Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 

Trialectics, The logic of Integral?

  •  09-13-2008, 2:50 PM

    Trialectics, The logic of Integral?

    I am posting a long post of Oscar Ichazo's lecture on trialectics. I think it is the logic that Integral is getting at but is still looking for a clear expression. This lecture is very short for the topic but I think will do for discussion.

    Man has defined himself as 'Homo sapiens', the man who thinks. Throughout all history, the question of reason, or how human beings think, has been permanently posed before our eyes.

    If there is a difference between us human beings and all that is not human in nature, it is this: We are the only creatures who question their own identity.

    We must see immediately that identity means the development of a sense of separation (I am I, and you are you), a sense of establishing borders, making a kind of obstruction between ourselves and reality; identity is then a metaphysical proposition.

    We must agree right now that metaphysics is a subject which interests not only scholars; it is a fundamental con­cern for all of us. We must define our identity in such a manner that it serves us in a practical fashion, so that we can approach the serious business of reality.

    Since the work of nineteenth-century socialist theoreti­cians, it has been universally agreed that philosophy in general, and metaphysics in particular, if they are not tools useful for the evolution of society, become merely expen­sive luxuries difficult to afford.

    Swimming in the same stream as Karl Marx, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre, as well as in the same stream of such theoretical politicians as Lenin, Trotsky, Attlee, Franklin Roosevelt, and Mao Zedong, we may observe that for these thinkers metaphysics is not merely a point of intellectual analysis, but an indispens­able element of thought which can change our lives. It is from this point of view, from this sense of the practical, that we shall speak. It has now become clear that the crisis in which we live serves as the prelude for a radical change.

    We must ask your patience for the rough construction we will be employing to establish this radical synthesis, but we must observe the change which occurred with the appearance, in the sixteenth century, of the Renaissance man in Europe.

    This was a fundamental change because it brought the appearance of a new way of thought which did not depend on the authority of a deterministic power but on an a pos­teriori, or inductive way of thinking. In this frame of new thought we find Martin Luther, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and of course, Francis Bacon.

    Following closely behind them were Baruch Spinoza, Nicolas de Malebranche, and Bishop George Berkeley. They were influenced by the times they were living through, and that explosive situation which appeared as they began to understand the radical problems of self-identity. This was indeed the first revolution of thought which we in West­ern culture were compelled to confront. Stating the case concisely, we can assert that here is where our modern Western civilization was founded, as most historians agree.

    Let us say immediately that our entire Western civiliza­tion means 'science'. Science began with the accumulation of data which led to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. It is no wonder that the theoretical instruments now at hand were employed in a practical way. Machines which were not dependent upon natural forces such as wind, water power, or animal energy were soon invented, beginning with the invention of the steam engine. By this time a new crisis had appeared, brought on by these new ideas, and this new crisis was manifested in the thought of the Enlightenment.

    This new proposition asserted, in a totally practical way, that man was dependent on nothing but himself, and his ability to conquer himself, to achieve his own freedom.

    Now we enter a totally different intellectual landscape. Since nothing was determined, everything depended on that freewheeling action typical of the age. For the think­ers of this period it appeared that freedom was the last conquest.

    A different human being made his appearance. Since nothing was predetermined, his problem became how to make determinations by himself.

    Also at this stage of Western history, human beings were no longer predators in nature; they became predators of other human beings.

    There now appears a tremendous acceleration in his­tory. At the same time that man is accelerating his possibil­ities by means of machines, he is also accelerating his own process—the process of history, which now begins to move very quickly indeed.

    Here we have two different parameters to analyze. The machines have reconstructed 'time'. The hours of sweaty labor required previously are contracted in such a way that spaces which it would have taken human beings years to conquer (in the sense of to traverse and tame) lie

    now in their hands in hours or minutes.

    Human beings find themselves within the psychic pres­sure of a very different reality. Because man has learned to contract time, he has expanded space. Great cities can make their appearance, so that within the space of a few miles the population of an entire nation can be installed. Space has been expanded as a result of time's no longer being bound by biological constraints. Time has become something that human beings can 'play with', and this they did, expanding space in the process.

    This pulled human beings into developing their skills and ingenuities through competition. At this time, all his­torians will agree, man had radically taken charge of his own existence.

    If we take a large, panoramic view of this period, we can assert that this process is the outcome of contradic­tion. Man no longer feels himself to be participating in a universal harmony. On the contrary, his conquests have provided him with an arbitrary power of decision. This is what the Industrial Revolution was all about.

    It was not until after two monumental catastrophes, World Wars I and II, that we human beings learned that we cannot compete in limited space. And space can no longer be expanded by machine time-compression. We cannot compress time any further. It has its limitations (a subject we shall discuss later), since matter is substantially a con­centration of time.

    What we want to establish here is that we are facing a third crisis, brought about by several new factors, prime among them being the new speed of communications and the resulting 'information explosion'—as is well known. Once more we see the same phenomenon, the discovery of new parameters which cause a revolution to occur.
       Our Western society has had the three necessary crises which must occur before a real civilization can be born. We will see, ladies and gentlemen, that this process would appear to be an organic one, which we can express as childhood, adolescence, and maturity. In this example, we can see that in superficial appearance, history would seem to be a continuous process, but this is illusory. The three stages of human growth are separated by internal changes which cannot be denied.

    Life can be understood as a sequence of crises which occur at pre-established moments. There is the crisis of birth, the crisis of adolescence, which is followed by the third and last crisis, the coming into maturity and respon­sibility.

    Forgive me for repeating that even though the process may appear to be continuous, it is in fact discontinuous. There are precise moments of change which are not the result of quantity becoming quality, as would be asserted by dialectical theoreticians, but which are instead pre-established points where change occurs.

    We must agree anyway, that Western society lived through and consequently survived the first two crises, and we are now confronting the third and last one.

    Here we must see that each period of life (following the example of human growth) has its own different and distinctive way of analyzing its own identity.

    The identity of the child is immersed in his parents and immediate surroundings, since he is incapable of surviving alone.

    For the purpose of emphasis, we will repeat that hu­man identity is attached to human survival. Now, gener­alizing, the sense of survival will determine the sense of identity.

    Once the child becomes an adolescent, he loses the

    need of the total close support required when he was a child, and this becomes a 'contraction' of his identity; as he becomes more independent, his identity becomes more centered in himself. But he still does not consider him­self a totally independent unit. His identity flows with his membership in a group, a clan, a tribe. He will need to grow more before he comes to the point where he feels totally self-sufficient, or self-dependent. We may compare this pro­cess of self-identification to a step-pyramid with distinctly defined stages, growing narrower at the top.

    Returning to the line of argument, since identity is dif­ferent in each one of the three steps, obviously the logic must be different.

    In the case of the child, he will think, "I am not only this body, but I am my parents as well, and all those who sustain me. Without them I do not exist."

    In the case of the adolescent, he will think, "I am my group."

    Only in the case of the mature man will he think, "I"-meaning, "I-am-the-one-who-can-survive-by-myself."

    It is now necessary to define logic as merely an exten­sion of identity. Here, with your permission again,-it be­comes a matter of rigor that we cite the well known logic of Aristotle, who enumerated the three principles which define reason as such:

    1.         The law of identity: A = A

    2.    The law of contradiction: A /=(not equal) B

    3.       The law of the excluded middle: A /= A + B
    Simple as the formulation is, it does establish the posi­
    tion of the three parameters required for human survival.

    The first law, the law of identity (A = A), we will call 'analysis', since it establishes differences by which we can separate the elements of a compound, thus understanding it analytically.

    The second law, the law of contradiction (A /= B), we will call 'analogy', because it establishes similarities.

    We will call the third law, the law of the excluded mid­dle (A /= A + B), 'empathy', since it defines our ability to put ourselves in another's place. Even though I am not you, I can 'become' you by the effort of putting myself in your shoes, so to speak.

    Aristotle's logic went unquestioned until the Renais­sance, which we know as the birth of Western society.

    The Novum Organum of Francis Bacon is a totally new conception. It marks distinctly that stage in our societal history when the child begins to change his identification from family to group, and thus projects himself into the crisis of adolescence.

    Let us take a closer look at Francis Bacon's thought. He sees that identity is not a fixed element, but one that moves and establishes relations with other elements.

    As in the case of the adolescent, the culture now ques­tions the validity of his parents' defining his own survival. He is not yet strong enough, however, to exist independ­ently; he must still rely on his group for survival; he must rely on his peers and equals. He is not yet an independent 'me'. His 'me' is still attached to being 'me-the-group', or 'me-the-clan-member'.

    Again, with your permission, let us take a second look at this factor. We have seen how, in formal logic, identity is established. But this kind of identity will be permanent, within permanent parameters. A cat is a cat (A = A); a cat is not a canary (A /= B); a cat cannot be a cat and a canary (A /= A + B). According to formal logic, all situations are in themselves unchangeable, exactly as a child would like to suppose the world really is, orderly, trustworthy, clearly understandable and reliable. The child expects his food every day, with no conception of how it comes to him. Aristotle's world is, to be succinct, a totally static one, a world which requires a center to which one can refer. We can call the movement of this kind of world 'centripetal'; the attraction is to a center which has no movement, that seems permanent and unchangeable, impossible to dis­solve. This gives the child a sense of identity which equals his sense of being.

    Proceeding with the line of our argument, as the child becomes an adolescent, he will fall into a crisis. Suddenly he observes that the center on which he had been relying does not have the permanence he had hoped for. On the contrary, he finds it often inappropriate and often untrust­worthy. Despite his dissatisfactions, he cannot yet count on himself for his survival. As we said before, he still needs other human relations to support his own path. Once more, he has to rely on a group on which he naturally depends.

    If the movement of the child is centripetal, the move­ment of the adolescent can be figured as 'centrifugal'. He will begin to circulate out from the center, will try to con­quer life himself, rather than depend on others to put the food on the table, so to speak.

    With your permission, let's take another look at this example, confronting it across the body of our culture.

    As many others have said before, Aristotelian logic fails utterly in the presence of time. A is not A under the pres­sure of change. The ice of today may melt tomorrow. Since everything in nature moves, we can only have a sense of permanency if we ignore this fact. We can say this more simply. In human consciousness it means this: The indi­vidual I am right now will not be the same individual tomorrow; today T am different from what T was yester­day. In simple terms, we say we have aged. Another factor has accumulated within us: time. The failure of Aristotelian logic to deal with time was obvious even in Aristotle's day, so identity was specified across the premise of permanency.

    Since we experience continuous change, however, Aris­totelian logic becomes only a theoretical and abstract prop­osition which in reality does not exist. How then are we to analyze change, the fact that time exists; time, that other parameter of identity?

    It took us, in the West, up to the middle of the nine­teenth century before Nikolai Lobachevsky, Karl Gauss, Hermann Minkowski, and finally Albert Einstein formulated methods for dealing with time.

    But let us not go quite that fast.

    Let us consider the case of the child who, on becoming adolescent and discovering that his world of permanent positions is now becoming confining, will suddenly face outward to the larger world. He knows immediately that the world he believed to be reliable and unchangeable just simply does not exist. This will provoke a crisis of identity. He will think of himself as having been cheated, and will, after the crisis, turn away from his center of identity and face in the other direction. Now he will try to discover what change is all about, since permanence does not exist.

    But let us examine this critical point more carefully. If change exists by itself, if it is random, and there are no limitations, then he can manipulate it at his pleasure; and by employing his skill, determination, and cunning, he can deal with any changing situation as he chooses. This will give him an invigorating sense of freedom, the feeling that he can deal with whatever comes to hand.

    Since there is now no permanent point of view to which he can refer, he is compelled to explore the limits of his own possibilities. He depends exclusively on his ability to construct for himself an environment suitable for his own survival. He will find this in his group of contem­poraries and peers, to whom he now turns for protection in the same way he once turned to his parents. His peers have the same problems he does, and in the togetherness of the group, he now finds his new identity.

    The culture evolves in the same way, from that child­hood stage which requires an omnipresent Father-God and a reliable Mother-Church, to that crisis stage which we know in the history of Western society as the Renaissance.

    Renaissance man thought he had discovered the classic Greek aesthetic which takes the perfection of the human body as supreme. That was not the case. It was no more than a romantic idea. Although, in fact, the Renaissance did produce a new human being with a different architecture, it was not that of the Greek heroes who had discovered the internal positions which open the body and the psyche to a different physical strength far beyond what we consider normal today in the West. Only the martial arts of ancient China and the orthodoxy of Japan had produced bodies with the same perfection and ability.

    To recapitulate, the Renaissance comprised that crisis of identity which posed the question, Who am I if I keep changing?

    Although the answer to this question was already pres­ent in Dante Alighieri and in the work of Nicholas of Cusa, it took until the time of Giordano Bruno before the propo­sition that change in itself is not beyond our capacity to question became part of the discussion. With the discov­ery of the irrational numbers we no longer have arith­metic, we now have calculus, analysis situs. Nature moves, and we understand that movement by framing reality in a calculus of probabilities. We must now try to understand our identity while traversing the slippery road of change.

    Like an abandoned child, post-Renaissance man rejected             
    that determinism which had transformed his secure and reliable mother into a figure who contradicted the world he was now encountering. The child is deterministic in that he refers himself to a permanent point.

    The inductive way of thinking of the adolescent may be seen not as centripetal (as is the case of the child who refers always to the center point), but as centrifugal, as he faces away from the center to the periphery of the whole world which he himself must discover.

    Where did this lead us in Western society? Exactly to that point which, we say, causes the birth of a totally new sense of identity which will occur when our references to everyday data correlate with our ability to survive.

    Once we give up our identification with permanency, which takes us, childlike, to secure parameters, suddenly we find ourselves confronting change. The change was there all the time; we were not looking at it, though. Mas­tering this change, then, is necessary for our survival. Let's take another look, with your permission.

    If identification is permanent and absolute, we do not have to deal with anything else. But if we consider time as an adolescent considers it, as movement, it causes our sense of permanent identity to disappear. In these new parameters, personal identity does not exist.

    The adolescent must now admit to himself that what is permanent is change, movement itself. So now that move­ment has become the permanent pole, only continuous activity makes sense; he feels that if he is not continuously in command of movement, it will overtake and drown him.

    This new type of understanding takes us to a still differ­ent set of social parameters. We have moved from what was permanent, maternal, and reliable, to another place where everything is open-ended, unreliable and must be investigated.

    There then appears in England the development of empir­icism and the flowering of inductive thought. The question asked by the child was, "How good am I compared to the parameters of perfection?" The question asked by the adolescent is, "How good am I compared to the parameters of the unknown?"

    With this we see the birth of an entirely new man, one who doubts everything in front of him. As Descartes estab­lished, this man does not say, "I believe." He says, rather, "I doubt."

    Whereas before, man was sustained by belief, now only the acceptance of his own doubt will sustain him.

    This means that man must discover change and move­ment as the last parameters of reliable thought. We are not speaking here of the classical view, such as Heraclitus's conception of change, which is merely theoretical. Here, at this moment in history, man requires practical tools for understanding, since life and survival depend on our under­standing of movement and change.

    Let's examine this more closely. Change and movement are not things that happen outside of us, while we imagine ourselves as permanent and identical-to-ourselves. Change and movement have become part of our internal psyche. To put it bluntly, our psyche is in continuous movement. Our psyche is change.

    If we see the developmental stages of Western society in summary, they are these: Prior to the Renaissance, there was the complete acceptance of a permanent and indivisi­ble center. From the Renaissance on, we imagine our life stretching before us, which we can only call phenomeno-logical, since we know our life will be the result of change and movement.

    With your permission, we would like to elaborate the sequence of Descartes' famous proposition: Since I candoubt, I can think. Since I can think, I am!

    Here, ladies and gentlemen, if you follow carefully, you will see the degree of radical change which has occurred. For the first time in well over a thousand years, reason it­self is questioned. Now it appears to us that we shall find the foundations of reason not in reason itself, but in its inter­nal mechanisms. So, after Bacon's work appears, the critique of reason becomes the main problem of philosophy.

    To put it differently, and more simply, before Bacon, reason sustained itself with no questions or arguments. Bacon questioned reason itself (in a manner reminiscent of Chuang Tzu almost two thousand years previously) by means of four main lines of interrogation:

    1.          Are our senses accurate? Do they give us reliable
    information about the world outside?

    2.    Do not our moods or humors serve as color filters
    intervening between us and the world outside?

    3.    Are not our mutual relations nothing more than the
    outcome of our social prejudices?

    4.    Are we not projecting ourselves over our acts and
    thus distorting reality?

    So far, we have seen specifically that A is not A. Identity is lost in the flux of time. Time has become a new parame­ter which we must consider if we are to observe any change in nature. Time distorts the three basic parameters, now seen in calculus as a continuum of successive divi­sions, none of them to be trusted entirely. Permanency is lost immediately.

    How can we make sense of this universe which is now ours to conquer? How can we imagine a reality that is not reliable? Is our confusion finally a problem of our own reasoning, of our own mind?

    The answer came—with your permission to compress

    with David Hume, who followed Leibniz and the tradition of Spinoza, who questioned reason right through what classic Greek philosophy called nous, the transcendental reality. This thought culminated in Immanuel Kant, who pro­posed a double figure to reality. After Kant, reality was not unilateral, but bilateral. There is an a priori concept and an a posteriori one. Kant tells us that time and space are a priori. He demonstrates that mathematics contains these two elements, and thus they must exist within us or else we would not be able to think about them. He establishes doubt, which had begun with Bacon and Descartes, as a secure principle. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant asserts that doubt itself can be dissected to the inner pur­poses of time and space. We cannot think about what we cannot measure in time and space. He demonstrates that a priori conditions have to exist.

    It is not our senses then, which intervene between our­selves and reality. It is the a priori conditions which intervene.

    But this was not good enough.

    We cannot interpret the world with just those two parameters of space and time. Later we will return to this problem, which is fundamental if we are to establish a final critique of reason. We have now established that the rules of formal logic (identification, contradiction, and the excluded middle) simply fail altogether to describe reality.

    Scientific thought requires that A is not A. If we are to evaluate change and make it comprehensible and useful for our survival, it must be measurable and quantifiable. Without this we cannot move. It is that simple.

    So our adolescence was born in the Renaissance at that moment when we began questioning our parents, an abso­lute God, and an absolute church.

    So we enter into the fantastic adventure of our own mind. We devise romantic interpretations, but crude reality will take us to dimensions where space does not exist, where time does not exist, where matter does not exist, where even mind does not exist, and where we must rely only on 'spirit'.

    Though it may appear comic, let me assure you, ladies and gentlemen, it is not. Have patience, please.

    We have now come to the point where we can no longer trust established reality. We feel that the reality established by society has failed us altogether. This pro­cess, which is reaching its climax today, began with the Enlightenment—the Age of Reason—and the Industrial Revolution, as we know very well.

    By the turn of this century, the fundamental laws of physics had been discovered. I am not speaking here of the terminal laws of physics, but of an understanding of process adequate for calculating most physical events. In comment­ing on this, I would like to draw your attention to Sir Isaac Newton. He was cautious in asserting that he was merely analyzing the mechanics of a gravitational force, which was inexplicable in itself, but operated in a predictable manner which permitted calculation. In his opening sentence he says quite distinctly, let us suppose. Strangely enough, we have forgotten that qualification. Because the calculations work, we forget that Newton's is still a theoretical propo­sition, not a scientific one. I mean by this that gravitation defined as a force of attraction has yet to be proved beyond any question posed by reason. This still leaves us with an­other fundamental question, What is reason?

    Just to be playful for a moment, let us reverse Newton's assertion that mass 'attracts' mass, and assert the contrary, that mass 'repels' mass. The equations still work—don't they?

    In his corpuscular theory of light, Newton considered light a special form of matter. Today, after the demonstra­tions of Max Planck and others, it seems almost obvious that matter evolves in time from the concentration of light. We can see that there is a quantifiable process whereby light, as it becomes matter, evolves from one manifestation to another.

    So, to continue with the argument, since identity has no permanence, we must establish identity and existence with­in the criteria of change. But we do not understand change.

    With this it is clear we do not understand reason, and yet reason is accepted as our definition of ourselves, 'Homo sapiens'. We define ourselves as being human through the exercise of reason.

    Now, instead of 'Homo sapiens', we should consider ourselves as 'Homo rasus', as we question ourselves finally, "Who am I?"

    This question, the question of 'being', seems to appear late in a culture's development. Not so! It is the very first question as well as the last. The question of 'being' is the Alpha and Omega.

    Arbitrary metaphysics was cast out during the last cen­tury. If we do not define what 'being' is, we will be attracted by any practical propostion that pays off. Ultimate solutions are doomed to failure.

    Caution, now, ladies and gentlemen! From Francis Bacon to Immanuel Kant there was an enormous leap of accomplishment. We must question reason itself.

    The phenomenon of change will be established by Georg Hegel in the first law of dialectics: quantity becomes quality. The quality of water is changed to vapor by the quantity of heat applied.

    So change has been rendered comprehensible by the first law of dialectics. The second law of dialectics will now appear: the law of opposition.

    Unlike formal logic, where the law of contradiction (A /= B) appears only as a means of defining identity, here in Hegel's hands it establishes the eternal opposites: night and day, love and hate, life and death, pleasure and pain, praise and blame. One proposes the other. With this Hegel establishes a radical law.

    Everything works in opposition to something else. Here again, unlike formal logic, where contradiction serves to isolate and thus identify, in Hegel's hands the law does not imply that one contradiction excludes the other. On the contrary, both are needed for any evolving process.

    But again, caution, ladies and gentlemen!

    While the third law of formal logic says that A can be either A or B, but not both together, the third law, reinter­preted by Hegel, establishes that the middle point is not excluded forever, but by its exclusion will appear again, since time is involved. For example, in formal logic we might say that a cow is a cow and grass is grass; a cow cannot be both grass and a cow. And yet from the point of view of a rancher, in time, grass does become cow.

    The Hegelians saw that Aristotle's third law is not 'either one or the other', but rather 'both' are involved in an evolv­ing system. Instead of the permanent identity of formal logic, we now have the impermanent identity of the Hegelians. Identity in dialectics must be impermanent because identity is now involved in the explanation of change. This identifies time, the new parameter, not as an inexplicable a priori element—it has become logical.

    I legel defines this third law as the negation of the nega­tion. We see that all processes seem to deny themselves. For example, the egg, in order to liberate the chicken, must he destroyed. Every process seems to stand upon its own negation.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we are indeed fortunate to have history with us for reference. We will see that each new logic comes not as an intellectual proposition, but rather as a matter of fact. Once more, intellectual propositions do not evolve in a continuous process; there are leaps which are beyond any prior measurement. New ideas appear suddenly.

    Ladies and gentlemen, caution again!

    We have now discovered that movement and time are not absurd propositions; they exist and they can be mea­sured and comprehended.

    That change is a continuum is now understandable; A is no longer A, but a quantification which becomes a quali­fication. As for the second law, that A is not B, to be sure, day is not night, but one defines the other. And as for the negation of the negation, well, the emerging chick destroys the egg.

    When movement is understandable, time as a factor in our lives has been defined. Quantity becomes quality. In the example of water and steam, the quantity of heat energy will change the quality of the water. The second law is now seen by dialecticians not in the way of seeing separate cate­gories, but as elements opposing each other, thus rendering movement and change understandable.

    But now with your permission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to speak of these opposites not in Heraclitus's terms, nor from the position of St. Augustine (who saw the separate positions of good and evil). Not at all!

    With the appearance of Hegel, we are dealing with an entirely new set of parameters.

    This must take us again to considering what is that which we can call 'being'.

    Fundamentally, we cannot conceive of 'being' except in terms of something 'opposing being', that is, 'nothing'. To restate this, something is in 'being' inasmuch as it is opposing 'non-being'.

    Now, the fundamental problem of metaphysics—What is 'being'?—can be defined by what is not. Here we must recall St. Thomas Aquinas, who defines 'being' in negative form—the five negative assertions. By denying the principle of existence, it becomes defined.

    So at this point we know that 'being' must be defined in terms of'non-being'. Let's make a synthesis, and, as with every synthesis, accept the risk of oversimplifying.

    From the point of view of the formal logician, suddenly with Francis Bacon we find ourselves confronting move­ment which has to make sense. Later on, it is established that this movement can be analyzed and employed for our benefit.

    Caution again.

    Here we are using time to serve us, meaning by this that we can contract it.

    Let us recapitulate. 'Identity' has become 'movement' itself. Now we can deal with it.

    It is no surprise then, that within the same decade, Karl Marx was to apply these principles to the historical process, and Charles Darwin, to the biological process.

    Now we have all established ourselves inside this gen­eral system of thought. Humanity, it is seen, has been evolving, has been growing up, it would appear, for only one purpose—its own evolving identity.

    Here we can see the second crisis of humanity, the cri­sis of adolescence, when man must learn to rely on him­self through his group. Conquest is now the principal concern of his being, the conquest of the unknown. His identity is now his conquest.

    Ladies and gentlemen, slow....

    We are trying to see the basic parameters of our cul­ture. What is this new man? Who is he, this man with no reference systems on his back? Let us put it simply. When 'conquest' becomes identified with 'being', the external world is seen as being an unlimited, boundless manifestation. Let's take another look.

    Since the inductive revolution of the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason, there has been only one way to think about reality, and that is in the line of Kant, Hegel, Fichte, and Marx.

    We have also seen that because the machine can con­tract time, an expansion of space is possible. With this expansion of space, we have a new and different system of survival. Instead of thousands of people occupying a given space, we can now have millions.

    What does this mean? It means, again, that concentrat­ing time enlarges space. Space is equipped with services, which, because they compress time, can accommodate one hundred where space once accommodated only one.

    This has been a change which dialectical logic can accept, meaning that by adding a quantity of people, one can jump into a new quality of cultural achievement. It can also be understood in terms of the opposites which interact ac­cording to the second law of dialectics. And of course, existence must deny itself for the proposition of life. Urban decay demands urban renewal.

    But let us take another look, to see why the theory of Karl Marx failed to produce the results he expected.

    As is well known, he expected that his theory would first manifest itself in the industrialized countries of Europe. England should theoretically have been the first to accept his thought, to be followed by France, and the process would climax in Germany.

    But what actually happened was radically different. With the addition of Lenin's reforms, the theory made sense in Russia. And with Engels's Anti-Dubring—the demonstration that all idealism had reached a point of no meaning in human terms—the collapse of idealistic philosophy in favor of the materialist point of view was completed.

    At this point too, we must recall Proudhon and de Saint-Simon, who foresaw that the compression of time would cause capital to accumulate.

    But back to our question. Why did the theory fail to produce the results expected?

    With your permission, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to pose the question, Where has dialectical thinking flour­ished most successfully and effectively in the world? Pre­cisely where Karl Marx never expected, on the two sides of Europe, in Russia and the United States. Why did this happen?

    Lenin's formulation proposed that the Russian proletar­iat would lead the entire culture to another stage of cultur-;il achievement. But we must also recall that Leon Trotsky predicted that the Russian proletariat could become another bastion of imperialism, a prediction that was subsequently argued and confirmed by Mao Zedong.

    What is contradictory here is that the Marx-Engels theo­ry didn't work in historical reality. If the proletariat would lead the culture to another stage in reality, capital would have been developed 'endlessly'. And, according to theory, once this had occurred, the accumulation of capital would In- negated by the more equitable socialist distribution of wealth.

    This did not happen in Russia. On the contrary, in Rus­sia, it developed in the opposite way, as one can see in the world today. It did happen precisely this way in the United States. The highly skilled and motivated American work force produced immense capital accumulation. In fact, it seems to oppose history. And when the system became unbalanced in 1929, Roosevelt's socialist redistribution, Inspired by Lord Keynes's theory, conformed to the Marx-Engels predictions.

    In reality, the United States is the most successful dia­lectical nation in the world today, precisely because in the United States competition is the principal parameter of existence.

    To put it simply, it works like this: quantity becomes quality. If human effort can be quantified (as was accom­plished by Taylorism, and Henry Ford in his assembly line), then output jumps to another quality, in Ford's case, volume which lowered price.

    Ladies and gentlemen, forgive me for citing these kinds of examples. But it is a matter of common consensus here in the United States that the quantification of work pro­duces another quality. Another example, if you will permit. When Brigham Young brought the Mormons to the Great Salt Lake at the end of their long march across the Great Plains, it was precisely because the place seemed so unpropitious that Young chose it. The place had to be worked to give life and subsistence. You may see here that this idea was contained within the new parameters of dialectical thought.

    Again, to put it simply, precisely because the work was so incredibly hard, the quality jumped and the frontier effort prospered with exceptional speed.

    The process of the United States is exactly the same as in the Soviet Union, but each occupies a dualistic position in regard to the other. We shall return to these propositions. Let us examine how dialectical structures of thought made this country. Hard work makes for quality work. This is a basic tenet of American belief. Only opposites canestablish the rules of movement. But in the new parame­ters of existence in the United States, opposition does not threaten power as unique and absolute; it is opposition in the sense of competition for realizing whatever its purpose may be. This means that power and realization can pro­ceed together.

    Let us explain this.

    Competition is not to be cast out of dialectical thought. On the contrary, it is the mechanism which causes us to work harder. Competition will make one better than the other and vice versa. Each competitor will enjoy the se­quence of mirroring himself in the other.

    We say here that permanency does not exist. It is un­thinkable today. Nothing lives forever. Only change exists. We have learned how to deal with it now that we have discovered it can be analyzed.

    We can go with Schopenhauer in saying that the last parameter we can hold fast to is 'will'. And with 'will', an rntire universe which represents our minds will be mani­fested. But it took till the appearance of Soren Kierkegaard to assert that there is something underlying 'will' which causes behavior. He called it 'despair'.

    Edmund Husserl, Nicolai Hartmann, and Martin Hei­degger also confirm that at the very basis of our entire internal process, there exist moods (e.g., anger) which deter­mine our reality, and all that we perceive is, in the end, based in these moods.

    Let's take another look.

    Moods, such as anxiety, guilt, grief, and so on are not primordial. They are a consequence, as we will establish in this theory.

    Then the first question remains the question which as human beings we must pose to ourselves, What is this which exists?

    Once more, with Kierkegaard, we can cross with the 'leap to faith'—we must forget everything around us (as in his example of Abraham and Isaac) and make available the final instant of being, that ideal for which we can live and die. Life itself then is this: the longing for the transcenden­tal. As he demonstrates, we live in profound anxiety, de­spair, fear, and dread.

    This internal discussion will go as far as Jean-Paul Sar­tre, who asserts that there comes a point where we ques­tion our own existence, and the question flings us into all the stages of despair and dread to the point of nausea. Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea looks like an adven­ture leading to a rendezvous with nothing. And we can only respond with Sartre that existence itself is the only thing that matters, that counts in the end.

    All this merely means that we cannot trust our own evi­dence. How do we survive then?

    Survival, we say, depends upon a triple question. Rea­son is not linear and unique, it is triple-rooted, as this theory establishes. We would like to believe that reason consists only of 'analysis', but reason also involves 'analogy' (comparison and classification), and we also understand by direct 'empathy'.

    Here we have three different roots of reason. There is analysis, there is analogy, and there is empathy. We do not have one single line of reasoning. We have three lines, three ways of reason.

    Now, what is defective in Western philosophy is that we try to find the roots of reason in a different rank of movement.

    Let's clarify this. We understand the world by separat­ing it into its elements. We understand the world by com­parison and classification. We understand the world directly, just by living it, through life itself. And each one of these reasons appears to deny the other. For example, if I empa­thize with another existence, my analogical function will inform me whether it is friend or foe, and my analytical function will separate the elements of our relationship to the point where I know the structure. If there is to be any critique of reason, it must begin by establishing that reason has three different roots.

    Where does this come from? These three reasoning abilities are rooted in what we shall call the 'instincts for survival'. What is an instinct? This is indeed, ladies and gentlemen, a good question. Let's go first with Carl Jung. He said, show me an instinct.

    Indeed, with most respect, let me show them. We can say that when our need for survival is answered we have an instinct. We have three instincts, one for each aspect of our survival. In this theory we will qualify these instincts as 'living questions' with which we permanently interrogate ourselves. If we fail to answer positively, we are dead.

    The first question will be, How am I? If I do not answer this question in a satisfactory manner, I will be made aware by pain that I am dying.

    Since I cannot maintain life except as a member of a group, the next question appears, Who am I with?

    But for human beings, life and existence require still another question, What am I doing?

    Here we have a final proposition. Survival is not the principal concern of human beings. The real question is, What am I here for? Survival is not our main obsession, but rather what we are doing with that life we have. Again, the interrogation is not only, Who am I? but rather, What am I here for? That is how human beings define their own exis­tence: as a matter of 'destiny' and 'accomplishment'.

    Once more, ladies and gentlemen, caution!

    We are saying here, that in order to establish human identity, it is not enough for a man to observe himself. It is not enough to question the mind.

    Who is that self who can interrogate the self? That is the really violent question! What is that 'being' who must have a reason for his own existence? The only answer is: he who must therefore have a 'destiny'.

    We have seen that we do not have one type of reason­ing, we have three. These are unmistakable as the outcome of the three living questions which are always present in our psyche. If that is so, we must have three different answers. Each of these answers must manifest an answer to the question, What is the self interrogating the self?

    We also established that survival is not the main pur­pose of a human being, but must be a consequence of his own realization. To put it more clearly, he is not interro­gating himself about whether or not he will live. Since he must face himself, there must be a purpose for his life. Every true mystical tradition tells us that. And finally, the Western societies—ever since Moses' Pentateuch—have had a destiny.

    But generally speaking, man, finally interrogating him­self, discovers that existence is not just 'to be', not just to survive. Because for a human being, existence for exis­tence does not make sense. He does have to accomplish something!

    What is that?

    Since he now questions himself, he understands that he is not a random accident, and his first duty is to dis­cover those laws which give him the ability to do things.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this may appear as a romantic point of view which, of course, we can no longer afford.

    Not so!

    We are speaking here of a simple fact, that for a human being, survival is not his final condition, as it would seem to be for the animal kingdom. That is, in a human being, life must have a purpose. Accomplishment is that purpose, and self-realization will be the outcome of human exis­tence because he has discovered that if his final purpose is not accomplishment, he can kill himself. He can commit suicide or he can wage war against his brothers, which is the same thing as suicide.

    Let's have another look!

    What is he looking for? He is looking for what human beings are meant to be. He is searching for how to become better, mirroring himself through competition with his companions.

    Let's look at this in detail.

    We have said that identity has suddenly changed its pa­rameters. Permanent identity is no longer understandable. Changing identity is understandable. How?

    1.  All the processes of reality have become quantifiable.

    2.             Opposite forces appear as a necessary contradic­
    tion, and

    3.             Every process, at the same time, will become a
    denial of itself.

    Now we have again established the three parameters which make reason comprehensible. Empathetically, it is not "I am I", but "I am the movement itself." Analogically, it is not "Not-me" that I am not, but a questioning of the unknown which denies me. Analysis is no longer "I am A or I am B," but a process which must be understood. The three laws are established again and life becomes compre­hensible. This puts us in pure dialectics, of course.

    Hegel would have us first establish the laws of process, but Hegel is (as Engels demonstrates) still thinking in idealistic terms. Marx establishes materialism as a matter of fact, and EngeIs elaborates the schema to the point where it is not only convincing, but undeniable.

    But back to our argument about metaphysics. We have asserted that reason is triple-rooted, and that each one of its manifestations demands its own logic, since each one has its own particular way of perceiving reality; that is to say, the same sense will perceive reality in the tonic which is the active element in any given point of time. For exam­ple, we can perceive across our sense of sight events which we 'see' empathetically, or we can 'see' analogically a spectacle which recalls emotions. We 'see' analytically when we use our ability to sense the exterior world with our eyes, as we investigate the elements which constitute a particular event. Now with this, we will attempt to define mysticism and metaphysics.

    As we have observed the triple root of the human spirit, we have also seen that there is a triple question which must be answered continuously. Then we can say we have a triple 'being'. One is a 'physical being' who reasons empathetically, answering the question, How am I? An­other is an 'emotional being' who understands analogically by knowing what he likes and what he doesn't. And we have a third, an 'analytical being' who understands only when the elements have been separated so that he may understand the structure. Now this triple-rooted manifesta­tion will appear in mysticism. The first question, How am I? will take us to the point of accepting the eternal pres­ence of God. The second question, Who am I with? will take us to accept the final manifestation of the Spirit in all Creation. And the third question, What am I doing? refers to the last person of the Trinity, Man the Pattern.

    But, since we have these three lines of interpretation, it seems that each one contradicts the others. Mystically speaking, we would say: God the Eternal Father answers How am I? Mother Nature—Eternal Spirit—answers Who am I with? And I the human being understanding them answers What am I doing?

    Using politics as an example (as it is the most obvious aspect of society), we will find in the social body the man­ifestation of the three instincts like this: The first instinct, conservation (How am I?), becomes the democratic aspect of society. For the second instinct, relations (Who am I with?), society seems to be what we need to survive in mother nature; this instinct is represented by socialism. The third instinct, syntony (What am I doing?), is the exec­utive impulse, and is represented by autocracy.


    We must balance these three aspects which are always present in society. We will succeed if we do not let any one of them predominate and overcome the other two. 'I'hen there are three forces at work. With the conservation aspect we will develop a judicial code to which everyone can refer, thus making all equal under the law. The rela­tions aspect will be represented by parliament, where what society wants will be discussed, analyzed, and defined. And for the syntony aspect, someone must do what must lie done, and this will be the executive branch, which is always autocratic.

    Now, society exists in each of these three manifesta­tions. We have one mother-like, with a monolithic aspect, strictly concerned with conservation; another father-like, prepared to fight for its own establishment; and a third one which says, as a son, "I go beyond both of you! There is a historical purpose to be accomplished." '

    * In the same way that every religion has all three elements operating .ill ihc time, so does society. One element must be in the active posi-iiiin, one in the attractive, and the third in function. It is the same in any given family interaction; father, mother, and child play all three posi-l inns depending on circumstances

    If these three aspects are in balance, we can materialize our decision, whatever it may be. So we see that democracy, socialism, and autocracy are merely aspects which we must understand in society.

    With your permission, allow me to attempt another syn­thesis. Democracy is then the manifestation of our equality. Socialism is the manifestation of our necessary interrelation. Autocracy is the manifestation of our accomplishment.

    Who is to decide where to be? Equilibrium is the answer. We need all three instincts. The three questions must be answered all together. Then we will have this strange result—happiness! Happiness is a consequence.

    The answers then, now given by each one of our reasons, are how we observe reality. Since there are these three questions, there must be three answers, which means that there are three types of answers to the question, What is the 'being'?

    The analytical reason will answer it like this: "At the bottom of myself I have thinking as my only instrument to refer to my own self. Doubt is the only instrument I can refer to." The analogical reason will answer: "I affirm myself when I am face-to-face with my opposite." Empa-thetical reason will say: "I can refer to 'being' only on the basis of my own existence."

    So we have three different lines of how we see what is transcendental. The analytical answer is in the tradition of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes. The analogi­cal point of view would be more in the tradition of Plato, St. Buenaventura, and Pascal. The empathetical point of view is more in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Bergson, and Heidegger.

    So, the analytical point of view comes via the channel of our intellect. The analogical point of view is rooted in our emotions. The empathetical point of view refers to what we speak of as 'intuition' and is connected to our physical body.

    Now, the three answers to the question, What is the 'being'? will appear like this: Analytically we will answer by perceiving the 'being' as the Son and the sum of Crea­tion. Analogically, we will feel the 'being' as an inexplica­ble mystery, Holy Spirit, as our mother who gave us life. Kmpathetically, we will feel nature to be governed by an omnipresent Father. It is both the first and the last impulse in the entire Creation. We will call it God the Father.

    Of course, each one of these lines of answering the question is correct, but we lack the recognition of what (hey are, as we observed when we discussed the three types of reason.

    Because of this, we will find that there is a mysticism observing the Father. There will be strict laws to follow, as in the Jewish tradition. This is empathetical. There are oilier mysticisms which flow more with what we can call iik- emotions, with the heart. They will say enlightenment comes not via the observation of the law, but through an emotional contact with the Divine within us, via the heart-Iclt connection that we find in the Christian tradition. This is analogical. An example of analytical mysticism may be found in the Muslim tradition of mysticism through science (algebra, alchemy, astronomy).

    No one of the traditions mentioned above is exclusively .iligned in just one particular way of mysticism. All three aspects must exist in every faith. But still there is an accent, a tone, easily recognizable, as we have seen before.

    Later on, as these mystical lines evolve in society, again the conservation aspect becomes the Father, the ruler. Soriny will come to refer to the father as the ruler of the family nucleus, as we can see in the Jewish tradition. In the relations aspect, as the line of mysticism evolves in society, the Mother will become the person to refer to, as in the Mother-Church of the Christian tradition. And in the analytical aspect, as the line evolves, the emphasis will become the extended family, a larger unit of several fami­lies interconnected in a kind of brotherhood, as in the Muslim tradition. Again we must stress that every religion incorporates all three aspects, even though there may be an accent or a special tone in each of them.

    So, in summary, when we examine the instincts in rela­tion to the three transcendental questions, namely, God, the World, and the Soul, the idea of the Father-God develops from the conservation instinct; the World—the Mother —Holy Spirit—develops from the relations instinct; and the Soul develops from the syntony instinct.

    When we see from the point of view of an individual's psychic development, the conservation instinct is related to his mother, the relations instinct to his father, while the syntony instinct is related to children.

    If we are to discover what 'being' is, we must analyze the 'being' as that which manifests in three different ways, each equally fundamental to our existence. But there must be a point of union, since the 'being' is the same even though we receive it in three different ways.

    Here we will find that the 'being' can only be observed if we confront it with the 'nothingness', as existentialism asserts. Even then, this principle, which is the Supreme Transcendent for us, must be beyond whatever circum­stance. It must be beyond the beyond. This is not a tautol­ogy. It simply marks a fact for our understanding of the transcendental being. As Lao Tzu said, the Tao which can be spoken of is not the real Tao. Or as Tilopa said, once and for all, we will define the transcendental in words —there are no words to describe the transcendental.

    Tilopa was reasserting what had been said by Gautama the Buddha over 2,500 years ago. He defined the being thus: We observe that we move. So we observe there is change. So, since there is change, nothing is permanent. Since it is not permanent, it must be made up of components. Then sooner or later, it will dissolve into its component el­ements. To this he then added, find that one which has no components.

    This is what is called, in the Buddhist tradition, Void', since it has no components. But Void' here does not mean the 'nothingness' of the existentialists, that 'nothingness' which opposes 'being'. In Buddhist terminology, Void' re­fers to 'being' itself; it is the totality and the absolute.

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you will permit me, I would like to state categorically here that meditation is absolutely fundamental for us, since it causes us to touch and recognize that Void' which is our 'consciousness'; meaning by 'consciousness' here, that which is eternal, unchangeable, and which will produce in us the state of enlightenment, or the state of understanding, or that state enjoyed by those who have achieved in themselves the purity of consciousness.

    Despite the fact that consciousness must be referred to ;is unchangeable, since it is eternal and permanent, when li becomes a manifestation—that is, when it becomes a human person—it necessarily enters the current of time, •.mix- human beings live in time and space.

    Now, here we can accept the fact that consciousness mani-Irsts itself in nine different systems which we can separate: 11ic sexual system, the skeletal and muscular system, the Wistro-intestinal system, the skin and lymph system, the ( iidilatory system, the expression system (voice and facial muscles), the coordination system (cerebellum and medul-l.i oblongata), the syntony system (hypothalamus, pituitary .iiul spinal cord), the system of unity (sympathetic ganglia,pineal, and thalamus).

    And from these nine systems are derived the nine senses: smell, kinesthetic, taste, touch, temperature, equi­librium, hearing, vision, voice.

    At first glance it seems arbitrary to establish a correla­tion between independent senses, since the function of sensing light through our vision is totally different from sensing sound through our hearing.

    The point is this: Each system becomes expressed if it is functional with life, and thus it manifests itself in corre­lation with the environment (without which correlation the system would not survive); so we must understand that the senses are the outcome of the systems like the flower is the outcome of the plant.

    Through these nine senses we will discover the nine basic structures which make thought possible: distance, volume, weight, movement, time, past, future, anticipation, idea of self.

    Through these nine structures we will find nine domains which comprise our society and our own existence: con­duct and behavior, rank and authority, work and activity, social interaction, intellectual, creativity, security and pro­tection, sentimental, spiritual.

    At this point we can observe that the differences between human beings may be described by nine different types of personality which occur when individuals, in early child­hood, become deeply attached to one of the domains. We call these clusters of attachments fixations.

    It is at this point that we begin our study of protoanaly-sis, a union of the Greek word protos meaning 'first' or 'principal', and analysis meaning 'to dissolve into compo­nents'. With this, we mean we analyze any psyche in accor-dance with a prototype, universal and constant. We need to know with precision where we are in the process of achieving that goal of completeness.

    One of the defects of the analysis we make about our life is that we see it as being 'good' or 'evil' but we do not recognize that the 'good' or 'evil' has a different starting point depending on our fixation point. For instance, 'good' and 'evil' have a different meaning if we are fixated by our attachments in the domain of conduct and behavior than if we are fixated by our attachments in the domain of creativ­ity. Let us just see how the evaluation of good and evil by a judge would differ from that by an artist. The judge would be concerned with the criteria of clarifying past acts, while the artist would be inclined to criteria of equilibrium.

    PiOtoanalysis enables us to see our psyche not as being limitless and therefore incomprehensible, but as the colors in the spectrum, each domain of consciousness occupying one band of color. If the vibration is not in tune, the tone is not produced. We want to emphasize the idea that our psyche functions in an equivalent manner.

    Once we have a clear idea of our internal structure, our psyche will become solidly based, and instead of living in a state of wonderment, not knowing how we will behave in the various stresses of life situations, we will have under­standable parameters to sustain us in any confrontation with life.

    Since we do not understand how moods descend upon us, and we never know when our psyche will betray us by causing us embarrassment, we tend in our social interactions to hide behind cultural rhetoric, which has no meaning, and which makes our social relations often uncomfort­able and tense. Sooner or later we learn that there is nothing better for us to do than to hide behind 'polite' behavior because we have learned we cannot show our interior self, totally chaotic and miserable so much of the time.

    But we must also say here that from the gastro-intestinal system, the conservation instinct is manifested, and from this instinct, which continually asks the living question, How am I?, evolves the empathetical reason.

    From the circulatory system, the relations instinct is manifested, which asks the question, Who am I with?, and which later manifests as analogical reason.

    From the syntony system, the syntony instinct is mani­fested, which asks the question, What am I doing here?, and consequently the analytical reason appears.

    But the three reasons need four functions that inter­relate them. From the skeletal and muscular system derives the function of space. From the skin and lymph system derives the function of time. From the expression system derives the function of expression. And from the coordina­tion system derives the function of coordination.

    But still we need a polarity that unifies all our psyche. From the sexual system derives the sexual pole, and from the unity system derives the unity pole.

    Of course the human psyche is more complex than the outline we have just offered here, but the pressure of time constrains us from going into greater detail at this point.

    Speaking very generally, sex has been considered vitally important to all modern psychology ever since the work of Sigmund Freud. And before sex, the outcast was of great concern for religion, as the origin of evil and sin and as the ultimate way to regulate society.

    It is only more recently that we have seen the explo­sion of spiritual interest appearing in psychology. More and more, psychology understands the spirit as containing the final explanation for our sickness, for its treatment and cure. From the primitive medicine man to the most sophisticated theories of Karen Horney, Frederick S. Perls, R.D. Laing, Lawrence Le Shan, and Carl Simonton, everything confirms that indeed the spirit is what supports life. If we look at our psyche we'll see that we are dealing with two poles equally important for the human psyche. If they col­lapse, our entire psyche will become paralyzed, our pro­cess will be stifled and stagnant, and we will not develop, psychically speaking. This paralysis will produce in us an endless 'chattering of the mind' over which we will have no control. Then we can say, as they do in the Sufi tradi­tion, that we are living in a state we must call 'asleep', in that we are susceptible to being manipulated by others.

    For us then, it is fundamental to recover that flow of energy between the poles. This is possible if we know in which domain the major preoccupations of our life are fix­ated. With this, we will have a first attempt at full clear self-observation. We will be able to see how our consciousness may become detached from our internal and our external I >r< >cesses. That is, consciousness—it's not inside, it's not out­side. It is in the middle way, as Lord Buddha has explained.

    But from the moment self-observation appears, every­thing seems to change. The flow of energy between the poles lupins to happen, and this will produce rapid changes not only in our physical appearance, but in our awareness, our endurance, our tenacity, and our will.

    Through self-observation we see that our psyche has what we call in this theory our 'psychic container', which we define slightly differently from the Buddhist concept of alaya consciousness, since we assert that there is also ,a process by which the container is filled; thus we may recognize the variables leading to its fulfillment. With this we will be able to accelerate our process dramatically.

    In recent years this has been taken as an egocentric attitude, and the human potential movement has been described by Tom Wolfe as the "me" generation. But that does not entirely seem to be the case, since indeed, perfecting ourselves is immediately perfecting the society of which we are a part. Anyhow, the spiritual movement in general favors this interpretation.

    As we have been saying, what we must recognize is that historically we can see the appearance of three stages of reasoning (which we have analyzed here) which marked the appearance of substantial social change.

    Each type of reason produced a cultural revolution as it was introduced into the flow of social thought and became generally employed. The appearance of Aristotle's formal logic in Europe across the work of Averroes established a solid basis for that society and validated the ideas of the Church across the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

    Formal logic is static and could not deal with time and change, nor could the Church—at that time established in the feudal pattern with its differences of class and the div­ision of labor—until there appeared a new logic and a new way of thinking in the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon. We can say that this logic culminated in the work of Georg Hegel, who called it 'dialectics'.

    Bacon was already dealing with change and movement as they occurred in time. Simultaneously, Europe became more fluid, the Renaissance bloomed, the Church was re­formed by a series of independent churches, and there began the great voyages of exploration of the planet.

    We can see clearly that only dialectical thought could deal with this new reality. Those who stayed isolated and removed from it and who retained the old intellectual archi­tecture of Aristotle's formal logic were soon left behind.

    This type of thinking could only arrive in full in its own climate, the climate of the Industrial Revolution.

    Change is explained by the first law of dialectics, where quantity becomes quality, as in the example cited of how a quantity of heat applied to water changes its quality from fluid to vapor. With this kind of thinking incorporating change, the old static dogmas no longer made sense.

    Religion also wanted conquests. This was the beginning of those groups who emigrated from their motherland to establish new relations and new states around the world. This can be understood as conforming to the second law of dialectics, which formed over the next hundred years what we now know as the free world and the socialist world. The law states that everything moves in terms of opposites: day and night, heat and cold, life and death. This sense of work­ing with reality by opposing it is, once again, far from the second law of formal logic, which established that A is not B, or that I am not you.

    But the second law of dialectics wants to describe movement—wants to oppose reality by conquering it. All

    the economics of competition were bom here. In what we
    know as the free world, the opposition emerges from the
    competition of similar interests as, for example, in the auto­
    motive industry where several companies struggle with each
    oilier for the same market. In the socialist countries,
    competition is part of the system itself. The system has to
    oppose its own weaknesses to conquer a new reality. In
    general, the socialist countries feel they are in competition
    with the free world in regard to the markets they share in
    common in the underdeveloped world.

    But we need a third law to make change totally intelligible to us. In formal logic, the third law is, as we know, the law of the excluded middle: I cannot be me and you at the same time. Once more we see the static point of view. The third law of dialectics is what we know as the negation of

    the negation. Whatever new thing happens, it will des­troy the old, such as the egg which is destroyed by the emerging chick. This we can see economically in the free world in the model changeovers which make the old mod­els obsolete. It is seen in the socialist countries as remov­ing old structures in order to advance.

    At this moment of history we are facing a third revolu­tion with a new logic which began in the mathematics and physics of Planck, Einstein, and Bohr. This logic is exercis­ing a new point of view in which change does not make sense if we think of it occurring as a continuum, as dialec­tics considers it to be.

    For instance, Planck's work establishes that energy is not emitted from black bodies in continuous fashion, but by distinct leaps which he calls quanta. Einstein asserts that if we are to understand the universe we live in, we must understand it as a unity of all nature, and that energy and matter are the same. Thanks to Niels Bohr, we know that the structures within the atom behave in wave fashion, and that there is either an expansion or a contraction of the electron shells as specific wavelength colors of light are absorbed or emitted—not continuously, but as sudden expansions or contractions. We may say here that dialectic thought fails to explain this behavior, as is currently being discussed by socialist theoreticians.

    It is obvious that we need a new system of logic. Phys­ics, biology, chemistry, and the new electronic technology are forcing us to discover a new logical system. In this the­ory we say that the discovery of the 'logic of the unity' is the third and most dramatic of the three crises that human­ity has had, since it enables its entry into maturity.

    We all know that quantity does not make quality in a con­tinuous fashion, but that there are, in fact, pre-established fixed points where change occurs, as in the case of water which forms crystals at zero degrees centigrade and then suddenly becomes vapor at one hundred degrees centi­grade.

    The first law of trialectics, which we call the law of manifestation of matter, affirms these pre-established fixed points where change occurs. We will call these pre-established points MMPs (material manifestation points).

    If we accept the validity of pre-established points, we immediately imagine a larger unity, for the universe we inhabit is not the product of random happenings. This must make us understand, for example, that the planets of our solar system are not ejected matter from the sun, for as the space probes have disclosed, each one is distinctively different from the others. We must therefore think that the radiation of the sun, once it touches the pre-established orbital points, will inevitably become matter.

    We must also examine the human psyche in the same manner, and analyze it by means of these parameters. There are points where change occurs, for example, in child­hood, adolescence, and maturity. All our psychic processes should be examined on the basis of these parameters.

    The second law of dialectics contradicts the reality we now know. Since we have discovered that we live in a limited world, opposition as a mechanism of change no longer works. We can see this very clearly in the work of the Club of Rome, and even more dramatically in the stud­ies of the ecologists. There are no contradictions in nature, there is only interdependence. Prey and predator both ilcpond on each other to maintain equilibrium in an eco­system.

    Trialectics then establishes its second law, which states: Everything is the seed of its apparent contrary. We call it the law of circulation. For example, life is the seed of death, as the prey is the seed of the predator, and vice versa. Night is the seed of day. Heat is the seed of cold. Hate is the seed of love, and later on, we can see that among the competing nations in our day, one is always the seed of another. The balance between the producers of oil and their industrialized customers is another example of the unity of the entire process. We must consider our planet as a pre-established unity, and we can no longer afford to think in terms of the dialectic law of opposition.

    In trialectics we call this law the law of circulation, where both elements contribute to each other as, for example, in the nucleus and electron shells of the atom. One element depends on the other if the atom is to con­tinue at its MMP.

    The third law of dialectics, the negation of the nega­tion, is also seen as thesis, antithesis, synthesis. In the case of the egg being destroyed by the emerging chick, or the death of the seed as a seed with the growth of the plant, we must see the process differently.

    We come to the third law of trialectics, which says that everything is attracted either to expansion or con­traction, since we have established that nothing stays the same in time. For instance, we cannot imagine that the plant is 'denying' the seed as it grows. We must imagine that the seed is 'attracted' to change, to become a plant. Another and perhaps more dramatic example: If parents are attracted to having children, we do not see one par­ent denying the other. On the contrary, they are both attracted to having their child.

    From here on we can see why the explosion of interest in spiritual matters in our time makes so much sense, and why it is fundamental to our survival.

    What we propose here is that a better comprehension of our surrounding universe will easily take us to a point of peace and freedom for all, and this is not a simple dec­laration of goodwill, which we all have, for even though we all have it, we still live in an excessively dangerous world.

    Only a common logic that works in our surrounding universe, that works in society, and that works for individ­uals, will achieve the real purpose of history—to accom­plish happiness for all.

    Our destiny will be fulfilled, and the long awaited Civ-itas Dei will happen.

    What we propose is a method for exhaustive analysis of the human psyche, realizing it to be a structure with which we can deal.

    Thus, protoanalysis is a proposition for a new theory of the psyche, a theory for self-realization, and also a theory for curing psychic and physical illness, with enormous pre­cision in diagnosis and precision in treatment leading to cure.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this lecture has been specifically to say, in the most serious and radical manner, that now we have in hand the instruments for change, a change which is absolutely necessary if we are to survive.

    This movement would have been impossible without the brave, clever, and tenacious support of all the members of what we call the Arica School.

    It is my privilege to tell you that this historical movement will do its job if we can count on the sympathetic attention of anyone who realizes the horrendous extent of our current crisis, and the nil probability that we will survive it if we remain as we are.

    Thank you very much for coming, and thank you for attention. Good night.




View Complete Thread
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help