[Fis] A priori truths

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Sun Nov 18 13:16:13 CET 2018


A priori truths



Let me welcome Xueshan’s initiative and take the opportunity to give an
overview relating to the fundamental cultural agreements in force in Europe
till today, in their historical context.

During the first few centuries of the Christian age, there were several
conflicts among local dioceses and schools of faith. These were, some with
more, some with less violence, consolidated into what is now the general
idea of what is faith.

For Information Studies, of interest is one aspect of the alteration
between the so-called gnostic heresies and the opinion which managed to
remain the ruling, generally accepted basis of understanding the faith.
Formulated simply, the conflict was between adherents of “any member of the
flock of believers can recognise the divine creation at work behind the
apparitions” (they put it in the form of: “can any believer countenance the
divine features of the face of the Saviour”) against the view “you need
specialists who explain to you, how to understand correctly the divine
truths”. Seen from today, the question was, whether a job category, class,
profession, officialdom, hierarchy is needed or not in matters of religion
and faith. As we know, the bureaucrats have gained the upper hand and it is
a closed non-problem now that one needs priests to be a member of a church
which has priests, and every church does have priests, they state. The PR
damage is catastrophic for the gnostic side: the mainstream speaks of pagan
animalists, illusionists, charlatans or make-believers.

If we could put the egotistic and self-serving components of human
intelligence aside for a while, we would have to call the winning side to
have achieved victory not by reasoning only. If we can recognise a divine
work, then it is there. If we need specialists, who explain what is where
to see, then the thing to see is not a priori there. The organised faithful
have created a concept of an empty transcendence, where there is nothing
but that what is pointed out to you. This de-furnishing of the imagined
enveloping transcendent space is culturally axiomatic also in Arithmetic
and Geometry. At school, if they say we construct a Descartes space, we
invariably imagine it empty, unless otherwise instructed. The school of
thought “No a-priori truths” has won and establishes rationality by saying
so forcefully, repeating its mantra. They keep silent about the deep
atheism inherent in “you do not look anything into the realm behind the
world, there is nothing there, unless we say so”, thereby negating the
existence of God in any other fashion but as a mental creation, made up by
the apparat. Doing away with all of the false apparitions of God to the
weak in faith, they ended up by eliminating any and all kinds of concepts
of pre-arranged truths, be these divine or not.

This is insofar regrettable, as there exist many hints that it would be
more in harmony with Nature if we had an agreed imagination of the empty
space that is furnished with a huge number of a priori existing facts.

Wittgenstein builds up his argumentation from the basics of Sachverhalt und
Zusammenhang. Literal translations are: things-behave and together-hanging.
Usual translations are: fact, elementary fact, actual state of affairs,
and: relation, connection, context.

Now we have a web of Sachverhalten, which could be visualised as the
deposit boxes in a large storehouse, each with an address and a content.
What we have to find, are the Zusammenhaenge. We can mentally pre-structure
space by erecting rectangular axes which are scaled identically. Which
element is on which place in which moment is then a result of which orders
prevail. The inner relations among the elements and their places are given
by the concept of orders, and how the concepts of orders are permissive or
averse to each other. As we impose or detect an order, we find the
corresponding relations among the elements. The terms “order” and
“relations exist among elements” are definitions of each other.

Let me conclude by quoting an old proverb: “The first will end up being the
last”. This does reflect some egalitarian thought alive in early
Christianity and can give hope to a person in an uncomfortable situation.
Now we simply want to expand this proverb and investigate its general form:
“The *i-th* will end up being the *j-th, *once Order B gains over Order A”.
What we are interested in, are the adventures that the element encounters
while it transits from the *i-th *place in Order A into its new *j-th*
place in Order B, namely a. with which other elements constitutes its
journey a Zusammenhang – as they generate a cycle -, and b. which spatial
coordinates are transversed in such a fashion that the applicable spatial
slice, implicated by the existence of the coordinate, is generated. The
idea of Zusammenhang is now attached to the concept of cycles, and the
collection of Sachverhalte among which Zusammenhaenge are possible, is
generated by any and all orders that had been, have been, are, will
predictably be, or are implicated to become the case. The pixels on the
screen are the Sachverhalte, and we recognise their inner Zusammenhang if
the colors of the pixels represent cycles. The pixels are not all uniformly
grey but are pre-loaded reflecting their last few Zusammenhaenge.

It may be culturally unfortunate for a European, that a world view built up
on the most rational system that can be envisioned, that is, on the system
of natural numbers, turns out to have great resemblance to a polytheistic
construct. There is an incessant fight over the relative importance of *b-a
*or* a+b* over *b-2a *or *2a-3b, etc. *The Hindus and the ancient Greeks
had polytheistic concepts, where there was a continual, rhythmic rivalry
among the gods, representing principles of ordering the world.

The inner consistency of logic may still be beyond our intellect. What we
can do today, is to observe how some principles which have probably to do
with inner consistency, unveil themselves, as seen by their determining how
much of what is where and when, in case we decide to enter and shoulder the
scientific effort and do not shake but stir, repeatedly, a collection of
elements.

Conclusion: there is reason to take up the Gnostics’ side in the debate, by
stating that there exists a pre-arranged, a-priori structure behind Nature,
which any person can detect and describe, referring to facts and procedures
that are publicly known, like the natural numbers and the operation of
sorting.
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181118/6ce88043/attachment.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list