The overrating of language and theory


Suppose the best physicist also mathematician ever presents us tomorrow one single A4 page with written on that a few very beautiful mathematical equations that explain really every physical phenomenon, so the 4 natural forces, maybe even the force of life!? And every physicist is convinced by that single page.
Then physics is complete, finished. Do we also become any wiser then? Actually that single A4 page might be already there if all physicists would cooperate. Does it really any matter?

According to me, we attach too much value to language and theories in the West. According to me, they do not say us really much. According to me, you often do not know why you know or understand.

Let me start with art. Suppose you like van Gogh, like I do. Why do you love these paintings? Is it the colours? Other painters use the same colours but are less beautiful for you. Is it the subjects of the paintings? Other painters paint the same things, in the same colours, and still are not that beautiful for you.
There is no reason. You just like it or not. And why, you do not know. It is like loving or not liking chocolate or cheese. It fits you or not, and why, you do not know. You have an own form, obviously!

The same is true if it concerns understanding, I think. You understand the shoe, because you see that form fits your foot. Would you be a human on an other planet, with a mind but a body without legs and feet, then you would not understand our shoe. And a theory would not help you either. A picture of an earthly human body stepping in his shoes, that is understanding.

Understanding often is an act of our body. Your body knows the steps of the stair and the bike and the piano. Knowledge then is in your body, your legs, your arms, your fingers. The theory then does not really matter.

Language also is a simple thing, as simple as reality is. Reality is nothing but parts, space-parts with a form, which forms fit and suit other forms, like the nut fits the bolt, the shoe fits the foot, the man fits the woman, the fish fits the water, the flower fits the light, the electron fits the proton et cetera. Between these space-parts, relations play, workings and every working is nothing but a fitting of forms.

That also is how we picture reality in language. For the parts and their properties, we use nouns. And all these workings are expressed as verbs.
Verbs and nouns, that is the essence of every language, nouns related by verbs, like reality is a relating, a working between partners.
And do you learn and know the 1000 most used nouns and the 100 most used verbs, then you will manage quite well in that strange country.

That is all we can say about language I think, in philosophical terms. For some philosophers, philosophy has become a study of language. These philosophers then overrate the meaning of language, I think. And actually that is an overrating of the human mind, an overrating also of the map we made of reality.

So what about this theory, the philosophy on this website? Is it also quite useless? Actually, the Relational View only uses some more words to say what is in this essay.

I, by the way, do not want to say that science is useless. But science is like a map of the area. Real understanding is lain in experiencing the area. You also need to know the area, or at least an area, in order to understand the map. The map is not an explanation, that is what I want to say, but only a description.

That single page of simple formulas explaining everything else, then would describe the basic-working of our reality, so actually the proton-Electra-electron trinity. Because if you really understand what is happening there, then you would understand everything else as well, I think. And though we probably never will understand the proton-Electra-electron trinity the way we understand the bolt-screwing-nut trinity, we nevertheless need a kind of qualitative description of what is happening there between proton and electron; only then that single A4 page has a meaning.
All trinities are form-fitting-form trinities. So the proton-Electra-electron trinity obviously is the basic form-fitting-form trinity, the mother of all form, the mother of all fitting as well, and all working. And we can not picture that, kind of feeling at the most. Feel all the kinds of fitting together, the basic of all fitting.
But why then is there something? It anyhow is a fact that a reality, any reality, in order to exist, first of all needs a kind of proton-electron duality. Unity (eternal nothing) must be broken so that a working can start to play between the fitting partners. But then there still is a deeper Why. Why the unity was broken? Why not? Eternally being nothing is boring, and a short break then is fun. In theory.

This mother of all fitting, all working by the way is the working enclosing, and thus also being enclosed, because that is what all workings have in common. So maybe that is what is happening there on quantum-level, just an enclosing and a being enclosed? And is not it that, also for us humen? A wanting to be enclosed and to enclose? In the end?

end 1999 - beginning 2000

To SiteMapVersion
(if you see this page stand alone)