nature, in the workings between the fitting forms.
And these ideas can be seen in the forms of the things, the idea of the camera in an eye, the idea of the pump in a heart, the idea of the airplane in a bird et cetera. Even the ideas of the screw-thread and the wheel exist in nature.
And these immaterial ideas also are very fundamental; they define the forms of all things. Immaterial Electra, the light from our sun, has defined the forms of all eyes and flowers. Immaterial gravity has defined the strength of all bones and muscles. Et cetera.
Question then still is: Where do these ideas come from, in the end? Why a camera or an eye is possible, why a reality is possible? Is there an Eternal Idea behind everything? A Spirit, a God?
Plato was not stupid. But he did not understand our mind as just an extra sense organ. Maybe he just wanted to see the human as elevated above the rest of nature? A question of wishful thinking then.
Spirit now is defined as immaterial but nevertheless physical fact. Even Quality now can be defined as physical fact. The better the fitting, the more quality there is. The better the fitting, the more truthful the thing also is.
So Quality also means Truth. And when we enjoy quality, nice fitting, then we enjoy truth.
Pleading for more harmony in society therefore is pleading for more truth.
And though spirit now is pictured as physical fact, sometimes even touchable like when you ride on your bike or step in your shoes, it still is a miracle in for example the male-Eros-female trinity or the proton-Electra-electron trinity.
What is the force of life? What is Electra, so the electromagnetic field of light?
The proton-Electra-electron trinity is the most basic building 'block' in our reality, in nature. And that trinity can be compared with the bolt-screwing-nut trinity.
The outer screw-thread on the bolt then is like the positive charge of the proton, while the equal but opposite negative charge of the electron then is like the fitting inner screw-thread in the nut.
And like the nut fits around the bolt, the electron fits around the proton.
But what kind of working then is Electra? What kind of fitting, what kind of forms? That still is the question in physics.
Maybe this relational way of looking can also be helpful there in physics. For let us have a better look at the bolt-screwing-nut trinity. In that trinity, the material forms of bolt and nut cause the screwing, make the screwing possible.
But when we look at a deeper level, then the immaterial screwing is the cause. It is the idea of screwing that defines the forms of bolt and nut, and only after that real screwing is possible. To manufacture the bolt you already need the screwing.
And that applies to all forms. The immaterial workings always define the forms of eyes, flowers, ears, hearts, bikes, seats, clothes, wings, wheels et cetera. Spirit or Idea defines (the form of) matter.
Maybe in the proton-Electra-electron trinity that also is the case. So maybe Electra is the cause of all, the cause of proton and electron as well.
To have an electric charge, proton and electron then first must be charged, by Electra. Maybe Electra constantly is busy with forming?
Maybe in the beginning there only was Light?
Maybe in the beginning there only was Spirit?
Finally this: That spirit now is defined as physical fact, does not also mean that every secret of spirit now is revealed. On the contrary. Deep spiritual experiences can only be felt.
But whatever it was then, it always was harmony in fitting forms. Your own form nicely fitting as well. And that also is the only thing we can say about Spirit, as a scientist I mean.
Good novels and poems, good music and paintings, nice meals, feeling the warmth of the sun, hearing singing birds, seeing the colors, breathing and tasting the air, sometimes even everything together. It always is harmony in fitting forms.
Personally I believe in a Spirit or Intelligence (so a God) as cause of all, a Tendency or Potency to create harmonious fitting forms, not by endless and stupid trial and error, but in a quick and clever way.
But this Tendency can not be pictured as physical fact, I think. The products, always based on the proton-Electra-electron trinity, can be pictured as facts, but the Creating Force Behind can only be felt.
It is a belief, like in music. Sounds or tones can be pictured as facts, but the melody can only be felt, provided that you have an ear for music.
But whether or not you believe in God, pleading for more Spirit (well fitting of forms) in our societies, is pleading for more scientific truth. And our so called civilized societies at the moment are scientifically untruthful.
Look, whether there is Intelligence in plants and animals, maybe even in atoms and molecules, that now is the Big Question on earth, 'the clash of civilizations' as well. Because this Intelligence then is God.
But that there is Intelligence in our culture, that is beyond dispute. We first have an idea, then make the thing. We are intelligent, strive for nicely fitting forms. Well, do it truthful then!
Actually our whole reality only is spirit, like a bike, flower et cetera also only is spirit. If you dismantle a bike completely, you are left with hundreds of parts. These parts then can be related in many different ways.
And only one pattern then gives the bike. So the bike is not the material but the immaterial pattern of relations.
Being a bike, shoe, flower, reality therefore is being Spirit.
If all these immaterial relation-patterns suddenly would disappear, so all these workings playing in the emptiness as fitting of forms, including Eros and Electra, then only neutral and isolated protons and electrons would be left.
But what could a proton or electron be, without any relation? No thing; even to have a size or a mass, a relation is needed. So indeed Electra must be the cause of all.
In the Beginning there was Light, finite light (more about light on www.fabc.info).
But that is a bit different story, that is physics, metaphysics.
Actually there are two body-mind problems in Western philosophy. First body-mind problem concerns the human mind, and that mainly was the subject of this little book.
Next to that there also is the matter-idea problem: What is the source of all? Is everything just chemistry and mechanics? Or is a Spirit dwelling behind everything? About that another time, in a different story, about Spirit as cause of all.
Or maybe I never write that second story about Spirit as source of all. Because according to me, it is impossible to really prove that Spirit is the source of all. That always will remain a question of belief. Just stupid trial and error, indeed can cause all.
Only this about that question: If you, like me, believe that an Intelligence is dwelling in Nature, then it means that you believe that this Intelligence also is living in Electra, so in the proton-Electra-electron trinity. Because a very short while after the Big Bang, there only were proton-Electra-electron trinities, so Hydrogen atoms.
And whatever came to existence later on, bigger atoms, molecules, all these life-forms including the intelligent human, it all was already there in the proton-Electra-electron trinity, as a Potency, a possibility. Otherwise life would have been impossible.
So Electra also contains Eros or the force of life, the potency of it, and also contains the potency of our human intelligence. That must be the case, otherwise we could not exist. The basic working in your body, the source of life, still is Electra!
If you feel pleasure, joy, or you feel pain, you always feel the movement of your electrons. That is where everything is happening, in the end, in the border-fields between the atoms, in Electra. In your brains as well, or in a computer.
Will physicists ever accept the existence of Intelligence in Electra? That of course first of all depends on how we define Intelligence. For me, Intelligence means 'striving for harmony in fitting forms'.
And that we see harmonious fitting forms in Nature, that of course is beyond doubt. We see perfect eagle eyes, perfect airplane-wings in that same eagle, we see perfect adapting to all kinds of circumstances everywhere in life and nature. And that is what I call Intelligence.
So even if you believe in stupid trial and error as motor, you have to admit that the result often is intelligent. Survival of the fittest means that the most perfect fitting forms survive best. And that is intelligent.
So Intelligence anyhow is a kind of attracting 'force' in nature; if not pushing, then anyhow pulling. Even when plants and animals evolve in accidental (stupid) trial and error steps, even then only the intelligent steps (adaptations) survive.
Furthermore, those plants and animals that most often do intelligent trial and error steps, also better survive. Because they can adapt faster to changing circumstances.
And in the end a kind of learned intelligence could appear in (the genes of) plants and animals. And indeed, trees for example that are cracked in a storm, repair themselves in a very intelligent way. An engineer using the best scientific models and the fastest computers could not do better then. Just the facts.
Instinctive behaviour of animals also could have come to existence this way. A young crocodile for example knows how to walk, to swim and to hunt, the moment he/she is born. That then must be a kind of imprinted knowledge, though an unconscious knowledge.
And even our human intelligence can be explained this way. Maybe our eldest forefathers and mothers had quite a lot of instinctive knowledge in their genes, inborn but unconscious knowledge about how to walk, to climb, to hide, to hunt et cetera.
Maybe one of them then suddenly saw that all these workings have something in common; they all play as fitting of forms. And once seeing that, you no longer need all this inborn instinctive knowledge, so that it more and more disappeared in the human.
So all intelligence in nature, including the human intelligence, can be the result of trial and error.
So we all see Intelligence in Nature. But is it the cause or just a result? That is the Big Question on earth now, between believers and non-believers.
But actually, for practice I mean, politics for example, it does not even matter whether you believe or not. Because perfection in fitting forms always means Truth, also for non-believers. This perfect flying-machine with perfect vision called Eagle, is a truthful creature, that therefore deserves to be protected.
So whether you believe in God or not, for everyone of us, perfection in fitting forms means Truth. And our whole society then can be compared with a huge complicated factory; every machine there must fit well to the people behind the machine, while every machine also must fit perfectly to all other machines. And in our factories we also take care of that.
But in our societies, there are many groups, only busy with their own interest, while our governments only are book-keepers. Our earth is a ship now without captain. Stupid boys playing a game are our presidents and prime-ministers. Only 1% of earth's population now owns more than half of earth's capital. Our economy is a casino. We destroy Nature. We let hundreds of children starve every day.
So this Relational View is for everyone. Whether or not you believe in God, it actually does not matter. We all believe in Truth.
And really finally this: Philosophers sometimes roughly are divided into two opposite camps, materialists versus idealists. Materialists then do not believe in super-nature at all, not in inborn super-natural ideas, not in a Spirit in nature. Idealists then believe in a kind of God or Intelligence in nature, and also in inborn rational abilities.
So materialists then also are empiricists, and idealists then also are rationalists.
This Relational view does not fit in one of the two camps. As far as our human mind is concerned, I actually am an empiricist; even our mind is a sense organ. But if it concerns the matter-idea problem, I am an idealist, believing in a God or Intelligence in Life and Nature.
That is also why this view is Relational, to bridge gaps.
Jan Helderman
4-5-7 | 5-6-7 | 7-8-7
(I made this extra page in December 2017)
Download SPIRITASPHYSICALFACT.doc (13 pages A4)
Print this on your shirt, in your own colors!
