 |
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 " |
