Читать книгу The Image Of Time - Aurelio Grande Rodríguez - Страница 12

ORIGIN AND REFERENCE

Everything that can be seen and thought refers to man, there being nothing that goes beyond the significance of his gaze, the image of the world is the result of a human interpretation; And this, which seems so simple, has extraordinary implications: everything discovered, constructed or imagined has its origin in the consciousness of man, even when by the practical effect of its objectifying procedure, it seems different and alien or exists by itself. Everything is part of man and there´s nothing that doesn´t have him as a subject and object of his own experience, everything is about man because it´s only he who accounts for everything. We can say anything, be it true or false, which in any case is indistinct, but they will always be men's affairs and reported by men; the same ones who even think about things that they suppose are alien to their own essence. The world that men perceive through their senses and describe with their language, is the world that their imagination builds and, after being contemplated, become the object of their study. Man only inquiries about what he thinks about, being in these functions the development of his existence; knowing is, therefore, a recognition of consciousness.

The world is a container that contains everything, then the subject together with the other things, constitute the content of its extensive volume. This world is the set of all existing things, including also the subject that imagines everything. The world with everything in it constitutes the content of an all-thinking consciousness; being in it where everything is unified. Between the world, things and the subject of experience, there seems to be a paradoxical relationship of identity and difference, by virtue of a rare condition of continuity and belonging.

The natural world

The world is a totality that as such is only one but even so, it´s also multiple because this is understood by experience; then it´s considered physical, because in this way it´s thought - then it´s described as a state and of course the contradiction is inevitable. The perceived world is, by the effect of its appearance, a formally represented scene, full of the same and different things; as distant and close as they´re coincident and immeasurable. It´s despite the unity that its own concept expresses, a field whose complexity transcends the preeminence of any modality. This is, in practical terms, an argument that in its logical aspects is inconsistent, as if in the same and only place several categories of very different kinds coexist in a strangely problematic way. An antilogical conjunction of the same and the different, of inexhaustible classes of things that´re infinite in number and are randomly distributed within an infinitely large place, where each category is as numerous and extensive as the space where they all inhabit. An indefinite world full of infinite things that´re incomprehensibly characterized by definition and measure and, of course, an extensive and without measure that contains within it the subject who perceives it with all its incommensurability; the same as with his own reference, everything measures.

Man is the measure of everything and this relationship is not capricious or arbitrary but necessary, since it can make use of nothing if it doesn´t first adjust its objects of utility and consumption to its own extensive parameters; being in the measurement an effective adaptation and control procedure. Material and energy resources, for example, are given and are free but without human measure they´re useless, it´s necessary to transform them and that is no longer free; they need human labor.

The first magnitudes have emerged from their body references, the same ones that even gave rise to such extreme extensions that they don´t even have measurable conditions; so indefinite that they´re considered measureless or infinite. With the fingers of his hand and the value of his size, he knew how to establish primitive patterns, with the capacity of his mouth the need to divide food, over time to develop a trajectory and recognize a distance; man measures himself with the axiomatic model of his own physical condition. The measure is like all things that constitute existence, an illusion of experience, since the measure is ultimately a comparison procedure that can be more or less complex and exact. But it happens that, by their very temporal condition, things don´t have a definite measure because they don´t even remain, being determined by a series of relationships, proportions and functions that change continuously. All measures are ultimately characterized by a relationship of indeterminacy, exhibiting a margin of error that, outside of the convention, has no solution.

The reference situation:

The concept of the natural world, as expressed by the scientific model, it´s essentially reduced to a material cause of maximum simplicity based on which, for reasons never well clarified, the different structures that are distinguished, emerge due to some organization modalities that´re not well explained either each other due to the particularities derived from their shape. This is the materialistic version of the observable universe that, by its definition, introduces, as necessary, the existence of a series of opposite and different characteristics; establishing with them a contrasting relationship without which no meaning would make sense.

By virtue of an objective reason for things, it´s said that this world is justified by itself, that it´s concrete, external and that to exist it doesn´t need another recognition; even when this is paradoxically, a definition that arises from our understanding. This actual and concrete reality that we say exists by itself is, therefore, the consequent result of our judgment; as if the world in which we´re immersed were the result of an imaginary language.

For those who with good scientific criteria study natural phenomena, only in the observable and effective world is the representation of the true, identifying with this statement the material and the real; forgetting that the description of the material is by definition, essentially different from its reference of origin - one thing is the object and another very different, the description that is made of it. It´s also this science with its methods of action and construction, a system that classifies the world by means of categories as equal as they´re different, where a great variety of classes are indiscriminately linked; associated elements, consequent and at the same time, different and contradictory -of a context that beyond its supposed conceptual objectivity is above any discussion, as we imagine it.

The evidence:

We don´t doubt what we observe by a simple automation of perception: we see and then believe without judging the procedure, just as we don´t doubt our thoughts because with them we justify ourselves; even though very often, because of them we also deceive ourselves. From the observation of things and their manipulation, we infer the existence of the extensive and reactive fundamentals of the material entities, when in the last instance all this reduces some sensory effects that the immediate experience considers natural and real; and it´s because that´s how we have been taught. Seeing is believing says common sense, seeing is deceiving thinks the illusionist -where then is the truth, if there really is?