CONTENTS
Zeroth year
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
FOURTH YEAR
Contents of This Year
4.00. About the gist of the universe
4.01. About the gist of the organized matter
4.02. About the gist of the society
4.03. About the sciences and arts
4.04. About both sexes
4.05. About the beauty and the strength
4.06. About the numbers
4.07. About anything -- once
4.08. About anything -- twice
4.09. About anything -- thrice
4.10. Final: The philosophy of Nothing
4.00. About the gist of the universe
Hello my dear but rare readers, I am again with you, or then vice versa. This is the fifth, called fourth, year of my last (before dying) philosophical book, intended to show that the things do not look how we imagine them to, but in a different and more elaborated way. And they look in more twisted way because this is what they
can do, be twisted by the dialectical relations in which they were put by the very Nature, or the dear God, if you prefer this imaginary Being. And I am dear
ing you because on the ... yellow websites, where I am publishing myself free, the most readers (say, 98 % of them) are usual ... silly morons, and presume that I will fool them with some impossible inventions, what I am not doing being unable to cheat (having spent my whole life with serious sciences). Yes, but as far as I am fervent follower of the sentence "
Cogito, ergo sum!" I just can't miss not to philosophize about everything. Hence, you take me or leave me, right?
OK, and allow me not to repeat again the way in which I am giving the foreign words, and the shortening of the langs, and my usual universal transliteration for all of them, and similar things. So that this is the introductory part to the year. Yet I have also to excuse myself for the unavoidable repetition of many things, for the simple reason that, people, this is 45-th essay, and this year they must become 55, plus eventually one more year, so that the path of my thought will surely cross itself many times; I will just
not search the previous years about any of my ideas, I will simply exercise my brain cells. But I am not proposing some new philosophy, I am just philosophizing (with myself, supposing that this will be interesting also for some of the other human beings). So that this year my introductory topic will possibly not be applicable to all of the following essays (and the next year, if it will come into being, I will probably just gather everything, from here and there), but it must be at least interesting for itself, because it will concern the gist of the whole universe!
So let me begin with the core reason for the existing of universe, which surely was posed before the physicists before centuries, but I am not such guy, I have just scratched (very enthusiastically) my head and have come to the following here ideas. Yet I suppose that the possible readers of these essays are even less educated than myself, so that it must be interesting for them to follow me. And these are my recent thoughts (after my Letter to God almighty), while I have been till this moment misled aside because the usual question that is posed is what comes first, the matter or the idea about it, which dilemma I have solved in the easiest way, saying that this is a cyclical process, like the egg-hen problem, so that the exact answer is not of practical interest and has only some theoretical meaning; besides, I am an convinced materialist (and for me some idea can never come before the matter and outside of it). So that the point is not in this, but in smt. else, in this how the universe can
function, how the dialectical contradictions are able to show itself, and why this magical clockwork does not stop, after all? Hence there is smt. more in addition to the matter and the idea, what was hidden from the humans before the great guy called One_Stone, or the known Einstein, has found some unexpected relation of the matter with its most important property!
Ah, what I mean is the
energy, which is as if another
form of the matter, smt. not exactly material but a kind of
field! Well, as I said, I am not a physicist, but you know that the light-
Licht behaves like a wave, and also like particles, there are the photons; and there is also the magnetic field, the gravitation, so that the matter can not always be "touched", there are things that can not be ascribed to particular kind of matter. Hence I prefer to speak about a new energetic form of matter, because it looks so to the non familiar in the discussed field. Einstein has made his big contribution, but even before him was spoken that the energy cannot be really lost, it can only change from one form to another (like kinetic to potential). Yet the point isn't in the concrete transformations with their quantitative measures, but in more general aspect, that the matter can turn to some pure energy, which was till that moment
hidden in the body. Id est, the matter not only weighs, it gives
motion to the object. Yeah,
panta rei panta kineitai, this was known from pair of millenniums, this is dialectically motivated, and even the moving is
more natural than the unmoving.
This latter thing may be put to objection by some of you but I will use one unexpected argument, the ... grammatical
cases! Yes, I have thought a lot about these things because I insist that the cases in the langs are obsolete and must be thrown away (what leads also to the conclusion that Bul lang. is the only good Slav one), but the ancient people have thought on the contrary, they preferred to introduce special endings for the nouns and the adjectives according with the role the given word plays in the sentence, because they were born dialecticians, really. And more concrete, the movement requires accusative, where the staying on the place requires propositional case, or then dative, where are less cases (like in Ger). And what of it, will smb. say? Ah, the easiest case is the accusative, i.e. it is
easier to move than to stay on place! And this was the opinion of the people before about 3 millenniums! Hence, the clever ancient wise men have seen the necessity of constant movement in order to have the energy, surely! Because the kinetic energy is the most obvious kind of energy. But there is also the gravitation, because the very Earth pulls us, makes us heavy, it pulls the thrown high stone to itself, this was obvious.
And now, as you all know, exists also the nuclear energy and the thermo-nuclear one (called also fusion, where the first is fission). Yes, but I will again give you etymologies, because this is my hobby for more then 30 years. So I will tell you that this fiss- or 'fys-' in Bul, is what the carbonized water does (like in your gin-
fizz); more than this, the very
physics does the same, i.e. it is science about splitting of the bodies, even to atoms for more than 2 thousands of years; respectively the bodies of the animals present their physics too, and because of this is the confusion between the physician and the physicist. And then the fuss- is the reversed process, which may be also fut- (or even fug-), what means uniting. Even more, the energy makes all bodies to move, and the cry with which the animals are urged to go in Bul is 'dij', what is as if variation of 'daj', what means give (motion, here); then there is one Jap cry 'gjaj', for loosening or leaving out at once ones strength, i.e. energy; and there is also your Eng
gee as cry of exaltation, what I suppose that can be cited also in this sense as the Jap cry, what I relate (on purpose) with our Bul 'dij' as invitation to leave the energy out! This thoughts of mine I illustrate in the closing verse of this chapter.
So that the energy is what makes the universe to go round! Neither God's will, nor the matter as dead, would have done it, because of the lack of moving force! Then this non loosing of the energy is very nice principle, but it works for
closed systems only, yet if some system is open then some energy may go out of it, or then may enter the system (because a hot body will inevitable cool with the time, heating the environment). And then how about the universe? Because it is not closed, and has no boundary, but it is just everything. Hence, I suppose, here can be said that its limitlessness is equal to its closure in the infinity; or you can suppose that even a single ray from a star will sooner or later hit some body, or then be caught in some field. But in addition to this the universe is expanding, ever since some hypothetical big bang, what is good for the moment, but it implies the thought that some time, after aeons of time, it will begin to collapse and be doomed to failure, or at least everything that exists will be squashed and the life will disappear. Yeah, but there is nothing sure here, these are just hypotheses. What is sure is only that if the energy will begin to diminish the whole universe is doomed to failure. So that the unchangeability of the whole amount of matter and /or energy in the universe must remain always constant, yet it must change from one form to another.
Well, here is the place to cite, even if I have already done this in the previous years, the brilliant thought of Hinduism, about our world (i.e. universe) being smt. thrice not, namely:
not perfect, not constant, and not isolated! The perfectness here is not on its place, but the incessant changing is possible only because of the hidden in the matter energy, and not isolated means that it is a whole system, where anything can show influence over everything through fields in the space. And, people, let me say smt. about the space, because I have my special view on it. I think that the purpose of space is exactly to cause some
isolation, to allow everything to exist as possibly undisturbed in some limits! Because of this are these light-years distance between the planetary systems, so that we can look at them but see things with enormous delay, and in this fashion we can't interfere, we are separated not only by the space but also by the
time. I mean, that some interference might be still possible -- God knows this -- but time-travels in the future are not possible, so that we are with tied hands.
And, well,
how this continuum was made, nobody can tell for sure. The very definition of universe as
everything that exists rejects all efforts to answer the question about its appearance. I mean that this was not some
process, where the time passes and smt. happens, no; i.e. it happens all the time smt. in the universe, but this is not creating of new universes, right? The big bang explains nothing, it is just more serious paraphrasing of old Hindu fables about some god Tathagata who once has given a ... fart, and the universe appeared. The only thing that I can do for my readers is to tell you what means the very word ...
exist. Ah, it is ex + is(t), meaning smt. that is, but also expresses, shows itself -- because the preposition ex- is out, or 'iz' in Slav, this is where from comes the exit. Or I can make a guess about the energy, which is old Gr word, and taking again its syllables we get: en=in + er~re + some 'dzhi', but the last is only in the Eng and is an ending. Hence this word is smt. what tells us what is
in some body and makes this things to stir or jump erect (like the very erection). Because in the universe happens all the time some "erection"
Ah, this chapter seems very eclectic, but it is necessary for the next one, where I will come to the organized matter. And now comes the closing verse.
The energy is what says "gee"
in th'universe as something whole!
In old age came this thought to me,
and now I'll tell you even more:
the matter, energy can be!
4.01. About the gist of the organized matter
This is the important question that I have posed before the very God in my letter to Him, and have not succeeded to answer it then. But now I can do this, it is, briefly, in the better
preserving (and using)
of the energy! Not that else it will be lost, no, but in this way it is used for some -- generally
unknown -- purpose, it creates smt.
new, this is somehow interesting (for God or for us, or for everybody, because this is what gives the action!). This is the gist of this chapter (or the gist of the gist of the organized matter), so that if you are in a big hurry (say, a nice girl is waiting to be, hmm, inseminated by you, or, homologically, you are hurrying to become the object of insemination), then you can freely stop the reading of the chapter (in which I will be just ...
cogito-ing). I mean that this matter absorbs the (solar) energy, preserves it in itself, and then uses it when there is no influx of energy, for its own purposes, that are reduced to its existing and living; this animated matted does not know why it must live, yet this seems for it the most important thing in the universe.
And now remains the most difficult part for me, namely to ... fill the chapter to its decent 4 (or 2 double) pages, ha-ha. What I have said till now (in my Letter to God) was that the chaos rules in the universe, because this is ...
diversity, allowing of everything to appear, and in a closed system, at least in thermo-dynamical sense, the chaos, called also entropy, can only grow but never diminish by itself. Yet the organization reduces the entropy, what must be somehow
harmful to the system; you see that the chaos is a
good thing, allowing new diversities to appear, where each organization
diminishes the variety. The organization says that this is good and has the right to exist, while that is bad and has to be abolished (like, hmm, the communism did in various cases). What is natural from dialectical point of view, because introducing of some other, not natural to the system organization, hinders the usual contradictions to be expressed, disturbs the equilibrium. And, really, somewhere before more than a quarter of century I have said that the reactions of the organized matter are not only not corresponding to the actions, but are
distorted and
reversely proportional to the strength of the action, meaning by this, roughly speaking, that to stronger impacts the reactions are weaker, and to the weaker -- stronger --; this is because the impact is like sticking of a stick in the wheels of a moving vehicle, and the latter tries to get rid of it, if this is possible, or not to waste its own power, if this is not possible!
Yes, the universe becomes nonplussed by the introducing of additional organization, but, in spite of this, the organized matter has become a rule on our planet, and we are very happy about this. So that let me look a little "poetically" at this, showing some human imagination, let us investigate the ... words. For one thing, you know, the nature is a
famme, and it likes the disturbances or scandals, she likes to provoke the others, and she says: the bigger (smt. indecent), the better. For another thing: what is this organization? Ah, it is smt. related with the organs and ... orgies, or
orgasms, or pipe-organs, or probably the orig
in of smt., i.e. the organisms are organized and because of this they are ... nice; they urge us somehow, stir emotions (which are kind of ... motions)! In short, we like the organs & organization because they enhance the strength, and we all like the strength. And this organization, anyway, is local, it does not disturb the global chaos, and even if it disturbs the latter, then the nature, still, can cope with our (imposed by the humans) chaos, because we throw atom-bombs, pollute the air, etc., but the nature continues to exist (even in the near surroundings of our Earth, to say nothing about the other galaxies).
And what concerns the organized matter in the universe, then we have not discovered till now any other reasonable beings in some other star system, hence this is a big exception, and the exceptions only prove the rules (with their exceptionality). And on our planet the other animals are relatively disciplined, they stick to some God's commandments and don't hinder the chaos much (they don't throw bombs and do not pollute the atmosphere, because their "pollution" is fertilizing of the earth), and what concerns the plants, then they only help, because make the natural conflicts softer (say, the trees pacify the winds). So that only the human being is dangerous, but he is also very powerful, and this was the purpose of the task, to reach to smt. extraordinary; to allow new diversity, and being a relatively new experiment of the God-Nature he has enough time ahead to prove his ...
inability to live properly and to disappear! (Then, probably, will emerge some civilization of the ... ants, I may guess.)
And now let us look at the very emerging of the organized matter. This thing was a process (not like the creation of the universe), so that everything happened in steps. There were first the long biological molecules, say a
thousand times longer and heavier than the molecule of the water. I am neither a chemist, to say nothing about biologist, but may judge that in order to build such long molecule some energy has to be used, and this was during the day, in the primordial ocean, when surely had have become pretty hot, and various organic radicals have had become pretty keen for even fuller copulation in even bigger molecules, because of redundant energy (more or less like the political radicals become keen to change radically the society). This means usage of surplus energy, so that this was, maybe, a kind of necessity, the situation required it, this was natural consequence. Yes, but as a result of this the big molecules were done, and those that succeeded to endure the cooler nights have begun to "wonder" what to do then -- what is a natural guess, right? There appeared various monstrous molecules, that began to expose in those times the pluses and minuses of organic chemistry, I suppose. And then they have ... called a common meeting in order to propose the next step in their rising dominance in the world -- am I nice speaker, ah?
And the next step was building of some new
bastion, that was bound to defend them, isolating them from the environment, and helping them to live happily ever after, to propagate, and this thing was called
cell! Yeah, the cells floated in the primordial ocean and have become the first micro
bastimenti, how the It-ns would have said (what means ships). And mark, please, that these cells were very
universal, so that they were used later in all vegetative plants and also in all animals! Yet they (the cells, but maybe the very God, if you believe in Him) have not supposed in the beginning that they will build groups, gangs or bands of similar brethren and make multi-cellular organisms, so that they tried to have in one, and respectively in every, cell everything necessary for their existence. These necessary things are called
organelles, what means that these particles or functional groups of molecules were some prototype of organs only on a molecular level. Here were built all necessary albumins, and lipids, and carbohydrates, and the DNAs, and what only not, so that a cell is a bizarre thing. And this unsure way of building everything necessary for one cell and using it later in millions of cells in a whole organism speaks evidently about the bottom-up method of Creation and the total lack of fantasy in our dear God, but I will not dig in this here, because our topic is the energy.
So the energy was transformed here from one type to another (say, in vegetative cells the solar energy was taken as source), there were some transporting DNA (TrDNA) that allowed the energy to be moved to any place where it is needed, to be performed splitting and building of various molecules, copying or multiplication of DNAs, and many other things. So these cells now became alive, because they had their goal or purpose in life, to persevere and survive, where a stone, for example has no purpose in life. This is the animation, the soul of the organized matter, which reacts contrary to the environment with clear conscience, so to say, that it is entitled to do this, when once was born and lives. The very word life is Ger
Leben, what is related with their
lieben as to love, and this is based basically on the very Gr letter
lambda which looks like a ... human being, or rather a
woman, with a bit opened legs, ready for the copulation (I suppose), and with even an inclined to the left head, what as if has to symbolize consent (I presume!). While in Slav langs the life is 'zhiznj' (in Rus) or 'zhivot' (in Bul; but in Rus the
same word means ... a tummy-stomach -- because the navel is the center of the animal), what is build over the letter 'z' or 'zh', like the buzzing of the bees! And in Lat the life is
vita because it ... winds up (what is 'vija se' in Bul), more or less like the wine plant (and, I would say, also that the
green colour is that of the things that
grow or rise, and which colour in Fr is
vert but in Bul 'vyrtja se' is to rotate or in Rus 'verh' is above -- mark this)! Ah, these are very interesting observations (about the human psyche), they say us how the humans look at the very life.
I would have added also that the anima is some kind of
ana-mother for
me; then the soul has to be the
sole essence of the animal, although it is Ger
Seele, what is related with the seeing and the sea (probably in sense of the spirit); and in Slav it is 'dusha', what comes from the verb 'disham' as to breathe. OK, but what concerns the energy or the matter then they do not have souls, they feel nothing, yet the living matter feels, and it is not the same whether you break a stone or kill an animal, right? But the dear God (or the nice Nature) have left unnoticed this "little" difference, and they experiment on a large scale with the lives of all animals, especially with human lives, and the very humans continue in this way from times immemorial, what is the worst side of the whole evolution, but I will treat this question in the next chapter. Here remains only the parting verse which is pretty frivolous but then: why not?
The animated matter does ... not matter
in th'universe, if taken as a whole!
It is not clear whether it is better,
and why a stone must move and have a soul.
It's just that when you kill it, it ... tastes fatter!
4.02. About the gist of the society
Here is good to remind you in the very beginning that the society must be observed as some common ...
sauce in which we all are sunk or float. (And I say to remind, because I must have till now said everything that is worth saying -- right? -- and after 70 I am generally only repeating myself.) And when so, the purpose of a society must be to make the life of
all its inhabitants as just as possible. Yet one can take the society as the next higher level after the single being, what does not contradict to the previous, about being a sauce or juice. This means also that this agglomeration of people must be stronger and more united than the single individual, but this is not always the case, or that it is so only on the basis of some stronger
religion, which for its part, is some obvious delusion! However, I will not delve about this but take it for granted (because our ego is so strong that it can be overcome, either by some delusion, or by some compulsion, or by both things!). The chief point here is to discuss the
humanity, or how to make out society more peaceful and just, how to diminish the sufferings of the people by the nature, but also by themselves.
Why I am speaking about the peace? Well, because also from energetic point of view it is not wise to lead unnecessary wars, this is wrong spending of resources, wasting them. Still, really bad things happen only with the humans, because of our ...
imagination, because we can make good prognosis of the situation and fight not in order to live well in the moment, but is some future time, after years and generations, what can be seen best of all in the genocide! Yes, surely, our reason is such ... razor blade, on which he cut us every time and again, while the animals do not cut themselves in the same manner. We lead wars not only for economic purposes, to take better territories for ourselves, but also -- and I have the feeling that on this aspect as if only myself is stressing -- because we just
like the wars, i.e. for psychological reasons, yes, surely! You take the playthings of the children and will see that I am right, or take the patriotic upbringing, which every country tries to apply from times immemorial, and the pacifists are at least booed, but also despised and put in jails. So that our next stage over the single human is in many aspects worse than the single being (by natural suppositions that the single individual is weak and will quite often curl his tail, so to say, and avoid fighting). Hence the society does not teach this what it must!
You see, the human being is smt. really dangerous, and if for maybe 99 % of the cases when you feed well the animals they will not fight with their brethren, for the human beings this is not true, when even in our times of common abundance we still continue to lead wars. And, for example, we want to have more and more money even when we do not need them, we can never be satiated with money. And why we want these devil's invention, the money? Ah, because we are feeling
insecure, surely. Yet the more money we have the more worries we heap on our backs! This is not like with the food or the sexual desire, this is worst. But the other animals do not use money, this is impossible abstraction for them; well, the other animals do not either play ... chess, or prove mathematical theorems, and so on, but my point is that we have
wrong sight at the money, and try to do nothing in order to better it. So that, as I said, out imagination is double-edged sword.
( Let me add in parentheses that I continue to wonder at those persons who bet on horses, or matches, or whatever, because, for one thing, they will most probably lose their money, sometimes the probability for a win is much less than a single percent, but for another thing, even if they will win some very big win, say, million dollars, they will
not stop to play after this, but will continue, while in this case is more than obvious that they will begin to lose! What means only that they play money games because they like the emotions, not the very money, right? Yes, but if so, they can surely "play"
without bets, i.e. to decide what they will choose but not spend money, and then will have even
bigger emotions when they "
win" -- because they will get nothing! These will be negative emotions, surely, yet it depends only on the persons to make them positive, by simple continuing to play and /or increase the bet sum -- because if they could have won in the long run, this means that all the totalizators will lose ultimately, what is not so, all hazard games have such rules that those who keep the bank will win in the end. Ah, excuse me for the long lecture. )
But let me return to the quintessence of a good society, what is, naturally, to
make us better! Surely, The society must take the human side in the fight with the nature and the other nations, and defend the own people, teaching them how to live properly in order to diminish the sufferings. Put in other words this means to
secure the citizens in every possible aspect, with food, healthcare, education, living quarters, interesting work, sexual partner, if you want, and so on. The right approach of the communists turned wrong because the people have
not grown up to this, and the communist productive forces were not effective, right, I agree with this. The communist society was not competitive enough, but then I ask: why we must want to be
exploited so hard, why we need especially the latest car model, or second flat or home, or each day new sexual partner, and so on? And why only for ourselves, why not for
several persons, ah? What is so bad if there are
common things, like flats or cars or bikes, or even coffee makers? After all, if we can allow ourselves smt., this does not mean that it is good for everybody (including also the nature), and why one single person, and pretty common one, say, seller in a shop, must have own car in a town, where the right decision is to use public transport? Ah, I will tell you why: because the self-confidence, or rather the pride, to have about
50 horses running before you, figuratively said, is different. Yes, but this is exactly the function of the society, to convince you which behaviour is the right one, for the whole society
cum the nature!
And I'll tell you smt. more, it is that if one is glad to have enough but only really
necessary things for himself, he is gladder when he has, occasionally, smt. more than the usual. What leads us to this, that I am not at all convinced that the returning to the denied for about a
century capitalism is a step forward, and not backward, because the effectiveness is not everything, more important for me is the so called
soul! And now this abundance, it is
obvious decaying, it is spoiling of the people, lessening of the immunity of the organism, this is unnecessary. And, say, if you eat fresh vegetables, tomatoes or whatever, only in their usual hot season, and during the other times you use some preserves, how it was for
millenniums, you lose nothing important, while otherwise you spoil your tastes and do not value the fresh things, take them not at their face value. What means, with other words, that we make
not what we must but what we can, have enough money for this and can indulge in unnecessary luxury. Yes, but all religions deny material goods, the eating, drinking, sex, luxury, anything above some minimal necessary level.
Let me again remind you that I am not a believer, I am convinced atheist, but I praise and honour the religions when they are doing right things, because some soul
exists, it is not to be denied, we live for to be satisfied yet not only with material things but also in psychological aspect. As I have told you (in the 2-nd year) the money are
substitute (as noun) for moral values! Yes, but they are still not the same, they are not moral, to be sure. And our contemporary (and for me silly) democracy is also entirely unmoral, I have explained this, but the masses like it, chiefly because the cheating in any form (yet within the frames of law) is allowed. Hence, we are moving in a wrong direction, because the gist of the society is to satisfy the reasonable desires of the people as whole, not the luxury for one tiny part of the population, for the filthy (as is said) rich ones, and the
degeneration of the other bigger part, which indulges in unmotivated desires. I do not say that it is easy to govern the whole human population on Earth, but we are, still, not doing the right things. Probably one religion tolerant to the believes of the others will be the best decision, yet no religion is tolerant enough, because it preaches that its fables are true, while they surely can never be this (because we have no idea about deities, we do not know how to recognize them, if they exist, we just try to cheat big masses of people and spit at the cheating of the other religions; especially bad in this sense is represented the Christian religion in all of its varieties).
So that I defended till this moment the religions. Surely, and because of this it is time to take for a while the
other part, and show you at least one thing in which the religions are wrong, Ah, but do not deny at once what I will say below, only because it will sound paradoxically to you. So my statement is that all religions, in their good intentions to unite the people are
not doing this, what the dear God, in
my understanding, wants, because He, if somehow has succeeded to create all not only humans, but also animals, vegetable plants, and the dead matter and all laws to which it obeys, must simply not have beloved animal or nation or whatever, no, He must love equally well really everything (say, the cockroaches, the worms, viruses, etc.)! We are again behaving like usual sinners and take for granted that a God will have the same human characteristics like we have. Yes, all religions act
against God's commandments, because He must not like the uniting of one nation and its ruling over the other nations, not one authentic God! Ah, but if so then it turns out that the barbarians, like my compatriots, the Bulgarians, are exactly the
right people, because they are
disunited and everyone fights with nearly everybody, what allows one equal competition, bettering of the genes, and showing of the best individual.
Yes, although this best person, the winner in the competition, will gain ...
nothing -- likewise I can't reach whatever significant popularity --, because if nobody stays behind some exceptional individual, then he will never become known (like our nation always suffers and is not correctly understood by the other nations because isn't big and does not have similar tastes like many other nations)! Because popularity on this world reach ... silly ideas or then persons who stick to the wishes of the masses, if they, so to say, tickle the erogenous zones of the masses! So that known will be big and strong nations, and wealthy and immoral persons, but if we take into account also the ... expanding universe, with its possible shrinking and crushing phase, and the bottom-up method of Creation and the limitlessness of the universe, will turn out that this not really just state of the affairs is good enough. Ha-ha. And now follows again one parting verse.
The
s`auce of soc`i№ety
social must be,
to make us to live for the others.
T'support one another the main must motive
be, we must be sisters and brothers.
But ho№w to move this thought near to thee --
it's not sucked with th'milk of the mother.
To cheat us we eagerly want and be free!
4.03. About the sciences and arts
Ah, the sciences are smt.
shining, especially the Eng word, which is given from Lat
scientia as knowledge, but Lat for me isn't old enough, and I have met somewhere that there was a Skr
cyamas what is the known cyan or cyanic colour, which surely is shining. Yes, but because the Eng is Teu lang. let us look in the Ger, where it is
Wissen as knowledge or
Wissenschaft as science, where exists some '-is-' (like Slav 'iskra'-spark), but this is not the
scientia. And what is it then? Ah, it must be smt. twisted like Rus 'vjazatj' as to knit, because, for one thing, it is twin word with their
Wesen as essence or substance or a being, and for another thing there was some Jap
wasan as their mathematics (which is taken for the queen of sciences), or also some kind of teaching. (This may be somehow related with the verse because
versare in Lat means not only to make verses, but to pour a liquid in tiny
string where it begins to rotate or twist.) Yet you all know that there is the other root of the knowledge, where the quintessence is in some ... clicking (either with a tongue or of some cogs in the head)! And why I think so? Ah, because the base of similar words is either on
kn- or on
gn-, or then on
zn- in the Slav langs (where the knowledge is 'znanie'; yet also our books are 'knigi', what is given from some Ar 'kunig' or the like -- and the books are folded pieces of paper or some tablets, where is the old-Gr
tetrada as a book because consists of at least twice folded rectangular piece --, and there is also Bul 'kjunec' as chimney-pipe). Hence, the knowledge is smt. clicking and twisted, what is quite natural idea.
OK, these are now tedious things for me, but I have investigated many-many words from more that 10 langs before already 30 years, which are put at least in my enormous book
Urrh cum commentis, so that I can continue further. About the physics, being smt. similar with the, hmm, copulation yet beginning on "f", i.e. some 'fys' I have spoken in the 0-th chapter here, so that let me now come to the mathematics. Here I have looked nowhere because Lat for me is not old enough and because here everything is obvious, this is
mat- square! Yes, but this is obvious for me only and for you I must add also that the syllable mat- is that of the ... copulation, where is the mating, the mate on the ships (and what do you think they are doing there for months and years without wives if not mating between themselves -- ha-ha), and the mat colour or the mat-rug (as twisted as the legs of a copulating couple can be), and the mate in the chess (because this is the goal of this game, to stick it in the, I beg your pardon, ass of the enemy king -- again ha-ha), or probably the match, where everybody tries to f#ck the other person or team, and the maturing (as the art to mate with some girl and make her mother), and the matter, and on and on. What in two words means that this is the most f#cking science.
Hmm, then comes the
Chemie-chemistry, where I have also looked nowhere because it was earlier
allchemie /alchemy what says that all is Chemie, and in addition to this there is one Bul jargon '
himicha' meaning to mumble or not dare to say whatever in the open, what for me is in the sense that everything is doubtful and a kind of magic! Then the biology is from the Gr bio-, what is on be-, i.e. this is binary division, multiplication via splitting in halves, and probably the very Gr beta is meant as some flower. And from here we are moving to the letter phi on which begins the very phallus, which is like some flower button, I mean that so looks the very letter, and more or less this does that masculine prick. The zoo- of the zoology I relate (i.e. v.v.) with the ... continent Asia where are many animals, and this is also some buzzing, what the insects do, and here has to be also Slav 'zhiznj /zhivot' as life. And these are the major and most important sciences.
OK, but these are preliminaries, and what I wanted to say about the sciences is that they divide the humans in 2 utterly non-symmetrical (in their number) groups, of born scientists and, well, let us say and plebs. The scientists (like myself) are interesting in the
truth, in this what is hidden from the sight, on what are based many natural laws and the behaviour of the animals (and the plants, too, and the inanimated matter), and they are proud when know smt. more than the others, even if this is not smt. nice for us (i.e. the negative results are often as important as the positive ones), and because of this they are loved by some muses, because the usual women like everything else but not the difficult for them sciences. Yes, I have spoken about this, the women like the money and or the power, and the niceness, but not the deep sciences (as a rule, I mean). Nowadays there are many women in all sciences, but this is chiefly in the practical sphere (say, as medical doctors), or else if the woman in case is somehow ... hindered or rather
deprived of her feminine qualities (allow me to know this good because I have moved in scientific circles for more than a decade). And such people are in all cases less that 5 %, or on the average 2 to 3 percents. All other human beings are like the ... animals, chiefly emotional or feeling persons, which do not give a damn about some scientific truth!
Surely, and this can be seen at least in the literature, where the so called non-fiction (which I am usually writing, popular books, judgments, even funny verses, but sometimes with deep thoughts instead of deep feelings) are read about
100 times less than the fiction; such books are
necessary practically for every human being, but the persons simply do not read them, finding them boring. Yet here probably nothing can be done, such are the humans. Well, I would say even that the persons with scientific mind are less as percentage than the ... homosexuals, i.e. that the sexual perversities are more spread than the
scientific perversity, yes, this is how it is! But the scientists in their spirit (surely judging by myself yet still) do not play hazard games, do not like to fight (physically), do not like also adds or official media or soap operas or big public events like matches etc., do not boast with modern things or with money in general, and many other things which the plebs likes, what says that they are the righteous persons (or moral, virtuous, blameless, etc.)!
So how is this, that the dear God does nothing to make all people scientists by soul, or else: what is the right behaviour? Ah, the right is how the old Romans have said:
Be what you are or do not be at all! However little in their number the scientists are there are not necessary more than this but probably even less, and the majority of the people are just living, what means that they want to be deluded with smt., and in the same time are destroying the biological matter (i.e. killing themselves) in the most uneconomical way, but this is what the dear God (and the bottom-up made universe, without any preset global goal, but just trying this and that) wants. The right behaviour is the
wrong one, because of the
majority of silly and emotional but really living persons! Because we all are sinners!
Well, maybe this is enough about the sciences and let me move now to the arts, where I have not much to tell you being not well acquainted with these circles. The Western root here is of some scratching (having in mind making of statues, maybe), because it is now art in Eng but was
ars in Lat,, what I remember because of the proverb
Ars est celare artem, meaning that the art is to hide the art. The idea here is of doing of some '(h)yrt' like in Eng hurt, but the scratching was presented in some old Gr
oros or the like as an ass (or even, I beg your pardon, arse), what is so (according to me) because the animal usually sits on its posterior. Yet in Ger it is
Kunst what has some other idea, like also Slav art which is 'izkustvo', but let us not dig here (the Rus word seems to be Teu and there the idea could be somehow related with the
knowledge). But more interesting here is that the people of art are in some aspect like those of the sciences, yet in more substantial aspect they are
not such.
They are alike the scientists because there are muses of the arts, and the very music is, in fact, derivative of the Muse, which in turn is some mumbling, saying 'mmy /ymm /ami' and similar exclamations, what is smt. pronounced with some ... muzzle. Id est the artisans are also not doing some directly necessary work (like producing of food, cloths, buildings, etc.), but are spending their time with more abstract things, they are
playing, how it really is said when producing some sounds with a musical instrument (and in Bul we say 'svirja', in It it is
suonare, but in Rus or Ger it is playing). On the other hand, though, the artisans are in no case searching the truth, no, they are searching some nice delusion or lie, and this on purpose! So that those people, together with some traders and others, build one part of the remaining 95 % of those who are not searching the truth, where only the occupied with arts are again about 3 to 5 percents. And, people, I have heard some musicians or painters to speak about their activity and they use usual words in quite different meaning, they as if see the sounds or hear the colours, smt. like this, they are
not exactly normal. In what there is nothing bad, because if normal is to fight on life and death, or to play hazard games, or to listen to the ads, etc., then the humans are not really normal (what I have already discussed).
OK, and let me add smt. about some of the arts from the point of view of the very words for this. About the music I have just spoken, the sculpture is building of some ... skulls, smt. agglomerated in big cumulus-heaps, the singing is producing of some sounds that are like ... snarling, because
sing(h) in Skr and Hin (if I do not err, or then
sikh) was a lion. Then the dancing is trotting on the earth with hits, some 'dum /dan', and
ballare, ballet etc. are from the ball (which says 'top' in Slav, because in Bul it is 'topka'; somewhere here is the ... typing, but let me not distract). The writing is again some scratching because there are the scripts where is also the very
Skr lang. (the saint Hin scripts), and as if remains only the painting which is very surprising word (yet this is maybe only my discovery). So the idea here is in some ...
pain, to be sure! And because this seems pretty strange I will give you some other words in different langs, like: Rus and Bul 'hudozhnik', where 'hudoj' in Rus is thin, poor, and 'hudo' is bad, then there is an old Bul word 'zograf' which is of old Gr origin and there is Ger
Sorge ('zorge') as trouble and Bul & Tur 'zor' as practically the same, and there is also Bul & Tur 'boja' as paint, but there is in the same time Bul 'boj' as beating, fight, and probably other examples. What is so, in my interpretation, because the paints was very difficult to be made in the antiquity, they required find grinding, pulverization.
So this is everything. I may squeeze here a remark about the sport, which is related neither with the truth, nor with the lie or delusion, but with the ... distraction! Yes, it is said that it was from some old
disport, where the prefix di- was removed, and really, in Slav langs 'razvlechenie' is distraction, recreation, and 'vlechenie' is desire, a wish, what I am saying because the sportsmen are also not directly productive persons, they just
waste their time, again play, but this seems somehow interesting for the others. Ah, and this time also follows illustrative verse, but I want to warn you that the finding of new themes turns to be even more difficult, and I have for the moment idea only about the next chapter, but how will be later I don't know; to believe that there will be next year I do not anymore.
Ah, sciences are shining they throw light,
and all the humans happy have been, might.
Yet this is not the case because we souls
have silly, live in vain, and have wrong goals.
But this is right, 'cause we are so created,
the masses can't be bettered or updated!
And what concerns the arts, they are more silly,
but help us in delusions live, yes, ri'lly,
because we can escape from this life and
it for a while with better one amend!
4.04. About both sexes
Now, I have spoken about the women, and as if twice, yet I think that will not repeat myself here because I will discuss the differences between the sexes, and also I will use some new ideas of mine, which have expressed for the first time under other pen name and before just several years. The main difference comes because of their functions in the very sex, where, overly simplified: the men
throw out their biological secrets, and the sex for them is like the ... pissing (or even defecating, if you'll excuse my naturalisms), where the women are acting on the contrary, they take whatever they can from the men and keep it in themselves until it somehow ... ferments, so to say! Yes, I will use even stronger word (when have just said unpleasant things about the men), I will say that they ...
putrefy in themselves, where this word in all appearances is related with the very Lat
putta /puta or Fr
putain (which is 'putka' in Bul, yet
not so in Rus) what means a vagina or bad woman!
Hmm, the etymology of this last Lat word is also my discovery (and, hence, practically unknown -- because who reads me?) and I suppose that this is direct derivative of old Skr demoness
Putana (pronounced 'puhtan`ah', i.e. elongated), who was bad women, showing every now and then her vagina, and because of this (for amoral behaviour) she was killed by the god Krishna. Yet with this my guesses do not end, and I have come to the conclusion that this is some kind of spitting ('puh' or pooh, in many langs) and probably even 'ta' means "this" (because it is so in Bul, 'tazi', and in Gr is 'ta'), so that I translate every syllable of this bad woman's name as "Puh this woman" (because in Bul "woman" is 'zhe
na', what comes from old Gr 'gineka' -- although this last is not serious, of course). Anyway, this demoness is quite often the quintessence of every woman, to what I will come again very soon.
But what I wanted to say with this
putta is that the woman takes everything what is
put in her (on a level of syllable here can be added also the words: pot,
podest-podium, Bul 'pod'-floor, and others), and uses it for the posterity! And this is really different approach, and the decaying or putrefying is also so, by the insects exists even one more stage, the pupa, so that the woman likes the decaying and sucking of everything from the masculine exemplar, these are
instincts, this is unconscious! While for the man this is a kind of ... blowing the nose, ha-ha. The man is not serious in the sex, for him this is like a play, while the woman also plays but deep in her nature she is quite serious, she is ready to gulp the entire man (beginning with the phallus, because she
must begin with smt., right?). There are even more associations here, because the man likes to pierce, to stick smt. sharp everywhere and overcome the enemy in this way, while the woman just captivates the partner, takes him in some kind of bag, marinates him, uses him, and is unconsciously ready to ... cook him and satisfy her hunger in a similar way to that how the mantis insect does with the successful begetter, eats him in the direct meaning.
Then you all know that the masculine secrets are sticky and smelling -- the sex is in no case aesthetical thing -- but the man throws them away, while the woman absorbs them, together with her own secrets which are a bit vinegary and come, how I have found (using my poetical imagination before a pair of years), like leaving out the water tank above a ... toilette bowl, ha-ha, so that the bed would have been flooded if some, not napkin, but towel was not used, and the woman wipes her uterus as if this is a ... boat that leaks and one must scoop the water with a pail! Well, this is what gives some comical nuance to the copulation, and these are all trivial things, yet the differences are pretty strong, they are hidden deep in the very human (or animal) nature, and we can't fight with the instincts. So that after this opposite approach to practically
all questions in life to speak about equality is at least funny; but the modern women call my way of looking at the things sexism, hence I am a sexist, surely, but I can't close my eyes before the reality. Where the equality as equal
rights, especially in the
society, is smt. quite different, it can and
must, and up to some extent
has existed always, only that the right to take decisions was attributed to the man for the reasons of well known
partiality of the female. Still, let me underline this (even if I have surely said it somewhere before in other places): the equal rights can only
prove the inequality between the sexes, providing fairy conditions for demonstrating of the differences!
And now let me come to another thing, the
changeability and universality of the feminine exemplar, on the contrast with the practical, I should say even stubborn, unchangeability of the masculine one during his whole life. For the man can be said smt. like the humorous Bul phrase that when someone was born he was a little calf and now he has become a big ... bull, while for the woman I can cite the known (from one opera) It phrase that
la donna e mobile, what means changeable, she is all the time different! This is my new "discovery" where I have come under another pseudonym to one new ... religion, stating that in the woman are hidden 3 different goddesses! The one is the just discussed
Putana (because a demon is also a deity, only a bad one), which is hidden in all women, just from their puberty, this is the seducer, who uses the man more or less like natural ... vibrator, seeking only her pleasure and not giving a damn about the man. This deity usually disappears after giving birth to a child, yet not totally, and can appear also in her old years; this is ineradicable feminine characteristics only that it not always takes the ruling hand in her life.
Then the second deity in the woman is the
Mother (where I don't want to give a name of a goddess in order to mask a bit my other pseudonym), which is now not a lover but a
defender of her children, even if they are quite common ones and deserving no special praise, what is so because they are
part of her and nobody (more so a woman) will deny himself. When the mothers do not know their children, and /or they are hundreds and millions, it is not so, but with the humans the woman is the most egoistic being ever known. This quality we all usually like to honour in the woman, if she has children, yet she has them because has played for some time the role of the putta. And here is the place to mention that during the pregnancy and after it she changes her organism drastically, she grows big pelvis-bottom and boobs-breasts, and legs and becomes nearly twice heavier then before, what are things that can't disappear totally, the skin expands and from here she gets a heap of wrinkles everywhere (especially on the face, that does not grow during the pregnancy but the cells there somehow ... solidarize with the other cells). In all cases, having become once a mother the woman is never the same like before, while for the man this is not so, he grows nothing additional and does not suffer and become pregnant (even if, ha-ha, some say that the tries to make men pregnant still continue).
And the third deity in the woman is the
Wise one, the Professes, who can
intuitively get the deep meaning of everything existing, not logically, but really by analogies or spontaneously, at once, like a ... beast! I beg you to try to understand me correctly, that this is not reasoning like by the men, no, this is
substitute for their logic, but it works quite well, if the woman is after the age of sex and has gatherer her experience in life, or sometimes even before this age, yet not when is nice and young and can do
it. In the old age she usually has not boobs but ... udders, which in Slav are called 'vime /
vyimja', what I mention because this is pretty near to the Eng "
wife". Well, you may take this for coincidence, but it is not occasional, for the reason that the vi- syllable is quite often for smt. curved and drooping down, like the breasts of an old woman; similar words are, say: the Eng willow, the wind, the Lat
vita (as life or as oval or as wine plant), the ... ivory (which is curved), the oval, and thousand of others, but once I have come to one word somewhere from Haiti islands meaning a wife and it was
wahinee, where is also Ger
weich as soft, the femme, famous, fine, fillet, and on and on. So that the woman, for the reasons of her drooping breasts or for other reasons, but may be also wise (because the very wisdom is also smt. twisted and curved), and mournful-weeping (because of the same udders and because of her age).
So that the woman is really
mobile, she alone becomes very often confused which role to play in a given moment, but she is
universal, silly or not, and pretty well adapted to the children, so that she is a perfect mother, like also seducer or wise crone; the bad thing is only that she likes to command but is unable to do this when it concerns her near relatives, because of her unobjectiveness. This latter thing I usually formulate in the funny sententious way, that she errs
only once: when she decides smt.
alone! While the man, on the other hand, is quite often more intelligent, practically uninvoked with the posterity and because of this just and fair and really ideal choice for a head of the family, while they have existed. Yet I have discussed these things earlier and even in chapter 0.05 have explained the meaning of the word son as related with the sun, and the daughter as related with some dot as point (i.e. just a score, better than nothing), or also with some Skr root for ... milking ('doja /doitj' in Slav). Also have mentioned (probably) that the man is nice and beautiful nearly all the time, say, in 12 and in 72 years, while the woman is such only somewhere between 15 and 25, so that on the average she looks pretty often just ugly. Yes, but she is universal, and the bottleneck of the humans, while men are necessary 100 times less, and so on.
Now I an going to finish this chapter, and intent in the next one to speak about the beauty (although do
not know yet what will say there, neither of what kind will be the next 5 left chapters), but let me add here one my proposition intended to
teach the so called emancipa
tesses with their mania for equality. It is about the age on which both sexes must go on pension. But before this let me quote one short statistics about the average life span for Bul-ia for 2020 - 2022 years, where that for both sexes is nearly 72 years, for the men is 68.3, and for the women is 75.8 years. So I take for just that both sexes have to have the possibility to live
equally long after (or with) the pension! Did you get it? Ah, this means that if we take as right to live
10 more years on the average then the men in Bul (and respectively recalculated for the other countries) must go on pension at the age of
58 years and 4 months, while the women at age of
65 years and 9 months! This means an equality, right? And if as result of this the women will begin to die earlier, and the man later, then in a long run (say, after a pair of centuries) this will give an equal age of pensioning equal to 62 years (if the other conditions will remain the same)! Ha-ha, right?
And now follows the traditional verse.
Ah, the sexes, they are necessary thing,
'cause allo№w you to do
it, not to think.
This is whe№re th'
anima is easy seen,
and the genes are acting like some litt№le jins.
These are two poles
di№alectically placed,
where each one by the other is amazed,
and attracts the other t'show its
o№wn face!
4.05. About the beauty and the strength
Well, here I will
invent and use some etymologies, but this whole year is, so to say, etymological, so that you must be already used to this; and as to the inventions, have in mind that I was research assistant in our Academy of sciences (although in another area, but still), so that my inventions will be pretty realistic, and this is not work of fiction. Hence let me begin with the very word beauty, which is written pretty strange being of Fr origin but is read as 'bjuti". So what tells it to you? Ah, it must tell you nothing because it told even me nothing the day before, but during the night I have come to the conclusion that it is somehow built around only its first
vowel, the 'ju', or then 'jo'! And why this? Ah, because this is some exclamation of
joy, and here are heap of words like; Fr
bijou as
jewel, what has to mean twice joyous, Fr
jaune as yellow (the colour of the gold), Ger
jubeln-jubilate what is Lat, juvenile, Jupiter = Jove, Ar
jebel as mountain (where jewels are to be found), Tur & Ar
hayir as gain (and some Avest
zaranua as gold), Tur '
gjul' as rose, Tur '
gjuvendi' as mistress, and
'gjuvech' as smt. cooked in a pot with sauce, Tur etc. 'guljaj' as revelry, Tur ... 'mjusjulman'-Muslim, and many other Tur words with 'ju'!
But there is also the beloved Ar & Tur & Gyp etc. sound 'dzh' what gives exactly the joy and the
bijou. And don't forget also that this 'dzhi' becomes in Slav 'zhi' where is our 'zhivot'-life. Only that in It the
bijou becomes
beato what means blessed, but this is in the same sphere of happy things, yet if we stay in just one lang. we will lose the idea. Like we will be even puzzled with It
bello as nice, what in Slav langs is 'bjal /belyij' as white, but it is nice because this is good white thing (while the black is the colour of the dead and the demons), and the very day is 'bjal'-white and in Fr it is
jour, what is near to the Eng joy. And where from is this
nice then, ah? Hmm, the obvious thing is that this is from the Gr goddess
Nike, phonetically, but how is this, in what sense? Ah, I will be forced to give here some explanations and you will see while I have added also the strength in this essay. Because they are related, the niceness, which is usually feminine attribute, and the strength and power, which are masculine features; the women like the strength and the men like the nice women, right? Yet not only, we were convinced from deep antiquity that there were some feminine deities that like the strong men and the battles, and helped the stronger ones, and such was the mentioned Nike.
Hmm, and this night I have come to the conclusion that there is masculine personification of Nike and this is ...
Nicholas-'Nikolaj' (who kills some serpent on the icons and makes miracles), from where, I think, must have been influenced your ... nodding, because in Ger it is exactly
nicken! (And the Eng must have been somehow mistaken with this mutation because it is not from "not", this means consent not denying. Only the Bul-s nod with the head saying "
no" but this is -- again according to me -- because of Gr
ne what means "yes", while in Bul exactly 'ne' means "not"; so that we are doing like the Gr-s but mean the contrary, in spite of them -- and the common sense, I would have added.) Yes, but the
nicken is not only agreement, this is also ... cutting of the head, rolling it down.
Still, there are other roots for niceness, like Ger
hübsch, which is not common Slav yet is Bul, 'hubav' (where the common parent must be somewhere in the
Per). In Rus (and Slav) it is 'krasivyij' or also 'prekrasnyij', what is just a
cry of ecstasy, and here is also the colour of the blood, red, because in Rus it is 'krasnyij' Yet there is another word for nice or good which is old Gr and this is their
kalo (like their 'kalimera' as hello, good meeting, the metal 'kalaj' in Bul as tin-
stannum, and other words). It is interesting with this, that it has both, good and bad meanings, because it comes (acc. to me) from the old Skr where was a goddess
Kali of the under-terrestrial world (who is, for one thing, nice and goddess, but is also a destroyer, terrible one), and the piquant moment is that on the West this root exists only with its bad meaning, what can be seen by the ...
faeces, which are 'fashkije' in Tur and 'fe
kalii' in Bul (the latter word has to be split in 'fju + kal'), in what I am so sure because the short 'kal' means in Bul & Rus dirt and especially faeces! The joining idea here is that the dirt may be bad for us, yet it is good for the nature, it fertilizes.
Ah, there remains one more root which carries the meaning of good order, like in the whole universe, and this is Slav (or rather Rus) 'horosho' as good, nice, where is also the charisma-'char', and many Western words. This is a bit similar to 'hubav' but the sound 'u /ju' is one thing and the
order is another. This root is very old and Skr but it can be found in old Gr, where exist one 'horo /horea' and similar 'hooro' (with omega), where the one (let not me precisize which one) means a dance 'horo' in Bul or also the choirs ('hor' in Slav), and the other is used in the ... horoscopes which are ordering of the stars. So this is the niceness, just a happy exclamation, or smt. nice like a goddess, who likes the strong men who like to kill, or also some nice ordering with which is characterized the whole universe. And after this long preamble I will begin to speak about the very beauty, in what it is expressed, and how we can recognize it.
Ah, this time I will not circle for a long time around but will spit it at once, no matter that this is undefinable notion, because always is needed some human to pronounce himself about this. (But I was scientific worker in some subfield of the pretty attracting before 40 years artificial intelligence, and not a bad computer programmer, so that am used to find some
heuristic decisions, which are not very precise but do the work.) So my definition about the beauty is: something
symmetrical but not exactly, with breaking of the rules, or with errors, or just probabilistically! Because such is the nature, the leaves, the trees, everything alive, and even the dead matter shows also some defects on crystallic or atomic level. Take for example the isotopes, or then the snow-flakes or the frost, the nice marbles with veinings, and many other examples. As more or less acquainted in the field I am bound to quote here the
fractals, which are such structures, where each part
repeats itself, or there are levels where each one, with the exception of the lowest and simplest, is built by the
same procedure, ah, this is marvellous! Such structures are ideal for modelling with recursive structures or algorithms and also, if it goes about computer programs, with the use of one rarely used algorithmic lang. called Lisp. They are good for recursive programs because this way of performing of the algorithms is the
easiest, hence the God-Nature has chosen the easiest way to store (somewhere) the necessary information or laws.
Now I do not intend to fall in details, but fractal are some economic curves (about the prices on the market), the coastal lines, where it turns out that the exact length of a given natural area (an island or continent) ...
cannot be measured exactly (because it all the time grows and curves itself with the zooming, reaching even atomic level), some artificially invented
curves (what is 1-D object) which begin to ... fill the
entire plane and become
2-D ones, the galaxies and nebular agglomerations, and on and on! There was discovered (before about half of a century) one famous and relatively easy for showing on computer screens (and I have also written myself such program) 2-D space or set by one
Mandelbrot (and related with it set of Julia) where you can zoom and zoom to
infinity, what turns, however, to be very time consuming, and this is no alive thing, this is dead matter but really brilliant example of beauty! And these pictures are literally non-symmetric, they curve and curve all the time but in different way, although similar, there are common patterns, but everything changes. A crystallized beauty, in two words!
So that the beauty in the nature exists and it does not require living matter, it alone becomes as if alive, the beauty turns to be like a living organism! It is like a goddess, ever existing and always changeable, the nicest
donna in the universe! And have in mind that this Mandelbrot set was
invented, it does not exist in the nature, our God has forgotten to create it (unless we take one materialistical and dialectical view at the things and look at God like at a synonym of the nature, in which case all the beauty hides somehow in the very matter, is a form of existing of it). The biological matter as if makes the beauty more smooth, but it exists everywhere. Yet, let me stress on this moment that ... enough is enough, and much beauty may turn to the opposite, an ugliness! Like also vice versa! And this was known for centuries, and even by the women, because, you surely have heard this, the antique madonnas liked to pit on their face artificial moles or beauty spots, in order to break the symmetry or niceness, they have known that pretty good isn't good, that there has to be some defect, for which exactly to be loved; like also the proverbial cry (at least in Rus & Bul) to the newly married of "bitter" (because if everything is sugary then it isn't good).
OK, and now let me move to the strength, which is not the opposite of the beauty, but these things go together. The strength consists, in fact, in the
uniting of various forces, or in the
organization, and it "likes" (inasmuch as smt. abstract and not alive can like smt. else) the beauty, probably not because it can appraise it, but rather because it is not dangerous for it, or then it "hopes" in this way to elevate itself, to become also little beautiful in some way. And the beauty, for its part, likes the strength because it is better organized than itself, shows less defects, acts more unitedly. However it is but the strength and beauty often go hand in hand; the strength is as if
totalitarian stricture, while the beauty is more democratic. And as to the etymology here everything is clear, it comes from the 'strivane' (in Bul) what means to grind, pulverize, but the root is at least old Gr because here is the strategy and the strategs, who know how to "grind" the enemy (for Eng speaking people it is good to call to their minds the word street). About the necessity of strength (or of violence) I have spoken in various places, and it is in this, that in this way some force manifests itself easily, because neither the humans, nor the unanimated matter are good in making of compromises. And in this way it is as if more just, no contests, the stronger wins. My only objection about the application of the rule, the stronger wins, in the social matters is that the human beings are pretty new element, unreasonably free (from the point of view of the Nature), and by them the physical (or economic) strength is not everything, we must think about the (real, not just expressed) interests of the masses.
Ah well, as if this is enough about this subject, follows the traditional (and, I am afraid, the last) poetical addition. And, to tell you the truth, I have decided now about the topics of the next chapters, but have practically no idea about what exactly I will speak in them, with the exception of the very next one, where I will use my old-old guesses.
The beauty can defined be as a kind
of
symmetry, yet
not full, litt№le broken.
Plus this it's weak, adaptive, soft and fine,
and makes you to preserve it as a token
supporting your strength, till you better find.
The beauty can attract the winning strength,
which has no fears now it to defend;
they even build together common band!
4.06. About the numbers
Ah, this year I put what only can, but the numbers are interesting topic about which I have written one paper (existing in 3 langs) before more than a decade, yet here practically everything are
my guesses and, hence, they are unknown to the general public (and maybe even to some specialists). I have thought about them because have had enough time and happened to be mathematician, so that was able to guess, what means to recover the ideas of the ancient people, i.e. the old Hindus. The very word number has to be smt. like Ger
nu + mehr or your more-
mare, i.e. many things (no matter that
nu isn't exactly Ger, it is Rus, but the Ger exclamation is
nun as now). This is so because this is the way the numbers are made, with adding of the initial one, or rather the unit, which is the one for the natural numbers. Some of these numbers are obvious (0 and 1), some are easy (2, 4, 7, and 8), some are difficult (3, 5, and 9), and there is even one very difficult (the 6). I am telling you this in order to give you possibility to make your own guesses, yet I don't think that you will be able to guess even all the easiest (say, 7 and 8 may turn to be above the common level of intelligence). I can give you only one hint about the six, that is: what is the relation between this number and the ... sex?
Yes, but before them are some constants in the whole universe, which also deserve to be mentioned, like the number
Pi. Here everything is obvious, but if you look at the picture of the letter
pi in the Gr alphabet, which is like a ... chicken, of course. And probably you must also take into account that the young chickens cry exactly 'pi', what is not so in many langs. (Say, the Rus-s call them 'cyipljata' and pretend that they say 'cip-cip', the Eng maybe think that they say 'chik-chik' what some birds say but not the chickens, and the Turks say even 'dzhiv-dzhiv' because they die for the sound 'dzh', but no natural chicken will manage to pronounce this sound.) And this Gr letter really looks like a chick that looks to the left side and has risen its tail to the right. From what follows that this constant, which is
irrational, it can't be written exactly with final number of digits as decimal fraction, neither as whatever rational fraction, so that it can be called the
secret of a chicken, or then of a hen! It is meant one circular section of an egg, i.e. the secret is, so to say, how much a hen must open her bottom in order to produce an egg with a given length of the circumference of the (maximal) cross section, which is a circle (or rather the quotient of the circumference and the diameter). And this is universal constant (like the theorem of Pythagoras), and one can build a whole arithmetic based on it (where the unit is not one but pi).
There is also the number of Neper signed as just
e, from the exponent, which is a very curious function that is
infinitely smooth (i.e. you can never
cut yourself on it, ha-ha), what means that all its derivatives are just the same, the initial function (
e^x), what is invented curve, in the real world nothing can be done really infinite number of times, but it is very useful function. There is also one constant of Plank, and many other physical constants; where I (being
not a physicist) would have added also the length of one Earth's day and night, the Solar year, and others. Still, I do not intend to continue about these constants at least because I am not familiar with them (yet with the numbers I am surely familiar). And what concerns the very digit then this is Lat word and means a finger, i.e. people have counted on fingers, and for this reason we have 10 digits; there is also the word 'cifra' in Slav or Fr
chiffre or Ar
chifr, or old Heb
cefir, etc., meaning a digit, for which is said that this has given the very zero, what does not seem very probable bit in Tur
sefir is exactly zero.
So let us begin with the digits, but I will not be very precise here and if smb. of you wants to find more then let him read my enormous
Urrh, or the mentioned paper about the numbers. So the zero is more often given as null or
nil, and here comes at once the ... river Nile (which the Eng may pronounce as 'nail' but it is 'nil')! Here all roots are ultimately Skr, and this
non-natural number (because natural are if they can ... run, this is my easiest definition) there was
nullah what meant a ... valley, and in old Gr it was not considered as number, and this is the feminine digit, as you know (because of the picture of it). Then comes the one, which is: 'edin' in Bul, 'odin' in Rus,
eins (read 'ains') in Ger, 'ena' in Gr, 'aeva' in Avest, etc, and
ekas in Skr. This is the masculine digit, and because you know what it means, also as picture, then here is the Eng odd, Ger
Öde as a desert, Heb
od what is 7 (what is not 1 but is an odd number), and I add also Bul 'ad' as a hell, old Gr 'Ades /Hades' who was a ruler of the hell, Scan god
Odhen, and surely many others (like Gr ego). But this was easy.
OK, now we come to the two, which is usually
duo in Lat, 'dve' in Bul, similarly in Rus,
zwei in Ger,
dwan in Skr, and so on, where I am bound to quote also Ger
Schwan what is a swan! So did you get it why the image of this digit looks so twisted? Ah, because this is a nice bird, and all birds (and other animals, especially the mammals including the humans) like to ... copulate, that's it! All animals copulate but the birds do it as if more often, and the swan is beautiful bird, so that the picture of this digit is the swan's head on a long neck. But here are many ideas involved, so that I will be forced to jump over some of them. For one thing here is the God in the form of Deos /Theos, because He thinks about everything, what very simplified is more then 1. Then here is the dividing what in Eng is on di- but in Slav is on dv- (like in the Skr), and here is Rus 'dverj' as door and Bul 'dvor' as court, because they somehow divide the space. Then here is also the root bi- because of Heb
bina as 2, so that from here come the bicycles, binoculars, and other Western words; and because in Gr this is written with their beta (and it is also the 2-nd letter) here are all living bio-things, probably also the very ... phallus, which is on phi, but here also is hidden the dividing in form of bursting. And even the very
copulation, which is of another root, yet here is Sp 'konjo' as a vagina (and a hard curse), Bul 'kopele' as son of a bitch, Fr
coquette, maybe Eng cockney, and others. And why do you think this sounds so? Ah, because this is the usual talking of a hen, to be sure! As you see, I have spoken not a little about the 2, but this is known, this is pictured in the primary books, only not with my explanations about the copulation.
Now I will jump over the 3 as more difficult (for the plebs, ha-ha) and come to the 4, because this is also easy, this is the square-'kvadrat'. So the four is old Heb
gevura that was symbol of power and bravery, and then as sounding nearly the same here appears Tur & Bul '
gevrek' as a kind of bun with toroidal form (circle with a hole in the middle) and also the 'cheverme' as smt. to rotate over a fire (because in Tur 'chevre' is a circle), and I would add also Rus 'chervj' as worm (because it goes with twisting). The twisting on ver- can be confirmed by Slav 'vertetj' as to rotate, but also with Fr
ver as a worm, then
vert as green (and the verdure) for the reason that the greenery rises up, the
verite-verity (that must be bored somehow to check it) and many other words (say, Ger
werken and your work, Bul 'otverka' as screw-driver, etc.). And if you have followed me carefully you must ask now: why I mix the circle here with the square? Ah, I do this because so have done the ancient people, they have all the time tried to convert such nice and smooth figure like the circle to equally important but angular yet strong square, this is the task of squaring of the circle, which is never possible because of the irrationality of the number Pi. So this
gevura-4 is
vier in Ger, and
catvaras in Skr, from where comes easy the Slav 'chetiri /chetyire' again as 4. Then in Fr this digit is
quatre (or
quatro in It) what gives Slav 'kvadrat'-square; yet on the other hand in Gr it is
tessera what can now lead us to the square. And there is one more moment, namely that for the Ger-s
vier-4 is near to their
viel-many, what (acc. to me) is so because of the fingers, where they must have counted up to 4, and then have used the thumb to signify many! Ah, and the picture here quite obviously is a square but with a handle (to heave it like a banner).
Then I jump again over the 5, and more so over the 6, because the gist of their pictures is difficult, and come to the 7. The picture here, again according to me, is simple, but I doubt that this is known to the public or that they can easily guess it. For me this is a
banner, with a long handle and bended a little to forward, because this is the way how flags are carried. I have decided that this must be so because of the Heb religion, where their God has created the world for 6 days, and on the 7-th He just said '
oh' (I finished it at last), what the chronicists have got as
od (as I mentioned above). In Fr it is
sept, in Ger
sieben, what for me sounds pretty
septic, i.e. bad (smelling), in Rus is 'semj' and in Bul is 'sedem', in Gr is 'epta /ephta' (what to me sounds like some disgusting 'uf'), and in Skr was
sapta.
And now to the eight, where I will again spit the idea of the picture -- this is smt. very twisted (and you know that the same image yet rotated on 90 degrees is used for the infinity), what is so because this is the first (if we do not count the 1) and the last
cube between the digits only, so that if the 4 is smt. hard and strong then 8 is the most such thing! This is obvious (after I told you this) because in Eng it is eight (some 'ej'), in Ger is
acht (some 'ah'), in It it is
otto, what is Lat
octo, what is Gr
okto, and Avest 'ashta' and Skr '
ashtau' what is -- isn't it? -- smt. astounding! And let me add also this nuance, that on the West the 7 as if comes from the 6 (say, six - seven), but on the East it is not so, there the 8 comes from the 7 (say, Bul 'sedem - osem', Heb 'od - jesod'), so that on the East the nations still honour the 7 as God's number (what is related, naturally, not with some God but with the lunar month and calendar, it is divisor of 28).
OK, and now I come to some difficult for guessing pictures. The 3 -- but again according to me -- is a ... woman's breast (where the woman is lying on her side)! Well, you propose some other explanation that includes 2 (semi-) circles, and means 3, while with the breasts everything is clear, this means 3 persons, the mother feeds some baby, which is not seen, like also the father is not. In the sounding here is always present some rubbing, yet I don't think that this is because of the sex but because of the
thriving of the plants, what is Ger
treiben as move, set in motion, where is also Eng try. The very name of this number is, as follows: 'tri' in Slav,
drei (read 'drai') in Ger,
tre in Gr, etc., and
trdyas in Skr; and related words are: triumph, trivial, tribune, the tree and Bul 'treva' as grass, Ger
treten as to step and Eng trot, old Gr
triboo as to rub, Eng travel, and many others. To add that the Slav grass sounds like the tree because the size is
not important here, the important thing is that a stalk of grass has in simplified form
3 leaves (i.e. not even number but
winding above one after the other, and smt. similar do also the trees).
Now we come to the 5, and here we have problems (if without my help, ha-ha) because neither the name is clear (if we do not go to really old langs) nor the picture. The Eng five is Ger
fünf, then in It it is
cinque (read 'chinke) (what makes us no wiser), then in Slav is 'pet /pjatj', in old Gr was
pente, in old Heb was
tiferet, and in Skr was 'panjcha' (and there is old Skr book called Panchatantra meaning 5 books). Yes, but in Lat there is a verb
pendeo as to hang and
shake from side to side, there is also the
pendulum (of a wall-clock), and there are Tur but known also in Bul
pendari as golden coins, so maybe this can help you a little? Ah, I'm afraid that you will still not guess, so that let me explain it to you: The five is smt. shaking and hanged somehow because we all have 5 fingers on our hands and the wrists can be shaken, surely, like also the hanged on a string golden coins. But there are several other ideas here, like that the 2 and the 5 must (I suppose) look
symmetrical (if you put a mirror before the 2) because 1/2 is as decimal fraction 0.5 , and 1/5-th is 0.2 , so that they must look more or less similar. Then most of the flowers have by 5 petals, which were called in old Gr
petalons, and in Bul is known Tur
petalo (usually of dry sausage) which has the form of a horse-shoe; more then this, there is Slav 'peta /pjatka' meaning a heel and the latter has similar form (of 1 flower
petalon-leaf, and compare this with the Slav 'pet /pjatj' as 5. Then the Ger & Eng names may be influenced by Heb
tiferet. Then in the It
cinque is heard some clinking (maybe of some coins); and maybe in old times were made money coins in the form of pentagrams. And other ideas.
OK, and the number 9 is difficult because it does not look like inverted 6, and means some ... no /not! Really, it is
neun in Ger, nine in Eng (but it is read exactly as 'nain' what in Ger means "no"), in It it is
nove (what sounds rather as Slav 'nov'-new) but 9-th is
nono, in Sp it is nueve (what is again smt. new), and in Skr & Avest was
nava. Still, in Gr it is
ennea (what sounds rather as variation of their
ena-1, or then like anew), and in Slav it is 'devet /devjatj'. All in all this must mean that the numbers end with it, there are no more numbers, we must begin anew (with 0 & 1); and in the Slav there is the word 'detj /djavam (se)' as to put smt. somewhere and forget about it, and I decipher this as "where the digits have disappeared?". In this case the picture must simply consist of 2 little digits put one above the other, the 0 & the 1!
Ah, we come at last to the number 6, which, surely, must be related with the sex, because it is, as follows:
sechs ('zeks') in Ger, 'eks /eksi' in Gr,
sexis in Lat (but
sexus was the sex), 'shest' in Bul, 'sheshch' in Pol (but written in a strange way), and so on, and 'shat' or 'shashtish' in the Skr, where I must add that in Bul we have the probably Ar word 'shas(h)tisvam' meaning, mark this, to be amazed or greatly surprised! This says us that this number was from ancient times smt. surprising to what all people wondered. Yes, but here I will hurry myself a bit (because have long ago exceeded my usual length of the chapter) and ask you first: what is the most surprising God's creation in this world? Think fast. Ah, I have no more patience because have no more time, I will spit it at once. So the most surprising and beautiful thing in this world is the masculine ... penis or phallus! To be sure! Hence this is a picture of the phallus mirrored from
below, i.e. in some water surface! Ah, but this is proved
mathematically because in the old times the number 6 was counted for the
perfect one, where the sum and the product of its
prime factors are equal, as they are equal also to the number, and for 6 we have: 1 + 2 + 3 = 1*2*3 = 6 ! Under this definition there is no other such number (in the whole universe, ha-ha). (According to Euclid, however, a perfect number is such one for which the sum of
all the factors has to be equal to the
number, what for 6 is again true, but also 28 turns out to be perfect number because: 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 +
14 = 28.) So this is it, my rare readers, but one must be also mathematician in order to know these things.
The 10 is not really a digit but only a number, yet let it be added that it is Lat
deci, Ger
zehn, and the idea is of some re
capitulation, putting over of some
decken (in Ger: what is a cover. Here are the words: docent, doctor, dean, Gr 'doksa' as a thesis (with many derivatives like orthodox, paradox, etc.), as well also Gr letter
kappa which is exactly the 10-th (where is also Bul 'kapa' as Fr
chapeau, and Eng cape although with different meaning). The other big numbers are also interesting, where the million and milliard or billion are just ... very nice numbers, we like them (compare with Slav 'mil' as nice, dear, or then with you mild, and with the ... milk, etc.), even as nice as to call a smile of happiness on our face (which is the case with Bul 'hiljada' as 1000, where 'hilja (se)' is to smile merrily). Yet I will put the end with this because this chapter has grown too much. After this follow 3 conglomerate chapters, due to this, that I just have not solid topics for a whole chapter and am going to finish the whole book.
4.07. About anything -- once
As I have said, I can't invent solid topic that will last for a whole chapter (4 of my pages) so that I will speak about this and that, where the only tying band will be that this happens ... in the universe, ha-ha. But, after all, if you do not like this then simply close the book. OK, so let the first thing here will be that if we have some
good, proper
society, then this results in having
bad ...
arts (especially literature)! For the people on the West this may be questionable, but for me, having lived for 40 years under totalitarian ruling, and now hoping to live another 40 under liberal democracy, this conclusion manifests itself clearly. Though one may object that the totalitarian ruling was not the right one, yet it
was, the centralized ruling is the
only one real ruling, I'm afraid everywhere in the universe, or at least all religions take this for granted and try to take the over hand in all countries. But not only the religions, it is so in all historical moments, under different social orders, in every society, in every company doing whatever business, is better if there is one settled for always order of who is the boss. And there were bosses in primitive societies, like in all next ones, there were pharaohs, sultans, kings, emperors, and all local heads in every community, otherwise it is not possible in our universe, to be sure. So that let us not close our eyes before obvious rules and principles only because of some political partialities.
I have discussed the democracy quite profoundly, and have many times stressed on its principal characteristics, that it is first of all
cheating, and only then comes everything else as
corollary effect (that the wealthy and potent layers of society are more predisposed to be better educated and
exempted from the common people). But let me add at least this: the commons are asked in the usual democracy only in 1 day to about 4 years, what means more than
1000 days, and are asked not about the concrete decisions, but about their likings of the politicians, what has practically nothing to do with the real abilities of the politicians! I don't discuss here, is this right or not, I simply state the fact that the governed are not really asked about their opinions, they are obliged only to obey and behave. And let me add also that during the capitalism the money decide everything, give priority to command, what is
not directly related with the real characteristics of the persons (because no big boss rules alone, he hires competent executives, surely, and because of this even an ... imbecile can show good results sometimes, how it happens occasionally). Yes, but in antic times, and even now in many Eastern countries (say, in Japan), the old persons, the ancestors, the aristocrats in one or another aspect, are taken for chosen by the gods rulers -- not the money --, in what is much more reason than under the usual capitalistic conditions.
So that the good order is some centralized one, and not the democracy, which is more chaotic way of ruling. But, as I said, when the order is good or proper everything is more or less regulated, and even if you have less rights you are feeling more defended and
better secured, and entitled to various privileges (if you behave properly). Yes, but the life becomes duller, the arts are controlled, not everything is allowed, and people feel bored. So that when there are taken cares about many things the risks are minimized, the life becomes ensured, but in recompense of this it becomes uninteresting and dull, what can be seen also in the literature and the other arts. With other words, it is like my title of this book says, that no problems poses problems; when you have more possibilities this allows some perils to occur. And because of this the exact cares or the limiting of the risks for the common citizens is very difficult to be estimated, because each care about smb. means prying in his affairs, delimiting of his freedom to choose (to take or not some risk). Because of this I have sung dithyrambs to Bul
barbarity, which is a bad thing, yet... and so on!
On the other hand this, that under the democracy appear many interesting books (or pictures, music, etc.), does not mean that they are all good, in no case -- nearly
99 % of what appears nowadays is bad and even disgusting, the mass culture is the
worst possible "culture" that can exist, I am absolutely convinced in this. The masses may regale in indecent and silly books and films, but they must at the same time be
taught what is good and what is bad, not left as homeless dogs to walk through the world. Yes, but the morality is
not incorporated in the democratic model, alas! Like also that the compromises are the most difficult thing in this world; a good compromise is sometimes worth millions (and even human lives). And nobody can convince me that this building of some
intersection of all religions (including the atheism), about which I have spoken on several places, is not worth the try; it is difficult, surely, but it can be somehow reached (like, for example, it was reached some uniting of medical cares between the Red cross and the Red crescent). Though of
several religions, not of one (because I don't believe that this silly and I would say
unpardonable ... dry law that has existed in the USA for as if 14 years would have happened if the Islam of the Buddhism, etc. were also asked about the right decision). Like also that nobody can convince me that my idea about
minimal social allowances to everybody must not begin to be introduced everywhere as soon as possible, what will lead to one reasonable diminishing of the risks for everybody, or to reaching of some socialism in the framework of the capitalism.
But let me move now to smt. else, to, say, the
learning and education, to whether we must look only for better productivity, or also for the elevating of the person through some sciences or arts or just preaches. There is a brilliant sentence of my beloved O. Wilde in this regard which says: This, what must be known,
cannot be learned, and this, what can be learned, is
not worth knowing! (Where is meant that, e.g., you can't know which ticket to buy in order to grasp a big win in a lottery, and this, that you can learn, say, the higher mathematics, is not really worth knowing because there are many people who already know this.) Where I would have added that if you "know" some girl, this is not so important at least because she is much more intriguing when you have still not known her -- although this is from another opera, as is said. And it is really so, that when you learn some special knowledge that as if is very important for you as professional, then either you can lose your work (like it really happened with me), or your knowledge can become old very fast (like it also happened with me as computer programmer, yet also in many contemporary areas of work). Or also what foreign lang. is best to learn, and many other things, so that the Wilde's aphorism is always actual.
Yes, but this is if you approach the matters pragmatically, yet in a broader sense as acquiring some common culture this is not exactly so, there are things which you may learn just because you will look more educated in this way. Like what? Ah, like what is called classical education, to read Greek or Latin, or to be able to play some musical instrument or even several, or to solve some mathematical riddles, or to play some nice sports that develop your body harmonically (or then your brain, like the chess), or if you know smt. about some flowers, some mushrooms (like myself), or animals (domestic or exotic), or to be able to write verses, or stories, or be able to do some repairing works at home (as plumber or in a masonry etc.), or to know several foreign langs (just for you, in order to be able at least to read in them), or to have some (be it perfunctory) knowledge about arts, music, atomic energy or mathematics or whatever else as common culture, and on and on. Yet not to know the pop stars or football players, or the country elite, because these are people usually not worth knowing (if you ask me -- at least because, ha-ha, everybody knows them). The main reason why people don't like to know such things is that they have not scientific predisposition, they do not want to
understand the world but just to be inquisitive, to be able to say ah & wow, and to pretend that know everything (what exactly are doing all common persons). Yet, as I think, this is a matter of mentality, and people
can be taught to want to understand and enhance their spirit (not to look only to grasp more money).
I for my part, especially because have left unemployed for decades (because have been too educated for a barbarous country like mine) have tried to learn even
third tertiary education, which idea turned to be unsuccessful for various reasons (I was about even 70 then, it happened during exactly this nasty corona-virus, and nobody paid any attention to me because
no office reads all the received mails). But I have at least come to one idea that I still think is brilliant; it may sound crazy but it is worth a try, for at least 10 % of the population (but probably up to a 1/4 of it); this is the idea about
Students honoris causa! It is simple: it is to begin and make
popular (because it is not forbidden yet I think nobody does this) beginning of
university (or maybe just semi-tertiary) education in the age at least after 40, better after 45, and even better if
after 50, be it also to 60 and 70! Such person will never make discoveries in the new field, neither new career, but he will increase his (her) self-confidence, find work for many teachers, pour fresh stream in the student life, and teach people to
honour the learned. This is very important in my opinion.
And why (one must honour the educated persons)? Ah, simply because they are
better than the others, they are wiser, do not say "this or that" -- excluding OR -- but "maybe this, yet it depends" -- i.e. they search for
compromises, and nearly all troubles of the humanity come because of inability to make compromises! And, people, only the taking of exams is worth the try, because you mobilize yourself, do not try to cheat, you
wrestle with the given science, strengthen your brain cells, show a desire to make yourself better, in a way to ...
move nearer to the very
God!. Yes, surely, I, the convinced atheist, believe in some "god" as
soul of everything, because everything inevitably has some soul, obeys some rules, aims at smt., ah, this is marvellous (to see the reasons)! (I can't believe in a God who cares about us and to whom we have to pray, but I can somehow accept the idea of some god-creator, because the evolution is a good thing, but some idea about it in before hand is always acceptable.) The scientists, in fact, try to
reach the God, and when possible to surpass Him (like we are doing now with these GM plants & animals; but also every important discovery is a step above to the might of the deities)! I have (I think) mentioned that if all people have had the mentality of the scientists then there would have been no wars, no sins, no nothing! This is impossible, naturally, but it is worth a try. Id est, this my idea will better our
souls, no more no less! And think about the future -- we can't all the time ...
deny the previous achievements with new discoveries (you just ponder how many technical revolutions have happened from the time of Edison's phonograph in the field of recording and reproducing of sounds), there will come time when we will be forced to sit and
enjoy the life, and what better enjoying of life if not with some scientific theory, or human habits, history, arts, some work of the ancient Muses?
With this I am finishing this chapter, gotten nearly from the blue (for the sake of the
cogito-ing), but allow me to mention what exactly is the idea of the
professions and professors. Well, it surely must be in the ability to ...
profess, or predict the future, to understand the hidden mechanisms in the given field, don't forget this. Try to be as professional as you can even in your entertainments. Ah, let Got help me to finish this book, because I begin to like it more and more, yet there have left less and less things about which to speak.
4.08. About anything -- twice
One important moment in life is related with the often heard Lat word
miserere -- show mercy to me! (And, by the way,
merci in Fr means thank you, but this is with the idea of "be merciful to me", do not ... punish me because I, like everybody else, am a sinner; or then that I am merciful like god to you because you have shown condescension to my poor person, smt. of the kind. This surely is so, because in Rus the same word is 'spasibo', where 'spasi Bo
g' is "God helps", and in Bul we say 'blagodarja', where 'blago darja(vam)' means that I am giving thanks as goods-'blaga' or blessings. Hence we not just beg for mercy but give goods, at least as wishes.) And I am raising this question because we are making ourselves
miserable in this way, this is against human dignity, this is
debasing behaviour, this contradicts to the spirit of democracy, yet all, but really all, religions find appropriate to debase the humans (in the name of humanity)! For every critical to himself person this sounds at least funny, but there are many things that the humans just take for granted without whatever thinking.
Ah, there is one brilliant definition of O. Wilde about the democracy (which I have thought that have already said, but could not find it now in these books), namely that: "The democracy is
bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people!", in what I believe at 100 percents, but it turns out that the religions have from times immemorial become convinced that the humans must be really bludgeoned every now and then in order to behave! Id est if by the democracy the bludgeoning is usually in figurative sense, as cheating, the religions really punish the people, where the mildest way is to excommunicate smb., but before millenniums were many religions that have required human sacrifices, exactly in order to show to all that the human being is really miserable creature! And let me remind you also the proverbial Lat saying :"
Ecce homo!", said to be pronounced by Pontius Pilatus, showing at our Christ at the cross. So that we must be thankful if some religion makes us only to sing Miserere-psalms and does not put us to such debasing death as crucifixion -- in the name of humanity, surely, to teach the other humans! And why is this?
Ah, because we are treated like
animals! Yes, the humans are taken to be not much different from any other living stock, chiefly mammals, what we
are, really, especially if congregated in big groups (I have discussed this already), only that no official instance dares to tell this in the open to the people (take at least the public relations "science"). Everywhere exist punishments for misbehaviour and it is better if they are well known to the general public. All public executions like: crucifixions, burning at stakes, decapitations, hangings, etc, were done in order to scare the population, what I don't say is wrong, no, this is justified approach, and the Miserere method is the humanest possible, in most cases, yet it, still, is a debasing of the human being. But if you take that the religious approach is justified then you are bound to accept this also by the totalitarian orders, because they used similar methods and state that we are sinners, in a way, and must behave and be taught, not like what the democracy states, that the common people are nearly gods (what is the usual understanding of the phrase that the
vox populi is
vox dei) and know everything and the rulers must look to satisfy their desires. Id est, the totalitarian and /or religious states and orders are
justified, in principle; we may not accept them as good now for reasons of ... demagogy, but they have their grounds as true rulings. Because of this I state that the morality is better than the laws in many cases.
And what I mean by the latter? Ah, I have proposed in one paper (about the Just
injustice) that the laws must allow some
modifications during the trials, to be taken
averaged meaning of the court assessors, to be
thrown away the lawyers as working against payment and obviously corrupted persons, and other things. After all, accepting the contemporary democracy and laws and free market etc. we are denying the whole millennial human history, this is too
totalitarian approach, we must always use smt. from the
opposite pole (to what I intend to return in the next chapter). There are things that must be incorporated in the laws, and they probably are, but they are
lost for the common people and made inaccessible to them, where the religious commandments are simple and easy and work practically always, yet they are left outside the official governmental sphere. And don't ever forget that the democracy is just
not moral, there is no morality in the official instances, they stick to the laws only, while the situation during the totalitarian ruling was not the same.
OK, let us leave now the Miserere principle and go to another one, which I will name
do-it-longer principle, where the accent is set not on the effectiveness of some thing (like this is in our contemporary world, and under the market economy), but on the continuation of some state, which we consider for blessed! What may be called sometimes make-it-shorter, if it goes about smt. non-pleasant. Yet we do not do this, we are mad to be highly efficient, while in the sex, for example, it is not so, there the length of it is preferable to be longer. Also the education continues for a long time, but it is usually worth the efforts; and many kinds of working activity is more satisfying to be done
manually, because in this way it is not always one and the same, smt. changes, smt. is
not perfect, and when our whole world, or the universe, is not perfect (like I have quoted the Skr sentence about the 3 no-s), then why mist we be wiser than the very God? Ah, surely because of the chasing after the money, which is from the Devil. But let me repeat again that nowadays we are not living like before even a century, to say nothing about a pair of centuries, so that we may allow ourselves to think more about our pleasures, yet in a righteous manner.
I recall that before exactly half a century, in 1970-ies, we have been speaking about going to
30 hours week, but have we accepted this, ah? And I was in a back-ward socialist country, without such automation and robotization like today, and with nearly 3 times less people on the globe. At the same time there is nothing embarrassing in this because the medics work for a long time by 6 hours daily and 5 days a week. As if we are afraid that will die of boredom in our free time, without the "nice" working atmosphere, or that will have not enough money for a decent life (yet if without immodest luxuries), what is not at all true. We can live -- and
must! -- pretty well on 1 MMS (minimal salary) even in such backyard countries like my Bulgaria (only less than 1/3 MMS is a nasty business, yet I have lived more then a decade on not more than a
1/4 of it and have written dozens of books and tens of 1000s of poetical lines during this time). The decent but modest life is nothing bad generally looking, it is even
preferable before living in exceeding luxury, because the latter weakens the organism. So that we can perfectly well work all of us by these 3/4 or today's 40 hours a week and be even happier and more creative, surely, providing we are cared better and cheaper medically and were educated free, and so on, how it
was under the totalitarianism. Or maybe you on the West think that under the socialism we all have died of hunger and misery?
But I have shortly mentioned my idea about later studying, after the zenith of life, as I have also proposed (yet not mentioned here, I suppose) the idea about
partial pensioning! And what means this? Ah, also nothing very unexpected, the idea is to go step-wise on pension beginning somewhere on 55, but with, say, 20 % of the pension, yet working with 20 % less during the week, and so on in this way with about 20 % changing in both directions each 5 years, so that at the age of 70 one will be able to work only about 8 hours in a week (say, 3 days by 3, 3, and 2 hours, or 4 days by 2 hours) and receive his nearly full pension. Let us not speak anymore about the sufficiency of money but stress only on the proceeding in steps to great changes in the life of a person, because the jumping in whatever parameter is perilous with smt. for the health. What does not mean that we must abandon entirely the usual pensioning but just to have one more possibility. Yet the big difficulty will be to convince the people that this is in their interest, because everyone could have, probably, ensured similar conditions for himself, but he will be afraid to do this, because the boss will begin to think how to get rid of him, while when smt. is accepted as common habit (like, say, the euthanasia in Ancient Greece) one feels secure to come to this possibility.
And also do-it-longer strategy means that the manual work has to be preferred, what we, by Jove, are not doing. While before a mere century nearly everything was done manually, and nobody objected but was happier. The unnecessary and without global sight automatization leads to sure unemployment, this was known in the communist countries before nearly a century, yet we do not give a damn about this nowadays, because now everything is cheating and once more time cheating. But if we will increase the manually produced goods, this will engage more workers and with more
interesting activity (to remind you the great Chaplin's film Modern times). Also if one will work less and have more free time he will do alone the cooking, the planting of own vegetables, will begin to be occupied with various arts just for himself, these all will be pluses for the society. I would say even that nowadays we all have perfect conditions to become
righteous, but we are not such only because of the pursuing of money and effectiveness in our life and work, and probably because of this all (as far as I know) religions are against the sciences and technical advancement, where guilty is only the bad and unmoral social order that we have.
And as last topic here I intend to use the arbitrariness, about which we have forgotten in our modern times, while it is a necessary element in our life and must find wider usage in it. I have mentioned that the democratic choice is a kind of arbitrary selection of rulers, yet we are doing this not because of the arbitrariness, but just for cheating. While we could have had the practice after each year to perform some arbitrary choice about new elections (what will not confuse the things if new elections are not necessary, right?) and this can be done not with 50 - 50 probability but practically with any one chosen before (up to the accuracy with which we will repeat the numbers of the one or the other variants). Or we can give free bonuses for everything to the citizens, say by reaching of some round age to receive some shares or parts of some companies, or real money. I have made once one proposition for a new kind of
advertising in the shops, which is reduced to this that one time out of, say, a quarter your purchases in the shop are
free, in some limits (say, if they are above 10 dollars, and up to, maybe, 50 or 100, only that
nobody will know when exactly this will happen, this will be found by some arbitrary choice after the set period of time has passed, and then those who have won receive reimbursements! But this is not applied because the shops rely on pure cheating, or with such super minimal chances (like 1 to 100,000), or else for cents, while I propose to be given sums of about 1 percent of the turnover. Or then may be said that on a given day (but you learn about this when you enter the shop) some article is sold with a pair of percents cheaper, or this concerns all purchases in a given day (or part of a day); or there can be used some cards for the shops (like many of them already offer) and those ending on a -
mn digits will receive some little discount for the day. And probably other tricks, but it is clear that raising of the prices must be avoided, because in such case the clients will begin to avoid the very shop.
Or, after all, people can
alone apply some arbitrary choices simply
changing the usual habit, because the habits can play bad service in some cases (like you know that the hunting animals wait for their game on the paths to where the latter go for drinking water). I mean changing of the shop where you buy your daily food, or changing of the places for vacations, or of the sexual partners, and so on, what some people do, but not many. Or you may celebrate your
own holidays, just because nobody does this, say, on 2.2. or 3.3 etc., or by other choice, just in order to break the rule.
So these were some principles which can help in various life-situations to give you more pleasure. It is not easy to generalize, and in some cases this is even dangerous, but this is a thing that all living animals do (the judging by analogies), so that I strengthened myself nearing the final.
4.09. About anything -- thrice
Ah, I just wonder about what to speak here and will accumulate entirely different moments, where only at the end will explain one interesting (acc. to me) idea for modelling in some way the so eagerly desired ... afterlife. Well, and firstly I will speak (or rather blow bubbles) about the
foreign (or opposite)
element of something. You see, I surely have mentioned somewhere that we like the total decisions (not the compromises), and here I mean that, in order to have richer palette, we must always try to use the foreign element to our usual one, as exception, surely, but still to use it sometimes. This is not a real compromise but a way for reaching of one, if we look globally at the things, or on the average. From pure dialectical viewpoint must be clear that if we position smt. on one of the poles then we practically
exclude this axis, it does not work for us. (Like, say, if we have only state-owned companies, then there is no difference between the companies according to the ownership, and because both poles are with smt.
bad, we have no ways to compensate some drawbacks in the production of goods.)
Yet the bad thing is not only this, worse is that in such case appear some other differences, emerges
another axis (or axes), which usually is not wished by us, and we have to think also about the just positioning in that new axis! (Say, in the example above with only state ownership appeared the nomenklature cadres which only could take ruling positions; or also appeared various kinds of deficit in each sphere of production, appeared special persons who have access to deficit products, like also searching of ways for monitoring of these persons and fighting with them, and other moments.) There are many examples about this, and let me take here the Rus so called NEP, New Economic Policy, which was introduced before as if exactly one century by the very Lenin, which policy was reduced to allowing to some private persons to become rich and lead business, to produce smt. necessary. If this "guy" has not died so unexpectedly early he probably could have managed to minimize the drawbacks of this total difference from the main ownership form, but there came the bad and iron "guy" Stalin (because his pseudonym means steely -- steel is 'stalj' in Rus) and this initiative was abandoned, yet it might have led to significantly milder communism -- who knows? And practically the same yet late NEP was introduced in Bul in the times of our "Duce" Tosho (Todor Zhivkov) somewhere in 1989, where was allowed to have private companies with up to 50 employees (counted on yearly basis), what worked good for many years later.
Or there can be paid education but with many of the students receiving scholarships (after signing of contracts with some big companies), what is reduced to free education, and practically the same was the approach in Bul in the times of the socialism, where all students signed such contracts yet only with the state. Or take the Rus 'Berjezkas' (like also Bul Corecoms), where were sold deficit products and chiefly of Western origin, but for Western currency and to foreign citizens. Or that was allowed to some exceptional individuals to emigrate temporarily to the West and usually study there, what was not allowed to 99.99 % of the population. And other examples from our totalitarian past, which show that the communism was not exactly pure, there were also foreign elements in it. Like also the capitalism is not exactly right-wing, and there happen some exceptions where the interests of the citizens are taken into account. Like these guarantees of the investments in the banks (up to some limit, which for EU members is 100,000 Euros), which are an open socialist element, but what of it? Or there are some funds in various areas for supporting the free market, what means for
breaking of it, for counteracting it when it turns to be bad for some persons, where typical example is the Fort Knox in USA for supporting of the dollar when necessary. (Yet I have read somewhere that smt. similar has existed once in USA for the prices on pork meat.) Or probably can be cited the existence of various secondary (so to say) religions and churches in every country. Or take the ... homosexuality, what is a perversion, but again: what of it?
Also some things can be used for the
opposite purposes! Ah, there is the main dialectical principle that everything turns (some time or other) in its opposite, but here I mean that smt. may be used exactly for contrary purposes. Like, say, the
knowledge can be used for
delusion, to hide smt., or to propagandize even the opposite! (I will give you a pair of examples from my Bulgaria, where, e.g.: above the entrance of Parliament is written that "In the unity is the power", because we are simply the most
disunited people of the world; or we have a special holiday dedicated to our Cyril and Methodius who have created our Slav alphabet, and celebrate also one Day of our Awakeners and pretend to value much the intelligent people, yet this was during the totalitarian ruling, but when the people have begun alone to take decisions we have left unemployed more than 20,000 scientific workers -- about 3/4 of all, appriory saying -- and have chased out everybody more or less educated as not needed in the new Bul state, and, as I have given this example dozen of times, I have received for at least 5 years pension worth 3 bus tickets daily; or we still believe that the communists have ruined our state no matter that the ruination has begun
after the falling of the communism and not before; and other
frappant cases of delusion exactly because we know that this is not true.)
Or take the jurists and PR people and the economists or businessmen who are cheating in about 90 % of their time at work; or then the ... fiction authors, and many other persons in various situations. Even our very
lang. is used in many cases not for reaching of better understanding between the people, but exactly with the intention to ... bamboozle the others; as well also not to unite but exactly to
disunite them, to isolate the ones from the others (to remind you the fable about Babylonian tower). Or also -- come to think about it -- many severe punishments have shown exactly the opposite effect, have turned to be
advantageous for the punished, they have raised these persons higher, have made them martyrs for a given cause, or at least have helped them in the future, causing them to change their behaviour (like I have mentioned that the Am atom bombs thrown over Hiroshima have made the Japanese to become world leading industrial, at least in car manufacturing, country, but have exposed the Ams as the most hated nation in the contemporary world -- because they have bombarded entirely
peaceful population). So that, to make the long story short, the foreign element principle is very actual in many situations in our life.
Ah, there are some tiny remarks which I have postponed because they are not very significant, but which is better at least to mention. So I have seen similarity between the creative work and that of the ...
glands with
external secretion! Yes, I think that I can be called creative person, and judging by myself this is so, when smb. creates smt. he (or she) wants to throw it away, to give it to the public, not to spare like money, this is the most important self-expression for such persons. Then I think that have made significant contribution to the ... democratic
protests, how and where to make them (what is expressed in a similarly called paper). It is reduced to this, that the humans (and I suppose also the animals) want to
express their wishes and feelings, even unasked, and this must be allowed them to do (what does not necessarily mean that the rulers must listen to them, because this is another point). Yet inasmuch as there are many times
more persons who do
not want to listen to them and who have important work to do, they do not want to be disturbed, so this must be done
not on the streets but on
special places, right? And where then? Well, in the beginning for these purposes can be used the stadiums, but later on must be built
special stadiums only for protests (or supports) of political parties and leaders -- as simple as that! This must be regulated with special laws, and provided ways for filming of the protests, their public broadcasting, abilities for showing (but only pictures, no sounds) in the desired by the protesters places, and other details. I personally think that this will be always actual, and also that the people must be asked much oftener about their opinions on various questions.
Then I see that now on many food products are given some allergens, and it turns out that nearly
everything can fall in this category! Like, say, cheese, butter, eggs. celery, and whatnot, but even half a century before this was not so, we have eaten anything and were much more healthier than now. What means that we, the human race, is
degenerating, we are weakening genetically ourselves, like probably it was with the royalty persons before tens of centuries. I am afraid that sooner or later we will begin to stuff ourselves with hormones of gorillas or even to ... copulate with some animals in order to refresh our genes?! I have spoken about this, but the situation is terrifying to me. In relation with the illnesses I have given myself as example (of healthy life) but can't recall whether have mentioned my look at the cancer, namely that it is an ...
intelligent disease! Yes, it wants to help to some ailing organ, to develop it, yet not in the proper time, and not in this way. So that this my idea can probably be of some help not for the healing of various cancers, but for their prophylactic. And the tiniest remark: I suppose that the usual ... mould, like that of the bread, is somehow healing, that slightly
moulded bread must be
eaten (because I am doing this sometimes and think that feel better after this!
OK, let me take that I have said everything worth saying, but, like the known Rus 'Kozjma Prutkov' (what was a pseudonym of a group of authors) has repeated several times: Nobody will embrace the non-embraceable. So that I surely have missed many important points but still I am coming now (how have promised this in the beginning of this chapter) to my last serious topic here, to my proposition for allowing to all people some kind of
afterlife. Because, see, I think that every thoughtful person will agree with me, that the only
sure afterlife is our
remembering by the next generations! By our close relatives as well by wider circles of persons, and this became possible only in the era of Internet. I have explained this in full and probably in more interesting way in my last SF story, "What else if not Afterlife?", so that here will tell you only the succinct idea of it. It is reduced to this, that for every person is maintained some
portrait of the person, not only as appearance but as physical and
psychical parameters, as well with his (her) moderately long narration about his life, which were the most interesting moments in it, with the exact persons with which he has often communicated, with his opinion about
the best and the worst persons with which he has met during his life.
This will begin to be done usually at the age of 20 and after every decade smt. more will be added. There will be special fields which will be filled, yet I don't expect that this will be more difficult to be done than to fill a tax declaration, for example. The persons with exact names which will be mentioned will be checked to be sure about them, all necessary
cross references (by some unique citizenship number for the entire globe) will be done, like it is done for a good ... citation index in the scientific journals. Only that this will not be published before the death of the person. Yet after this not only everybody will be able to read it but to find out who were the good and the bad persons according to him, this will be very useful and also preventing doing of bad deeds, I suppose, because nobody will want to be cursed in the open by many persons, mark this! This can be copied and stored in some device in every home, what will allow also some enacting, asking questions and receiving answers by some kind of computerized robot! Ah, this will become very interesting and useful kind of ... entertainment, if you like. You will be able to talk with all your ancestors (say, after the middle of this century), it will happen that, really,
nobody and nothing (important) will be forgotten.
This is the only way to make people to read what is written -- because the person is now dead, he will not lie (usually, of course, but everybody will be afraid of the computers that his lies will be detected; this might have been done even when the person writes his narration, everything will be checked on-line, so to say). Ah, people, this will be better than to talk with the very God (because every clever person will doubt that he has the real God before himself). I deserve Nobel premium for this proposition, methinks. But there remains one more chapter, the 55-th, beginning with the 0.00 chapter.
P.S. Ah, I have finished the book and after a pair of days unexpectedly have come (during one night) to the idea about one very useful and always actual instance, website or some non-profit organization, which has to form a constant
contra to the officially accepted, yet from the positions of the reason or intellect! This is well grounded from dialectical standpoint and was defended by some philosophers in old times, what is necessary because the common masses, as I have stressed this several times, like to go to the one or the other pole, but never to search for some compromising variant. But it is very actual to be mentioned in this book because this ties well with the title of the book, that the things always have another side. So this instance must be called "
The voice of reason", and sponsored by every more or less intelligent person, and I can even say that if sometime may happen that the very
governing institutions will sponsor this institution then this means that is reached at last the best social government (because till now this has never happened). And then, if my works will begin in some future time to be read and taken in consideration by more and more people, then I wish that if some publisher or site or the like, which will win something from my creative heritage, will give roughly 50 % of its pure income out of me to this organization of the doubt. Please, have this in mind, because this is my official wish after my death.
4.10. Final: The philosophy of Nothing
Hmm, you can be sure that this is a kind of joke, yet
philosophical one, not such for moronized customers. I have thought initially to give you some philosophy of mine, but this will not be interesting because I would have proposed smt. moderate, some philosophy of the compromises, but people want total things. You see, there were different philosophies (say, in Ancient Greece) but they postulated some basic principle and have reached even to absurdities wanting to stick to it there, where this is not so. And, after all, what better philosophy of compromises than the
dialectics and this assertion that our world is not constant, not perfect and not isolated? Hence I wouldn't have succeeded to do the task. (Although I have had some ideas, when young, I have thought about some mathematical theory of the ...
inequalities, because the exact equalness is practically impossible, it depends on the accuracy, but smt. of the kind exists, this is the interval arithmetic. I have thought also about some theory of ...
tri-sectrices, but have come to nowhere.)
And in addition to this each philosophy is a ... pure sorrow what concerns the very
beginning, because if there was some God then who has created Him, or if there was the matter in the beginning then where from has it appeared, of if we take the energy then how it has come to exist, and similar questions. Because of this I "wash my hands" saying that very basic notions may not be defined, or that when we have a cycle we can begin from every point in it, and other excuses. What is reduced to this, that a philosophy must allow some
inexactnesses here and there. (Like, e.g., the known paradox of Russel about the barber, which concerns some sets where some element can be member of two classes. It goes in this way: in one village was a barber who shaved all who cannot shave themselves alone; and then is asked: to which category belongs the very barber? Because he surely can shave himself being a barber, but on the other hand he is of those who are shaved by the barber, hence he can't shave himself alone!) (Or take also the Boolean implication function,
A -> B, which states that if A is true then B must also be true, yet if A is false then B can be whatever, what seems puzzling! Because if we consider the statement "When I breakfast I am feeling good." and it is false only "when I breakfast I am feeling bad", but when I do not breakfast I may feel both ways and this function will give true, this seems to us quite silly.)
You see, the specialists resolve such riddles, but for the laic this is not satisfactory. (And again in parentheses I will squeeze one example of myself for the
silly way how the
jurists judge. I have asked one such guy how will be proceeded is smb. states that some other person has stolen the ... Moon? So this guy got in no way confused, nearly at once he told me: it depends whose
property it is! Id est the absurdity of the situation makes no impression on him, he sticks to some silly norms which are inapplicable in the given case. But this is how the jurisprudence works quite often.) So that in order to make even the laics satisfied, or at lest to say smt. funny, I have come to my new
Philosophy of Nothing, or Nothingness, which turns to be not only this, but also ...
cosmogony, it will explain how the universe (which is everything existing), has appeared, i.e. I have found also one very suitable
demiurge or creator of the universe! I am proving nothing, naturally, yet will provide pretty
plausible model of judging, where instead of calling for assistance some magis (in Bul it is said 'vlyhvi'), like it is done with the birth of our Christ, I will call to your
logic to believe me. Of course this will be
no mathematical, or scientific in more general sense, proof, but this is how we proceed in most of the cases and quite often it turns that we are right, in a given sense. (Because, you know that the Sun does not rotate around the Earth, but for those living on the latter it is
to the same purpose, this is some
dual picture. Id est, no matter that this is wrong, its wrongness is suitable for us, we can stick to it for the time being.)
So my first sentence here is that:
In the beginning was Nothing! How brilliant, ah, and quite natural and believable! In some deep, not even antiquity but primordial times, before the very
time has existed, there was just Nothing. But, listen here, Nothing means really
nothing, not smt. like interstellar cosmic space, no, because there is at least ... space, extension, and the rays from every star shine through this space, and if there is nothing then the rays must
not pass through it! (How is this I can
not tell you, but we have no idea what this Nothing is, right? This is undefinable notion, like the universe or God or matter or absolute truth!) Of course we can define it somehow, at least say what it is
not, but will you understand its meaning correctly depends on you. This is abstract notion, like the
Nil symbol in the informatics, or like the empty set in the set theory. More precisely said the Nothing is such thing where is
no time, no space, no God or idea, no matter, no energy, no
nothing, people! And it is invisible, impalpable or not measurable in whatever way, in fact it is
inexisting for us!
But if you say that this is impossible, then I can
agree with you for the current moment or for us (because we can't find it even if it is before our noses), but a similar thing is the universe, where we say that it is Everything, i.e. enormously big, rather without limits, what means also
open, we can always add smt. more to it and this will be the same universe as before. So the universe is everything, including the space, the time with its unidirectional axis (because of the cause-effect relationship), the matter, the idea about it (written somehow in the very matter, which you can call God if this suits you better), the energy (hidden and incorporated somehow in the same matter), and anything else what we have not yet discovered (say, some gravitons; and if you ask me probably some ...
sexons, which we have also not yet discovered). So how the universe is Everything, then its
opposite is the Nothing, and v.v.; and if in the beginning was only the Nothing, in the same way now everything is in the universe and the Nothing does not exist for us. The Nothing can be both open and closed, because in it dimensions does not exist. And there can be no dialectical relations in it, because there is nothing to be related. As simple as that!
But, people, there are many things which we can not see or understand yet they still exist, and in the same way
exists also this Nothing (-ness) which does
not exist! You see, there can be contradictive notions in the most scientific and abstract sciences, which contradictions we can somehow resolve (by proper definition, usually), or live with them pretty comfortably (closing our eyes before them)! Life is not an easy thing, especially on such highly theoretical level; this is true not only for us, but for enormously big heap of things (animated or not), that have
not yet appeared (because it is too difficult for them to appear under the current circumstances)! OK, and having grasped the gist of my brilliant idea about the initial existence only of the Nothing, you must strain yourselves one more time for the next step. Are you ready?
So the nest step is that once, but upon
no-time, this Nothing has
got that when itself exists then it is quite normal to suppose that smt. diametrically opposite to it can also exist, and knowing what exactly it is, this Nothing has created the Everything, what we now call universe! Again very simple, and if you are inquisitive to understand how this Nothing has turned to its opposite, creating all necessary things (like time, space, God, matter, energy, and whatnot), then let me remind you that the existence of smt. in no case depends on someone's thinking
abilities! You can't
disprove my hypothesis, hence it has all rights to exist and prosper (because it is usually so in this world or universe, you can't prove that you are right, nearly always, you can prove only that smt., what has to be the opposite of your statement, is wrong)! The only thing that I can add, to help you imaging this, is that when the total negation of smt. is possible it is always good to
try it, to see what will happen, and in our case everything and nothing build a
whole set of events, this is perfectly possible. I mean that nobody knows what this Nothing is and is it capable of
goal-oriented reactions, and even the moving to some goal is
not really necessary, when our universe is built bottom-up, without preset goals. In the universe happen things that
can happen (and have found the proper time and place for this), so that in all probabilities this is true also for the Nothing. The existence of the universe proves that this
was possible, so that my cosmogonic hypothesis is good as any other, and explains many puzzling moments of the creation.
But I have better guesses, I can tell you
how this creation of the Everything has happened, so that to ensure all necessary
energy for the whole universe, i.e. how this super compressed primary egg was built. (As to the where this was done, it is clear that this was in the middle of
no-where, so to say, because in the Nothing have not existed whatever coordinates. Also the question about when has no sense because in the Nothing there was as well no time.) This is again simple and brilliant: the primary egg, carrying the whole universe in itself, was put in one -- follow me carefully --
mathematical point, what means
without dimensions, as small as it can be and everyone can imagine this, smaller than the smallest distance! But look, this is practically obvious, because the Nothing is abstract notion and there are no spacial dimensions there, hence the Nothing is the very place where the Everything can be put, because it is the spitting image of this mathematical point! So that, like you see, everything is well tied, because only in one such abstract and imagined point can be reached such enormous pressure that allows the whole universe to expand from times immemorial (in cosmogonic sense) and to continue to expand for the same unimaginably long eons of time in the future.
A hypothesis is smt. that is
hyp(p)o-below the thesis, which is how everything in the universe has appeared. You can't seriously believe that I will serve you on a plate some exact proofs about this, I can only
suggest them, using my famous brain cells. And if smb. of you will ask the (quite reasonable in this case) question:
how I have succeeded to do this, I can answer it in the known way, that I have stepped on the shoulders of giants (of thought)! The only additional prove that I can give about my genius is that I am
not valued in democratic times, what for an utterly barbarous country like mine mist be a sound
proof for my original thoughts! (Otherwise we would not have been barbarians, what contradicts to the real situation, that is proved also with our leaking of everybody more or less capable in smt. out of the country, and with our stable reducing of our population, for 1/3 of a century with exactly 1/3 of the population.)
But let me stress also on the enlivening
instructiveness of my hypothesis, because I offer to the people eloquent example about the strength of the mere
wish, not supported with whatever abilities, inasmuch as there can't be whatever expectation for thinking or whatever abilities of a mere Nothingness! Yes, this is utterly
democratic hypothesis, after all, when a nothingness has succeeded to build a whole universe out of nothing, then every single ... moronic individual can succeed at least in this, to grasp as much money as he (she) can from the hands of other simpletons! Am I not right? Ah well, I am not really a genius, I am probably only 1 to about
1000 ordinary people, but 1/1000-th of nearly 10 billions of people gives whole 10 millions of possible readers of my works, all around the world. Or else that in some unique country, like, say, ...
Bimbinistan, I will be most popular. So OK, I am writing then chiefly for Bimbinistani people. Yes, only that I will no more write for anybody, I have in my mind ideas about 5 to 10 papers about different themes, which must succeed to finish in the next 25-th year, and will wish live well to all of my insignificant as number readers, because enough is enough.
Also this book, as I have expected this from the very beginning of this year, will be closed at this point. It remains only to put the final verse, which is acrostic and also interwoven fingers (or Myrskettino) and even with 7
equal rhymes (on -ing), only that they alternate on an unstressed and then on a stressed syllable; such thing I have not yet written, so that it must be good as final end of this book. It follows.
N_o№w look, in the beginning was just ...
Nothing!
O_nly
this,
negated, gives the everything!
'T_was put in the midd№le, th'Nothing like a clothing
H_ooded th'future universe and left the ring!
I_n this you can see that with strong
will in plotting
N_ew things can be done, this happiness can bring,
G_o ahead and try, be it the things are rotting.
END OF FOURTH YEAR
END OF THE WHOLE BOOK