<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Explaining
the previously unexplainable<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">20241101<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraph" style="margin:12pt 0cm 12pt 36pt"><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Part
I. Western approach <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Thanks to Peter, we now
have a name for the monster we had been hunting for so long: Assembly of
circular feedback loops (ACFL) . What a funny technical name for life. As we
create a numeric model of life, we begin small.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The central idea of the
system „ACFL” is that there is a structural something in it that causes the
feedback loops to exist. The system is not idly resting in its ideal end state.
It has always something to try to regulate better. If by no other means, we can
try to understand the system by its diverse forms of malfunctioning, as Peter
suggests. <span></span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The rhetorical challenge<span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">From a viewpoint of
rhetoric, one stands before an exercise for which there is a precedent.
Copernic, Giordano Bruno, and Galileo worked on different aspects of the same message,
namely that the Teaching is wrong and should be partly rewritten, using new
perspectives. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The message these three
gentlemen said was roughly:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The Teaching is
factually erroneous. The Teaching is only an excuse to maintain power of
oppression. Notwithstanding the errors of the Teaching, let us utilize the true
facts. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">See who had a fine life,
corresponding with some selected Learned Friends, who again got the heavy
response of the Keepers of the Teaching, and who at the end narrowly got away
from them, into house arrest. Copernic kept his discretion, knowing that those
who speak do not know, those who know do not speak. Bruno went all in and paid
the price of speaking truth to power. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">We are presently at the
stage of Galileo. We obviously see that the Teaching has run aground on the unforgiving
shores of Biology, and has a gaping hole under water regarding its credibility
in all things biologic. There is no way to explain biology by only using the
tools Teaching permits.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Galileo wrote in
everyday prose that he assembled glasses in a pipe and looked through. His
contemporaries were interested (and intellectually honest) enough to redo the
exercise and convince themselves that the moons of Jupiter indeed circle Jupiter
and not the Earth, as Teaching says they would do. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Now, in our situation, professional
courtesy would suggest that one does first look through a telescope and contemplate
afterwards, whether all heavenly bodies circle the Earth or not. In our case,
one does not need two lenses and a pipe, but 12 books. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Watching the movements
of the books as they are reordered from author - title into title - author and
retour, one will meet what Galileo called the Medici planets, albeit in the
form of the numeric values of 1, 11, 32, 66, 97, 136, 140.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">For 12 random objects
with 2 properties, chances are about ¾ that one finds meaningful cycles. Repeat
the exercise a few times. <span></span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="2" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Medici moons and the Marijuán constants<span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The bedrock stones of
the argumentation, which should be called Marijuán structural constants, show the
main points of the translation function between similar and different. Humans
use different neurological procedures and practices to count similarities
before a background of diversities, as contrasted to counting diversities
before a background of similarities. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Counting anything relies
on good faith. One should not use divergent backgrounds for measuring without
attending to the bias resulting from the artefact. (One does not allow a drug
to market if it does not differentiate for the different physiologies of smokers/drinkers.
If extraterrestrials made an inventory of Earth and concluded that humans are
on average 163 cm and 78 kg, we would consider the visitors to be morons, because
they did not count the length – mass coefficients separately for female and
male humans. Also, these aliens could not understand that there are <i>two </i>average values for body lengths and <i>two </i>average values for body mass. Their
calculations would make no sense, because they would always refer to <i>one </i>central element, instead of to at
least <i>two.</i>)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Our present conflict is
not about Earth or Sun. The whole system is neither Earth- nor Sun-centered. It
has an inner duality within itself. We simply read the sentence <i>a + b = c </i>in
the form of <i>2(a + b), </i>by redistributing the right side to the elements
of the left side. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The rule we use is the
rule you experience as you move one of your books from its old place to its new
place. <span></span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="3" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Romantic relations among
books<span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Note that <i>anything </i>that has a pair of properties shared to
different extents with its peers will establish * relations with some selected
of its peers, depending on the periodic changes that affect the assembly.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In case the relation denoted * above has not been named yet, one may
suggest the name of <i>romantic </i>relationship that connects members of a
cycle. The numeric value of the romantic relationship is called the <i>lien</i>
of the cycle. The logical existence of the romantic and the numeric existence of
the liens make up the system of <i>Romantic Liaisons Due To Periodic Changes.<span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The system of Liaisons is a part of the relations among natural numbers.
(The mnemonic of ‚romantic‘ comes from the bonmot of reordering the library.
Please make separate lists of the books that come in the same cycle. Would you
have thought that a cookbook, a novel and a dictionary… etc. are romantically
related? There are liens among such elements that are members of the same cycle
of a reorder. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The liaisons among symbols are there, as your own deictic movements have
defined the concept. You cannot deny what you have experienced. Even in case if
the cookbook, the novel and the directory have since been reordered and are
anywhere, the fact remains that these 3 have a <i>romantic </i>relation, which has a numeric value for each of the
partners, and has a trigger switch that activates this of the many romantic
relations that the cookbook, the novel and the dictionary have to their
partners in different other cycles. It is a small, little, well-kept romantic secret
that cookbook, novel, dictionary belong together, but their relation exists and
can be realized to conditions previously agreed whenever fate such commands or
periodic changes make it happen. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">So far the introduction to the idea of counting concurrently in two
interrelated systems of symbols, expressed in terms of Western concepts, analogies,
and precedent.</span></p></div></div>