From body-mind dualism
to human-minding-world trinity

Yin-Tao-Yang trinity.

1. Basic concepts; Western dualism
When you start thinking about the essence of reality, it is important to first think well about well fitting basic concepts that can describe all aspects of reality, the material and immaterial aspects. These basic concepts must act like a strainer; everything must slip through it, except for the essence.
Actually, finding good basic concepts in itself already is understanding.

In the West, our starting-point then often is a thinking in opposite categories. A thing is either dead or alive, either organic or inorganic, it is physical or non-physical, male or female et cetera. And in philosophy it then is matter or idea, object or subject, body or mind. Body and brain then are physical, mind and ideas are supposed to be non-physical.

These Western basic concepts then exclude each other. The one concept can even be defined (partly) as the negation of the opposite concept; idea = not-matter, body = not-mind, brain = not-mind, mind = non-physical. And then you start by creating a gap, making it difficult to later bridge the gap again. It is like starting to build two separate buildings and trying to make it one building again while building.

2. The trinity of form-fitting-form
I do not see dualities in reality but trinities instead like bolt-screwing-nut, proton-Electra-electron, male-Eros-female, shoe-fitting-foot, foot-walking-road, boat-floating-water, flower-light-sun, eye-seeing-picture, ear-hearing-sound, brain-minding-world et cetera. Two forms with a (possible) working in between and that working always is a fitting of forms.
The two forms are different then, but also more or less the same. You can always have the bolt-nut couple (trinity) in mind then, and the trinities proton-Electra-electron, male-Eros-female and bolt-screwing-nut symbolize whole reality, nature, life and our culture.

The idea of the screw-thread.

Bolt and nut.

Every thing and every event in reality can be described in terms of forms and fitting of forms. The outside reality is forms and fitting of forms. The natural forces for example and also the force of life all play as a fitting of forms, as a relating. And roots fit in soil, leafs fit to air and light, the flower is formed as satellite dish fitting to light, fishes fit in water, the wings of birds fit on the air, water fits in river-beds et cetera. Forms that because of their shape fit to other forms, that is what we see everywhere.

Our relating with the outside world, so seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, eating, drinking, breathing, walking et cetera is a fitting of forms as well. Our eyes fit to light, our ears fit to sounds, our lungs to the air, our feet to the ground et cetera. Living always is fitting of forms. Dying is the end of the fitting.
And the activities inside our body, including nerves and brains, also are a fitting of forms, blood fits in veins, food in our stomach, bones fit in joints, signals fit in nerves, memories in brains et cetera. In the end we always find chemistry and electro-magnetism as fitting of forms. In the end we always find the proton-Electra-electron trinity.
Such a trinity as a whole then often is one of the partners again in a trinity on a more superficial level like proton-Electra-electron trinities (atoms) are partners in molecules, and like the axle-rolling-hub trinity fits as wheel in the wheel-fitting-fork trinity, and like the human-fitting-bike trinity is partner in the cyclist-cycling-road trinity.

Thus the dualities and polarities we everywhere see, actually are trinities, form-fitting-form trinities. They are not just forms, but fitting forms, partners in one working. The partners are like the two ends of a line; there actually only is that line then, a finite line with two ends. There is just one working. An enclosing and a being enclosed, that is what we often see. The electron encloses the proton like the nut encloses the bolt and like the egg encloses the semen and the woman encloses the man, and later on the child.

So I am not speaking of things with a form, but just of forms. Is there something like matter inside the forms? According to physics, based on facts, matter is just a form of energy, and energy is space-time movement. Mass can change into light-energy according to E = mc2, and light is just form; it anyhow has no mass, and matter therefore does not really objectively exist. Matter is just an appearance of energy.

But there anyhow is form, because even the immaterial light has a form, of a wave. So with form I not only mean concrete forms but also more abstract forms like air, water, light, soil, sound, taste, smell and even temperature as form; the fur of a polar-bear perfectly fits the (form of) coldness.
Even our mind has a form, also can be formed by education and experiences. If you do not know the Chinese characters then your mind does not fit to the Chinese language. But after having learned the real forms these characters point at, your mind has a new form, now also fitting Chinese.

Fitting forms, that is what we see everywhere. When the fitting is visible, like the nut to the bolt, then we easily understand the working, so the idea of the screw-thread. The forms of proton and electron however, can not be seen, and we can not yet imagine these forms either. But Electra anyhow is a fitting of forms, like life and Eros are. And an electron anyhow is an enclosing form, the proton a being enclosed. So we do understand, but not completely. We just can not imagine all the forms and fitting of forms used by nature; we in a way are too superficial for that, too big as well.

When you see trinities instead of dualities, there no longer is a gap between for example male and female, but a bridge instead. The man also is the woman, needs the woman to be man, like a nut no longer is a nut but just a ring if there were no bolts.
You see a difference in form then but a unity in the working. And it always turns on the working. It is the working you buy a bolt-nut couple for and not the material. Would the two partners be melted together, so without possible working in between, then you would not buy the thing, then it would not even be a bolt and nut but just a useless piece of material. It always turns on the working, the immaterial fitting, the relations in nature.

In that fitting of forms, all workings of reality play, like rolling, floating, flying, swimming, diving, melting, warming, burning, exploding, opening, rooting, growing, walking, sitting, sleeping, washing, cycling, breathing, life, Eros, chemistry, Electra, but also seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and even understanding. They are different workings, but all have one aspect in common, they all play as fitting of forms.

3. Fitting as fact; idea as form
In Western philosophy we make a distinction between the physical facts in the outside world (including body and brain) and the non-physical mental pictures in our mind. Physical facts are objective material facts in our Western matter-idea view, or in the case of events at least partly material. The bolt is a fact, the nut is a fact, the working bolt-nut couple also is a physical fact.

But how about the fitting itself, the screwing itself, so the idea of the screw-thread that plays in the emptiness? That immaterial fitting itself also is a physical fact, like the immaterial field of light is a physical fact, and like the immaterial force of life is a physical fact. The difference between a dead body and that same body alive, is an immaterial difference. But life of course is a physical fact, it is a fitting of forms, a relating. I am not saying that we understand life now, I only say that it plays as fitting of forms, like Eros and Electra. And that immaterial fitting is a physical fact.

The cycling also is a fact.

There also are pure immaterial facts in reality and these immaterial facts even are fundamentally important. Everything is turning on these workings.
Think of a bike for example, or a body as machine. Suppose you make a bike out of one piece of material, a statue of a bike. It very well is possible then to give that statue the appearance of a real bike. However, it is not a real bike of course because it does not work.
In order to make it a working bike, you must create a lot of emptiness in that statue, emptiness with all kinds of forms, emptiness in the form of screw-threads between bolts and nuts, in the form of empty tubes between axles and hubs and around the crank-axle and inside the steering-tube et cetera. These empty 'parts' are very essential, because it always turns on the emptiness.


Only if there is emptiness, a fitting is possible, a working. Suppose there only were neutrons in the cosmos? Nothing can be built of neutrons except for a big mass without any character or quality. First the unity must be split in two polarities, a proton and an electron with a working in between. Then creating becomes possible. So these immaterial facts are very necessary.

So though these empty parts, the workings, are immaterial, they nevertheless have a form like the idea of the screw-thread is a form, and like the immaterial field of light has a form, a wave-length at least. Or think of rolling in general? Is not the immaterial rolling a kind of form, differing from the forms flying, floating, falling, exploding et cetera? All these workings are a fitting of forms, but different forms of fitting since there are many different forms.

So actually there only are forms in reality, dynamical forms (workings) and statical forms (the things). Matter = statical form, idea = dynamical form. Inside bigger pieces of matter we by the way also see dynamical fitting, and in the end we always see the proton-Electra-electron trinity. In the end we even discover that there factually is no statical form. What we call static only is a statical appearance for a period of time.

Thus not only the objective material forms but also the immaterial workings playing between these forms are physical facts. There are relational phenomena in nature and these immaterial relations like life, Eros and Electra of course are physical facts, like all fitting of forms are physical facts.

4. The fitting of forms as the spirit of nature
When we talk of an idea, the idea of the screw-thread, the idea of the shoe or bike, we always have fitting of forms in mind. The fitting even is the essence of the shoe, the whole idea behind it, and the same is true for the chair, the bed, the bike et cetera. And also when we speak of spirit, the vital spirit, the spirit of techniques, it is a fitting of forms we have in mind.
When you dismantle a bike, you see trinities like bolt-screwing-nut, axle-rolling-wheel, chain-gearing-cogwheels et cetera. That fitting then is the spirit of bolt and nut or wheel and axle, the meaning, the significance, the idea, the purpose, the value, the quality. And the bike as a whole then fits our bodyform, forming the trinity cyclist-cycling-road or human-fitting-bike. That fitting as vehicle to the human then is the spirit of the bike, the idea behind it.

So spirit and ideas play as facts in reality, in the workings, always a fitting of forms. And by feeling the forms with your hands, a bolt for example and a perfect fitting nut, you even can feel and touch the spirit, grasp quality as well. So spirit too is a physical fact, an immaterial fact, however with a form.

The idea of the screw-thread becomes touchable.

This text too consists of forms, letterforms, or soundforms when pronounced, and the spirit of this text therefore also is lain in fitting of forms to each other, and to the things and events they describe. The letterforms of course also must fit to our knowledge, the form of our mind, but learning language too is seeing fitting forms. We see the round open vowel pictured in the letter O, the sharp hissing consonant in the S, and that is why and how we understand SOS and all other words. We have to learn the significance of the word SOS then of course or the significance of Chinese characters, but learning that also is seeing fitting of forms.
In China they picture the things in language, in the West we picture the sounds we use to speak about things. And there are thousands of different things but only about 25 different sounds to express these things. So our Western language is more clever, though also more abstract. Learning Chinese is seeing fitting of forms, but learning our abstract Western language also is seeing fitting of forms.

We see consonants enclosing vowels in a word, nouns enclosing verbs in a sentence. Thus, the structure of reality, form-fitting-form or form-working-form, is found back in language as the noun-verb-noun structure. And do you know the 500 most important nouns and the 50 most often used verbs then, then you will find your way well. How many different words do I really need to write this article, or any other article? Language anyhow plays as a fitting of forms.

The spirit of food, music, paintings, novels, movies and all arts too is lain in fitting of forms to each other, and in the fitting to us of course; water perfectly fits a dry tongue like music satisfies our soul. So we not only see but also hear, taste, smell and feel fitting of forms. And our understanding then is an insight, in sounds, taste or smell, a seeing of what is playing in the emptiness between the forms, the fitting, the working.

And do the forms fit perfectly, then we speak of beauty, sound, comfort, nice and quality in general. But good quality, a perfect fitting, also is truthful. And the other way around, if things do not fit well, while they are supposed to fit well, then this lack of quality also is untruthful. So a value-judgement can be scientifically true. But that is another chapter of philosophy (see also part 13. of this article).

Spirit and idea can be defined now as fitting of forms, as the relations in nature. And quality can be defined as the measure of perfection in fitting of forms, to each other and to us. Quality is both objective and subjective. We do not all like the same melody, like we do not all fit the same shoes. Not only our body but also our mind has a specific form and that is why we do not all fit to the same melody.

5. Our mind as sense organ for spirit
Imagine egg-shaped beings without legs and feet, moving over the surface of their planet bouncing like a ball, beings with a mind like our mind. They are humans then, but not earthly humans. These beings then will not easily understand our shoe or bike. They will understand the inner working of our bike, they see fitting of forms then, but will not understand the meaning of the bike or shoe. A shoe is just a box for them, a peculiarly formed box.

Earthly-human bike. Egg-shaped human beings.

They first need to know our earthly human bodyform in order to understand our shoes, trousers, chairs, bikes and other articles of use. So understanding then is seeing that forms fit to each other. Understanding a thing is situating the thing. And if you see an unknown form and you can not relate that form with some other form, then you do not understand the thing.

Now he understands our bike. Earthly human on bike. Now she understands our bike.

This also means that a bike or shoe is not objectively a bike or shoe but relatively, only for beings with a shape like our body. And the same is true for flowers, birds and all plants and animals. They only can act and be as flower, bird et cetera in conditions like on earth. Thus a flower too is not objectively a flower but also only relatively, in earthly conditions. The forms must fit.

Only the mathematical measures of a shoe or flower are objective. But calling such a form a shoe or flower then, is giving a relative judgement. The trinity shoe-fitting-foot then again is 'objective', also a true fitting for these egg-shaped beings. But then an immaterial thing, the fitting, is called objective.
According to me the concepts object and subject are obscure and therefore confusing. Speaking of objects is giving the impression that there is something like absolute matter inside the forms, which clearly is not the case according to physics. Speaking of forms therefore is much better, since forms are all we know. And in science we should speak of truth instead of objectivity; the shoe fitting the foot anyhow is a truth though a relative one. And the better the fitting the more truthful it is.

So understanding is seeing fitting of forms. And understanding itself also is fitting of forms. We in a way understand the shoe with our foot. We understand the shoe when we see our foot in it, and even better when we step in it. We understand this text when we see that letterforms fit to each other and to the things they describe, and to the form of our knowledge of course.

We understand when we see fitting of forms, so when we see the spirit of nature. Having ideas is seeing physical facts. Spirit is a physical fact. Our mind sees spirit, always fitting forms.

With our ordinary sense organs we see, hear, taste, smell and feel the forms like animals do. With our mind as extra sense organ we additionally see the fitting of forms. We see a tree-trunk on a hill or on water, we see a bird in the sky, we see the cover rattling on a pot with boiling water et cetera.
Monkeys then obviously only see separate forms. We also see fitting of forms, the workings of reality, the rolling and floating, so the wheel and the boat, the airplane in the bird, the steam-engine in the boiling pot, the camera in an eye, our chemicals in nature's chemistry et cetera.

We see ideas in nature. Our mind can be understood as an extra sense organ with which we see what is playing in the emptiness between the forms, always a fitting of forms. Our human spirit is a seeing of spirit.
Thus we do not need an extra category elevated above body and senses. We can understand our brain and mind in the same way we understand our eyes and seeing. The brain is like the eye, the minding is like the seeing. The miracle then still is how minding, seeing or living in general is possible, but it anyhow is a fitting of forms.

In that fitting of forms we also see harmony and regularity, the laws of nature, for example as relation between the circumference and diameter of a wheel, or the speed of light c as a space-time relation. Science is seeing and mapping.
The immaterial workings then of course also must be mapped. A rolling ball for example not only is that ball but also a rolling. The rolling is a physical fact that even will continue eternally if there was no friction. What we call cause and effect, often is such a continuation of a working.

6. We all are different forms and therefore fit to different forms
Especially in the philosophy of mind, the body-mind problem plays a fundamental role. One then starts by dividing reality into at the one side the physical facts in the material world including our brain, and on the other side the non-physical mental pictures in our mind. You then create a gap between body and mind and then it is difficult to later bridge the gap again. How then do we get ideas? How do we know that our ideas are true?

Then there roughly are two ways to bridge the body-mind gap and in the first solution one accepts a kind of inborn ideas or an inborn scientific ability in our mind as a guarantee for truth. But that does not solve the body-mind problem of course, on the contrary. Our mind then is kind of supernatural, setting us apart from the rest of nature, and then there not only is a body-mind gap but also a human-nature gap.

Many philosophers of mind therefore choose for the second kind of solutions, a physicalistic solution which means that for them everything is physics, so mind is physics as well. There only are physical facts for these philosophers, our brain activity also is such a physical fact and our mental picture as well.
In this physicalistic view at our mind however, there does not seem to be much left of human freedom and of the differences in opinions and tastes which clearly exist between people; we do not all like the same melody, like should be the case if physicalists are right.

It all depends on what we mean with physical facts, I think. Not only foot and shoe or bolt and nut are facts, but the fitting, the relation, also is a fact. It is an immaterial fact, however with a form, like the idea of the screw-thread is a form and like the immaterial field of light also has a form, at least the form of a wave. The fitting of forms also are facts and that is why we do not all see the same facts.
When two people look at the same car for example, one a skilled technician, the other a car-lover who does not know anything about techniques, then they indeed see the same object but also different facts. For the car-lover without technical knowledge, the engine is just one obscure form. For the mechanic however the engine is all kinds of fitting forms.

Red cabriolet.Blue jeep.Yellow van.

We are not all attuned to the same wavelengths in a manner of speaking. And nobody is attuned to all wavelengths, I think. We all are different body- and mind-forms and we all suit best to these other forms that suit to our own form.
It for example very well is possible that the car-lover never will succeed in becoming a good mechanic, no matter his efforts. These mechanical forms then do not fit his own form. He does not have an eye for it. But maybe he is a good musician and maybe the technician will never learn to dance. We not only have different body-forms but also different sense-forms. And mind also is a sense.

So also according to me, everything is physical facts. But spirit too is a fact. And our sensing of spirit also is a physical fact, a fitting of forms.

7. Color and the knowledge argument
Especially in the philosophy of mind, the body-mind problem is causing problems and puzzles, I already said that. Color is one of these problems.

First some physics. When we see something, we do not see matter but just immaterial light, a well-known fact. Visible sunlight consists of waves with different wavelengths, varying between ±4x10-7 and ±8x10-7 meter. The shortest visible waves are seen as violet, the longest as red, provided that you are not color-blind. All colors together give white light.
When we see a color, we actually see an interaction. A green ripening tomato for example absorbs (consumes) the red waves and the reflected light therefore lacks these red waves, resulting in a green appearance. So red waves obviously are ripening waves. A ripe tomato however no longer needs this red ripening light and therefore reflects it, resulting in a red appearance.

But why is that we see a long wave as red and a shorter wave as blue? I mean, as objective physical fact there only is that difference in length! Color is like music. Sounds too only are waves with different lengths. Why do we experience music and color in lengths?
Where is the color? Is it there on the tomato or only in our mind? For traditional Western body-mind or matter-idea philosophers, something either is a material fact, or an immaterial mindpicture. Color either is there on the thing, or in our mind.

But factually there is something playing in between, the seeing as coloring, the hearing as sound coloring. We do the same with everything. Food for example also only is lengths in a manner of speaking, molecules with a size and the like. We humans however in a way are coloring these sizes with taste and smell. We see 'music' in all kinds of fitting of forms. We see harmony in lengths and periods, harmony in space and time, and we enjoy this harmony much more than any other being. So color is a coloring and coloring is a fact.

This also is the solution for what is called the 'knowledge argument' in the philosophy of mind. This knowledge argument was invented by philosophers who did not want to accept a physicalistic solution for the body-mind problem. For physicalists everything is physics so mind as well. Mind then in the end is reducible to mathematical equations. For inventors of knowledge arguments and the like, mind however is more than only figures.
They, as a thought-experiment, invented a color-blind (actually color-blinded) scientist who had learned all the physical facts about color and color-vision, so without really knowing red or blue.
Then suddenly the scientist recovers from her color-blindness so that for the first time in life she really sees what red is. She learns a new fact then, while already knowing all the physical facts.
So physical facts are not the only facts, was the argument. Redness is a fact, but not a physical fact, and mind therefore is more than just physics; mind is more than only object.
The physicalists then of course came with counter-arguments "redness is not a fact" for example "but just an interpretation of a fact" and the result still is a seemingly endless discussion.

The solution is lain in seeing that the seeing itself also is a physical fact, like all fitting of forms. After being recovered from color-blindness, the scientist herself has a new form, now also fitting colors. Her mind and even her brain has a new form, now minding colors as well.
The scientist in the knowledge argument actually was not color-blind but color-blinded; she grew up in a black and white room, with only black and white things, pictures and tv- and computer-screens. (How about mirrors? Actually, the situation in the thought-experiment only is possible if the light in the room only consisted of grey waves, and is that possible?) She anyhow never saw color until released from her room.
But also then the explanation is lain in a new fitting of forms, a new fact. Meeting the colorful outside world then is meeting new forms, new light especially, and such a new fitting then is a new physical fact.
We also can think of an astronaut who grew up with only space-food, tasteless fuel in a manner of speaking. When first smelling and tasting bacon and eggs, he experiences a new physical fact, a new fitting of forms. The picture in his mind will also change then, his mind will have a new form, now also minding smell and taste.

So physicalists partly are true in saying that everything is physical facts. But they are wrong in saying that only objective material facts are physical facts. The seeing, the hearing, the tasting, the smelling and even the understanding and minding also are physical facts, like all fitting of forms.

I believe that philosophers who invent knowledge arguments and the like, can not accept our human mind as just a passive machine, and I agree. They want to defend our human freedom and creativity. In this relational view, this human freedom is guaranteed. We all are different forms and therefore fit to different forms. We also can change our own form, especially our mind-form. We can learn to adapt. Our minds can be formed.

8. One spirit
The fitting always plays in the emptiness, and an atom is empty for more than 99,99 percent. Our body too therefore is almost completely empty.
We do not see and feel this emptiness because our sense organs are too big in a manner of speaking. Nevertheless this emptiness is a fact and every emptiness also is connected with every other emptiness. It is like the background of this text; all empty spaces between and even inside the letters form just one emptiness. So there is only one emptiness pervading everything, and in this emptiness all workings are playing, from screwing to Electra.

We see what is playing in this emptiness, the fitting of forms and then we understand the things and their functioning. And that seeing itself also is a fitting of forms, like life in general is a fitting of forms; our feet fit to the surface, our eyes fit to light, our ears fit to sounds et cetera.
And inside our body it is exactly the same, blood fits in veins, air fits in lungs, food in our stomach, bones fit in joints et cetera. And signals fit in nerves like memories fit in brains, always as a fitting of forms. And all these fitting of forms, inside and outside, play in one and the same emptiness.

So the ideas we see in nature, always a fitting of forms, are stored in our mind as a fitting of forms as well; not in protons and electrons themselves anyhow, but in what is playing in between, chemistry and Electra.
How exactly is this information, this picture, stored then in our brain? Anyhow as a fitting of forms. Maybe in the form of a holographic picture? When you look through a microscope at a holographic picture of for example a car, you do not see that car but just concentric ring-patterns, circles. Comparable with what you see on the surface of a smooth lake after having thrown several stones in it; every stone then causes a ring-pattern of waves, spreading out over the surface and the patterns also start to influence each other. That is how a holographic picture looks like. So maybe that also is the way our brain stores our mindpicture, as a wave-pattern? New information then is a new stone in the lake, having influence on the whole pattern in the end. This article is supposed to be a big stone.

With our mind we dwell in the spirit of nature, one spirit that pervades everything. We can dwell in the outside world, but also in the inside world in our body and head, and we always see fitting of forms. And there in the emptiness, there is no border between inside and outside, so you and the world. There is just one emptiness, one spirit. And this emptiness is always and everywhere filled with light or Electra.

9. The relational view as spiritual view
Light surely is something but it is not material; a vacuum too is filled with all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, radio-waves for example from all over the world. These waves are immaterial but do have a form. And our receivers, amplifiers and speakers then transform these immaterial waveforms into music and other sounds.
The radio then materializes the immaterial forms. And sun-energy can be the driving force then; light materializes herself then. Idea becomes thing all by herself, if you know what I mean. Light creates.

In the beginning there only was light on earth, without flowers and eyes yet. Now we have a multitude of different shaped flowers and eyes. And all these different forms have one aspect in common, they all fit to the same earthly light.
So the immaterial relational phenomenon light defines, together with other immaterial forcefields (gravity for example), the forms of all eyes and flowers on earth. Light also is responsible for temperature and other weather-conditions, and these conditions as well define the forms of earth's nature. The immaterial 'need to fit' defines the forms then, including the form of the human. Idea defines form.

Idea defines form.

And all our articles of use too must be understood in such a spiritual way. It is the necessity to fit to our bodyform that defines the forms of all our clothes, vehicles, furniture, tools, books, screens and other culture. Idea defines form here as well. First we have an idea, then we shape material into a form.

And when it concerns the trinity proton-Electra-electron, it is exactly the same, I think. Like in the trinity bolt-screwing-nut, where it is the immaterial screwing that defines the forms of bolt and nut, it also is the immaterial Electra that defines the forms of proton and electron. And such a fundamental particle then is nothing but form, space-form I think. But that is physics (see also part 14. of this article).

10. Light as spirit; in the beginning there was light
A few words about light though light actually 'belongs' to physics and not to philosophy. Light is not material and in a matter-idea or object-subject view, it therefore does not fit in the category matter or object.
Then the category idea or subject is left, but an idea is not considered to be a physical fact at the moment. It becomes a physical fact however if we see the immaterial fitting of forms, the relations in nature, as facts. Then light or Electra too can be called spirit or idea. It anyhow plays as a fitting of forms, as a relating, as an immaterial physical fact.

So a few words about light. Suppose the already very high speed of light becomes higher and higher and infinitely high in the end? Then distances in the cosmos but also inside atoms and in our body become shorter and shorter and infinitely short in the end. And everything then dissolves into nothing.
Such an infinitely fast light does not need time to bridge space, and then space and time do not exist. Just fill in for the speed of light c in physics and nothing is left of physics but zeros and infinities.

Such an infinitely fast light actually has no form. A light must be finitely fast in order to have a form, a finite wave-length for example. And only then space has a form, seen in that finitely fast light. And an atom then is nothing but space-form, I think, inner-space (protons and neutrons), border-events (electrons) and outer-space (the field of light). An outside-enclosing-inside trinity. But that is physics.

Inner- and outer-space.

It anyhow is a fact that the empty spaces between and inside things are very fundamental; there we find all workings of reality. Would bolt and nut, proton and electron or man and woman really be one, then the thing would not work. There must exist emptiness, distance, only then working is possible. And for an infinitely fast light there is no distance.

11. The why of mind
Why do we have a mind? Why did not we stay like monkeys? That is a different question of course though a related one.
First of all I want to point at the fact that a being as naked as a human, needs something like a mind in order to survive. I mean, most animals, all animals I think, have surviving-techniques fixed on their bodies, like furs and shells as protection, hoofs, claws and beaks as tools, wings as vehicle et cetera. And when they are naked, like snakes and snails, they often use chemical or electromagnetical surviving-techniques like venom and shocks. Or the animals are built like a leaf or a twig, also a surviving-technique.

A human however still is like the fetus, without any protection, not even a fur. So in order to survive, we have to make these surviving-techniques ourselves, and to be able to do that we need something like a mind that sees the techniques in nature, always a fitting of forms. We see a coat in a fur then, a plank in a tree et cetera.
A naked body needs a mind; many of us would be frozen tomorrow if we all would lose our mind tonight.

The inner-body of all animals.

But there is more then. We not only see the usefulness of what is playing between the forms but also the beauty of these relations. We enjoy harmony when the fitting of forms is perfect, in things, in sounds, in food et cetera.

To me it seems that the human is a logical step in the evolution of nature, and then I look at nature as a piece of art. When we look at nature, we see a lot of harmony and beauty. It clearly is organized, your body for example. Someone has thought about it.
It anyhow is a fact that there will never come a car to existence by putting all the parts in a big box and then shaking that box. And if you dismantle the parts into rough material, then it absolutely is impossible; it would be a miracle, an accident. But flowers like the woman-body clearly are no accidents for me but planned in one way or another. That is my God, my belief, in the organizer, the artist, the joker as well.

And if something is well organized, a gold-atom for example or a human body, it also is beautiful or nice.
Before the human emerged, no creature really enjoyed this harmony. Many animals swallow their prey in one bite, and do not seem to enjoy the beauty of nature. Beauty then is useless.
To make enjoyment possible, something like a human mind is necessary. This mind then sees what is playing between the forms, the fitting, the harmony in it. Then God no longer is the only one enjoying. That is what I mean with a logical step in the evolution. God then is an artist, creating nature as piece of art, creating the human as spectator of his piece of art.

Our mind at the same time makes us free. All plants and also animals are fixed to limiting circumstances and that is because of the techniques fixed on their bodies, like wings, claws, hoofs, shells, furs et cetera. So a bird is not really free, but bound to the air. Imagine being a human in the body of a bird? You are a prisoner then.
Only the human really is free. With our mind we see all these different surviving-techniques in nature's workings and then we make our own disposable techniques for all kinds of circumstances. We then also can live like a bird in the sky and like a fish in water, and we also are stronger and faster then, than every other animal.

So our mind makes us free, and being so naked then is very convenient. Even a fixed fur would be experienced as useless ballast by us, since our mind already is our fur, the software of all kinds of clothes and other protection. So to be free, you not only need a mind but also a naked body. It anyhow would be very cruel of Mother Nature to create a human in the body of a bird. Our nakedness therefore is no weakness but a strength.

For enjoyment in freedom, that is how a human is built and formed, and I therefore think that also is the purpose of being human. And real enjoyment then always is enjoyment of nature's harmony. Real enjoyment is bodily, a caressing of senses, also when it concerns the elevated arts.
Our mind is just an instrument then, and we therefore should not overrate our mind. And science too only is a map and not the whole area. Especially the workings and relations can not be pictured on a map. These fitting of forms can only be experienced in the real area. And our spirit is just a seeing and sensing of spirit.

12. Materialism as cause of dualism; new sciences of workings
"In the West, our starting-point often is a thinking in opposite categories" that is what I wrote in the beginning of this article, and the result is dualism and fragmentation. And I think there is a still deeper cause of our Western dualistic approach of reality, our materialism.
Reality is forms, the material things, and fitting of forms where we find all immaterial aspects of reality including all workings. In the West we see the material things as most fundamental, and the workings then are just results or effects. The particles produce Electra, that is what we think.
But factually it is exactly the other way around, that is what I hope to have shown in this article, that it always turns on the working, the immaterial fitting, playing in the emptiness. These workings also define the forms of the material things.

But like I said, we in the West still see the material things as fundamental building-blocks. And that is why we also have divided the totality of knowledge in different sciences by dividing the material things in different sorts. Every science then studies a specific sort of things, and fragmentation and dualism then of course is the result. In order for example to learn to know the rainforests as totality, you have to pick up lessons from many different sciences; most of the facts are known but not in one hand, not in one science (of the rain-forests for example).

We are focusing on the things instead of the workings, while it all turns on the workings. And according to me this materialism also is the deepest cause of the body-mind problem. We think that there is something like objective durable matter or substance that causes every other aspect of reality. But actually there only is form, space-form. There is no real matter, and materialism in the sense of believing in matter as ultimate cause therefore is a mistake.

We better can focus on the workings of reality, because it is there where everything is happening, there in the emptiness. I can imagine a better division of the totality of knowledge in different sciences by not dividing the things but the workings in sorts. A science of seeing and looking for example or a science of growing and developing. Such a scientist of seeing and looking then becomes a physicist, a physician, a technician, a biologist et cetera in one, all of course focused on seeing and looking. Specialists then all have a global view.
I also believe that such new sciences of workings are necessary to really get grip on the very fundamental environmental and social problems we have to deal with now. We do no even really know these problems now, and without knowledge there is no solution.

13. Science and politics
Such sciences of workings then also are less value-free, more engaged with what is happening in the world. At the moment most scientists think to have a value-free attitude towards their subject of study, but I think that is a great mistake, a big misconception as well. Just think of a shoe. Only the mathematical measures of the shoe are objective and value-free. But calling such a thing a shoe, is giving a value-judgement, since it only is a shoe for a human foot. It is the relative fitting that makes it a shoe.
And that fitting then also must be a rather well fitting. The better the fitting, the more truly it is a shoe. And the other way around, if the thing does not fit to any foot at all, then it is not even a shoe but just a box or bag.
For shoe we then can read chair, bike but also school, system of transport, and even society in general. And when the shoe or the society do not fit well, then the shoe or the society are scientifically untruthful.

So by focusing on the workings instead of the things, science automatically becomes more engaged with what is happening on earth, with nature and with people, between nature and people as well.
And it actually also is because of these practical problems that I have spent so much energy in developing this relation philosophy. Philosophy must be practical, since life is practical. And the first thing you have to know then as philosopher and as human, is that your mind is just an instrument, just a map, a mean and not the end.

14. Relational physics
Physics too knows a kind of body-mind or object-subject problem especially when it concerns the very smallest building-blocks of reality like electrons and quarks. Every thing around you consists of neutrons, protons and electrons, and protons and neutrons are considered to exist of quarks. When investigating these most fundamental particles, always by means of shining light on them, these particles sometimes suddenly seem to disappear into nothing, coming again to existence at some other spot, sometimes in another shape for a while. Related electrons with a long distance in between also can change simultaneously as if information goes infinitely fast, so faster than the speed of light.

Birth. Death. Death. Birth.

In a materialistic view at reality, still the prevailing view in the West, wherein the material particles are considered to be the fundament, these quantum-phenomena can not be explained. In this form-fitting-form view however, wherein the immaterial fitting is the fundament, these quantum-phenomena even are logical.
I think that our finite light constantly creates and recreates, so forms, these most fundamental particles. I also think that these fundamental particles only live a very short life, however constantly repeated. What we see on quantum level is this birth and rebirth of these most fundamental forms, constantly created by our finite light. And do we change that relating and creating light, by throwing light while investigating, then the particles immediately are reformed according to this new relation.

What we call the durability of atoms, molecules and things, then is like the durability of a forest wherein all trees die one after another while the forest roughly remains the same. We must give up the notion of objective durability in order to understand the quantum-phenomena, that is what I think.

According to me, light is the fundamental building activity, light that as a result of its finite speed, needs time to bridge space so that space and time get a significance. So the dynamic of light is not a speed through space, like for example the speed of a car, bullet or sound, but is a creation of space. And that is also why its 'speed' is a constant, I think. See more about this elsewhere on this website.

15. East or West, Relational is best
It appears to me that in this relational way of looking at reality, many problems can find a solution. We then see the immaterial fitting of forms as physical facts. We also see then, that when we speak of spirit or idea, we have real physical facts in mind, immaterial facts that nevertheless have a form.
I still like our Western scientific approach of reality, because only facts count. But spirit too is a fact.


I also believe that for example Taoists will recognize Tao in what I call the fitting of forms. Because whatever Tao may be, it anyhow is a fact that the yin-Tao-yang trinity also is a form-fitting-form trinity. So even Tao now is a physical fact.

This does not mean that we understand everything now. Will we ever really understand why sounds can be music for us? Will we ever really understand life, Eros and Electra? Or just seeing? Or light? Maybe not. But music and life anyhow play as fitting of forms, and as harmony in fitting forms. I think that is all a philosopher can say about it; the other qualitative aspects then are for other sciences and for poets and the like.

From dualism to trinity, that also is the result of this relational philosophy. Gaps then become bridges. A human then is back again in his origin, right in the middle of nature, with his body still like the fetus and his mind as a natural instrument as well. We still are special then, the only beings with a real sense for spirit. But we also are very natural, more natural than any other being.

Jan Helderman, August 19, 2001


To SiteMapVersion
(if you see this page stand alone)