vendredi 13 avril 2007
mercredi 11 avril 2007
Transcendantal Ethology and Darwin
I - May we introduce the problem?
Charles Darwin wrote about the evolution of vegetals and animals. Between his texts and all the texts of human sciences like philosophy, psychology, sociology, and so on, there is no bridge. He neither went in the human evolution from our speciation to paleontologic period and from neolithic one to our days. All the things we use or produce are not taking in consideration. One realistic reason of this state of fact is that it is difficult to speak about macro-evolution and micro evolution. It's like macro-economy and micro-economy. The words and the ideas are not the same.
But we must continue the building of the thought about the evolution of life. We need a copernician revolution. Darwin is a traditional humanist. Thanks to him, we know that the apes and we, we are cousins. But it's like we were the best and the most beautiful realisation of the life. It's a mistake. Our cousins have the same universal age, from Bing Bang, than we. Like all livings beings we see about us. Then no being is best or least, the most or the least beautiful. Will applicate the central Darwin rule: we are then we must be. It's not relativism, it's a scientific method of thinking. In an other way, there is a time for moral and and a time for science. When i think like a moral man, I say that the human must be tolerant one to another. But when I am scientific, I understand that there are wars between human groups.
We spend very much money for studying human acts and very less for other living beings. It's due to the first law of transcendantal ethology: a living being works for his eternity by collecting ressources necessary to its life and by reproduction. The "I" spider or the "I" lion begin by thinking about the ressources it need and the reproduction with an other "I" spider or "I" lion. The "I" human being does exist only like an environmental living being and not like the king of the life. For the spider, the king must be a spider and fot the lion, a lion.
Then a spider becomes a spider, a lion becomes a lion. The second law of the transcendantal ethology affirms that every individual vegetal or animal is an "I". Let study how a human becomes a human. We will take 3 possibilities throught 6,5 billions one. Suppose one human in a small idealistic town in the chinese country. It will be our countryman man. The second case will be an other human living in a medium town off about 100 000 peoples. He is a urban human. And the last one will be a person living in a megalopole like Schanghaï. We may name him, a megapole human.
II - The three types of humans beings and the evolution.
In the country, today, when an "I" human appear, his mother is responsible of breeding the little children and the husband, of cleaning the house and of the vegetals which grow in the garden. His father go to the country and he work hard all the day for doing things that give him money for life. It's a little simplist but it's not wrong for our reflexion. If the "I" is a boy, the family will say him to look at his father and to do like him. If "I" is a girl, the example will be the mother. Then, if the "I" respect this message, the life will be more easier that the opposite. A boy who wish to go to the country with the father, will be appreciate but if he desire to cook or to clean the home, mother and father will be angry. It's for the reproduction in humanity. In the first law, there is also the problem of the ressources. What are they? The home, the furnitures, the clothes, all the things which ought to à human. The father give the example to his boy. If he want resources, he must work like him and become a peasant. For a girl, she acts like his mother and one day the family will find her a good husband. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous.
But in a town of 100 000 peoples like Lille, the situation is different. The possibilties of earning ressources are very important. Somebody must think what he wish do in his life. He or she can do like parents but they can want a better or a lesser life. If my father is the richest man of the town, it could be difficult to do better. Then, his son or his daughter may become a priest or a nun. What is important in a town is to go to school and to learn of many other peoples than father and mother. The result is that an "I" will find all he need for eternity - ressources and reproduction - but the differences between parents and children may be very important. Nevertheless, the way of country life may persist. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous. "I" appear, the parents breed "I", "I" go to school and in the school, "I" discover what "I" like to do and what "I" can do. The parents give "I" the example of reproduction but "I" see very much adult persons and "I" do his own way of reproductive way of life. For example, the catholic priests avoid the reproduction.
Is there a difference between megalopole and town? The difference is due to the fact that when somebody lives in a megalopole like Shanghaï, he lives in the Mc Luhan village. The earth is one village. He is born here. His parents exist or not in his consciousness. He go to local school or to a school for foreigners and due to these circumstances, he speak or not the local language. But there is not very important. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous but the platform is equal to the world. Here the third law of transcendantal ethology is important. This law speak about " living geography". May we describe the "human geography".If your are alone like Robinson Crusoe on his island, you do and think what you want, when you want and how you want. If there are 6,5 billions peoples together, the species who is in this situation discovers during his 7 millions years story the means to live together in a minimum of harmony. Then there are rich and poor people, powerful and unpowerful. But no situation is definitive: rich today and poor tomorrow or the contrary and powerful today and unpowerful tomorrow. There millions of degrees in poverty and richness and in power or weakness. It gives us a geography which in one part seems to arbitrary - why there is here a summit and here a river - and in other part the result of evolution - the summit and the river are the result of techtnonic movement. Mr Wal an Mr Mart began their commercial life with little shops. But between 1947 and today the population grew from 2 to 6,5 billions and we did millions of scientific discoveries - cars for all the peoples and computers with Ghz and Gigabytes and due to this we have today Wal-Mart with his millions of clients.
III - Where is Darwin and where is evolution applicated to humanity.
In this text we gave a macro description who is sufficient for transcendantal ethology but this description is not for philosophers, psychologists or sociologists. This text is diachronic and synchronic.
Diachrony: it shows the similitudes today between humans beings and all the others livings beings. Il will be the fourth law of transcendantal ethology: the passage from one stage of an "I" to the other stage of aon "I" is natural, evident and continuous.
Synchrony: from the speciation of the humans to the situation of todays there were modifications which gave advantages to us. The fifth law of transcendantal ethology saus that the rules elaborated by Darwin must be continued in the descrption of the humanity: no being is best or least, the most or the least beautiful but the beings are then they must be.
Charles Darwin wrote about the evolution of vegetals and animals. Between his texts and all the texts of human sciences like philosophy, psychology, sociology, and so on, there is no bridge. He neither went in the human evolution from our speciation to paleontologic period and from neolithic one to our days. All the things we use or produce are not taking in consideration. One realistic reason of this state of fact is that it is difficult to speak about macro-evolution and micro evolution. It's like macro-economy and micro-economy. The words and the ideas are not the same.
But we must continue the building of the thought about the evolution of life. We need a copernician revolution. Darwin is a traditional humanist. Thanks to him, we know that the apes and we, we are cousins. But it's like we were the best and the most beautiful realisation of the life. It's a mistake. Our cousins have the same universal age, from Bing Bang, than we. Like all livings beings we see about us. Then no being is best or least, the most or the least beautiful. Will applicate the central Darwin rule: we are then we must be. It's not relativism, it's a scientific method of thinking. In an other way, there is a time for moral and and a time for science. When i think like a moral man, I say that the human must be tolerant one to another. But when I am scientific, I understand that there are wars between human groups.
We spend very much money for studying human acts and very less for other living beings. It's due to the first law of transcendantal ethology: a living being works for his eternity by collecting ressources necessary to its life and by reproduction. The "I" spider or the "I" lion begin by thinking about the ressources it need and the reproduction with an other "I" spider or "I" lion. The "I" human being does exist only like an environmental living being and not like the king of the life. For the spider, the king must be a spider and fot the lion, a lion.
Then a spider becomes a spider, a lion becomes a lion. The second law of the transcendantal ethology affirms that every individual vegetal or animal is an "I". Let study how a human becomes a human. We will take 3 possibilities throught 6,5 billions one. Suppose one human in a small idealistic town in the chinese country. It will be our countryman man. The second case will be an other human living in a medium town off about 100 000 peoples. He is a urban human. And the last one will be a person living in a megalopole like Schanghaï. We may name him, a megapole human.
II - The three types of humans beings and the evolution.
In the country, today, when an "I" human appear, his mother is responsible of breeding the little children and the husband, of cleaning the house and of the vegetals which grow in the garden. His father go to the country and he work hard all the day for doing things that give him money for life. It's a little simplist but it's not wrong for our reflexion. If the "I" is a boy, the family will say him to look at his father and to do like him. If "I" is a girl, the example will be the mother. Then, if the "I" respect this message, the life will be more easier that the opposite. A boy who wish to go to the country with the father, will be appreciate but if he desire to cook or to clean the home, mother and father will be angry. It's for the reproduction in humanity. In the first law, there is also the problem of the ressources. What are they? The home, the furnitures, the clothes, all the things which ought to à human. The father give the example to his boy. If he want resources, he must work like him and become a peasant. For a girl, she acts like his mother and one day the family will find her a good husband. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous.
But in a town of 100 000 peoples like Lille, the situation is different. The possibilties of earning ressources are very important. Somebody must think what he wish do in his life. He or she can do like parents but they can want a better or a lesser life. If my father is the richest man of the town, it could be difficult to do better. Then, his son or his daughter may become a priest or a nun. What is important in a town is to go to school and to learn of many other peoples than father and mother. The result is that an "I" will find all he need for eternity - ressources and reproduction - but the differences between parents and children may be very important. Nevertheless, the way of country life may persist. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous. "I" appear, the parents breed "I", "I" go to school and in the school, "I" discover what "I" like to do and what "I" can do. The parents give "I" the example of reproduction but "I" see very much adult persons and "I" do his own way of reproductive way of life. For example, the catholic priests avoid the reproduction.
Is there a difference between megalopole and town? The difference is due to the fact that when somebody lives in a megalopole like Shanghaï, he lives in the Mc Luhan village. The earth is one village. He is born here. His parents exist or not in his consciousness. He go to local school or to a school for foreigners and due to these circumstances, he speak or not the local language. But there is not very important. The passage from one stage to the other is natural, evident and continuous but the platform is equal to the world. Here the third law of transcendantal ethology is important. This law speak about " living geography". May we describe the "human geography".If your are alone like Robinson Crusoe on his island, you do and think what you want, when you want and how you want. If there are 6,5 billions peoples together, the species who is in this situation discovers during his 7 millions years story the means to live together in a minimum of harmony. Then there are rich and poor people, powerful and unpowerful. But no situation is definitive: rich today and poor tomorrow or the contrary and powerful today and unpowerful tomorrow. There millions of degrees in poverty and richness and in power or weakness. It gives us a geography which in one part seems to arbitrary - why there is here a summit and here a river - and in other part the result of evolution - the summit and the river are the result of techtnonic movement. Mr Wal an Mr Mart began their commercial life with little shops. But between 1947 and today the population grew from 2 to 6,5 billions and we did millions of scientific discoveries - cars for all the peoples and computers with Ghz and Gigabytes and due to this we have today Wal-Mart with his millions of clients.
III - Where is Darwin and where is evolution applicated to humanity.
In this text we gave a macro description who is sufficient for transcendantal ethology but this description is not for philosophers, psychologists or sociologists. This text is diachronic and synchronic.
Diachrony: it shows the similitudes today between humans beings and all the others livings beings. Il will be the fourth law of transcendantal ethology: the passage from one stage of an "I" to the other stage of aon "I" is natural, evident and continuous.
Synchrony: from the speciation of the humans to the situation of todays there were modifications which gave advantages to us. The fifth law of transcendantal ethology saus that the rules elaborated by Darwin must be continued in the descrption of the humanity: no being is best or least, the most or the least beautiful but the beings are then they must be.
lundi 2 avril 2007
Cogito ergo sum - Cartesius - 1644
When somebody speak about an animal, he never says "it thinks" or "it loves" or "it is conscious about something". All these acts are human ones.
It's a mistake. But a very subtle mistake.
When I say "I think then I am", I actually say "I think like a human then I am a human". Scientifically, I have not the possibility to say that I think in the absolute.
It is the same mistake than the next one done by Cartesius when he says that "God exists because I have the idea of infinity in me". If I have this idea in me, it is a human idea and I cannot say that God exists because he is transcendantal.
We do in the same way when we meet other peoples with different culture and we appreciate this one by our customs.
Do we return to our first subject. There are some psychologists who learn to apes to speak or to understand human language. Some philosophs show that apes mau have moral attitudes. But always these possibilities are not very developped. An ape may get an IQ of a little child but he never become an adult human. The reason is simple: the ape don't need the human sophistication and his species choose seven millions of years ago an other way of development.
The human lived like apes in trees and forest. But they quit this biotope to savannah, and grassland. These reinforce their use of tools. Their anteriors members become more and more skillfull. To beat the beasts for their defence and for eating, the society become more inegrative. But what was decisif was the hand and not the sociability. Many animals are sociables but only apes and after them the human give all the liberty to the movement of the hands.
The animals communicate by sounds, and the apes also. It is the beginning off the speaking. But hand plus sociability were a very good way of development to the humans. It gives the possibility of a big development to the speaking and after this, to the writing. Nota bene, without skillful hands, there is no writing.
Then, do the animals think? The question is not properly asked. We don't think in the absolute. We never sit down to think then to act. If a philosoph do it, it is because he is payed for this, it is his job. He says always that he only think. But, il he doesn't eat, walk, love, or sleep, he may die rapidly. I am very sorry we don't think 24 hours a day but we always act even when we sleep. There are many acts in a day, in a a week or in a year when there is not very much thought. In conclusion, the animals don't think like we because they don't speak with us and don't say what they did when like a dog sitting on his place or a bird silently installed on a branch, they do nothing like we do sometime when we rest ourself at home or in the nature.
In conclusion, when we say that a human thinks or loves or is conscious we mus always add in a human way of thinking, loving or being conscious. For I don't want to be in a dispute with my brothers the humans, il will never use the verbs think, love and be conscious for them. But i do say that all huyman are "I", all animals are "I" and all vegetables are "I".
It's a mistake. But a very subtle mistake.
When I say "I think then I am", I actually say "I think like a human then I am a human". Scientifically, I have not the possibility to say that I think in the absolute.
It is the same mistake than the next one done by Cartesius when he says that "God exists because I have the idea of infinity in me". If I have this idea in me, it is a human idea and I cannot say that God exists because he is transcendantal.
We do in the same way when we meet other peoples with different culture and we appreciate this one by our customs.
Do we return to our first subject. There are some psychologists who learn to apes to speak or to understand human language. Some philosophs show that apes mau have moral attitudes. But always these possibilities are not very developped. An ape may get an IQ of a little child but he never become an adult human. The reason is simple: the ape don't need the human sophistication and his species choose seven millions of years ago an other way of development.
The human lived like apes in trees and forest. But they quit this biotope to savannah, and grassland. These reinforce their use of tools. Their anteriors members become more and more skillfull. To beat the beasts for their defence and for eating, the society become more inegrative. But what was decisif was the hand and not the sociability. Many animals are sociables but only apes and after them the human give all the liberty to the movement of the hands.
The animals communicate by sounds, and the apes also. It is the beginning off the speaking. But hand plus sociability were a very good way of development to the humans. It gives the possibility of a big development to the speaking and after this, to the writing. Nota bene, without skillful hands, there is no writing.
Then, do the animals think? The question is not properly asked. We don't think in the absolute. We never sit down to think then to act. If a philosoph do it, it is because he is payed for this, it is his job. He says always that he only think. But, il he doesn't eat, walk, love, or sleep, he may die rapidly. I am very sorry we don't think 24 hours a day but we always act even when we sleep. There are many acts in a day, in a a week or in a year when there is not very much thought. In conclusion, the animals don't think like we because they don't speak with us and don't say what they did when like a dog sitting on his place or a bird silently installed on a branch, they do nothing like we do sometime when we rest ourself at home or in the nature.
In conclusion, when we say that a human thinks or loves or is conscious we mus always add in a human way of thinking, loving or being conscious. For I don't want to be in a dispute with my brothers the humans, il will never use the verbs think, love and be conscious for them. But i do say that all huyman are "I", all animals are "I" and all vegetables are "I".
mardi 27 mars 2007
First declaration
I speak french but I think it's necessary to know an other language. It will be english one. That's a sufficient reason to open a blog and to write some things interesting the most often possible of people. I hope that for a year my english will be better than today.
The origine of the name of the blog is : THE DIARY OF "I". "I" like I speak or I think or I love. We are more than 6 billions of humans on the earth and I am one I about 6 billions but I do exist.
It's not yet the end!
Every animal is an "I" and every vegetal too. Then, we are not 6 billions of "I" but billions of billions of billions ... Sorry for the lack of certitude about the exact number. I don't know it but I am certain that this number exists precisily. The nature is totally precise. There is no incertitude. Only, our knowledge is incertain.
See you later.
The I-redactor.
The origine of the name of the blog is : THE DIARY OF "I". "I" like I speak or I think or I love. We are more than 6 billions of humans on the earth and I am one I about 6 billions but I do exist.
It's not yet the end!
Every animal is an "I" and every vegetal too. Then, we are not 6 billions of "I" but billions of billions of billions ... Sorry for the lack of certitude about the exact number. I don't know it but I am certain that this number exists precisily. The nature is totally precise. There is no incertitude. Only, our knowledge is incertain.
See you later.
The I-redactor.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)