 |
Introduction to
"Philosophy for the Third Millenium"
|
 |
"The
study, published
in the journal
Neuropsychologia, (Nov. 2007), reveals a distinct
pattern of brain activity, even at rest, in people [1] who
tend to solve
problems with a sudden creative insight - an "Aha! Moment" –
compared
to people who tend to solve problems more methodically...."
At first,
"scrambled
letters",
[MPXAELE =
EXAMPLE]), remind these tricks to select
employees.
I never felt obliged to choose between this most desirable "Problem
solving from scratch... or that
poor "methodically
trying out different combinations"). Maybe, I don't think like
"anybody": I
see and I spent my whole life trying "to
see me seeing"
Now, I'm convinced this operation is psychologically impossible.
75 years ago, not sent to school because "retarded",
my central problem was "Do I dream all the
night ?", a logical problem in my opinion : "When a machine
stops, sometimes it does not restart and this could explain why
so many people die in bed. Else, for whom does my brain work ?" In fact, our right brain is
surely active in sleep. Dreams are
probably our way to select recently winning solutions for future
problems, (Jouvet agrees!). It's our way to prepare faster and better
solutions. Jumping on
my dreams as
soon as I awoke, did improve my capacity for introspection. It could
be the reason why I correctly
interpreted my intrusions into "psychOS"
and why I never was a good "collaborator". I wanted my part of the
problem-to-be-solved, and better all of it...
1/ "Scrambled
letters " provoke a chain of questions...
and a lot of confidences, of
warnings : by
Wittgenstein , a century ago: "Knowing
all
about our brain, we won't understand mind" or Einstein :
"There
are not
many ideas...". As
Albert and his
friends confiscated a lot, this "not
many"
implies "few
geniuses in science, less in human sciences, none in
religion".
Apparently, I use both methods, according to the
environment. I reserve the " methodical,
logical, highly intellectual, perfectly dominated in every step, strategy" to buy a tie
or to throw an old pair of shoes. Maybe, I left "legends" in
various countries but I can't say much about my "pre-existing
brain-state biases". "Where are
hidden these
precious
starting-blocks? How, why,
what for, when do they appear ? Is it
possible to create them, at least to detect their owners early,
(and maybe to save them, to profit
by them) ?
I have a
dream ? If a machine can detect a
creative fellow so easily, no more exams to admit
students, to select employees, researchers... Not a penny to
fulfil
millions of brains with more knowledge than Pasteur or
Wittgenstein and totally useless. We could even avoid
costly elections. France would not send a lot of
story(teeto)tellers desperately calling to papers
"to solve
France's problems methodically...",
[2]
receiving proposals by three
hundreds,
and falling into the "Comedia
del Arte"..
[3 ]
France
has politi-kids proving that Einstein was wrong ! (French Bashing did
not improve them!)
I
don't imagine the Big Machine at
the right place at the right time... Opportunity to
underline the very different method of true philosophy, (the symbol
could be Zenon going to Assouan and measuring the diameter of the earth
with his staff). Immediately,
I entered" psychOS, 60 years
ago, I tried to program my right brain. It needs time. I found
two ways, fear or/and
stupor, (the right brain is not the brain of emotion but the
"brain
programmable by emotion"). I always ask the age of a person to guess the
stupors that programmed her brain . My range of "stupors" is
good: both collective
,
(the month of June 1940, the cold killing of a boy
just my age the week of the 'Liberation"...),
and
personal,
(escaping death, swimming in the Tide of March...)
Now and maybe, the "biggest question",
about "philosophy". What would you think of my description of a train
If I consider the locomotive as any other wagon ? Exactly what I think
of "cognotivism", an alliance, (happened the very year I entered WORLD
TRADE with my very special plan), of brains afraid by the
appearance of the computer, each one counting on the other to save him,
all decided to forget that a real idea comes from a single brain.
Easy to deduce the importance of a new , real, brutal definition for
creativity, reminding that we have lost a whole century for...
1.1
The next step of true philosophy? the
entrance into "PsychOS
I complete Popper's saying : "Solving a big
problem prepares us to solve a bigger
problem", by: "... prepares us to
see an unseen problem,
probably dangerous". Later, when I swapped to
Wittgenstein, I
improved the theory of the "Three Worlds".
"World One"
is complex and
we extract theories, (Schopenhauer prefers "representations"
and I
agree). "World
Three", being our product, is "complicated";
and our
solutions should be "dissolutions",
(Wittgenstein agrees).
I
duly appreciate Athur I. Miller's expression, "scientists-philosophers". Most
probably, scientists and
true philosophers use the same mental structuring. It explains that scientists,
regularly and easily,
intervene in philosophy,
(Poincaré, Laborit,
Monod...),
sometimes just to awake "philosophers"
sometimes,
(Kant, Russell,
Whitehead...), confiscating
"philosophy";
or like Wittgenstein, provoking a "rebirth of the
Phenix" . Great scientists, (Monod...) understand true
philosophers [18], and great
philosophers, (Popper, Bachelard...), "generalise" the theories
hidden in great discoveries. Could we
apply to philosophers
the "trick" to discover scientists, the "Gemini Method"
?
Just try!
This continuous encounter between
science and true philosophy, (the former pushing the latter, the latter
extending the former), means that philosophy
could be any
research on a problem not yet classified in an established branch, that
any
research,
method, result in science should improve our philosophy... But it
seems possible to generalise : I change a furniture factory by
repeating, "NEXT ?" introducing in the laborious world the
rule of Popper: "Philosophy is an
unending quest". (Well, he said
"life"
but the two words are practically synonyms. and philosophy
becomes "an
unending construction"). Final synthesis is
impossible
since augmenting our knowledge is increasing the circle of our
ignorance.
As a conclusion, "MPXAELE =
EXAMPLE",
useful to distinguish the
two-philosophies, has to be completed also, (and sorry for
the "auto
labelled philosopher" perfectly distinguished from the "true
philosopher"). Nobody
could find MV2 "methodically". Why do "creative people" use both ways
and "not creative fellows" are limited to the low type. Now I
don't
imagine a man not preoccupied at a time of his life about his capacity
of problem-solving. The best testimonies are expected from scientists.
"Indeed, we find
ourselves here on the very path taken by Einstein of adapting our modes
of perception borrowed from the sensations to the gradually
deepening knowledge of the laws of Nature. The hindrances met on
this path originate above all in the fact that, so to say, every word
in the language refers to our ordinary perception". (N. Bohr
(1928), quoted by Arthur I. Miller).
Bohr surely deserved the label
of
"scientist-philosopher"
for his remark: "Your idea is
totally idiot,
not enough to correspond to reality". Recalling my extreme
certificate by
a "Lady Psy"
"Mind half
logical, half illogical..." I just ask a
rectification: "At
time... at times... practically at will." and I was
proposed a "mission" in this atomic plank known as the "black beast of
Greens".
"According to our
customary intuition [we attributed to electrons the] same sort of
reality as the objects of our daily world ... In the course of time
this representation has proved to be false [because the]electron
and the atome possess not any degree of direct physical reality as the
objects of daily experience". (W.
Heisenberg (1926), quoted by Arthur I. Miller).
"Human scientists, confiscating this research, seem
less prepared : (Jean Cambier and Patrick
Verstichel,
"THE RECONCILED BRAIN", Masson 1998)
"This
progress has a ransom: the dependence of the thought to the
language
leads to accept the current ideas and
conventional
ways of thinking .
This remark on the paralysis by the language comes
from ignorance of the language as the condition of thinking : "The
language, (basis of thinking), permits the thinking it permits..."
"In scientific invention, mathematical speculation or
artistic creation, progress is often the work of geniuses which
knew
how to silence what they had learned and to give free
course
to the revealing intuition of a thought without any language. From
Archimedes
to Einstein lots of examples... "
"Silencing
what we have learned" seems as easy as changing motors while
flying... Personally, I think that psychOS is "the world without
any language..."
I have an advantage : in my young time, it was easy
to meet the problem-solving, obliging
the
creative brain to react :
"death-within-five-seconds". During the
war, many lived extreme
situations. Many remind the story but few understand its
content. (Pasteur has a rule: "To discover, you
must be prepared to see", in the Louvres," students"
learn what they are ready to learn). [12] Why
this difficulty to explain ? it could be the fact that "PsychOS",
(the last step in our knowledge), has no language, (how to convince a
hen my teeth are important ?). I therefore prefer an
exchange
of
experiences.[13]
If that "death-experiment"
was already "problem-solving",
creativity existed millions of years before
its discovery when our
conscience
appeared. It will be easy to link with Libet's idea that any
problems
has to be, and is, solved within half a
second... (Einstein will help us in this
search for the first
creative act" :
"Scientific
thought is a development of pre-scientific thought").
1.2
Creativity as old as the world ?
The "fight for survival",
(the lot of
any creature: "to
eat and not be", (eaten), was probably the origin and
cause
of creativity; with "problem-solving"
as the
technique and
"decision"
as the end . [6] Creativity
was first an exam, (hyper-fast and totally unconscious), of all the
successful solutions in similar cases met before.
"Fight for life"
procured continual improvement.
During the last war, the pilot receiving a faster motor changed
to killer. Now we can link with Libet's discovery, (the
brain-reading-itself in half-a-second, [7] ) with
the
"coup de foudre"
in love and the research
of Jouvet on dreams.
Maybe, it's
time to give Darwin the place of
Freud, to introduce a really true, simple, efficient, "metaphysic": "If all starts with
the BIG BANG, everything can be deduced from the 'cosmic waves',
(producing light, heat, sounds...). To profit by them Nature
invented tools, eyes and ears... "Global"
and "sequential"
thinkings appeared in the run... Surprise: it was said a century ago,
(really, to discover "geniuses",
we must re-discover their discoveries!)
"Laws of thought
have evolved according to the same laws of evolution as the optical
apparatus of the eye, the acoustic machinery of the car and the pumping
device of the heart ...", (L. Boltzmann (1904), quoted by
Miller).
In a nutshell, we herited two brains, each
one with its technique of thinking. But everything is complicated as
the "chatter-box" can imitate
the real thinker. That's why present France is overflowed with
"proposals",
proving that Einstein was wrong ! He replies: "Young French Polyte
knows
more maths than Pascal but Pascal invented them..."
Logically and historically,
this "bicameralism" is to be found everywhere.
In programming, [8]
painting,[9] in
Poincaré...[10] :
"Mr.
Russell will tell me no doubt that it is not a question of psychology,
but of logic and epistemology; and I shall be led to answer that there
is no logic and epistemology independent of psychology", Poincaré,
(quoted by Miller, I understand logic for "left brain" and psychology
for "right"...
Also in music,
(between Mozart's
pure intuition and the firemen's orchestra). Descartes just
reconcile global formulas and
sequentially drawn pictures. Difficulty in reading comes from the
problem of an eye globally demanding what is sequential, (at
Easter 1950, in Geneva, I had the opportunity to give my opinion
to Dotrens on his
"global"
reading). [11]
Regularly,
Nature produces a calf with two heads. But each head could choose
a different way to escape and both mouths of a two-headed wolf
could
compete to
feed the same stomach. Two pilots in a plane have hierarchy and strong
rules. How to discover the agreement passed between our two
brains? (apparently perfect, able to take a decision within Libet's
half-second). Sixty years ago, I was inventing
exercises that would prove that the left brain was just a chatterbox,
commenting the decisions of the silent one. "Creativity ? Taking
a decision before thinking it".
1.2
Science and philosophy, same stuff ?
At first sight, the common point of
"hautists" is
the faculty to practice in any field of research of knowledge (on that
point, Edison was "limited"). Lots of
proofs by Newton,[14] Kant,
Darwin, Pasteur, Poincaré, Pierce, [15] Einstein,
Wittgenstein, Marie Curie, (humorously sending her daughter for a third
Nobel). Many of them became
the bases of a philosophical renewal: Newton in the
hands of Locke, Darwin thanks to Wright and US Universities, Popper
explaining Einstein. If seems that a scientist is not prepared to generalise his
discovery. That's the job of true philosophers. Deductions: (a) any
great
discovery is the offer of a "philosophical
rocket
carrier", (Bergsy felt it but saw a contradictor in Einstein and
nothing in Poincaré); (b), another way to choose a
philosopher, "The
fellow that chose
the best scientific carrier".
Who explains Locke's failure to
explain "How
did Newton's brain work?", (as said, Leibnitz could,
because as gifted as Newton). Einstein was the first to
understand
Poincaré's theories but Popper missed Poincaré's
genius, (thanks for leaving him to me). Apparently there are
levels even among "hautists",
recognized only by top-hautists, (our
pilot receiving the best motor agrees). Have we met
a
rule :
"Only Leonard can explain Vinci" ? [17] My "Parnasse Tower" and my "Rule of the T" met a great
interest, (I'll try an explanation for daring to say that "levels"
probably exist everywhere, (even
among "peoples") ).
When
my psy-teacher declared
me "the most
absent-minded guy in the world he ever knew", I gave the
price to
Newton. [16] More : I was the
first to see Darwin as a
"prosopamnesian"
and I completed the judgement on Einstein, Wittgenstein, as "late-talkers"
by "voluntary
late-talkers". Who
explains why a child
decides to be a silent, even
finding great advantages at just obeying orders?
Profiting by the rule that a
mistake can lead to a great discovery,
(and Poincaré agrees!), I'll risk another interpretation
of
Miller,
page 223: : [19]
"homogeneity
guarantees a democracy of points in space and
the inertial reference systems that occupy them, the mathematical
equations for moving between reference systems could be reduced to
their simplest possible form. Additionally, like Poincaré in "La
Science et l'hypothèse", Einstein
carefully stated right
at the start that to analyze mechanics lie would employ "the methods of
Euclidean geometry."
If we could analyse events this Euclidian way,
we should get whole series. May be this exercise would need the True
Greeks' capacity for analogy. While
geometry deduces, in history, we must see analogies. I consider
my discovery of the "gestion
intégrée" just due to a small change from a trinity,
(provider, customer, and enterprise at the center), to a duality, (giver, receiver). Copernic ? He just
said: "I could try the trick of the
Ancient". The unique
case "satammism" seen as the
"common
fundament of religion though millennia" was
just a perfect "employ of the methods of
Euclidean geometry" to link
millennia of events.
2/ Philosophy
is an unending construction
Any
building needs an architect and many masons. True philosophers
constitutes a chain, each one bringing some bricks. Every body is
invited
to contribute. I simplified my presentation of philosophy, with a Kant
forgetting to die and building
the philosophy necessary to our time, selecting and refusing
"proposals". Now,
completing Popper's saying: "Philosophy
is an unending quest", by:
"Philosophy is
an unending construction" produces a great philosophical
paradox. If "philosophy is
problem-solving", then "enterprise is
a gold mine for
philosophers". I, for one inside enterprise, did not meet
many philo-fellows. Maybe I
succeeded because
as ambidexter as Vinci, (helpful among masons or
mechanics...).
Therefore, I proposed another criteria
to
detect true philosophers: the capacity to build a factory in Central
Africa, totally alone, (Comte, Popper, Wittgenstein, could do
it).
Does manual cleverness influence our minds? "Late-talkers
are "handy", at dominating
space, (dyslexies could
be come from forcing reading before the necessary maturity and
"remedies"
seem to prove it).
I had an opportunity, (but no time), to visit
"el
Ministerio de la Inteligencia" [20] in Caracas
when I worked for "el Ministerio de
Mantenimiento". A nice
example of the "puzzle of
the Boss" and failure
guaranteed by the choices, (a) of the "Ministro Inteligente",
(a
"creative in
words"), and of (b) the adviser. Spencer de Bono is
extraordinary to explain that we are unable to create, that our minds
are blocked, (thought games with cardboard cuttings), not explaining
why or how to escape this curse. In his way, he was creative,
inventing the recipe to
become a millionaire, [21] :
| Philosopher
make money if you can make it honestly
|
(commas
according to your conscience), and the idea
of a "slogan", (POH!",
sounding "POOR!").
I looked for one, if possible a summary for all the techniques I
recommend.
"English had a word for me, BREAK!"
This word confirms our two brains came to an agreement: the right
brain
decides, with right to close the "corpus
callosus". The left one just "explains"
though an explanation
doesn't explain anything. Nowadays, explanation
is very fashionable under the name of "storytelling".
I don't see any progress or novelty: History has been a "storytale"
since the Book of Gilgamesh:
| "Quousque
tandem abutere, storyteetotellers ?"
|
2.1 Creativity
and true philosophy, same stuff ?
Easy now to give a totally different
definition for
philosophy. It's obvious that Kant smelled that it was a branch of
knowledge totally different from the others.[22] History
shows that philosophy was the "Alma Mater"
of all knowledge. Popper
noted a hole in the Kantian proposal, (so obvious that Kant
neglected to mention it): the motor inquiring into "noumenes" and
producing
"phenomenes": (therefore the "creativity"), and proposed
three
worlds. I finally completed :the Kantian motor in the
Popperian
SECOND WORLD was
true philosophy.
That was the end of the legend, (find the
obvious cause of this strange argument !): "All
philosophers are equal. Choose anyone for whom you feel
a sympathy !" That was for
me the end of
Platon, Descartes and chiefly Aristotles, (I never care about his "moral",
"politics", "science", but nobody studied his "logic" more
than I [23]). And I
classify as dangerous Aristotles and Platon's sons, (Augustinus,
Aquinas, Descartes, Heiddeger...), then any grand'son of this
list, (Malebranche, Arendt, Lavinas, Derry Dada and all "kioskosophers",
"kawasophers"...). Quote a French book of capital philosophy
deserving
reading since:
(Aparte
: from the first sight, I refused to deliver my brain to Aristoto or
Descartes. Strange but I did the same for maths. Later I lived with
top-mathematicians reserving "intellectual problems" like the famous
MIS! Impression that Maths took the place of Latin, to fuck the
"cattle". Now, when I encountered "stats", it was loved at first sight,
my way of course. I wanted to swallow them till they would be an
unconscious part of my mind. I rapidly left classical stats like "sales
of Coca per villages" for bastards of Most Noble Operational
Research, like Instantaneous Observations or Morphodimensional.
Did I succeed ? I can't say but let's return to a central problem)
Discovering a true philosopher is more
difficult
that
discovering a scientist, (to understand the scientist, we must repeat
his
experiences ? Scientists and philosophers have the same mental
structuring ? Therefore: "to discover
a true philosopher, we must discover the discoveries he has
discovered". I
discovered my philo-list this way. [24]
I don't want to imitate Spencer de
Bono teaching that we are "blocked, (bot different from the Buddhist
selling me a book on Zen that started, "You can't understand...").
Anyway, I'll try to explain Einstein's way of thinking, helped by
: "Léonard can explain Vinci" and by Arthur I.
Miller's three
books on: "Insights
of genius : imagery and creativity in science and art", (ending
the dispute "Einstein
copying
Poincaré" [25]).
2.2 An aparte on "judging" some won't like...
"Psys",
because my strange way to get a living, gave me extreme
certificates, many
"genius" but two at the other extreme, (for religious reasons). But I
prefer my "legends" given by managers with real experience, (id est
preparation for true philsophy). I
remember saying to a "Lady psy": "Don't write that.
People will
think I pay you. I prefer discussing Einstein's
mind". She honestly refused both proposals. I was on Locke's idea to restart
true
philosophy. through
explaining Newton's brain). He failed because the
the rule: "Only
Vinci can
explain Leonard".
Leibnitz, in his own way, saw what
Newton has not seen, that a great discovery, (relativity),
supposes
the creation of a method of discovery, ("calculus").
40 years ago, I was the best
micro-economist in the world, (proved by desires of acquiring my ideas.
How did I solve the famous M.I.S. ? by
dissolving of course. Which way ? By swallowing al the functions of
Fayol, even those he did not know. Impossible ? I'm used to hear that.
My answer ? Since I did it, (like I did jump from "retarded"
to a "holy
communion" with dispense of age), you should not lose this
opportunity to
exert your "creativity".
Now imagine my capacity to analyse a firm, (no care for the
opinion of the Boss or the contract imposed by an "analyst").
Or my superiority as a Manager General, (as nobody could guess by which
department I was "produced"
and whom I would molest).
I was a success saying : "The key of the
problem is not on the place of the problem..." and I used my recipe to get rid of "stupids".
But my real idea was : "If only
Leonard can explain Vinci, Wittgenstein can surely judge the
"philosophers"
mass-produced by the Sorbonique..." (by order of Great
Napoleon the First seeing his mistake of calling the pope back. Little
Napoleon the Fourth did the same mistake calling Muezzins, (to
"moralise" little
delinquants"), but he'll never admit his error Popper
confirmed my view, saying: "If you call
philosophy what these gentlemen are teaching, I'm not a philosopher".
Judgement a bit harsh on poor, limited Jaspers, (could have been the
German Alain. Quite prophetical for the other genitor of Arendt and
Jonas, (Heid'Higler!), taken on as the next Platon for a new
aquiquinade...
Therefore, I established my Order of
the Bath, with "Kioskosophers",
"Kawasophers", "Monisophers"... I would deserve more praise for
solving the great mystery of :
3/ Scientists
using "Thinking by Images"
I'm glad to learn that Temple Grandin
changed her thought about 'Thinking in Pictures",
(pushed by
Pinker confounding
imagination with ideation). Did I
contribute?" "Thinking in figures"
seems a gift, surely rare and useful, since 2000 years were
needed to imagine a
trireme over-turned on four walls. On the last
Elysean coronation, who saw see a "maletero" patting the nose of
the submitted beast ? (I remember El Cordobés patting with
his
shoe ! ) Meaning ? "Well
for this divorce, you wait..." Since,
Matamoro-Abogadillo admitted he was no intellectual. Intelligent maybe
? less that the first first-lady. But "thinking in picture"
could be different from the stories about the apple or the ray of
light. These last images could just be a charitable help of "gifted brains".
Art, (the
field of images), is a
reserved world. You have to be accepted, 'Lautrec est du
bâtiment!". Most philosophers trying to
explain art by their brainy theories finished in ridicule, (except Kant
for his possession of reality and Schopenhauer prepared to teach art to
artists). "Cerebral
philosophers", like Platon or Hegel are perfectly
represented by Wiener at the Sainte-Victoire: "No interest. We had
seen
all the paintings!" I feel protected by my "synthetic a
priori philo-carrier",
(Vinci completed by
Poincaré). Art is indispensable
for
education, a formation to observation, a tool for any knowledge,
(Charcot,
Pasteur, Ramon y Cajal, could be a professional painters).
Drawing was
a
philosophy for Vinci, and nearly a religion. My
private philo-teacher used to say: "You enter
philosophy
like you enter religion". More true for art. And art is the way
to understand
religion : see an
example, (a
vision of a text globally seen), explaining the creation of
the God's Spells: "Where did Mark set his
easel?" Enough killing to convince and
convincing enough to kill.
Philosophy seen as a tool to "penetrate"
and help others branches ? Therefore, I
disagree with Arthur I.
Miller's thirs book, equalling "Einstein and Picasso".[26]
3.1 The only
cause of joint appearance of artists and scientists.
Picasso
and C° profited by a "repentance"
of money-owners having "lost" Renoir
and C°. Picasso knew
how "épater
le
bourgeois" and practised. Art
became a "refuge"
for money and could be an indicator of the "high-way money",
(a "sign",
a "representation"
with no
counterpart). Some
present "painters"
live in a ranch while others, equal in "value",
survive thanks to
Coluche's restaurants du
Coeur..
When I see modern colourwashes, I say: "Enough with "Ill-Tempered
ClaviColor", I want "Let
my joy remain". Periods of
great scientists produced great artists : symbol of
the
Greek Miracle ? The Venus
from Milo. And Monna Lisa for Renaissance. Between the two ladies? The
"Dark Ages,
starting with Platon the "deconstructor". Symbol for
the "Poincaré
period"? Rather than Cubism, I choose Impresionism. Strangely
Einstein deduced the value of an idea, of a formula, from its beauty,
(comment by Miller, page
238
"For Einstein, as
for Copernicus and Galileo, aesthetics were data", [27]). Simplicity
is beautiful
and beauty is simple. Who wants a proof? In maths the simplication of a
formula is considered a progress. Guessing that a scientist feels like
an artist is a quiet deduction, (Poincaré agrees !).
Inverse? no true philosopher in "golden periods".
Pericles had Plato and Aristoteles ? (you know my
opinion, they opened the "Dark Ages").
Elizabeth? Bacon appeared
just when she died!
Felipe II ? Some
Suarez. French Sun-King ? more fun : Preacher Malebranche, (in
charge of expurgating Descartes), was such a courtier that he
popped and died in the same years as his king! The only
explanation to the joint appearance of scientists
and artists, has a cause : "freedom of opinion",
(now, Nazism,
Stalinism or Franquism have their artists, well paid; with Legion
d'Honneur in France,
where "Liberté
chérie" is
symbolised by the treatment of the naive "Abbé Pierre"
for a hiccup of moral honesty).
All the preceeding remarks
underline the importance of
knowing the infancy of geniuses. This point distinguished "serious"
from "sorbonical"
philosophers, (a pity Kant's youth is not better
known). The "sorbonico-sophers"
believe their infancy has no
interest, (I just ask a fast description of their "philo-niche").
But they want a "guru-sopher",
falling into to ridicule by
push-push-bottom for their secondary(school)philo-teachers as their "feeding
thinkers".[28] A proof that
philosophy, (like religion, art, science, "king and country") has to be
transmitted, (I don't complain myself on this
point).
3.2 On the way to make "little Einsteins" ?
Peirce proposes his "abduction". Such an advantage, (to save my life),
should be, (and probably was), used more. Is there any similar case ? I
think of the chess champion competing against 20 and even 200
"amateurs". In a jiffy, he has to see and decide. This story is
regularly told but, like in many cases of discovery, (maybe our present
case for "creativity"), not "sucked till the bone". It could be
analyzed from the very day the next champion sees a chessboard. But
"fast-reading" presents this immediate seeing and deciding. French
language is the best for this case as being awfully, (and most probably
willingly) complicated. The only solution seems to engrave
a "picture" of the word. In most words, the letters don't not
give the sound. I need help. (Now, open any French-English dictionnary
and look for non-readable-at-first-sight words: printemps,
prix-courant, prochain, rogue, rond-de-cuir, routier, sainfoin...)
Better start with idea that French need one hundred letters.
We could distinguished between language possible to
learn alone and others. That's why the "Dottrens method"
could not
succeed in French, (a dozen writings for the "o"
sound), or
English, (eight pronunciations for the "ought"
group), specially when
the appearing TV made books less attractive for children. I told this
to Dottrens as soon as Easter 1950. But "global reading"
is a success
with Arabic in spite of its difficult appearance. The problem of
fluency in reading is the passage form spelling the letters of a word
to the global seeing of this word in a picture. This bring another
hypotheses I like, developed by Daniel Dennett, the probability of an
organization of our brain totally different. Similar to the
"programming
by objects" so late to appear because "sequential
programming" gave satisfaction. Our brain could be divided into
millions of little dedicated computer. All of them analyzing the
present problem. This solution could explain the strange impression
given by the Libet effect, that the message arrives before it was sent.
The successful little computer had the answer before it arrived.
Peircean abduction ? I bet that our
right brain possesses as many little computers as there are cables in
our Corpus Callosus. Remember, rule of Bohr: "At the time of
creating, no idea is stupid enough to correspond to reality".
Have we solved the mystery of great discoveries ?
Personally, I see Newton's apple, (or Einstein riding on a ray of
light) as great brains' charitable storytales for retarded, (and out of
medication), brains. How could we examine little Einsteins in the bud?
To detect them in the making could be the possibility to make them. And
I think: "To explain Leonard we need a Vinci..." Analogy could
help ?
We have two treatments against infantile epidemics: waiting the
appearance or general vaccination. I always thought that
inventing a teaching against "lowtism" could be the
solution for any child if we invent it to save "hautists". Now, I'm
maybe in advance because among my adventures, I was "initiated" in the
most remote tribe in Central Africa, just "liberated" quite
pacifically. The French Government, afraid of a rebellion on this
African Vercors ordered the French Legion to make a road. I had the
opportunity to see that "savages" could teach a lot to our
Ferries-ministers, (from Jules, (1832-1893), to Luc, (1951-?)). I don't
imagine them
installing a real cuniculiculture, (with up to one hundred languages
per
boroughs), as a solution against the may 68 rebellious aborigenes...
4/ The way to
detect "creative minds"
Our only and urgent interest is to
solve our
present problems. Therefore, let's open a list
of the true problems of our time and anybody solving one is declared "creative".
(Popper proposed this way for philo-candidates: "They would progress
more by trying to solve some problems of our time..." ) In fact,
everybody
has his own list of present, urgent--to-solve, problems, a
good
indicator on his level of
creativity). My list is awful, permitting to practise a rule,
(hautists are full of rules!). In Nigeria, a manager commented my
"mania to
start with the most difficult problem" - "If you solve it,
all
the others disappear. On the contrary, you get thirteen problems for a
dozen.".
Another good indicator on
the ability to see problems. "Who detects the
central
problem of philosophy" ? Then,
4.1 Who
solves the central problem in philosophy :
As increible as it sounds, this central problem is
perfectly known, since the arrival of paper in Europe, with weekly and
nearly daily, "proposals",
chiefly in
France.
It appears at the Renaissance, when Humanity discovered the phenomena
of conscience. Then,
all philosopers were asked a new "doctrine"
and all fail,
Descartes-Pascal, Maistre-Bonald, Blondel-Bergson, Jonas-Arendt,
Lavinasse-Dery Dada... I sum up the five centuries' search for a "doctrine of society"
:
| "Before
it worked, now it doen't anymore; what could start it again ?"
|
Best
confession for this failure ?
|
"Quel
mécanisme a permis
des relations sociales suffisantes dans le passé ? mécanisme résidant
forcément encore dans
l'homme... La Vie de l'Esprit
s'oriente sur la question de l'effondrement de la moralité, de l'envahissement de
la sphère politique par la
criminalité et le mensonge..."
(Arendt, "auteur
mineur, pas privé
d'intérêt")
|
Hannah, a
replica of René : same fight, same deficiencies,
same
"push-push-bottom"
:
René by a cardinal, (Bérulle), Hannah
by "philosophers", (tricky HeidHigler and poor Jaspers). Same
failures because the same
impossible conditions: they had to change the philosophical base but
not a word of
the
theosophistry. Arendt,
died short-sighted: "Auschwitz
n'aurait pas dû se produire. Il s'est passé là
quelque chose que nous n'arrivons toujours pas à
maîtriser...", (as much as Pop Weasel saying : "I'll never know
why
not a bomb was thrown on Auschwitz..." Descartes
produced the strangest theology, refused before being porn. Therefore
he
protested with his famous and empty "Discourse of the
Method". With a
strange result !
(see Fun'Azouvi, " DESCARTES ET LA FRANCE, HISTOIRE D'UNE PASSION
NATIONALE" Fayard, 2002 ): All Frenchies are cartesiân ?
if all froggisophers are "preachers"! [29b] The only "proposal"
of Descartes, in charge to kill Aristotles, was to
reintroduced Platon'sdivine ideas, (re-labelled "innate" and
located in the "pituitary
gland"). Preachers in charge of teaching could swap between the two "divine" sauces:
aquiquinade or augustinade.
Another, similar enough, "renewal" was
attempted
in 20th
Century:
with Heidegger as the new Platon, Derry Dada as the
new Aristoto. As a kind of Aquiquinas ? Lavinas with "great
influence on petty-sophers" ! The
philosophers mass-produced in
Sorbonique, totally
ignorant about religion, declared
themselves "atheo-christian".
Stranger contribution, (when the
toreros are null, the "maleteros"
jump into the arena) : the
sociologists contributed with
titles
like "Lien
social", (Bourdieu posthumously
invited to participate), "Penser autrement",
(Touraine) or "Politic
for a Doctrine of Society", (Morinus, "perinde
ac cadaver"), both proving that "cheval de retour"
exists in "human sciences")
?
4.2 Most
unexpected contribution to "French Spiritualism"
Now, in France, are appearing "Proposals
for a Doctrine of Society" by "scientists". Is it an
offer to help
the new
Prince, author of a treaty on "La
République, les religions, l'espérance", through
"recueilleurs
de propos"?
or the usual reaction I often met as a "consultant"
after the havoc by a "Get Things Moving". Everybody
feels himself able to do as well, (which is correct at the price
of another, more dangerous delay for the urgent measures). This
reaction
proves people recognize
problems they suffer from and their later solution/dissolution.
Who is our "tête de Turc", (whipping boy) ?
Jean-Didier Vincent, (a professor of physiology, in "Voyage
extraordinaire au centre du cerveau"), wants to contribute to
this "French
Spiritualism"... Therefore, he starts with a very extended
definition
for psychiatry: "....aujourd'hui
un champ libre où convergent philosophie, sociologie,
anthropologie et politique...", (page 30), it could be extended
to
"Politic,
a free
domain uniting philosophy, sociology, religion, economy...)
Vincent has a philosophic turn I
like, kicking fellowsophers! [30]
Better
put your moni
on an update of the "BROWN", (and Vinci forgive
him!)
|
Drawn by DURKHEIM ?
|
Why
the Harry
Popper's Beast
on the cover ? |
From the first page,
invocation to "God-Other",
(of Lavinas
and Derry Dada).[31],
poetic prayer,[32], philosophical
auto-promotion, ludicrous panegyric of
psychoanalysis and Freudy, [33],
confusionism between two similar practises, [34]
mention of Kanner [35],
re-habilitation of Bettelheim, [36]
(wood-salesman certified in painting, see, "The
Creation of Dr. B." by Pollack). Though the
true problem of "autism" is "hautism", he
only knows "lowtism"..[37] In
philosophy, knows Foucault, Lacan, Dennet, Wittgenstein,
(a help to say "his
gramma had nothing to say, just the need of the
"OTHER" to be listened, and looked at."!)[38] "Morceau de
bravoure" on Language. [39] Darwin
rectifies Descartes[40] Use of our
right brain ? "tO
PRAY GOD"!! [41] " Two giants
dominates
philosophy, Platon et Aristotle ![42] they have
incarnated
respectively "cerebrocentrism" and
"cardiocentrism... " (page 413). Barnhard's opinion: "Changing
a heart is easier to changing a brain".
|
My above summary, of five centuries of
"philosophy", points to
the problem to solve as the first step to this "doctrine of
society" :
4.3 "Why did
the inKANTournable fail ?
Really funny
to see Kant used as a
starting-block for any moralistic course,( even
by Justiciary Rawls,
reduced to Galbraith"s rule: "Students will come.
We have Kant. Let's cook him!"!) Therefore
let's
re-start this ancient practice of "call to
papers",
that revealed Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Herder... "Why did Great
Kant fail to determinate the fundamentals of the Morale?"[43] First step
? understanding what
Kant tried to do, a real philosopher's job: Being the Alma
Mater of all knowledges, philosophy has
the right to reclaim a branch offered "gratis
pro deo" now going astray.
But
judgements judging the judge, (as the
meeting of philosophies and art revealed), "philosophers"
should look
for "high risk investors".
Same take
over for
psychology : it's
more than urgent in France, OUTREAU provoked no change, just a transfer
between chapels! (Poincaré
approved, insisting that "logic
and
epistemology are dependent of psychology" but the inverse is also
true). Correct for "economy",
a
chain of psychological reactions, according to Reagan : "Nothing
so chilly as a million dollar". Schopenhauer already wonders about this
money,
"representation of the reality with no reality", (I
proposed
the names of "high-way moni", and
"monitheism" for this "virtual world", with more consequences on
our
lives than the real world).
4.4 How to choose
the best philosopher
From the preceeding
reasonings, this perfect philosopher is easily detected; through
his capacity to detect the best "philo-carrier" among the scientists.
More than a century ago, France produced the best :
|
"Poincaré
was after bigger game than Einstein: he sought nothing less than a
unified theory of the then-known forces, electromagnetism and gravity.
Einstein alone realised that physics was not ripe for such an ambitious
program, principally because it had not come to terms with the
wave/particle duality of light... |
(Arthur I.
Miller, "Einstein, Picasso,
Space, Time and the Beauty that causes the Havoc", ( Basic Books,
page 241, 2001)
. At first sight the best
philoso-carrier is the last discovered. And my philosophy
explains the delay to recognize
the importance of the
chaos theory. From my
time as a "Wittgenstein-like
bussinessman", I remember the best metal was an "alloy"; and
as
in my time as a
brick-maker I obtained the best result from
mixtures, I think better to produce my super-brain by a mix:
Vinci, (for scope and
balance between all our faculties and knowledge),
and Poincaré, for
deepness and simplicity.
Poincaré's philosophy can be summed up in
three words, "analogy", relation
and "convenance",
(this last label reflecting a total refusal of mind engraving, and
the right to choose the best algebra for the present problem). What
Vinci practised in art, ("lignes de
fuite",
"vanishing
lines" for "relations").
Our duo represents "Renaissance"
and "True
Modernity".
No problem to link them with the third great period of thought, the
"Greek Miracle",
that created analogy,
and, (only possible explanation for their
paradoxes para-jokes),
even
invented syllogism
to escape an accusation of atheism
Major: "Earth
rests on Atlas", Minor : "Atlas rests on the
great tortuga", Ergo :
|
la tortuga?
Que estire la pata !
|
4.5 A parte in form of a StortyTale on
my Zen-Neutrality
Being as religiously neuter, (as
the true Buddha), gives me the advantage of an awful experience in my
preceeding lives. The "disputatio
ecclesiastica" on Aristoto the philo-slavist remembered me my
Dark Ages as a monk, (in charge of promoting young joKriss as the son
of
Transcendent Zeusio). Thanks to Aristototeles, I invented "retroduction".
You create a Major: "Zeusio is omnipotent",
the Minor: "Therefore He
can beget a son". In fact, deduction is just a three cases
display box, just good to
convince pre-conviced fellows. According to the rule: "When you solve a
big problem, you see another unseen yet problem", a false
reasoning just
create a bigger, artificial problem.
You got it ! How do you place two "Infinites"
into the
space, (YWH met this
problem when he created our
infinite world but a preacher
explained that He compressed Himself !) Newton,
deacon
dispensed of priesthood, accepted the Duality. "Just
say to joKriss: "Seat at the right of your Daddy!" Then Father is
infinite on the left and the son on the right. But he flatly refused
any third fellow, (and the storytale of
Father fucking Son to beget a totally useless pigeon!) But Lobachevsky had a trick
to beget an infinite of Infinite Gods.
I was not surprised when the
"Sous-Préfet
aux Champs" was brought back to "devoir de
réserve" by an oukase from the Ministress of "very occult
Cults", (acting as the "secular arm"
of the new justice at the order of
the "neo-satammism".
A way to admit that any allusion on the actual and
reigning soft-slavism could recalled the secret decree of May 68, (the
replacement of 20/30 millions rebelled aborigenes by as many indigenes,
promising to continue to eat their Fufu-paste with their
paws).
I never saw any little Arab girl shot
at, but I do remember young Mohammed's three somersaults, in spite of
a father trying to protect him. I still want to know whether one sniper
of YWHL shot three times or whether three young soldiers were obliged
to prove their faith. In fact, I always see the humorous aspect:
in the exchange between the best representatives of the
top-frog-inteligentzia, I thought of "Go to China if necessary !". The
first riders of true and pure Islam, (the only religion created to
raise the level of a nation) obeyed and brought back the paper,
necessary to our Renaissance. On their way they found ArisToto.
Preferring medicine to philobabbling they throw the bastard of Platon
over to Occident. Immediately cooked as an aquiquinade stultifying all
the Christian minds with no hope of salvation. I forgive the
ENÂne Guigue, from l'aNormal Sup, ignoring the Platonic
love for "human cattle", (introduced by Saul of Farce into
the Ghost Spell). But I ask Marie Aïoli, (to avoid a Frog Bashing
all over the World), to confiscate the passport of this philoHorse,
(maybe the bastard of this Chevalier of Pétain, selected by
Francoco to invent a schooling for "Young Reds"), and to command a
summary of Bottéro's books on "satammism", the origin of
occidental religion and a crime against Being.
By the way, has this Mary-Cop
sent to the Elusean Bunker my 900 hundred pages that destroyed, (by 1990!), the holy
Xristouille, (any brand: vaticanant, protestant or ersatz JisdiPope) ?
5/ To see or
not to see, (civisation or civisation)
?
"Seeing", (globally thinking), versus "thinking", (sequentially
seeing) ? I, for one, have no difficulty to see the
"best-seller-softwares" like payroll, invoice, classical accounting as
the transfer into computer of the "type of thought" of an
accountant. In fact "cobol-coders", for a long time, were just
"picolo transpositors" from "A" to "B". "Dog in the manger" is a
computing fact. The cost can be high. In SONATRACH-Petrol-Research, for
SEVENTY times less, I realized what my predecessors promised and
no more; but this is "no matter" when we include the price of lost
time. As a true
philosopher always thinks "NEXT!" the places
given to my texts by Big Motors are the opportunity to wonder at
what condition a higher "type of thinking" could be entrusted to
the computer. And much more.
Seeing a common structure in events permits to chain them "à la
Euclid", over millennia. This was predictable from Einstein's
rule, "not
many ideas" and permits to predict the future. My very
special "training",
(the idea, a century ago,
that a paperman should dominate the "religious problem"), gives me an
advantage: I could see...
|
the
20th
Century as a
transmission
of the religious
power from 'paleo-satammism'
to 'neo-satammism'
|
A way to judge
"responsible politician regularly asking for "responsabilities not much
responded". Who has seen :
1.
the
"pagoda
of the three Dreyfus?
|
2.
the
"CHOSA" built
on the same three stages? |
3.
or
the copy
of the catholic periods :
|
1.1
Dreyfus
used
against Germans,
|
2.1
attack
of "yideastern" :
Hertzl, 1900 |
3.1
"silent
and
suffering church",
(1945-65,
impossible to have any confidence) |
1.2
Dreyfus
used
against "yideasten"
|
2.2
reply of yidwestern: Evian 1938 and the
"making of Hitler" |
3.2
"fighting
church" , (vision of Vilnius, "In
2014, we'll be stronger than "Chrestini" and "Reptili") |
| 1.3
Dreyfus
used against "youro-cattle" |
2.3
use of the "CHOSA" against
the real victims of
Hitler |
3.3
"triumphing
church", (1985-2014),
avec "regroupement
familial" in 2007
|
"You have or not have", "the key or not the
key", no end of linking : 1.1 is the answer to 2.1 and 1.3 is part of
2.3, and 2.3 is the weapon for 3.2, and so on. The whole history
becomes a fascinating game and I laugh at "doctors"
sure I was aNormal because I could live alone. It was the wonderful and
only way to escape both dangers thretening "intellectuals". Who sees in
this matrices, the correct "definition of the
definition" ? "The quality of a
definition depends of the quality of the
definition of the environment of the thing to define..."? a way
to reinvent the rule of the true Greeks: "Everything is in
everything..." with deduction: "Philosophy, an unending quest,
(therefore an unending construction), is also a continuous personal
auto-construction, "never ending".
Classifying others is fun and it would be a game to kick most TV
authorised fellows.
A real discovery is always done by a
single brain, knowing how to avoid two obstacles : solitude,
(and turning
around like Crusoe on his island), or "disputatio"
and lost
time. Popper has a recipe : "falsify". I
added "to
fortify", the way we do in enterprise. In "mass production",
we destroy. Not
possible for the bridge of Millau. We fix a "maximum guarantied",
(quite adapted to Darwinism.. Really the enterprise is more than a mine
for true
philosophy, (and a school for youngsophers). I can save them all
from
"turning
around the bush", in the end thinking, (as "so many"), they
are great explorers.
"To
see or not to see", that is the question. Last,
but not least, analogies in France ? the injection of a little "martyr" into
all children's heads ? just the revival of the "guardian angel",
(in charge later to remember to the
kid his fathers' crimes). The "micro-bank"
is just the revival of
the "Misericordias",
when good Christians were told their incapacity to
know "good
poors", deserving to be helped. "Sent your money to
most holy Teresa! to most admired Pé Pierre !" Role of
any Bank ?
deciding who is "trusty", therefore who should starve for his sins. The
story-tale, "the
miracle will come
from the micro-credit", reminds me of "el Bom Gesu de Braga", a
machinery able to shear a frog. And the absolute fun : a Nobel for a
fellow lending
money at
20 %, mmediately "recuperated". The "subsidiaritas
ecclesiastica"? the return to the parish dictature by
"fatty canons"). The modern
analogy for
"confession"
is more difficult to see. You need its correct definition
and real goal
of this "sacrament"
Apparently, I meet no
problem while selling my philo-stuff. Am I like any
"philosopher", meeting no problem because, like'm, I consider my
"philsophy" is the last step and coronation in thinking ? I've
got a trick to diferentiate me from all of them.
5.1 A philosopher may judge if
accepting to be judged
To produce my "relative synthesis",
in
an acceptable time, (just swallowing and managing all the functions of
Fayol
then popping my "Management
Integrated System"), I had first to choose
an axis and it was "production"
of course . As usual, I was lucky, not by accident. Starting the
experience of management by constructing a factory in
Central-Africa, quite alone, I avoided the "fayolisation"
that caused the failure of management computing. More
unbelievable : the
"consultants,
(the auto-labelled "medics of
enterprises"), were more
"fayolised"
that their naive customers !
Now, was my "restraint model"
valid
for the next and last step, (the general and final synthesis) ?
Surprising :
people
don't exist in enterprises. Unions
Leaders seem to ignore it when protesting because companies
are both making
enormous
benefits and ejecting the "Platonic cattle".
The
enterprise just adds "time" to
"material". The
employees should admit they are suppliers like any others and have
no existence in accountancy. The "good
boss" realises those big benefits through finding cheaper
providers. . A "strike",
is not different from any
discussion on the price
of matters. A progress in the entreprise comes always from a
"reduction".
Remember
my
formula for "gestion
intégrée" ? just a reduction of the
millions and millions of documents used by
thousands and thousands of firms to
"one only
record inside computer", (with a
Mendeleiev matrix), a small
change from a trinity,
(provider, customer, and enterprise at the center), to a duality, (giver, receiver)
Obviously, science, (incorporated
in
technique), could not be the axis of a general synthesis, (in
spite
of
their enormous importance in the progress of humanity. But there is
another reason to choose of "human
relations" as an axis for the synthesis of all knowledge
:
an excellent opportunity for any
"philosophy"
to judge but accepting to be
judged.
5.2 Last, not least : capacity to
predict the future...
Predicting the future ? I was not bad at guessing
the respective roles of our two brains, (without any big machine). It
permitted me to guess the role, the change the
chip would provoke in our way of using our brains, (bigger
thant the jump obtained from the correct use of paper, creating the
Renaissance. This third
"Renaissance", contained in the chip, has not yet appeared: the
new-born
chip was adopted/adapted, heartily, by bankers and generals, for its
wonderful improvement in killing, (but money possesses more
lethal
power than bombs). See the
"pagoda of analogies" ? writing,
paper, chip).
Writing was immediately confiscated
by the "Chosen
people", the "Scribes"
producing a "Bible", a "Big
Book of Revelations"... Paper was the base of the "Money of the Pope",
who became the richest man in the world, (and the Medicis placed two
pissies on the French throne!). At first sight, I made a
paradoxal choice. There is a
total difference between (true)
psychology and the sciecne, technique of computing. Till we understand
the correct roles of our two brains, the "mute seeing
globally "
and the "talkative
wanting sequential and a bit "memorion". Computer realize
the alliance between carbon and
silicium, demanding the place of the left lobe, frightening all
diplom-carriers, (not my
family, made of "fast-working geniuses"
and "voluntary
late-talkers"). The very
year I entered WORLD TRADE,1956, to solve Turing's puzzle), was created
the "cognotivism", strange alliance forgetting that any true idea
surges in a single brain. My only preoccupation was to avoid
mental structuring
as done in philosophy, religion, history, management... Call to help,
to VinciCaré: "Which structure do you see ?"
"Relations,
relations and only relations !"
|
"Good, I think so
for the new "Fayol functions" you don't know: computing,
marketing, maintenance, all in a nutshell, "monitheism"..."
The push-push-bottom I need to go on this final synthesis
in "human
sciences" dreamt by any scientist popping in "philosophy".
Now, any construction by a mind
can be deconstructed by a Little Albert, preferring for Humanity
a "civilisation
des Lumières" to a "civisation
négrière", id est a return to the "Mesopotamian Regime":
a small group of hyper-rich, middlemen at
their
service, (hoping to jump up to this desirable top-class but afraid to
fall into the "tiers-état"),
and
the
"masses",
as predicted by Arendt :
|
les hommes sont de
trop: des
travailleurs privés de
leur seule activité. On ne
peut imaginer pire...
|
To "open the eyes",
I accepted
to play the "Chèvre
de Monsieur Seguin". I had no merit
to predict the results. Some Celsus gave the recipe, 18 centuries
ago, (but nobody cared): "Describe them and
they fly to their
gutters!"). Look at my three analogical "demos of flight to the
gutters!". Finally,
do prepare a comparative
list of heirs to
the French "tribal
chiefs",
"Grand Corniche", "Gis-Car-Déclin",
"Matois Mittereux" "ChirGasteropode"... and so many that
thought
they were preparing a bright future for their sons ! Their very
names
have disappeared !
It was a game
to push-push
the "ticket"
Rocard-Bayrou, (just seeing the "communicating
vessels" and then "sutemi for satamu")
but "a
Dadais, another Dadais, again a Dadais"...
Karcherito is the last chance of déché(Fr)ance to open
her eyes before the "End of our World"
predicted for 2014.
Then, we'll
see another "unseen-yet problem", probably greater than any Casandra
ever
predicted.
 |
G.
Lelarge,
"philoManager",
Ingénieur
informaticien,
(Poly of Enfield, National Computing Center, 1970-1973),
inscrit
expert
au Bureau
international du travail, (1971 à retraite) suite
à
contribution informatique, (1965), jugée exceptionnelle par spécialistes
du Management. Intervention comme consultant dans 175
entreprises,
(50 à 80.000 employés): Philips, IBM WORLD TRADE,
SONATRACH,
Ministères Algérie, Venezuela..., Mines du Zaïre... |
Post-Scriptum:
As
usual, j'ai "lauïssé"
dans la langue du texte qui m'a
réveillé, (comme
HUME a provoqué réveiller l'inKANTournable), mais je
redoute de le
traduire dans les autres langues du Bureau International du Travail,
comme j'ai fait jusqu'ici. En effet, des expériences
coûteuses m'ont
enseigné que s'auto-traduire est impossible, car à chaque
fois on
repense son propre texte dans un cadre de pensée totalement
différente. Aussi curieux que cela paraisse, (même en
anglais qui
utilise
50 % de mots français, avec droit d'utiliser le reste puisque "any
French word is English"), les logiques sont différentes,
comme la vie et sa copie artificielle, ce qui m'a poussé vers
"all English".
Donc, lorsque je passe à
la première
traduction, dans la seconde langue, je repense mon texte
différemment
et corrige le premier. Il n'est même arrivé, traduisant
dans une
troisième langue, la deuxième traduction je change
tellement le
deuxième jus, (et, comme vous devinez, le premier), que j'ai
tout foutu
en l'air est que je suis reparti, comme Ford disant: "It would be fun
to start all over again". Malheureusement, cette méthode
s'appelle,
lorsqu'on à mon âge, « tenter Dieu).
Et, mon but étant de
passer
l'éternité avec les gens que j'admire, que j'appelle les
"hautistes",
je ne vais pas prendre ce risque. Si, comme je l'ai souvent dit, dans
ce monde de makro-maquereaux, celui qui ne parle pas les trois langues
du Bureau International du Travail a juste la possibilité de
rejoindre
les deux tiers de l'humanité réduite à vivre avec
deux dollars par
jour, par décision des néo-satammistes, qui, (sauf si je
m'en mêle),
feront une fête en 2014, (mondialement), comme ils l'ont fait en
1947,
(pâlestimement).
Posdata:
As usual, respondí en la lengua del texto que me "despertó",
(como Hume despertó el inKANTornable), pero yo no
traduciré en las otras lenguas de la Oficina Internacional del
Trabajo, como hice hasta ahora. En efecto, experiencias costosas me
enseñaron que auto-traducirse es imposible, ya que cada vez es
repensar el dicho texto en un marco de pensamiento completamente
diferente. Por curioso que eso parezca, (incluido en
inglés, que utiliza un 50% de palabras francesas, con derecho a
utilizar el resto puesto que "any French word is
English"), las lógicas son diferentes, como la vida y su
copia artificial, lo que me empujó hacia "All English" .
Pues, cuando paso a la
primera traducción, (en una segunda lengua), yo veo mi texto
diferentemente y corrijo el texto de la primera lengua utilizada. Lo
mismo al pasar a la tercera lengua, cambio la segunda
traducción, (y, como conjeturan, la primera), que, a veces
terminé, como Ford diciendo: "It would be fun to
start all over again". Desgraciadamente, este método es
lujo a mi edad, probablemente, "tentar a Dios".
Y, mi objetivo siendo pasar
la eternidad con la gente a quien admiro, que llamo "hautistas",
no voy a tomar este riesgo. Si, como a menudo lo he dicho, en este
mundo, inmundo para quien no habla las tres lenguas de la Oficina
Internacional del Trabajo, pronto reducido a vivir como los dos
terceros de la humanidad viviendo con dos dólares al
día, por decisión de los neo-satammistas, quienes, (salvo
si me mezclo), se preparan una fiesta en 2014, (mundialmente), como lo
hicieron en 1947, (para mi, de pâla-estima).
NOTES
1/ A "hautist"
jumps on any problem passing by. I even jumped on an opportunity to
check the possibilty of studying the action of electromagnetic waves on
creativity. But I never could see me creating. Who explains this
impossibility ?
2/
Chabichou la Lorraine, during her "sheep-a-counting
campaign", rediscovered a recipe well known in enterprises: any
signalled problem prompts up 20 solutions, most being souvenirs or "questions de cours".
If you choose one you have 19 enemies and a "heavyweight sinker".
Piercian abduction advises immediately: "Do invent 20
hypotheses yourself!".
3/ A case of the "get
things moving" fellow, a
continuous "demo" of a manager's incompetence: "confiscating his
employees' job... ", he profit by the ignorance of the "puzzle du boss"
: "to choose an adviser, you must
know as
much as he and in this case could spare his consultancy... He will paint in blue the
green wall, change your mercedes for a Cadillac. At the end, the
cash-box is empty. But the boss should shut up. I met one who cried. He
was abandonned by providers, bankers, customers, stock-holders, and
even his best employees. After, anybody will have a go, persuaded he
can do as well, in fact "as bad"). For years you should avoid this
firm. Me, I like challenges.
.
4/ Any time I "practised",
witnesses tried to help me refusing to tell what I had done.
5/ With the right of the "Alma Mater of all
knowledges", to recuperate a branch going astray like a manager
assumes a deficient function threatening his enterprise.
6/ "Decision",
"problem-solving", "creativity", aspects of the same ACTION.
Opportunity to remind a philosopher should beware of synonyms, often
hiding analogies, identic structures.
7/ I admit and explain Dennett's
interpretation, astonished because apparently the letter arrives before
being posted. It could be a case of "multi-tasking"
programmed on computers. My brain, (as the article sates) is always on
the move, id est asking question, inquiring by all the faculties.
Therefore, when an information is an answer to a question, (provoked by
a souvenir, ready for comparison). Therefore the new message is seen as
a confirmation of what my brain knew already.
8/ "This combined
aesthetic and rational sense was, for Poincaré, the mind's
highest faculty. "It is only through science and art," he remarked,
"that civilisation is of value. In "La Science et l'hypothèse",
he wrote with great passion about the scientist's quest for
representations of nature that embody simplicity, symmetry and unity of
foundations.", (Miller, page 177).
9/ The technique, extraordinary in Velazquez,
Vinci, Ingres, Picasso is not enough and no Art-School will give this
supplement that make the great artist. This should be applied to
Universities. Regularly, the closure of Great Schools are demanded.
They are kind of "Troyan Horses",
mass-producing cookies and "tribal chiefs"
unprepared for problem-solving. The best students in that line would be
the muezzin of Khartoum and the Yuruba wizard.
10/ Poincaré versus Hadamard is a good
example of creative versus non-creative minds.
11/ "good for Italian,
no use for French or English...", (later I discovered that it
was perfect for Arabic!) Difficult for a language with 12 manners tp
write for the "o"
sound or with 8 pronunciations for the "ought"
group.
12/ I, for one,
needed 50 years to
produce an "explanation"
for my trial in the high tide of March, (there was a Libanese law to
jail survivors, (1948)
This explanation is not stranger
that: "To
discover a philosopher, you must first discover his discoveries",
(I proved it, thanks to Popper, Wittgenstein, Poincaré), but if
it's true, our mind is far more extraordinary that ever told.
13/
Kind of exchange accepted: "Two professors meet in a colloquia in
Milan. One, Russian, captured the other, Italian, after Stalin grad.
Instead of shooting the lot, as ordered, he left them escape. He wanted
to know how they survived in the winter. "Well, all my men
died. Then my grandfather appeared and walked along and encouraged me.
The "Old Man"
was already dead by that time. I could explain that he "right brain"
could produce this "reality"...
14/
Newton invented the "relativity",
that included the "calculus"
permitting to build "machines making machine", the "Gold standard", new
lens in optics. His research in alchemy were a first insight toward
chemistry. He was less happy in his research on religion and Gospels.
15/ Kant first continued the research of
Newton and proposed Laplace's hypothesis. He was the fisrt to guess
that
philosophy was different from any other knowledge, (it even gave birth
to all !).
16/ If Wittgenstein is recognized, (sometimes
ludicrously), Pierce remains to be discovered.
17/ He immediately corrected: "Give him a
suggestion and he starts reconstructing the world... Different from
"saute-ruisseau", (errand boy), knowing all the footballers of the
century..." CF. in the journal Neuropsychologia: "... a glimpse of an
advertisement, a word spoken in an overheard conversation could spark
an association that leads to a solution..."
18/ The 500th aniversary of Monna lisa did
not provoke an avalanche of books on creativity. Maybe I contributed
with my attack
on Gelb's book.
19/ "L'un des rares
ouvrages où un homme de science puise reconnaître, sinon
parfois découvrir, le mouvement même de sa pensée,
l'histoire vraie, rarement écrite, du progrès auquel il a
pu personnellement contribuer.", (Jacques Monod à propos
de la "Logique
de la Découverte Scientifique" de Popper).
20/ "In La Science et
l'hypothèse, Einstein read about the foundations of geometry and pointed
out the importance "of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
to space and time."27 Poincaré likewise attributed
the property of "homogeneity" to the pristine space of mathematics in
which all points are equivalent.28 Without this property, it
would be impossible to establish relations between objects, which is
essential to Poincaré's theory of the origins of geometry.
Einstein moved Poincaré's requirement of homogeneity into the
space of physics, which, now that ether has been declared
"superfluous," is likewise empty. Because homogeneity guarantees a
democracy of points in space and the inertial reference systems that
occupy them, the mathematical equations for moving between reference
systems could be reduced to their simplest possible form. Additionally,
like Poincaré in La
Science et l'hypothèse, Einstein
carefully stated right at the start that to analyze mechanics lie would
employ "the methods of Euclidean geometry." (Miller, page 223).
21/ "En 1979 el Dr. Luis
Alberto Machado creó en Venezuela el Ministerio de la
Inteligencia logrando que pensadores internacionales aportaran
programas que fueron ejecutados en diferentes regiones. Venezuela se
convirtió en la sede experimental del desarrollo de la
inteligencia. El Ministerio preparó docentes en herramientas y
operaciones del pensamiento, pero la falta de bases teóricas,
investigaciones serias sobre resultados, una relación
débil con las universidades y la falta de mecanismos para
profundizar la innovación; hicieron que al cambiar el gobierno
en 1984, perdieran apoyo político."
<http://www.emprendedoresnews.com/notaR/el_trueque_en_venezuela-3045-20.html>
22/ Any time, he had an "idea", he
wrote another book, (proving that courses by "creactivists"
are null and books on "geniuses"
are poor).
23/ For Kant, "Anschauung" is the highest form of visual imagery. Anschauung
is philosophically loaded and can be
understood as "intuition"
or as the "visual
imagery" abstracted from phenomena we have witnessed with our
senses. (Arthur I. Miller, page 47: "Einstein, Picasso,
Space, Time and the Beauty that causes the Havoc", Basic Books,
2001)
24/ Too much ado was given to the religious
aspect of the encounter of Galileo and Church. The real fight was
between modernity and aritotelism. The Renaissance "was a time when
science was struggling to free itself from the Earth-centered
Aristotelian cosmogony...", (Miller, page 238 )It is not finish
today, all the contrary !
25/ After I proposed my "gestion
intégrée", I understood Popper, ("To use a new
technique, we must invent a theory to use it..."), and
Wittgenstein's "tables
of decision", (my proposal reduced millions of millions of
documents to "a single record inside computer").
26/ The "papers found in the
bank" proved a low level of understanding for papermen, (worse
for "psys"!)
For me it's a classical "demo" of
this "strong
will". I, for one, discovered autism when I was labelled
"asperger" for my sense of details, (I thought my sense for synthesis
was superior and totally proved). Then I discovered that I had all the
characteristics described by the DSM, but in a sublimated way. The way
to find that the pioneers of psychology had a "grain of madness". Now,
a bit of true metaphysic: "Nature with her "scoubidou"
trick, provokes progress and produces as many "hautists" as "lowtists".
What about them ? I jumped on the case of Sandrine Bonnaire
to give my opinion. Our social system, (civisation pretending
to be civilisation),
needing lots of slaves, destroyed its "geniuses" as
useless and dangerous. Einstein could have disappeared.
27/ "Einstein was a
scientist who relied heavily on spatial thinking and Picasso an artist
for whom logical-mathematical thought played a crucial role.", (page 238).
28/ "Such a confluence
of "intelligences" had not appeared since the sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries, the days of Albrecht Dürer, Leonardo da
Vinci and Galileo... who, like Copernicus, founded his scientific
theories on aesthetics... In Einstein's 1905 papers, aesthetic
arguments reappeared with a force unseen for centuries, (with a will
to) remove "asymmetries that do not appear te, be inherent in the
phenomena,"... the "profound formal distinction" in current physics
between particle and wave. For Einstein, as for Copernicus and Galileo,
aesthetics were data", (Miller page 238 ).
29/ The "Sorbonne" is
a national curiosity. It was created for 12 poor students to study
theosophy. Dozen of sisters have been created, difusing the same stuff.
Now, when the President visit a foreign colleague, lectures are
organized with top-thinkers. If you have the sorbonical diploma, you're
sure to be preferred !
29b/
The
joKriss-preachers had confiscated teaching. Now, when Aristoteles
appeared, the Augustinade seemed poor and Fatty Tom produced his
Aquiquinade. At the Renaissance, Bérulle thought an error
this
alliance of joKriss and Aristotles. He asked Descartes, a complexed
fellow, (he was falsely taught he killed his mother), to produced a new
philsophy. René produced a new theology, (only Koyré, in
1937, tried to
read it!). He just invented "innate ideas", a "drag
and rob" from Plato's ideas. He started a "swip-swap"
between
preachers for centuries.
30/ "... enfin la cohorte
des philosophes. Les plus modernes ne sont pas les moins agités.
Les «nouveaux » ne sont pas toujours les mieux
informés et vous refilent de vieilles adresses pour des
trouvailles de leur cru. ... Je songe à ce grand penseur qui
régnait sur une bande de jeunes faons esbaudis devant les
prouesses de son esprit et qui, se sentant de plus en plus mal dans son
cerveau, trouva pour remède d'étrangler sa femme...",
(Page 28).
31/ Le dieu "Autre"
apparaît dès la première
page: " ...dans
ce livre, deux fils directeurs... le second est « l'autre
», tant le besoin et la reconnaissance d'autrui constituent
l'essence de l'humain". Then page
27: "Cerveau
de soi, cerveau de l'autre aussi.
La conscience de soi passe par la
connaissauce de ce que sent et pense l'autre,
expression du
désir inépuisable de l'homme pour l'homme" Then
page 31 : " Comprendre
le dedans de l'autre
n'est-ce pas l'impératif auquel nous
ramène le concept d'inconscient ?" (moi, possesseur
d'un cerveau, comme tout autre, je déduisis que je devais
d'abord l'utiliser, avant tout autre. Evidemment, ce n'est pas la
même méthode et il fallait même améliorer
cette "introspection".
Le dieu "Autre" doit
être inefficient puisqu'il a déjà des erzatz:
"l'Hôtelier" de Derry Dada, le "Grand formateur" de Serres le
Saulien. J'ajoute le "MoniThéiste" qui triomphe chez
saint-Brognard.
32/ " À tous, je
préfère Montaigne, un homme qui voyage à cheval,
sans crainte pour son cul douloureux. Casanova le plus exquis des
écrivains désinvoltes, sauteur d'un plaisir au suivant :
son cerveau est aussi léger que sa plume ... Comme excursion
à risque, je recommande aussi Virgile, spécialiste des
croisières en enfer, seul ou accompagné de Dante, un
pince-sans-rire... Avec Joyce, alias Dedalus, vous vous égarerez
dans des venelles obscures qui sentent la bière et la chair pas
très fraîche. Proust, bien sûr, vous conduira dans
les palais de la mémoire..." (page 28).
33/ "Décrire la
psychanalyse en quelques lignes est aussi vulgaire et vain que de
vouloir réduire le musée du Louvre à une carte
postale de la Joconde..." page 31
"Malgré
toutes les polémiques, le travail de Freud conserve à
l'heure des neurosciences sa géniale pertinence. Tel un
Léonard de Vinci de la psychobiologie, Freud a ouvert la voie
à ce que l'on appelle des assemblées neuronales,
unités psychiques labiles et réactivables, soumises au
travail inépuisable du désir...", (page 73,Jacques Hochmann, Cl.Bernard
Lyon II)... "Le psychanalyste ne
se présente pas comme un médecin ou soignant, refuse
toute tentation de névrose empathique, n'aide pas son patient
selon le sens commun, ne répond pas à ses questions,
reste la plupart du temps silencieux et l'écoute. Cet aspect
frustrant de la relation analytique s'avère structurant,
générant une activité de symbolisation source de
croissance psychique, de développement et
d'épanouissement de la personnalité du patient, "(page
32)
"Le grand
mérite de la psychanalyse, bien au-delà de ses
excès et de ses dérives, a été de maintenir
la présence de la psyché dans la substance même de
l'humain, tout en affirmant la prééminence de l'affect
sur l'acte."
34/ "Se parant des
défroques du béhaviorisme, les sciences dites cognitives,
gavées d'informatique et d'imagerie cérébrale en
couleurs virtuelles, sont devenues le prétexte théorique
d'un retour en force des thérapies dites comportementales...
Sous l'évocation de ces thérapies « efficaces
», le Livre noir de la psychana1yse, par sa vieille dialectique
totalitaire et sa violence militante, ferme la porte à toute
argumentation philosophique." (page 31)
35/ : "des parents, tous
des intellectuels particulièrement brillants. Sous des dehors
agréables, les mères cachaient une grande froideur, les
pères se montraient plus intéressés par des
spéculations abstraites ou par leur réussite
professionnelle que par la quotidienneté des rapports avec leur
enfant. Ils faisaient montre d'un caractère obsessionnel,
surtout dans la façon d'observer leur enfant et de tenir un
journal détaillé de ses faits et gestes et de son
évolution... tout au long de travaux ultérieurs,
Kanner... répéta qu'il s'était contenté de
décrire un état de fait sans attribuer à ces faits
une valeur causale". (page 375).
36/ "Bettelheim, devint
la cible privilégiée de leurs attaques. On l'a
peut-être exagérément diabolisé...
Bettelheim avait seulement eu le malheur... d'assimiler l'ambiance
d'une famille d'enfant autiste à l'univers concentrationnaire et
à prêter aux mères un désir de solution
finale, On a oublié, du coup, tout l'apport de cet
éducateur de grande qualité... (page 377)
37/ "Dans la
moitié des cas, reste mutique, (langage) souvent monocorde,
d'allure automatique, souvent écholalique... peu de valeur de
communication... ne se lie pas aux autres, ne vient pas chercher de
réconfort auprès d'autrui, semble indifférent aux
émotions d'autrui... absence ou la pauvreté des jeux de
faire semblant... récits factuels,préoccupations parfois
obsédantes, ritualise son existence..." (page 379).
38/ "Wittgenstein
affirme que si les lions pouvaient parler nous ne les comprendrions
pas. Selon Dennet, si les lions étaient doués de parole,
nous les comprendrions bien, mais ils n'auraient pas grandchose
à nous raconter. Et Premack d'ajouter que, si les poules
disposaient d'une grammaire, elles n'auraient rien d'intéressant
à partager. J'ai connu des grammairiens dont les bavardages
pédants étaient de pur, morceaux d'inanité sonore
; si j'avais été un poulet, j'aurais trouvé plus
captivante la conversation d'une poule."
39/ "Pour le plus grand
bonheur des amateurs de mots croisés, l'éléphant
barrit, le rhinocéros barète, la chèvre
béguète, le chameau blatère, l'âne brait, la
perdrix cacabe, le renard glapit, la pie jacasse, l'aigle glatit, la
huppe pupule, et l'homme parle. .. Le singe vervet émet trois
cris différents selon le type de prédateur qui s'approche
(aigle, léopard, python)." (page 393).
40/ Nous avons tous
à l'intérieur de notre cerveau un buste de Descartes
auquel il convient de faire la révérence. Il ne fait pas
bon de parler à la légère de celui qui a
donné aux Français le trait le plus marquant de leur
génie : l'esprit cartésien. La représentation du
cerveau proposée par le grand philosophe n'en est pas pour
autant moins extravagante que celle de ses
prédécesseurs...
page 389: "...Selon Descartes,
l'expression de la pensée est nécessaire à
l'existence même de cette pensée... Depuis Darwin, on
considère que ce privilège exorbitant de l'homme n'est
plus acceptable. Descartes a laissé à ses successeurs un
corps sans esprit et un esprit sans corps... à Amsterdam,
Spinoza sauve l'unité du corps et de l'esprit. La
résistance à Descartes vient surtout de Locke qui affirme
l'existence d'une matière pensante. Son apôtre, Voltaire,
proclame : « Je suis corps et je pense. » Quelle triste
destinée que celle de Descartes, confiée à la
cohorte bruyante de ses disciples et des sectaires. À trop
vouloir se protéger de la nuisance des prêtres avec son
âme de parade accrochée au revers du corps, l'auteur du
Discours de la méthode a recruté sous une même
bannière les bigots de tous bords, ceux de la religion et ceux
de la science."
41/ "Les orateurs de
gauche - je parle bien sûr de leur cerveau et pas de leurs
opinions politiques - utilisent leur cerveau droit dans la partie
prosodique du langage et dans le traitement des noms abstraits et
à forte charge affective. Il est probable que, lorsqu'un homme
évoque le nom de Dieu, il se sert de son cerveau droit. Un chef
d'État peut prier avec son cerveau droit en demandant la
protection du « Seigneur » et élaborer avec son
cerveau gauche les discours qui subjugueront ses alliés et les
stratégies pour anéantir ses ennemis. Il ne faut pas pour
cela suivre la tentation trop facile d'opposer un
hémisphère droit qui parlerait le langage du coeur et un
hémisphère gauche qui pratiquerait celui de la raison. Ce
ne serait là que fariboles pour amuser le lecteur"
42/ "Aristote donne au
coeur un rôle central dans la génération et le
contrôle des idées et des émotions... Le cerveau,
organe froid, ne sert qu'à refroidir le coeur".
43/ Kant immediately understood the
risk provoked by the conclusions of his first Critic about the
impossibilty to prove or refute God.
"BREAK", the only way to defend one's self against the two dangers :
solitude and mind-unfeeding by poverty of exchange, "disputatio" and
dispersion by excess of exchange...
After reading "Insights
of genius : imagery and creativity in science and art", (457
pages, 1996 §dollar 8)
then: ""Einstein, Picasso,
Space, Time and the Beauty that causes the Havoc", (357 pages, Basic
Books, 2001, §dollar 9
I bought, (just to
have it!), "Imaginery in
scientific thought", (355 pages, MIT, 1986, 7
§dollars),
limited to scientists, Einstein
and Poincaré.
.
