Mind, intellect and wisdom interpretation

Post about wisdom was written as it was for couple of reasons:

  1. As a strong supporter of 140 characters TW messages I do at the same time fight against self evidences. Self evidences are a direct result of “short reasoning”. Short reasoning is not a result of 140 characters paradigm, but a result of not having enough energy to digest complex language, complex reasoning and complex life. As Wittgenstein proved: short sentences when well thought, can express complexity. On the other side of spectrum one could find many examples of long, complex sentences that are one dimensional in fact. So the post that was rejected as obscure or even as reflection of author’s show off is in fact a text that mimicked language used not so long ago. My point is that you have to use complex language to represent complex reality on full. I do not want to claim that I succeeded, but at least I tried.
  2. Language itself is a beast. And if it is a foreign best, it makes even more fun. Why? Because of rhythm and music. As much as mind has to be accompanied by power and beauty to reach the level of wisdom, so much rational level of language has to be accompanied by rhythm and music to achieve the full language value. And you do not have to be expert in language rationality to play with rhythm and  music. It was Dante as listened in Audible that provoked me to step into such experiment. You do not have to understand each sentence of The Divine Comedy to understand it in full.

But then, I did convey a message and couple of supporting messages in a so much hated post. And here is the interpretation that lacks all beauty. Short and dull.

Philosophy is much older science of wisdom than approximately 2.400 years when rational sciences started to spin off. Unfortunately spin offs did not produce particular sciences that would address particular topics with same holistic methodology as philosophy, but all sciences reduced methodology step by step in such a way that today a specialist in any particular science knows about holistic interferences less than any laymen. Pitfalls of such reductionism are quite evident not only in medicine but in law, neuroscience and physics as well. They are evident but not addressed at all.

On the other hand it would be completely wrong to address the issue by regression. The answer does not lie in irrationality, in subjectivism, in flower-power movements, in “back to nature” ideologies, in “we hate capitalism and technology” leftist pleasantries. All those that follow such ideologies in fact regress man and humanities. Technology and all human achievements including money, micro chips and and plastic are integral part of existing Nature. Plastis is as much integral part of Nature as green algae.

The challenge thus is to integrate and transgress all rational particularities (of various sciences) on philosophical (holistic) premises. The challenge is thus not to forget or to avoid all intellectual achievements of a man, but to integrate all of them at the same time through one perspective.

It was said that Erasmus of Rotterdam was perhaps the last polyglot, the last person that was proficient in all sciences existing at that time. Such claim is not only wrong but is even more devastating. For it has implanted a notion that since Erasmus no one can really understand the world holistically. Such notion gave us all an excuse to lock ourselves in separated rooms. Since it was taken for granted that due to faster and faster development of all sciences and of all particular know-hows no single person will ever be able to understand everything. How could anyone in year 2016 understand all results of particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, neuroscience, neurology, medicine, material sciences, archeology, geology, oceanography, biology, mathematics, statistics, … to name just few of them.

But here exactly lies the trick. If you are focused on a tree only, you can never see that same tree as much taller than the rest of the wood. You have to understand that tree as a part of a wood to understand a tree in the wood and a wood as totality of trees. And you do not need to understand each of other zillion constituent parts of the wood to understand the complexity and interrelation of all “wood members” from hamsters to leaves. I do claim that even in times of Erasmus of Rotterdam there was much too much particularities existing even for him to understand them all in all particularities. But what he did was that he dared to jump over particularities, he dared to understand totality.

That is why I can claim that everything that exists can be squeezed into Plack time/length as the smallest imaginable entity in Universe. No matter how fast knowledge will evolve, there will always be enough brainpower/brainspace to understand everything. That is why we are always in the middle of the Universe no matter where we are. We have to try; but even The Master, Albert Einstein, as much as he started to transgress physics by the end of his life, could not accept entanglement as something possible. But he won the challenge regardless this particular fact that proved him wrong. Entanglement exists.

To try is enough. What we see now is that not many even try.

Andrej Drapal