CONTENTS
0. Introductory remarks
1. What is the purpose of everything?
2. Why everything moves?
3. Why is the cycle?
4. What is the dialectics?
5. What is the right behaviour?
6. Why is the death?
7. Why people are bad?
8. Conclusive sentences
9. Poetical appendix: A bit of philosophy
0. Introductory remarks
Let me tell you in the beginning why I have decided to write this essay. Ah, for the simple reason that I have already 8 essays on various social and philosophical topics, and although 8 is a very good number I have ever taken 10 for a better one, so that I have to continue trying to reach this number, no matter that am just jumping over my 72-nd year, and finding of entirely new ideas begins to be a bit difficult for me. Yes, but I have enough
old ideas, and combining some of them this can give the necessary for me volume (of above 10 pages) plus the traditional poetical appendix. I thought initially to write something about the necessity of
closing the cycles, because the nature requires some way of closing (in order to be able to continue cycling on the usual track), and if we have not done this properly, then this happens in its own quite rough way, but I have already spoken about this (in "Our inability to destroy").
So that I decided to make some conglomerate material where I will come also to the cycles, but will begin with the existence of everything (the Creation), then come to the incessant movement of everything (what has found its reflection even in the ... grammar cases), then ponder a bit about the dialectics, then about our behaviour (what we are to do, because in all cases we will suffer, but to lessen the sufferings), then come to the death as opposite or closing of the life, and at the end about good and evil, what is as if new topic for me. As initial plan this looked good to me, and the number seven, well, this is a Hebrew number, it is not exactly nice one for the West (it is even a bit decaying or ...
septic), but for the old Hebrews it meant
fame and mystery (of the Creation, I suppose). This may be related with the lunar calendar, but more interesting for me is to repeat (for I have told this long ago, in my "Urrh" and in "About the numbers") that the picture of this number is a ...
flag on a long
stick, a bit inclined ahead, to the right, and the flag is waving!
In this way you may think that I am waving before you the flag of eternal philosophical questions about life and death and everything! What, in a way, I am doing in my 70-ies (digging out some details also for myself, because one can never cease to ponder about something, if this is all to what he is capable, to jump between pro and contra). So that let me begin, and be assured that there will be nothing difficult for even a child (because I am an amateur philosopher, like the old people in the antiquity). Yet probably this child has to be a
clever one, a kind of prodigy, because there will be various tricky places; or more precisely, my simple ideas are pretty fuzzy in places, but this is the entire philosophy, as science for everything it has to be not very precise.
1. What is the purpose of everything?
Ah, the purpose is the greatest puzzle in life, because we can't grasp how it is possible not to have goal or purpose, we prefer to die but to find some purpose; not that I am not such guy who also wants to have some purpose, yet the point is that my purpose in the moment is to prove to you that to have
no purpose is much more
preferable, at least sometimes, because this allows us more
freedom, and we all love the latter (or this is what the dear Frenchmen say to us with their
liberté-freedom related with German
Liebe-love). Because of our purpose-hunting we have already in deep antiquity invented some divine beings, gods, who have their own purpose, which, however, remains always hidden for us! And, come to think about, there is a point in which all religions agree, which is that we are
finite being, while the gods exist for ever, they can't (even eagerly wishing -- just imagine this!) die and stop to be anymore. So that this, what I want to tell you, is practically paraphrasing of old theosophical ideas, about the
limits.
Because: what am I wanting to say to you? Ah, I want to stress on the point that the purpose is
already a limit, there is nothing after it (unless another purpose-limit, in which case we have just a hierarchy of goals but the final purpose is the final goal). You can imagine this purpose like a summit or peak or maximum (resp., a hole or minimum), and if you reach it there is nowhere higher to clime further from it; if there are other summits seen then you must come first down from this and then clime up to another, what is now a picture of some cycle, what means that you have gone in the wrong way and have not yet reached the global maximum. Let me remind you also the heard proverb: "See Naples and die!", meaning that you have reached the limit of all you wishes. So that the bad thing is not really when you can not reach the limit or purpose, but when you
have reached it (because: where to further?)! And for this reason the ways of God are unpredictable and unsearchable (or unguessable) -- because if you will find them you are bound to die (of boredom, would I say).
Yet without strict mathematical proof I can say, that another way of speaking about goals to which we are going is to speak about top-down or bottom-up ways of doing whatever. When one does something
top-down he knows where to he goes and that he will come to some goal at the bottom, i.e. this is
purposeful method! This is the right way of doing the things, this is how all living objects, especially the humans, proceed, although in this way, ha-ha, the top is the
bottom, from where you begin to do something, and the bottom of the idea is the
top of the building (or creation); also the top is in you head, you know what you are going to build (in which case I want to remind you some old, probably biblical phrase, used also by the sculptor Ogust Roden, about the way how he has done his sculptures, namely that he has taken a piece of marble and cut out everything redundant -- according to the plan in his head); yet this is the way in which all living organisms, plants and animals, are reproducing themselves, where the plan is fixed in the genetic code.
Hence it is always good to have some plan and to approach every task top-down, but the very God (at least according to me, in my latest "Open letter to God almighty") has not used this method, no, He has done everything exactly bottom-up! And why? Ah, because He is unlimited Being, both, in the time and in the space, and wanted not to set limits to the Creation. Yeah, but this is
uncertainty, people, He may as well not have set limits because even He has not enough knowledge about the nature and the matter; i.e. He is nothing more than a Spirit of the Universe for me. Yet I will not dig here much because this was the topic of my mentioned Letter, but I will continue for a while in this sphere of thoughts, as there are more interesting moments. Like that the top-down method is knowledge and
organization, it is limited (or works in limited cases) but has in itself some more organization between the elements, this is as if preferred method of work, this is scientific, and this is why the organized matter is so called. While the bottom-up method is based on the ... chaos and uncertainty, it is probabilistic, it is for unorganized matter, and works chiefly for subatomic particles.
From what follows that there can be exceptions or changing of these methods, and that purposefulness can be substituted with purposelessness, or one is never sure about the real purpose. Probably the organized matter can help the chaos and vice versa, yet nobody, even the very God, does know this, and in our social life we quite often rely on the chaos, when some purposeful movement goes wrong. And if we take also this expanding Universe into account, what is very good model including also the ever present movement (to what I will go in the next chapter), nobody can tell whether after enormously big time the Universe will not be stopped somewhere on the
unlimited end of it, and by some reflection be forced to begin to
shrink and in this way all gathered knowledge and goals will just disappear and we will return again to the only chaos, which also can be restricted in some way on the phase of primary egg! Ah, the purpose is very treacherous thing, and there is also this moment, that the
object (from which some action begins) and the
subject (to which it goes) can often be confused, so that inductive movement may turn to be really deductive, i.e. the goal can change places with the beginning (in many cases this is a matter of taste)!
And now let me give you an example of something that as if has no reasons to contain goals in it, to be purposeful, yet it can show pretty purposeful behaviour, looks like well organized thing. These are the
cellular automata, what is a part of mathematics, which deals with groups of cells, which obey simple rules of changing in the next generations, and build interesting living structures, yet they are not created by God, to be sure. As if the most interesting of them is the game "Life", invented before about half a century, where was observed that some relatively big group of cells can form after some time the so called "gun", which shoots some kind of
seeds called "gliders", which move and continue to live like real offsprings! These, and many other examples, already from deep antiquity, have led the wise men to the thought that the very
matter causes the further behaviour of the things, which can't be said to be purposeful or god-driven yet this defines the actions of this matter, builds
cause - effect relations! The consequence of cause-effect relations defines the purpose of everything, which in most cases is non-guessable yet it lives for long time, and in this case the purpose turns to be the
living! Id est, the purpose of the Creation is to make an interesting and
unpredictable (including probabilistic elements in it) game, where everything moves and changes forever, but what is the final purpose is not clear; more than this, for the life to be made interesting there
must be no purpose, because one such thing will only restrict the life, and, also, when we once succeed to find this purpose, what are we to do after this, to die?. This seems pretty disappointing for the people, but it is also what makes the life worth living!
2. Why everything moves?
I think that this is interesting question, because all bodies in the Universe move, and the living things too, and also on atomic level, and, in short, the
life is movement! (Where I can give you the following funny example, that the dead body in Latin is called cadaver, also in English, but it comes from their verb
cado /-ere as to fall, i.e. you pull it up and cry to it "go" or whatever, but it just falls down.) Because of this incessant movement of space bodies it was found that the Universe expands, but they also rotate around their axes, and for this reason all planets circle in one plane, that of the ecliptic; also all galaxies have the form of lentil, and the planets, being hard and solid bodies, are spheres (while the asteroids are not spheres). And, no matter whether we are moving around the Sun or on the contrary, various planets are moving, many stars too, so that this was remarked in ancient times, and has made the wise men in the Sanskrit to invent the fable for creating of the Universe by ... emanation of the
bowels of god Tatagatha, where this initial movement is well seen; similar idea stays put in the big bang theory and the primary egg. Yes, but why? Why are they not staying like fixed with pins in the sky?
Ah, for
energetic reasons, because they as if carry the ...
batteries with themselves. And how is this? Ah, the movement is performed because there is spent some energy, at least kinetic, but also potential, and it can be changed to other kinds of energy, or vice versa, energy can give movement. Yet the things are much more deep, because this energy is carried by the very
matter, each matter, and even the hard stone has atoms and there are nucleuses in them and they have energy in them, and the electrons (and other particles, I am not physicist, alas) can move and contain quite big amount of energy! Also, you know, the common water can lead to atom bomb, there is similar energy also in the air (oxygen and hydrogen), energy is hidden just everywhere, even in the cosmic space there is the
gravitation, there is the centrifugal and centripetal force, in the stars burn atomic fires, the matter is turned to plasma but this is also matter,
everything is matter! (What reminds me the following pun: What is Mind? No Matter. What is Matter? Never Mind.) Yes, and from here follows that everything is also
energy, which can be turned to some movement! Plus that, as you have heard it, the energy does not disappear (even when it, in all appearances, disappears), it can dissipate itself yet this is not disappearance. Also there is a thermodynamic law that states that the warmer bodies pass energy to colder ones, and not v.v., but with the achievements of contemporary sciences one
can, after all, make some body colder taking its energy. And many other interesting, known and unknown, laws, that define many peculiar things with the exchange of energy.
So that every material particle is a kind of
accumulator for some kind of energy, this is really divine, if I have had some authority and could have found that dear God (who always hides from us and tells us nothing, probably because is afraid that we will make at once bigger chaos than the created by Him), I would have patted Him on the back praising Him before all about this magnificent hiding of the energy in the matter and allowing the one thing to change to the other and vice versa! This is the real wonder of the Creation (hm, together with the inventing of the special masculine ... "syringe" -- if you see what I mean), not the creating of the living matter, including the monkey called human being. The energy question lies at the bottom of everything, without successive solving of this problem nothing would have happened in the Universe, because everything created would have stopped soon! Yet up to my knowledge the energy problem was not discussed in any religion, maybe because this was something hidden from the minds of the greatest ancient thinkers, there was necessary the
quantitative knowledge of latest pair of centuries.
Yeah, the energy was not discussed in the antiquity, but this what is easier to be seen, the movement,
was discussed and they surely (methinks) have come to the conclusion that the primary thing is the movement, because everything moves (flows, runs, etc.), where the immobility or rest is something that rarely happens, and to achieve it must be
spent some energy! Or that the movement is ever present, while the rest is only temporary, even that the immobility is performed as simultaneous existing of two opposite
forces, which maintain the situation. Why I think so? Ah, because of the grammatical
cases, as I have already mentioned, where from deep antiquity, maybe from times immemorial, was made this difference between moving and standing, and for the moving is used an easier case (accusative in German), where for standing on place is used dative (in German, or prepositional in Slavonic languages). (I can even allow myself to think that the standing object has to be put in dative because then some force is
given to it, to stop it, while when it moves it goes at once to the
adversary, whom we are always taking to be ... guilty for something -- because we
accuse him! And don't laugh at this, please, for this is unquestionably put in the very words at least from Latin times.)
So that everything moves because it has energy for this, it carries the battery with itself; and it must not stop (at least for a long time) because this means that it has died, expired, not live anymore, but on this world everything must be living (and if it happens for something to die, then it hurries to be transformed in some
other matter, which begins its own life, because the matter, like the movement or the energy, can
never die). In this way is performed a simple cycle, so that it is time to go to this topic.
3. Why is the cycle?
Ah, if we take for granted that everything is movement, we must be able sometimes to ...
run on the place, what, if we extent the coordinate, will produce movement! So that this is the cycle, returning to the same place,
repetition, maintaining of the dynamics, movement without significant changing of the place, just not to be forced to stop and to die. The cycle is usually pictured as circle, what is 2-D image, but if we turn it on its border and follow some material point, then we will have the movement of a piston, forth and back, what is the main characteristic of the ... sex, of course. Yet this is restricting of the movement, while if we extend it, adding another coordinate, then we will come to a solenoid or a spiral, which both things in the English are called helix, what is a better picture, because this is not just the same repetition, it is repetition but with adding of something new (what, by the way, is the goal also of sexual intercourse, to be each time different). Put in other words this is what also life is, a cycle, repetition, producing of new objects similar to the old ones.
Because, you see, one (or something) can not always change in unpredictable manner, there must exist stable and constant forms, which are dynamic but repeating, like the very life. Looked from afar the cycle often looks like trembling,
pulsation, yet this is condition of ...
stand-by, when the system is ready to change, it is not dead, it is really like running on the place. So that if we want to have constant movement we are bound to admit the existence of cycles, there is no other way, otherwise will exist absolute chaos or death. And when we imitate living systems with some mechanism, say a computer, there have to be some basic cycles, and they are (this is reading of some written in some memory device consequence of chars, and performing of some activity according to the deciphered code, including writing of some new chars in the same old memory -- something similar is the so called Turing machine).
And not only this, the cycles are a way for reaching of ... infinity! Because, look here: if we go in some direction and return back then this is a cycle, or else we must move always in the same direction and so to the infinity, right? But what is this infinity, we can't deal with it, we are finite beings, for us this is just to move in the same direction for ever and not to die, not to quit the game named life. But this is impossible, because we can't, say, become bigger and bigger, and so for ever (unless there are some finite
phases in a infinite sequence). And these finite phases are the individual substances -- atoms, stars, trees, animals, et cetera. Yeah, but the connecting of these individual things makes, in fact, a cycle, so that via the life cycle we are able, in one way or another, to reach the infinity (what is
not the other life, this is too naive picture, that involves some impossible ever present existence).
In fact, formally speaking, there are only two ways to move for ever in one and the same direction: the one is by exponent (or rather logarithm), and the other is with incessant returning back, what is via a cycle. But the exponent is
invented by the mathematicians curve, it cannot really exist, only in some approximation, hence it remains only the inevitable life cycle. This is the hidden meaning of the act of copulation, to continue our flesh and body in further generations, and I can only praise the dear God that has come to the idea so to
deceive us, to copulate as much as we can. (Because He deceives us, we do
not need this continuation, really, and even if the humans need it, then why is it necessary to the fishes, or the trees and plants, and so on? More new individuals around the parents mean more
competitors in live, to be sure!)
So that there can be no Creation without cycles, and what is more important (and about what I have gone in discussions in my "Inability to destroy") is, that we (and other live objects) are not able to properly close many cycles, for the simple reason that we are good at the constructive phase of the cycle, but not at the destructive one! But when some cycle is not properly closed the life can not easily continue in the usual ruts, in result of what happen various cataclysms, which have the goal to close the cycle in some other way, i.e.
improperly! If you think otherwise (say, that you can outsmart the dear God, or, else, the nature), you are just showing your disrespect to the whole Creation, together with your stupidity! Yes, but I have met nowhere such ideas expressed, about the closing of the cycles, and this lies in the bottom of nearly all our sufferings, because for now about a pair of millenniums, but especially in the last pair of centuries, our main enemies are not the other animals or the whole nature, no, the main disasters with us happen chiefly by the fault of us alone.
( And, say, the last pandemic virus is only our fault, because we live unreasonably open, travel too much, spend too much petrol, disturb the atmosphere, eat synthetic food, lose our resistive forces, and are, first of all, too many "monkeys" on the globe, this is obvious. We must be in no case more people than one billion on Earth, but much better is to be about 100 millions, how it was, more or less, in the times of Christ. Because there are thrown out millions, probably even billions, ... spermatozoa in a masculine erections, but there
is a difference when most of them will die, before the conception or after, and if after then due to some illnesses or via unnecessary wars, or will just stuff the Earth with unemployed persons. While the control of population is not so difficult to perform in a civilized country. And this is not proper closing of birth and death cycle, because we are expanding in our number, but for probably tens of
thousands of years we were not expanding. So that let me give you one rule of the thumb: if something changes more than a
pair of times -- what means usually 2 to 3 times -- we are bound to begin to ponder about this and take measures for stopping of this improper tendency. )
Hence, all cycles must be closed properly in order to have quiet life, and we are going to the next topic, about the dialectics.
4. What is the dialectics?
Ah, I have explained this many times, using my beloved etymological approach, relating the word -
lectic with Bulgarian 'lastik', what is an
elastic fiber, which can pull the object to itself when expanded, and the dia- /
duo /two is obvious; i.e. this is pulling in both directions! This is so elementary, yet I have never heard this about the elastic fibers, but with this addition it becomes clear that the dialectics is a nice
model for picturing of the
pulsations, which are inevitable in the Creation, in order to preserve the moving and the cycles. The idea here is to think that every object or process is like a small ball, fixed with various elastic fibers in many diametrically placed points (where you can take every direction for another dimension), and when you pull it at one side, it begins to tremble and when necessary changes its position to some other stable one, by the new conditions. Because, like it is known from ancient times:
nothing is constant (as well
nothing is perfect, and
nothing is isolated), according to the ideas of old Hindus.
So this is about the very word dialectics, a suitable model for our world, but it is directly related with some other ideas, and being a name of the whole dialectical science it encompasses some of the topics discussed here, and many others. First about some things directly related with this model. The major notion here is the very
middle and the environment, and then the
opposite things. As to the middle, this is somewhere between the both ends, but the middle or core and the environment are
dual notions (i.e. the one defines the other and v.v.) and because of this they can be often confused. The dualism is an interesting thing for not much sophisticated people, and this means that we can use the one notion and have one view at the tings, but we can equally well use the other notion and have another different (but, more or less equivalent) view at the things (like in the mathematics one can define the straight line with 2 points, or also define the point as intersection of 2 lines). And the dualism between the middle and the environment can be seen by the meaning of Bulgarian (which is Slavonic) word 'sreda', which means these
both things (the concrete meaning is guessed by the context -- like, say, with your word "party", which means a gathering and political party).
Yet it is not only this example, I personally have found the same idea between Bulgarian 'kol' as stick or Latin
collo as neck, and French
collier as necklace, or Bulgarian 'kolelo' ('koleso' in Russian) as a wheel (or also Bulgarian 'kolovoz' as rut, trace of some wheel). Or take also your "hole" and "whole", and many many other things, what is necessary (this is my guess, yet it is obvious) in order to be able to jump easily from one notion to the other, to juxtapose them. Something similar I have long ago seen in German
Boden and
Bogen, where the first is an earth or down-arc, and the second is an up-arc (like the
Regenbogen-rainbow). And these are opposite things (like the middle and the environment), and the
opposite ends meet, like you surely have heard, what continues to seem strange, but it is so, and I have found also the example with the end-colours of the rainbow, the red and the violet, which have entirely different wave lengths, yet they
look similar to us. And surely many examples, like love and hatred, hot and cold (the burning and freezing are
aching similarly, and their alike sounding comes from the very Sanskrit), big and small (in form of Latin and Greek "minor" and "major", as well also in the Slavonic languages), et cetera.
Yeah, and this closing of the opposite ends is often performed via the
infinity, mark this (like the graph of function 1 / (1-x) does this in the point x = 1), so that both ends often come pretty close, and this is so also in the
modular arithmetic (say, in modulo 10 the digits go in this way: ... 8, 9, 0, 1, ...), what explains also the cycles, which appear even there, where they as if must not appear, must be torn apart. And do not miss to remark that if in some direction the ball is not in the middle but is gone to the one end and there has remained only the other end free (that is connected with the first via the infinity, right?), then this means that we ... do not look good enough, there must be some invisible before dimension which can be seen by higher magnifying, and that this exactly quality (of the dimension) simply does
not exist (like, e.g., if there is not difference between men and women -- be it in the social sphere -- then there are simply no men and women, the genders do not exist)! And, people, when I give you examples using relations between words then this means that these things have been remarked long ago, before millenniums, when the languages were coined.
Let me now move to some grounding paradigms (notions or ideas) of dialectics, like this
negation of negation. How looks this to you, ah? Well, to me this looks brilliant (more brilliant than, say, Christian slogan about our Christ
conquering death with death -- because this is a fable, if this was the way to conquer the death then let us all commit suicides, and even in young age, for example, before reaching of 7 years, ah?), because this underlines the constant changing of Creation, its incessant improving, the dynamics of life, the going to the opposite end, the cycles, almost everything in the dialectics! And mark also that this is not blah-blah, these are not fables, this may
not be precise in
quantitative meaning, but it is brilliant in the qualitative one, and exactly this qualitative way of judging is what we lack in the current days of robotized industries and everything ready in the shops, because we are moving straight on the way to total moronity! Or, in particular, from here follows that the money will be
denied in the end, ah, not the death, but the money is what has to (and will) be denied by the very money, yeah, from much money to no money, probably not in the used by the communist way, but then in some other way. (Although it is better to help somehow this process of rejecting the money, because if we do not do what the dialectics tells us, then, as I have said this already in other places, we will ... again
do this, only in a more cruel way, that's it! I beg your pardon for my lyrical digression.)
So that, really, everything is denied in the end, and then on and on, and in this way we, and the nature, everything is developed, but with adding of some new elements, this is not entirely throwing it away and forgetting about it, no, this is changing according to the new conditions. Put otherwise, all
development is negation of some former stages! Yet this famous dialectics is not learned on the West, and now also on the East, at least as alternative view to the ... religions! Because that is how it is, the dialectic is a
worldview, like all the religions are, and it is
not communist science, it is more than two millenniums old, people (plus that the communists are not monsters, they have appeared because of the
bad capitalism before a bit more than a century). Anyway, the dialectics just
can't (in the sense of mustn't)
be ignored, and with this I finish this chapter and am going to the next, where I pose some moral questions.
5. What is the right behaviour?
Or else, what is considered as good and what as bad? But it is easier in this form, because to be good means to
think about the others, not only about himself, what is called egoism. But life is tough to everybody and one can not miss to take care about himself, so how is it? Ah, on the West is spoken about individualism, not about exactly egoism (or is made distinction between the latter and ego
tism as good or allowed egoism, just as having high opinion about himself), but this does not make the things much clear. Where I prefer to speak about
reflexion of the meanings of the other, of the opponent, and then the zeroth
level is that I just think (something), the first level is that I think that he /she /it thinks (about me, usually), the second is that I think that he thinks that I think, and so on, and at least the first level is necessary in each society (even in an animal one). In any case, I and the other /-s build one dimension in the equilibrium of dialectical ties, and everybody must try not to go to extremities in this direction.
I think that it is clear why this should not happen, but let me add a pair of sentences. Due to the fact that everything is related (or nothing is isolated), if we do not take care about the meanings of the others we are often exposed to the
revenge of this other object /-s, but the revenge is
blind, as is known from long time, so that something always returns to us (and in
this world, not in some invented other one), yet the blow is not always directed to us but to some of our neighbouring people or relatives or things, that's it. While if we show more thinking about each situation, then we just live better, more quiet, although we have not everything what we want. Yes, but if we take for granted that we will be
always punished by the environment, it is preferable to reflect a bit more about everything. Still, exactly the
altruism (thinking about the others) is not the best reaction, because this looks naive, and we can't know what precisely the other wants (he may want, hm, I beg to be excused, but there are persons who want to take it up the ... ass, ha-ha), while the individualism, if taken as wish to develop one's abilities, to be free of equalizing oppression, is a pretty good behaviour, if the society allows it. Because, when it goes about being with the others or not, then it is safer to be with the others, surely, but this is not exactly what our dear God wishes from us, He prefers (i.e. I thinks so, having read this as old Latin phrase) to be such
as you are, to show your differences (because one never knows what is better, even the dear God, alas).
In other words these judgments can be reduced to the necessity to have
global view at nearly everything, what we
can't have being made individual and finite and imperfect and so on! And practically all our sufferings, for a pair of millenniums (as I mentioned this) are result of this lack of global view at the situation; it is good to have some free will but it is
bad not to have enough knowledge and not to be ready to act against one's own skin. So that there is not once and for all established answer to the question how is good to behave, but because of this uncertainty we have interesting and unpredictable life! (And as to the interesting life I never cease to repeat one heard Chinese
curse, or rather ill-wish, which we are inclined to take for good wish, namely: May you have an
interesting live! Because what is interesting is
risquant or risky, it is not a quiet, and maybe a bit dull, life.) Yet if one takes the Eastern view at the things that
everything is justified (say, the throwing of atom bomb over Hiroshima, or suicide attack of Bin Laden's guys in New York, or today's Corona virus, etc.), one can learn to endure everything. Because if everything is mutually related, and there are at least two, but usually many, participants to be considered, one can not find better deed than this what has already happened. And, to tell you the truth, I more and more believe in this, because the right things may happen is some parallel Universes, but in our happen only such things which are bound to happen!
And now let me turn your attention to the religions, which are the major carriers of morality, and have to teach the people how to behave. Yeah, and what teaches us the Christianity? Hm, nothing important! It tells us fables, makes efforts to make people behave frightening them with eternal torments (what is
necessary, a can't deny this, because we tend to behave very bad, I will come to this at another chapter), but everything is so naive that even if one wishes, one can't produce a reasonable thought, no, the humans are only sheep for this religion. Then let us take the Islam. There one learns in the Koran a heap of wise thought (or cracks), their Allah is more
atheistic, He is like Spirit of the Universe (He is not pictured, this is too naive for those
clever people -- because I have come before about a decade or more to the possible relation of our Slavonic 'misl' as thought and the beginning of 'Muslman' as Muslim), so that it is
based on profound thinking (not on repeating of fables)! And then before it were the: Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and probably other Eastern religions, which are much more thoughtful than even Islam, because they are also theo
sophies (I am speaking here as a laic, or rather as
intelligent laic, like I call myself sometimes, but I do not invent fables). Nearly all, what these ancient religions tell, is believable and
logical. Let us cast a glance at their main paradigm, the meditation.
Because, what is the meditation? Ah, this is a way to put oneself
in the middle of Universe, that's it! You can look at your navel, or at a trembling leaf of a tree (why not?) but the idea is to present with your body exactly this small ball (about which I have already spoken), which is pulled by various forces from all possible sides, and to begin to think what you have done in the day, or will do in the next one, and how this affects the others around, that's it in a nut's shell. So that this is the right behaviour! While the contemporary business environment and competitiveness of
all Western countries, either detach us from human environment, or make us behave even more egoistic to the others, heaping money for no purpose, just to show our ability to cheat the others around.
But probably enough moralizing, let me go further to the question of life and death.
6. Why is the death?
In a way, in order to
support the life! Because, as I have discussed this, the cycles must be closed, and if the cycle life - death is not properly closed many cataclysms occur (like now this overpopulation). It is not only silly to dream about everlasting life, but there will be
nothing good in it, if this can somehow happen. After the problem with the reproduction of living objects was solved (by the dear God, ha-ha) the death has remained only
necessary and unavoidable. If we were able to live forever then we must have given no birth, because forever is already enough, where adding to this also unlimited number of beings would have been real insanity. And, after all, when we can reproduce ourselves then our new copies are living
after us, this is practically the
way to immortality! Also this is a better way than to remain unchangeable forever, because this allows changing, evolution, life, with one word! We may object that our posterity are not exactly we, we can't feel what they will feel, and so on, but this is the best that we can have (because we can also not break the cause - effect relationship and go back in time, yet manage somehow to swallow this "inconvenience").
And, people, try to be more careful with the infinity (in whatever meaning), because this is, so to say, measure for our
lack of knowledge, like also the probability (which gives good picture of the general set of events, but not of each concrete case). This is usually invented and symbolic notion, where really exist very big (or also small) quantities, and here this means to live for, say, a thousand of years. Ah, this would have been better, right? Yet, hm, I
wouldn't say so, I am now a bit over the 70 and I surely do
not wish to live for another 70 years, believe me! Because, there has to be some comparativeness between the phase of climbing and that of falling down, and if one learns (to live) about 20 years, one must become used with the process of slow
dying, incessant losing of one's abilities, for more or less so much years (usually in the range of 10 to 30 years, but not more). (And some people are lying for 10 years or so in bed, paralyzed or with some incurable disease, and they do not want to die, but are hardly very glad to live, their way of living is quite away from what they have been done in their youth.) In short, I think that the best what we could have wished is to live till about 100 years, but for the current stage of medicine probably 90 is already pretty good. And then to die ... fast, like the ancient people have remarked, when it comes to really dying (the best variant being in one's sleep), else to be able to lead full with events life.
Further, I can't avoid to mention many misconceived ideas of ours, beginning with the
euthanasia (acheless death), where we have gone just
back from the customs of ancient nations (I suppose chiefly because of the Christianity). Surely when one is not asked whether he (or she) wants to be born (what is only formally said, of course), he must have the right to leave this world when he wants it so strongly; this just must be legalized and formulated reasonable rules for doing this (with confirmation of the wish, say, 3 times, by not less then a month between them, etc., but if one is above at least 60 -- something of the kind). Also I can't cease to wonder how the people can
want to live forever in the other world (if this is possible, of course), because for me the very notion "forever" is
disgusting, this must be insufferable
torment! While the ancient Eastern idea about rebirth is much more appealing and logical, after all, this confirms the changing of elements between various living objects, not constant life but something different, looking at the Creation each time through different eyes (and I personally would have
died to have the possibility to be reborn as ... cockroach, they are my constant enemies in my quarters, I would have wanted to perceive deeper why they are such beings that they are).
And some longer life after the death, symbolically, like also via the posterity, in fact
exists, yes, this is in the
remembrances of the people who have known us, in our relatives and close friends! The body is destroyed and left aside but the memory remains, and people can retain (if they only want) also some ... bones of the deceased, or their ashes, or, then, the tomb; this is not much, but, still, is something. (I have even an idea for a SF story, if will find some time for this, where will be stored and kept some psychic or
mental picture of everybody, some coding of his main characteristics, abilities, knowledge, way of speaking, together with the appearance, not only for the dead but for who wants too, and then this information can be loaded in some computer memory and used some program, so that the original person will be imitated! Yes, even today is possible to lead dialog with computer program, so why not after a pair of centuries?)
Also, people, do not forget the question of the
overpopulation, because for about a pair of centuries this is what causes the main problems for us, but we are so silly that can't grasp this and continue to maintain visibility of busy life, producing a heap of not really necessary things, and finding in this way work for not really necessary enormous number of inhabitants on the Earth. I have pondered about this before about a quarter of a century and have come to the conclusion that the proper number of people on the whole world must be about
100 millions, at least because this is the usual population of one big country, and the world more and more becomes one big country. Yes, but we are coming to about
100 times bigger world population and I have told you earlier my rule that if something is changed more than 2-3 times then this is already bad. So that we are bound to think (we can't rely always on the dear God, who has sent us this time the Corona virus, no, we have become too intelligent to fight with Him, and to ... lose in the end, of course). We have to do something, because enough is enough, and there
is a difference whether we will kill some billion spermatozoa, or some million people, isn't it? And, after all, the life is temporary, it exists and ceases to exist, while the death exists
always, there are necessary pretty special conditions for the appearance of life, we must not doom to failure the higher life (at least) on Earth, just because of our inability to grasp the
importance of the death, yes, but only when it is necessary! We can't fight overpopulation with ... overpopulation, this may lead only to bigger cataclysms and chaos.
7. Why people are bad?
Yes, really, why many people are bad and often do evil things? Because we have spoken about the good and the bad generally, they are mutually related in whatever aspect, build one dimension, the one can't be separated from the other, and if there is not bad in a given sense then we can't discern also the good, this characteristic is simply missing! Also it is silly to speak about good or bad ... stone, for example (unless we take all stones that do not fall on our head for good, right?), the unanimated matter reacts according to the action, it does
not accumulate or distort, this is obvious and there are physical laws about this (as well I also have discussed these things in my "cynical" essay about the Creation), so that how you hit a stone, with the same force and in the opposite direction it "hits" you. Plus that I have shortly mentioned that everything is justified, because there are many participants that must be taken into account, and the existing world is the best possible of all that could have arisen. It can also be said that if God has done all the good on this world, then He must have done also everything bad on it, too; yeah, it is not easy to be a god, there will always be found some unbeliever like your author, who will convince You in evil doings.
Still, it is something more that can be added to the common judgments. Like that the bad is
corrective for the good, it speaks about bad functioning of the whole
system, because all systems must function as
smoothly as possible, and if one of the parties suffers more than necessary, then the whole system is badly built! (Say, the wolfs have not to eat more than necessary number of sheep or rabbits, there must always remain enough alive and kicking herbivores. And it usually happens exactly so with the animals, only the more intelligent -- yet
not enough -- human beings cause problems and cataclysms.) What means that the nature does not want on purpose to be rough, this is not economically enough (e.g., the hurricanes spend much
energy, after them everything calms for a long time), but if there happen big differences in the temperature on adjacent places the "dear God" is obliged to sent a pair of such strong winds (with feminine names) to settle the situation.
And now to the humans: why many of us continue to be bad to our neighbours, and do even evil deeds? Ah, there are several reasons. For one thing they want to prove their own superiority, and it is proved with force, to be sure! Also one feels happier
on the contrast of the sufferings of the others, this raises one's self-esteem, naturally. Another reason is that most evil doers are usually young people (the old ones are not really
doers, they become more and more just lookers), and the younger are
sillier, it can't be otherwise. And there is the next (and also obvious for me) reason, that the good and bad, as I have already mentioned this, are placed
near one to the other, the distance between them -- in the closed (often via the infinity) modal scale -- is shorter than that from the very positive feelings to the neutral position! Try to see this, please, but I have had many occasions to mark that it is exactly like I am saying it, and because of this most of the people (and almost 100 % of the women) change their views from positive to maximally negative! And this is important, because the living objects, as said, accumulate their feelings, and when they turn to the opposite, they turn to
revenge, which does not disappear (it is like a kind of energy, it changes its form but does not disappear), no, it only searches its way to come to actions.
While if one was a bit clever than one is, one could have tried to come to neutral position, or to understand the different position of his opponent, or to avoid the doings, or to wait for some time more, or then to consult some advisers and /or sacred texts (in this sense even the Christianity is good enough), so that to find the way to some
loving of the opponent (say, because he defends his positions, and has also his rights to live). Usually this is said shorter (but also true) as the statement that: one does evil things because one
does not know how to do good ones! Yes, but did you get it why? Ah, because if one does good deeds one will be
remembered with good, and (again as already mentioned) the remembrance is the only sure "life" after death (and we will never escape from the nails of the death)!
Still, I have not finished this topic, because there exist situations which are
favourable to doing bad or evil deeds, and I have relatively shortly come to this conclusion, yet the religions have come to it in deep antiquity and have taken their measures. Are you beginning to feel me or not? Ah, I mean here the power or strength, or rather the
over-exaggeration of the power, and the religions have come to the necessity of prayers and ...
humiliation of the believers! Have you got it, and its deep dialectical ties? Well, the mechanism is simple: if one is stronger than necessary, he begins to want to be
detached from the environment, to think himself for the dear God, to forget about all possible revenge, and in this way he begins to act unreasonably (and is sooner or later punished for this)! While this, what the religions want from all believers, is to be humble, meek, obedient, and sure that will be punished, if not on this world, then on some other, and this frightening helps in most of the cases. Yes, only that such behavior today is simply not ... democratic, we must learn to behave by reasoning, not by delusion of church authorities; the humiliation is debasing, while the reason is elevating.
This is almost all. I want only to show to you clearly and unmistakably those people and
nations, that have the most evil-doing behaviour. I will not play hide and seek here, the biggest evildoers in the world are the world gendarmes, the Americans, surely, because they are still the stronger nation, yet this is only a matter of time, methinks, so that God will solve the problem and will find another strong nation. Most probably this will be the Chinese, what will
not be such nice decision, for the simple reason that they, although much more peaceful than the Americans, are multiplying themselves like -- I beg to be excused -- ... cockroaches (yes, like the constant inhabitants of my quarters)! On the other hand I can tell you also which nation is the best and peaceful and weak and so on, and this is my poor Bulgarian nation, which country will pretty soon
disappear from the map of the world, because we are all emigrating abroad (e.g., for the last 10 years we have diminished with 11.5 %)! If you are interesting why we are the best nation of the world then read my essay "About Bulgarian barbarity", but briefly it is reduced to the statement (only my, for the moment) that we are so barbarous that
can't unite ourselves to do whatever evil, we even need foreign rulers to govern over us! That's it, and with your permission, I will finish this chapter with the following small verse:
All nations bad are, must be cursed,
Americans, yet, are the worst!
8. Conclusive sentences
OK, I have finished the major part of this conglomerate philosophical essay, discussing such questions like: what is the purpose of Creation, why everything moves, why the cycle is necessary everywhere, what is briefly the dialectics, how we have to behave in order to be counted for good, why the death is necessary, and why there are so many people who are doing bad deeds? These questions intermingle one with the other, and the thing about which I am chiefly glad is that my approach was pretty scientific yet
untraditional, without special terms and long boring explanations. And I am explaining these things because most people usually have quite distorted view of the subject, where I am convinced that they must be better educated. Id est, these things must be taught in school, not in the primary classes, of course, but in the 10-th (and to the 12-th). And how has this to be done?
Ah, this must be called worldview, or philosophy and beliefs, or something similar, and in it must be explained 3 (probably out of 5 or more) religions,
including the atheism! Why the latter? Because the real atheists (not just the unbelievers) are, in fact,
believers, they simply believe that god or gods can not exist, but this is a statement that can neither be proved,
nor disproved! In this way the students will have opportunity to
compare and chose the preferred by them variant. But not as real believing, no, just as way to
understand the world! And exactly here lies the difficulty, because most people simply prefer to be
deluded with something (with the democracy, with some religion, with sincere love, and so on), not to look with open eyes at the subject. But I think that in the era of Internet and cell phones people have to begin to be more
unprejudiced, and to take the religions like some nice and motivated rituals, come to life in order to support and help the people in their sufferings and everyday life, yet not as real believing. Yes, but the bad moment here is that the grown people become
more naive than the little children (who just like, say, Santa Claus, or Easter, etc., but do not really believe in such fables). And as to the dialectical materialism let me tell you that this might have been communist discipline, yet it was
not invented by them, it comes from two thousand years back and provides very good view at the world.
Be it as it may, this is the end of the prosaic part, and it follows only the Poetical appendix, which contains exactly 100 lines! (With the remark that the char "º" is used below for making of additional syllable, similarly to the apostrophe, "'", used for missing of character.)
May 2022
9. Poetical appendix:
A bit of philosophy
-- 0 --
Theºre is a sciºence called philosoph`y,
that pretends to know aboºut all a bit.
It is pretty fuzzy, cannot be exact,
but that it's important, this is proven fact.
It is surely boring, just to sit and think,
yet to wise men knows it pleasure how to bring.
Means its name that prefer`abºle's to be soft,
what is so because strong actions failed quite oft.
Let us cast a look profoºund but not much
at some of its questions, that I'll slightly touch.
-- 1 --
What is first the
purpose of Creation whole?
Why's the Earth, the stars, the life, the trees, the wind?
Ah, the purpose
limits, it's the final goal,
while the future is a fruit that has no ... rind!
Everything must, hence, be built withoºut sight
at the future possibºle effects of it;
th'very matter grows or shrinks, gives blows, is hit,
and let happen what is destined, what just might!
Th'method used in the process is
bottom-up,
the resources mixed are in enormous cup,
and what happens drives us further, like with club.
-- 2 --
Why's the movement then, incessant, everywheºre?
At a macro level, but in-th' atoms, too.
Run the stars and suns, fall stones, blow winds in-th' aºir,
moving is like breathing, standing's forced, taboo!
It is so: the movement, this is
energ`y!
All the particºles in this way carry
with themselves ...
accumulators! Fairy
the Creation is, this looks like magic, gee!
Hence the matter moves, but sometimes also bursts,
'cause itself in energy at once converts,
what can be the best, or, then, can be the worst!
-- 3 --
Why is then the cycºle, this is what I ask,
present at all levels? It's returning, hey!
Ah, because the movement sometimes must be masked,
and the winding gives a longer but good way!
Running on the place provides a slight increase
in direction other, this is
evolutºion,
what's the surest way t'avoid the revolutºions,
and the movement is preserved, it does not cease!
Yet the cycles must be closed, do not forget!
Not obeying this 's-like crossing by light red.
'Cause they
will be closed, but we will more blows get!
-- 4 --
`And what is the very diºalectics?
I'll say picture of elastic ties that pull
every thing to opposite sides, hectic;
so's this modºel precious, magnificºent tool!
In this way is everything pulsatºion,
in dynamics 's-equilibriºum maintained,
nothing's constant, everything is to be blamed
for malfunctioning, and no end-statºion!
Also in the social sphere is this true,
nothing's isolated, and you must feel blue,
if to other persons something bad you do.
-- 5 --
Let us to the right behavior noºw come.
But it's easy, you must th'others not ignore;
to
reflect what they think is a rule of thumb,
also what they think
you think, and further more!
'Cause forgetting th'other's wishes often leads
to
accumulating peopºle's curses, hatred,
the
revenge is suitabºle conditºions waiting,
and it turns that you alone have sown bad seeds.
Theºre's in additºion also this nuance,
that returning's not exact and not at once,
so that to be hit a next of kin has chance!
-- 6 --
Ah, and why the death is also destined us?
Or we do not live three hundred yeºars?
Less life than a century to me's not just,
and such God for me is not much deºar!
Yet the death
supports the life and helps a littºle,
generations lead to immortality,
ouºr flesh goes deep in the eternity,
and the shorter's life, the greater is it riddºle!
In this way is every day a wonder,
we are moving through the life like thunder,
and don't care to be buried under.
-- 7 --
Why the peopºle bad are, ask I in the end?
Well, for one thing, on the contrast they feel better,
then are only enviºous to theºir friends,
while to be afraid of them 's-a thing that matters!
Yet this happens oºut of
exaggeratº
ion
of the powºer, so that this distorts the ties,
that relate them with the world, hence this is why
they behave so bad and lose orientatºion!
What's reduced to this, that good are who are
weak,
respectively bad are who are strong and big,
and forgetting th'others theºir interest seek.
-- 8 --
In this way I for a while gave lessºons
in the dialectics for to lessºen
all the problems to embrace this sciºence,
if approached with your brains in alliºance,
'cause it of importance is
enorm,
when your worldview must the best have form.
Even if it's not exact but fuzzy,
it explains well many secrets, puzzºles;
when aboºut qualities it goes,
precious is like freshly opened rose!
The philosophy's the only solace
for profoºund thinkers, who with more lust
rush to grasp the hiddºen causes. Call us.
May 2022