KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA60 (Grandpierre)

Response 2 (to C3 by Wood)

ULTIMATE PRINCIPLES, PROPENSITIES AND COLLECTIVE PHENOMENA
by Attila Grandpierre
11 July 2003, posted 22 July 2003

[1]
In his Commentary <1> Wood states that "Nothing essentially new presented here by Grandpierre. It's reminiscent of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin in general, and comparable to Joseph Johnson's TA in particular."

Unfortunately, Wood did not formulate this comment in a precise manner. A paper can be "reminiscent" and "comparable" also if it contains essentially new results. To be more precise, let me formulate that the paper contains essentially new results in the context of the last two thousand years, although it is not essentially new in the period before that, since ancient Greeks knew the archi (as primordial principles), ancient Chaldeans knew the triunite first principles etc. The result of my paper is that reality is based on three ontological scientific principles. Two of these three principles are already known as the first principle of physics (action-principle) and the Bauer-principle. Actually, such principal nature of reality is not known in the last 2000 years. Therefore, this generalized realism I formulated in my paper may present (one of) the first scientifically and exactly founded challenge to the more than 2000 years old dominance of atomism, although other attempts like holism and top-down approaches are also developing nowadays. In the context of atomism, my approach may present a "principalism". Neither Teilhard, nor Johnson did reveal this principal nature of reality. To grasp the significance of the principal view it is important to see that in my paper the ontological principles are identified with scientific principles that are formulated in mathematical form and from which all the laws of physics and all the fundamental phenomena of life are mathematically deduced.

This means that all the physical laws are integrated into the action principle and all the biological laws into the life principle.

Therefore, the recognition of ontological principles offers a strict scientific basis for philosophy, for the first time in the history of western philosophy. With the help of this generalized principal realism it is possible to cohere science, philosophy and religion and bridging up the 2000 years old gap between them. Moreover, one additional main result of my paper is to resolve the question of the origin of physical laws. This question is not offered for any scientific solution in the last 2000 years. Therefore, it seems that the paper has presented one of the most essential results, which are, unfortunately, really new for most of us. Let me note that my point is not to present first of all a new and original statement. My point was not to push my person into the forefront with an allegedly "new" result. My aim was to fulfill a more modest, but perhaps much more challenging task: to approach some important truth, completely independently from the fact that it is new or old, and, only secondarily, to try to reach some additional insight into the truth if it is possible.

[2]
In <2> Wood wrote: "Berkeley sought a defense of theism in an ideal theory of matter not unlike TA60. Berkeley held that only minds exist and the notion of a hard lump of matter is a figment of fancy." This sentence seems to present a misunderstanding of my basic point. I do NOT state that "only minds exist" and "a hard lump of matter is a figment of fancy". I am NOT immaterialist as Berkeley was, although I am NOT materialist. Mind and matter in my approach live in the abstract phenomenal level of existence. In contrast to the approach of Wood, my approach has the consequence that there exist three levels of existence, that of the concrete phenomena, that of the abstract phenomena, and that of the principal level. I found that from these real levels of existence the principal level is the most real, in the sense that it governs the behavior of the phenomenal levels and that its reality is of utmost solidity. My approach, in contrast to the exclusive and one-sided worldviews, is an inclusive, analytic-synthetic approach, acknowledging the reality of matter as well as life and consciousness on their full values. I think that Wood's comments may be very much useful since they may help us in understanding each other and clarify the questions to the study of which we live our life. Besides that, Wood expresses the opinion of many people thinking in similar approaches. I would appreciate any further feedback from you.

-------------------------------

Attila Grandpierre